The Modern Review/Volume 38/Number 4/A Defender of the Calcutta University Speaks Out
A Defender of the Calcutta University Speaks Out
The September number of the Calcutta Review contains an article entitled The Apology of “Ajax” (that being the pen name of an unknown “defender” of the Calcutta University against ill-wishers of the same University of whom the Editor of The Modern Review is alleged to be one). In this article “Ajax” brings “Some serious charges against Babu, Ramananda” (the Editor of The Modern Review). The “serious charges” are among others:
1. That the Editor of The Modern Review published attacks on the University and used to send back “contradictions to which he had no reply to give” “unceremoniously” “if legal convenience permitted it”.
2. A “lack of editorial policy from which The Modern Review suffers”.
3. An insinuation that The Modern Review does not pay its contributors and propitiates the same by “advertising” their “achievements”.
4. That the Editor of The Modern Review “has been guilty of wilfully defaming the fair name of the University and widely disseminating falsehoods” and that “he has done all that he could to prejudice the cause of higher education in Bengal”.
The apologetic soul sums up by inviting the Editor of The Modern Review to sue him for defamation and damages.
Now the first charge along with the rest is false. The Editor of The Modern Review may or may not suffer from biases, insane view points and a black heart which constantly yearns to undo the good that “Ajax” and Co. are doing to India in general and to “higher education” in particular; but he is not in the habit of suppressing opinions that contradict his view point. If in a given case “a defender of the Calcutta University” received back his “contradiction” from the Editor of The Modern Review; that does not necessarily prove that the Editor sent back the contradiction out of malice or bad motives. Can the apologetic “Ajax” publish the number of contradictions that were sent to the evil editor of The Modern Review and were unceremoniously returned? Just because The Modern Review has the misfortune to hold views regarding University “ideals” and “management” which do not please certain individuals who control the University of Calcutta, (let us suppose for the advancement of “higher education” in Bengal), that is no reason why people should expect The Modern Review to be under obligation to publish (and that in toto) whatever “contradiction” that may come from any “defender” of the University, irrespective of the quality and volume of the same. Nevertheless we repeat that the allegation of “Ajax” is not based on facts.
The second charge is that The Modern Review lacks a definite policy. This again it not true. It is not possible for any human being or institution to go through life with one inflexible set of opinions. With changes in the conditions, facts and realisations of life, the opinions with which one begins life may also change more or less. In the case of The Modern Review it may be claimed that it has, since the first day of its life tried to uphold the cause of Indian Nationalism and Human Civilisation. In this The Modern Review has had to face dangers and run risks which no one who knows the facts would deny. Whenever The Modern Review has made public unpleasant facts or criticised persons or institutions, it has done so in the hope that India and the world would benefit thereby and not because of any morbid desire to “defame fair names” and “disseminate falsehoods”. Those who have followed the career of The Modern Review and the trend of its opinions are best able to judge of the truth of the charge which the Calcutta Review brings against it. The M. R. sincerely believes, and has adduced facts from time to time to prove that its belief is not blind bias, that the Calcutta University is not run on anything like ideal lines, that it is controlled by a clique of inner men who have brought higher education in Bengal to a state of uselessness and high-sounding ignorance, in order to feed, let us say, only their sense of achievement. The thousands and thousands of “highly educated” Bengalis, sorry products of a system of selling cheap academic distinction, who feel and mourn their “higher education” every minute of their lives and curse the day when they were sent to obtain the same by fond parents; the thousands of degree-holders of the Calcutta University who know hardly a thing that is worth knowing and cannot write or speak correctly either English or.their Vernacular; the hundreds who have done “research” and provided material to amuse sincere scholars and the scores of professors, lecturers and others who draw upon the funds of the nation without giving an adequate return in the way of proper research or teaching of students; all go to prove that those in power at the University have not done their duty. The Calcutta Review as well as the builders of the University, have often blamed The Modern Review for not offering constructive suggestions and only criticising what they do. First of all The Modern Review has on numerous occasions suggested things to the University. The University have seldom acted up to these suggestions and when they have done so, have never (to one’s knowledge) acknowledged their debt to The Modern Review. Secondly a Review is primarily meant for evaluating things as they are and only indirectly for making constructive suggestions. If The M. R. criticises the doings of the Government of India or those of the Government of Italy, it does not mean that it desires to or that it should run these Governments. The journalist’s function in society is that of a reviewer and critic and not that of runners of governments or of Universities (or of tea shops if he criticises the same). This may lower the journalist in the eye of those who do, but the journalist nevertheless is an important item of modern life in view of the numerosity of those who mis-do. It is intended, in the near future to show how far The Modern Review has been guilty of pure criticism and how far it has tried to help construction.
The third charge is based either on the writer’s ignorance or on his meanness. Those who contribute to The Modern Review know that it remunerates them to the best of its ability, and also that none of them has ever been “advertised” in the columns of that journal unless on the strength of merits which have nothing to do with their contributions. Moreover, the achievements of some university teachers have been made known by The M. R. and Prabasi who have never contributed to these journals. There was a time when The Modern Review could not afford to pay anything to any contributor. After a time, it began to pay small honoraria to professional journalists and to some others by previous arrangement.
