Page:Modern review 1921 v29.pdf/713

690

of prestige. The young and pliant minds should be left in the hands of those who have the tact and ripe experience of years.

At a recent meeting of the Senate of the, Sir received “a most hearty welcome” on his re-appointment to the Vice-Chancellorship. He “expressed his gratitude to the Senate for the very cordial welcome they had extended to him.” He also said among other things that “The University could not afford to wrangle with unscrupulous critics.” As we have not read all that has been written by way of criticism of the University or of Sir Asutosh, it is possible that there has been some unscrupulous criticism. But we also know that there has also been much criticism that is perfectly true and honest. Sir Asutosh has, however, never admitted that there has ever been in the press any correct, justifiable and honest criticism. What can be the reason? Is it due to obtuseness or to lack of intellectual honesty? Or may at be that Sir Asutosh is so conceited as to think that the ordinary code of ethics must be as plastic in his hands as wax or clay?

Of course, the University cannot afford to wrangle with unscrupulous critics! But it ought to be able to admit mistakes or contradict inaccurate statements. In this democratic age, that is the only way to retain or regain public respect, though that may not be the way to obtain a “very cordial welcome” from the Senators, of whom “there was a large attendance.” With regard to criticism of the University, were these persons of the same way of thinking as Sir Asutosh? We would fain hope there were a very few exceptions.

The last letter of the addressed to Mr. Sharp, Secretary, Education Department, Government of India, has been widely quoted, as it is sensational and quite in the smart journalistic style. It has also been copiously commented upon. It has been described as a parting kick, a Parthian shot, &c. We think it would be doing an injustice to the University to suggest that the pungency of the letter was due to the fact that the official connection of the Calcutta University with the Government of India is now at an end, and it can, therefore, expect neither favours nor be afraid of retaliatory measures. Even before the severance of its connection with the Government of India could be foreseen, the University and its protagonist Sir gave some hard knocks to Mr. Sharp.

Our own position has been throughout consistent. We have urged that the University should spend carefully and with a view to obtaining the best and greatest results, cutting down unnecessary and disproportionate expenditure and feeding more freely the most useful and efficient departments of teaching and research. We have also urged an independent audit of its accounts, and the control and guidance of its affairs by competent representatives of the educated public. At the same time we have urged that the Government of India should have come forward with liberal grants in aid of genuine university work, taking a strict account of its subsidies.

We think Mr. Sharp has been hostile to the University. We exposed the hollowness of Mr. Sharp’s inspired reply to Rai Bahadur re Government grants to the University. But we cannot support the present letter of the University in all its details. For instance, it complains of the inordinate delay in receiving a reply from Mr. Sharp. It points out that the University letter was dated the 6th of September, 1920, while Mr. Sharp’s reply to it is dated the 4th of December, 1920—a delay of three months. But it has been pointed out to us that the University itself has not been more prompt in matters like these. The very letter which makes this complaint is a reply given in mid-April to Mr. Sharp’s letter dated the 4th of December, 1920—a delay of more than four months. Another point raised is

“That the Senate deeply regret to find that