Page:The Modern Review (July-December 1925).pdf/258

236 twelve to fourteen lakhs, it is not insignificant that an anticipated deficit of more than four lakhs turns into a balance of more than one lakh, or if the receipts from sales of books exceed the estimated sum of Rs. 81,000 by Rs. 1,33,500. Would it be very uncharitable to suppose that there is sometimes under-estimation of income to show a big deficit?

One cannot help concluding from these facts that, whatever the causes, the budget estimates of the Calcutta University may fall short of or exceed the actuals beyond the range of probability allowed for in budgets carefully prepared by competent and reliable financial experts.

In budget estimates, if income is shown under any head, it is usual to show the expenditure also, if any, under that head. This has not been done in all cases in the budget statement under consideration. Let us take only one example. Under the head “Calcutta Review” an income of Rs. 7,800 has been shown. But on the expenditure side, there is nothing shown under this head. Once there was a question publicly asked as to whether the University had to incur any loss on this organ, to which the answer was that it was self-supporting. Those who are aware of that fact would naturally feel curious to know how much had to be spent on the “Calcutta Review.” As the annual subscription of that monthly is Rs. 8-8, the number of its subscribers must be less than one thousand. It does not seem probable that a periodical of its bulk can meet its own expenses with only nine hundred subscribers or thereabouts. Hence it is probable that the magazine is run at a loss and the deficit is met from University funds. A University is undoubtedly justified in spending something for an organ which publishes original papers of academic value and serves in addition the purpose of a bulletin. But there cannot be any justification for a University to throw away money on a magazine which makes the publication of serial stories and other kinds of light literature and commonplace popular illustrations some of its main features. If any fraction, however small, of the big deficits of the University, be due to expenditure on such ventures, the public and the Government ought not to be asked to make good such portions of the deficits. Hence the framers of the budget ought to have published in the newspapers more details of expenditure than they have done. If it be true that the University wastes only small sums on such ventures, then it was all the more incumbent on these gentlemen to prove that fact by details, in the interest of the University itself.

So long( as the late Mr. W. T. Stead, founder of “The Review of Reviews” edited that journal, some topics of special interest to Indians used generally to be found in it and he also reviewed and made extaicts from Indian periodicals. This policy, which was that of a sagacious imperialist, was continued for some length of time after his death, and then it was given up for good. For years no Indian periodical has been reviewed, noticed or- utilised in any way by this London periodical. It has, however, some courtesy for periodicals published in in­ dependent foreign countries and in the selfgoverning dominions of Great Britain. Czechoslovak, Finnish, Danish, Swedish, Russian, and other reviews receive attention. It is not that Indian reviews remain unnoticed because they are unquestionably inferior to the periodicals published in every other country. It may be - pointed out that Mr. Stead was no mean judge of periodicals ; and if he found some Indian periodicals fit for notice, they probably possessed some sort of merit. Since his .days, these do not seem to have degenerated. Sir Michael Sadler wrote unsought to the editor of one of these periodicals, with whom he was not personally acquainted, many years after Mr. Stead’s death, that it was one of the live periodicals of the world. If India had been politically independent, her intellectual products would have received more consideration, if not respectful attention, from foreigners, including Englishmen. Though Great Britain’s material and political greatness, and indirectly to a great extent her intellectual greatness, too, are due in the last resort to her possession of India, India is neglected because it is a property, not a composite personality, as independent nations are in Great Britain’s eyes. India will become self-respecting and entitled to respect from others when she becomes free. Lord Birkenhead at the Central Asian Society On the last day of June Lord Birken­ head indulged in some sabre-rattling at the