Page:Modern review 1921 v29.pdf/714

Rh

the letter under reply abounds in misleading statements. The Government of India express their regret that they are not in full possession of the facts regarding the position of the University, and it is added that the last statement of accounts which is laid before them was that ending the 30th of June, 1919. Under these circumstances one would have expected that the obvious course for your department to follow would be to seek for further and up-to-date information from the University authorities. There was abundant time for such enquiry, as the letter of the University was dated the 6th of September, 1920, and the reply of the Government thereto is dated the th of December, 1920.” The reason suggested bv the University for such abstention of enquiry is that the framer of the Government reply apprehended that the enquiry made might lead to the discovery of facts completely destructive of the position intended to be taken up.

The consequence has been, as the University surmises, that on the th of December 1920, the question of the needs of the University in 1921 is determined with deference to the supposed financial position on the 30th of June, 1919.

We think in this matter the University cannot be absolved from blame. That the Government of India based its reply on a statement of accounts ending the 30th of June, 1919, may have been because the University did not take care to send a statement of accounts ending the 30th of June, 1920, which it ought to have done, and could have done if it had been prompt and efficient in the conduct of its affairs. It is usual for those who seek grants (or “favours” of any sort) to furnish the most favourable facts to those who are to make the grants. It is rather curious that the University should turn round and accuse Mr. Sharp of neglecting to seek information. As if it was more Mr. Sharp’s business to disburden himself of a plethora of wealth than it was the University’s business to get money. Of course, if Mr. Sharp had sought further information it would have been “generous” of him. But was it wise for the University to wait for such “generosity” on his part?

As for the cost of conducting examinations, we think the cost per candidate has not appreciably increased. For at present, examinees are instructed to write on both sides of the paper, which was not the case some years back, the paper now supplied is of worse quality than before, the remuneration of examiners, paper-setters, &c., has been decreased, and the numbers of candidates have been continually increasing, thus reducing (at least, not raising) the cost of establishment per capita. On the whole, examinations have been a more lucrative business than ever before.

The cost of printing calendars has, no doubt, increased. But we do not see why they should be distributed gratis in such large numbers. That objection may be flimsy, but in any case considering the large income and expenditure of the University Rs 26,000 for printing calendars and Rs 7500 for purchase of stationary are not big items—though we know every mickle makes a muckle. Such items of expense, at least those which were absolutely unavoidable, could have been met from savings effected by not opening for the present classes to teach Tibetan, &c., which are, comparatively speaking, more expensive than useful and helpful to any appreciable number of students.

As we did not support the proposal to raise the examination fees of Matriculation, I. A., I. Sc., &c., candidates, we cannot blame the Government of India for not viewing it with favour.

Not possessing the advantage of having the original papers or their printed copies before us, we hope if we have erred, our mistakes will be pointed out.

We would urge the Bengal Government to make liberal grants to the Calcutta University after going into its financial condition with the help of an independent committee.

Knowing as we do how persistently and consistently hostile and obstructive Mr. Sharp’s attitude has been for years towards another institution, we can understand why he has not been friendly to the Calcutta University. But the latter, too, ought not to have laid itself open to just criticism.

We wish to make our position quite clear with regard to the Calcutta Univer-