Page:The Modern Review (July-December 1925).pdf/502

Rh journalist in the eye of those who do, but the journalist nevertheless is an important item of modern life in view of the numerosity of those who mis-do. It is intended, in the near future to show how far The Modern Review has been guilty of pure criticism and how far it has tried to help construction.

The third charge is based either on the writer’s ignorance or on his meanness. Those who contribute to The Modern Review know that it remunerates them to the best of its ability, and also that none of them has ever been “advertised” in the columns of that journal unless on the strength of merits which have nothing to do with their contributions. Moreover, the achievements of some university teachers have been made known by The M. R. and Prabasi who have never contributed to these journals. There was a time when The Modern Review could not afford to pay anything to any contributor. After a time, it began to pay small honoraria to professional journalists and to some others by previous arrangement.

For some time past the only exceptions have been those friends of the Editor who would not accept payment. Contributions like short book-notices and reviews, correspondence, comment and criticism, short poems etc., are not paid for.

The fourth charge is a base one and needs no comment. The Editor of The Modern Review can leave it to his readers to decide whether the University has a “fair name” and whether he has defamed it, as well as whether what he has disseminated are “falsehoods”. The Modern Review has for a very long time been trying to help the cause of education not only in Bengal but all over India. It has on numerous occasions criticised the Government’s policy of spending little money on education and even during the recent controversy resting on whether the Government should help the University, The Modern Review suggested that the Government ought to pay the money, but that there should be an effort made to break up the oligarchical management of the University, in order to enable higher education to grow in fresh air and properly. ''If criticising the Present System of management of the Calcutta University is “prejudicing” the cause of higher education in Bengal, one begs to differ from this viewpoint. It is widely accepted that the University people are the most guilty in reducing education to a farce and a dangerous social waste.''

The apologetic gentleman who has shown such perfect mastery of the art of the invective in the columns of the most academic journal of India expects the editor of The Modern Review to lose his head at the sweetness of the music the former is playing on his mysterious pipe and rush into court, probably to enable “Ajax” to make more of an exhibition of himself. He is a spirited person and should join one of the political parties where neurotics are in great demand. He begins his article with the statement, “Nothing hurts so much as inconvenient and unpalatable truth.” Printers of copybooks should make a note of this as being the sincere groan of an experienced heart.

Of the minor charges brought against the editor of The Modern Review one is that he credited Dr. Stephen, the editor of the Calcutta Review with statements made by “Ajax” because the latter had used the first person plural in his writings. “Ajax” says, Mr. A. C. (Ashoke Chatterjee) has done the same thing in The Modern Review. Why then should The M. R. make Dr. Stephen responsible for “Ajax”’s statements when it does not itself shoulder the responsibility of what A. C. or T. D. writes? This needs no comment as The M. R. did not charge Dr. Stephen with any such responsibility. In pointing out to “Ajax” that he should not burden the editor of The Modern Review. with everything appearing in it, it was also pointed out that if one followed “Ajax”’s example Dr. Stephen should be held liable for all that “Ajax” says. “Ajax” should have read The Modern Review carefully before criticising it. Another minor charge is that a certain sub-editor of the Prabasi once translated something from some other paper and did not acknowledge his debt. We are sorry if this is true. Sub-editors are frail humans compared to University research workers. They may find inspiration in the doings of the “great scholars’. One can be almost sure that this alleged ommission of the name of the Literary Digest is a mere printer’s slip, as sometimes whole lines are found missing in print owing to this reason; or at the worst it is due to inadvertence on the part of the sub-editor in question. It is very well-known that titbits of this kind are compiled and translated (often in an abridged form) from books and newspapers, and none but a fool made to order would care to claim them as original productions of his own research laboratory. But if the great “Ajax” of the Calcutta University will kindly persuade his patrons to grant this poor sub-editor the