for learned papers not likely to appeal to the general readers. Old age is proverbially oblivious and Babu Ramananda’s memory is conveniently short. The Calcutta Review (Nov. and December, 1923) complained about the desertion of three teachers—one of these was M. K. G. If Babu Ramananda turns over the pages of ‘the corresponding number of the Prabasi he will find the comment I have referred to. M. K. G. was not mentioned there by name, but so far as I remember a general comment was made and, as a clear reference was made to the remarks of the Calcutta Review, I am entitled to make the inference I have made. It is really amusing that Babu Ramananda claims credit for making known the achievements of the abler teachers of the University. Every shrewd Editor has to advertise the achievements of his reviewers and contributors particularly when they are not paid.
Finally, Babu Ramananda beats his splendid record by alleging that I admitted that the “University is controlled by vested interests and cliques.” All that I did was to express my agreement with a general principle that cliques should have no control over the University and I still adhere to it. Every democracy is ruled by a small executive with the support of the elected representatives of the people. If there is absolute unanimity in the Syndicate, the executive committee of the University, its critics attribute slave mentality to its members, if there is a difference of opinion, the majority is condemned as a clique! But an old man and a puritan is so fond of his own views, and so convinced of his own infallibility, that I cannot expect to convert him. A thief may repent on the cross but not a pedantic puritan.
Babu Ramananda “regrets very much that these trivialities have occupied so much of his space.” But I feel convinced that his contempt for a masked man is only assumed when these “trivialities” are given the place of honour in the editorial columns. I have brought some serious charges
