complains that the University cannot retain the services of their abler teachers (e.g. the case of M. K. G., son of J.C.G., to use the apparently enigmatical language of our contemporary). We. have not yet received any comprehensive scheme from the Modern Review or its expert Professor Jadunath Sarkar. The Modern Review made strictures against individual lecturers about which there is room for honest difference; the Professor once concluded one of his charming articles with the remark that the slaves under his scheme (University Lecturers) will continue to slave for their new master. That is all the reform he wanted. Substitute Sir Asutosh Mookerjee by another person, preferably Jadunath himself, and reform is achieved! Well, Sir Asutosh is no more, and we find the Professor and the Review now writing of a ruling clique. This is again an unanswerable criticism! But our critics lose sight of one important fact that the University cannot introduce all the necessary reforms without fresh legislation. The only practical suggestion that we have received from the Review is that we should cut our coat according to our cloth. We looked towards the Government for a little extra cloth and matured our scheme according to our light. We now find that we were not wrong. The Modern Review now realises that
“It is also desirable that Indian students be taught the fundamentals of the history of all the Asiatic nations, particularly China and Japan” (p. 231).
If we had accepted the policy, advocated by the Review in the past, it would have been impossible for the University to provide for the teaching of the History of China and Japan four years ago.
Space will not permit us to refute here all the misstatements of Professor Sarkar,—we will deal with his strictures in greater details in a future issue. But we cannot pass over one point here. He says that owing to a steady lowering of
