Page:The Modern Review (July-December 1925).pdf/427

402 G. Dr. Dineschandra Sen is a member of the Boards in Sanskritic languages and History.

H. Mr. H. Khudabux is a member of the Boards in Arabic, Persian and Urdu; Greek, Latin, &c.; and History.

All of these members are either whole-time or part-time paid lecturers in the Calcutta University. Among interested members I must mention the name of Mr. Adhar Chandra Mukherjee, for a long time a monopolist in a certain department in the Calcutta University, who is a member of the Board of Studies in Sanskrit (!), Sanskritic lauguages, History, Political Economy and Political Philosophy.

It is apparent, therefore, that the paid members of the teaching staff of the University of Calcutta predominate in all Boards of Studies. According to paragraph 4 Chapter V of the printed Regulations, “No member shall belong to more than five Boards.” According to this rule, Mr. Shyama Prosad Mukherjse, Dr. Stephen, Dr. Bhandarkar and Mr. Adhar Chandra Mukherjee are members of four Boards and Mr. Rama Prosad Mukherjee, Mr. Promotha Nath Benerjee, Mr. J. R. Banerjee. Jr. Dines Chandra Sen are members of three Boards only. Let us now proceed to analyse the constitution of a single Board, that in History. In 1924-25, this Board contained 11 members, out of whom 6 were paid servants of the University.

(1) Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, President. (2) Dr. Dines Chandra Sen. (3) Mr. S. Khudabux. (4) Dr. W. S. Urquhart. (5) Mr. Promatha Nath Benerjee (6) Dr. Promatha Nath Banerjea.

The constitution of the syndicate for the year 1924-25 is also exactly similar. According to the regulations, the Syndicate consists of;—

(1) The Vice-Chancellor, ex-officio, (2) The Director of Public Instruction, ex-officio. (3)-(6) Four persons selected by the Senate. (7)-(10) Four persons elected by the Faculty of Arts. (11)-(12) Two elected by the Faculty of Science, (13)-(14) Two elected by the Faculty of Law. (15)-(16) Two elected by the Faculty of Medicine. (17) One elected by the Faculty of Engineering.

In 1924-25 at least ten out of these 17 members were paid servants of the Calcutta University and thus constituted an absolute majority against which the Vice-Chancellor and other independent members are absolutely powerless. These ten gentlemen are;—

(1) Mr. Heramba Chandra Moitra. (2) Dr. W. S. Urquhart. (3) Dr. Promatha Nath Banerjea. (4) Mr. Jnanranjan Banerjee. (5) Mr. Monmotha Nath Ray. (6) Mr. Promatha Nath Banerjee. (7) Mr. Shyama Prosad Mukherjee. (8) Dr. Bruhl. (9) Mr. Rama Prosad Mukherjee. (10) Mr. Biraj Mohan Mazumdar.

The Syndicate is the ultimate Executive authority in the University and the paid majority in it proves that the present constitution of the Calcutta University is rotten to the core. It should also be borne in mind that two sons and a son-in-law of Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee are present everywhere. They have divided the Boards of Studies between themselves and with the exception of one or two, one of them is present in all other Boards of Studies.

Having acquired a monopoly in all different constituent parts of the University, the late Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee and his successors in power have opposed every proposal of reform by all the means they could devise. It is evident that the real reform of the Calcutta University can only be made by drastic legislative enactment. The right of election of the members of the Senate by registered graduates must not be restricted to 102 people out of thousands. The spirit of the Act of 1904 can be maintained by reducing the annual subscription of Rs. 10 to Rs. 2. The majority of the graduates of the Calcutta University are poor teachers whose average income does not exceed fifty rupees a month. It is impossible for them to take an interest in the affairs of the Calcutta University by paying one-sixtieth part of their average annual income. It would be much better to abolish election by the registered graduates and to make at least 50 per cent of the members of the Senate returnable by graduates of seven years standing. The remainder should be divided equally between Government nomination and election by the Faculties. In this way the danger of coaxed nomination by the party in power and the manipulation of pocket boroughs can be very easily avoided. The introduction of an equal number of outsiders, specialists in a