For some time past the only exceptions have been those friends of the Editor who would not accept payment. Contributions like short book-notices and reviews, correspondence, comment and criticism, short poems etc., are not paid for.
The fourth charge is a base one and needs no comment. The Editor of The Modern Review can leave it to his readers to decide whether the University has a “fair name” and whether he has defamed it, as well as whether what he has disseminated are “falsehoods”. The Modern Review has for a very long time been trying to help the cause of education not only in Bengal but all over India. It has on numerous occasions criticised the Government’s policy of spending little money on education and even during the recent controversy resting on whether the Government should help the University, The Modern Review suggested that the Government ought to pay the money, but that there should be an effort made to break up the oligarchical management of the University, in order to enable higher education to grow in fresh air and properly. If criticising the Present System of management of the Calcutta University is “prejudicing” the cause of higher education in Bengal, one begs to differ from this viewpoint. It is widely accepted that the University people are the most guilty in reducing education to a farce and a dangerous social waste.
The apologetic gentleman who has shown such perfect mastery of the art of the invective in the columns of the most academic journal of India expects the editor of The Modern Review to lose his head at the sweetness of the music the former is playing on his mysterious pipe and rush into court, probably to enable “Ajax” to make more of an exhibition of himself. He is a spirited person and should join one of the political parties where neurotics are in great demand. He begins his article with the statement, “Nothing hurts so much as inconvenient and unpalatable truth.” Printers of copybooks should make a note of this as being the sincere groan of an experienced heart.
Of the minor charges brought against the editor of The Modern Review one is that he credited Dr. Stephen, the editor of the Calcutta Review with statements made by “Ajax” because the latter had used the first person plural in his writings. “Ajax” says, Mr. A. C. (Ashoke Chatterjee) has done the same thing in The Modern Review. Why then should The M. R. make Dr. Stephen responsible for “Ajax”’s statements when it does not itself shoulder the responsibility of what A. C. or T. D. writes? This needs no comment as The M. R. did not charge Dr. Stephen with any such responsibility. In pointing out to “Ajax” that he should not burden the editor of The Modern Review. with everything appearing in it, it was also pointed out that if one followed “Ajax”’s example Dr. Stephen should be held liable for all that “Ajax” says. “Ajax” should have read The Modern Review carefully before criticising it. Another minor charge is that a certain sub-editor of the Prabasi once translated something from some other paper and did not acknowledge his debt. We are sorry if this is true. Sub-editors are frail humans compared to University research workers. They may find inspiration in the doings of the “great scholars’. One can be almost sure that this alleged ommission of the name of the Literary Digest is a mere printer’s slip, as sometimes whole lines are found missing in print owing to this reason; or at the worst it is due to inadvertence on the part of the sub-editor in question. It is very well-known that titbits of this kind are compiled and translated (often in an abridged form) from books and newspapers, and none but a fool made to order would care to claim them as original productions of his own research laboratory. But if the great “Ajax” of the Calcutta University will kindly persuade his patrons to grant this poor sub-editor the Ph. D. degree which the Calcutta University has granted to such original “researchers” as Dr. Ramdas Khan, Dr. Gauranganath Banerji, etc. one may undertake to persuade this sub-editor to own up that he did deliberately try to be an humble disciple of theirs in the noble art of plagiarism.
About keeping silent regarding a certain grave charge against the University brought by The Modern Review “the defender of the Calcutta University” says “the University did not care to waste their time in writing a contradiction which they feared would not be published.” Why did they not publish it in the Calcutta Review which they acknowledge is an organ of University propaganda? The charge in question was that they appointed an Englishman a few years ago as professor of an oriental language at Rs. 500 and the Englishman did no lecturing or other work. The reply now is that “His lecture hours were not shown in the time-table because he did not stay in India during the summer months”, and a comment that “it is an absolute lie to say that he did no lecture work”. Well, let it be an absolute or even a relative lie; but will “Ajax” publish the exact qualitative and quantitative nature of the duties performed by the Englishman in question?
An apology is due to the readers of The Modern Review for this lengthy treatment of an uninteresting topic; but in view of the corruption that has crept into the sacred institution of learning in Bengal, it has become necessary to make public such things.
Nothing would give one greater pleasure than if it were proved that The M.R. has been wrong in its estimation of the Calcutta University. Much depends on the excellence of management and the integrity and learning of the members of the greatest seat of learning in modern India. These would not be achieved by calling the Editor of The Modern Review a scoundrel, nor if the latter went into Court and wasted his time and energy to chastise one who has assumed the name of the violator of Cassandra (who was arrogant, revengeful, conceited and quarrelsome according to the Greek writers). We leave him for Athene to deal with as the original Ajax the Less was dealt with by that goddess of power and wisdom!