elsewhere, the Prabasi 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).
This is, to say the least, a very unfair way of putting the thing. The editor of the Modern Review has never levelled a sweeping charge of inefficiency at the teachers of the Calcutta University in general, but has held and still holds that some of them are incompetent and some few are lacking in literary honesty.
It is also false to say that “when the same teachers” whose “inefficiency” we are alleged to be “never tired of proclaiming” find more lucrative appointments elsewhere the Prabasi 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).”
It is well-known that the Prabasi and the Modern Review have done more to make known the achievements of the “abler teachers” of the University than any other monthly.
It is also admitted, without the least regret or apology, that we have complained that the Calcutta University could not retain the services of its abler teachers, like, e.g., Dr. Meghnad Saha, Dr. J. Ghosh, Dr. R. C. Majumdar, etc. But it is not true to say that the editor of the Prabasi has ever said that M. K. G., son of J. C. G., was among its abler teachers or complained that the University could not retain his services. Will “Ajax” mention the year, volume, number and page of the Prabasi where the editor made the statements referred to in the previous sentence? The editor of this Review and many of its contributors are not men of ample leisure. So when critics attribute any statements to them, it will be a real favour if they give exact references.
We regret very much that these trivialities have occupied so much of our space. We had many more things to say, but shall content ourselves, in conclusion with pointing out only an indirect admission which “Ajax” has unguardedly made. On page 328, he writes sarcastically :—
“Substitute Sir Asutosh Mookerjee by another person, preferably Jadu Nath 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 on page 330 the same “Ajax” writes:—
We also entirely agree with the Modern Review when it says—
“It is not desirable that the Government should be allowed to come into the field of University management, nor is it fair that the Government should allow the University to be controlled by vested interests and cliques. It is necessary that the Government pay for the advancement of learning; but they should see that things are done properly. We are not suggesting official management of the University. The scholars of the nation should control the University, but in this kingdom of scholars, there must be democracy and not oligarchy or tyranny.
In order to give effect to this wholesome principle our contemporary should urge for early legislation in the right times.
In the above extract from a note by A. C. in the August Modern Review, with which “Ajax” has deigned to “entirely agree”, there are distinct suggestions, if not charges bluntly made, that the University is “controlled by vested interests and cliques,” and that “in this kingdom of scholars” there is “oligarchy or tyranny” instead of democracy”. But we are fortunate in having the unqualified and unreserved agreement of “Ajax” with the views expressed in the extract.
As for legislation “to give effect to this wholesome principle,” we have urged the undertaking of the same again and again. But we thank “Ajax” for the reminder and shall try not to forget it.
Bombay University Convocation Address
Sir Chimanlal Setalvad’s well-thought-out and suggestive address at the last Convocation of the Bombay University for conferring degrees deserves to be perused in its entirety. We will notice here two of his suggestions.
He is not for importing teachers from abroad for even the higher teaching in our universities, but wants that our own Indian men should be educated and trained for the purpose. This is the right view to take in the matter. Not that he or any other thoughtful man would not occasionally import a first-rate foreign scholar or savant for some special purpose. But the rule should be to rely generally on our own ablest, most original and most scholarly educators. The Calcutta University has shown the way in following this most wholesome and necessary rule, though its choice has not been unexceptionable in many cases.
The corollary, of course, is that not only should Indians be our highest educators, but
