Page:Modern review 1921 v29.pdf/557

538 intact it is necessary for him to get his relatives and “intimates” into it. If this be once admitted, then what he does will not be considered so blameworthy. If Sir Asutosh is to do any work in the University, he must be able to keep the majority of votes in each University body in the hollow of his hands else he will not be able to do anything. It is because he has been able to do this by various means that Sir Asutosh has become all-in-all, or what is called in English a dictator, in the University.”

This description and characterisation of Sir Asutosh’s policy by one of his supporters has the merit of honesty, though it may not be considered complimentary to themselves by his other supporters. But that is their look out. What we are concerned with is the good of the University and the public good. One-man rule is apt to produce various evils, which need not be described. These exist in the Calcutta University. To destroy these evils, it is necessary to destroy one man rule. This can be done only by making all or a majority (say, at least four-fifths) of the Fellowships in the Senate and the memberships of the other bodies elective, and by making the electorates quite broad-based. It may be tentatively suggested that all graduates of the University of five years’ standing, whether registered or not, should form one electorate. All professors, lecturers, tutors and demonstrators in affiliated colleges should form another electorate. A third electorate should consist of all teachers in high schools recognised by the University. The schools swell the revenues of the University, they should therefore be represented therein on the principle of no contribution without representation. If considered necessary, steps may be taken to prevent overlapping. We are informed that the electorates are more democratic and wider than here, and are hence productive of good results.

It is to be noted that ours is not the foolish idea of destroying Sir Asutosh’s just influence and ascendancy. That cannot and should not be destroyed, because it is born of his intellectual powers, his knowledge of university affairs, his industry and his devotion to the work of the university. We only want that other men’s powers should also have fair and independent scope in the university and that favoritism and jobberies should cease.