Page:The Modern Review (July-December 1925).pdf/595

 or tabulator-ship, or soft job in the post-graduate department has Prof. Sarkar to offer in order to tempt other people to write in favour of University Reform? The public may rest assured that none of the reformers in his private conversation expresses an opinion about the Calcutta University diametrically opposite to that of another man’s article which a Boss may compel him to sign in his own name.

As to whether the Senate is a packed body or is really composed of the Government’s nominees, see pages 400, 489 and 490 of the last issue of this Review.

Mr. Chakrabarti speaks of Prof. Sarkar’s “new line of criticism.”—Prof. J. Sarkar’s proposals for Calcutta University Reform have been before the readers of the Modern Review for more than eight years past. They are quite clear, except to men who will wilfully remain in a world like that of “The Invisible Cloths.” He has repeatedly drawn public attention to the need of (a) efficiency of teaching, (b) reality of examinations, and (e) concentration of the University’s funds—and, what is still more important, its teaching strength (the qualitative inadequacy of which is incidentally admitted in Mr. T. Chakravarti’s article)—on a limited group of subjects which can be efficiently taught. No show of covering the whole field of human knowledge can benefit the nation nor pass undetected in these days of world-intercourse.

As regards the Pali studies they have been arranged in an ambitious spirit of exact rivalry with the Ancient Indian History and Culture department, i.e. with four alternative groups (of four papers each) plus a number of common papers. Such an amplified field requires an army of specialists (who cannot do justice to any other branch, if they have no student in their special papers in a particular year). Above all, a course of higher degree teaching tested by a written examination of the ordinary type (which the Calcutta M. A. is in reality) differs essentially from research work (which requires the production by each student of a highly specialised original thesis). The former requires a fairly large number of students in each class for discussion and seminar work without which the M. A. teaching degenerates into a bigger undergraduate teaching. In Pali M. A., Calcutta, there are only eight students in all,—in spite of its ambitious ramification of special “groups.” Is true M. A. teaching possible under the circumstances?

Regarding work in archive-rooms to which Prof. Charkrabarti refers, the reality of the research work under the plea of which many members of the Calcutta post-graduate staff claim only five periods of lecture work per week is best illustrated by the fact that though the Imperial Records office was thrown open to the public in 1919, not one of these professors has worked among the records (except Prof. J. C. Sinha, and he, too, on the eve of his migration to a chair at ). And yet the name of research is being invoked and parallels cited from Europe! Mr. Chakrabarti admits that subjects have been opened at Calcutta for which no competent teacher is available and hence some youngmen have been given light work in order to enable them to read the subject up and qualify themselves to teach it! This exactly agrees with the principle of Fritz in Figaro, who on being asked why he became a school-master, replied, “In order to learn”! But such self-education cum light work on the part of a new teacher must have a time-limit and cannot be a normal state of affairs at Calcutta.

A concrete case will illustrate the method followed there. A young 1st class M. A. in General History is appointed to lecture on English Constitutional History as his chief work: then he is asked to teach the History of the Far East as an additional subject (during the preparatory stage?), and his private research is on the Maratha Military Administration. Can academic absurdity go any further?

The figures relating to the numbers of students, teachers, lecturers, etc., quoted by Prof. Sarkar, were published by the Englishman, 11th June, 1925. They are in full:—

It is significant that though these figures are now being challenged by the Calcutta University apologists, they have not ventured to produce the correct figures for the work actually done by the post-graduate staff. It should also be noted that the annual post-graduate department report, which is printed, has carefully omitted to give the time-tables of all the members of its staff, though every ordinary college inspection report gives such figures and they are also printed. The motive is obvious.

Secondly, it is not enough to have it on paper that every teacher must take so many tutorial classes every week in addition to 5 or 6 lectures. The question is, whether the students have actually been taken in all the tutorial groups that they ought to have according to the time-table. In one subject, Prof. Sarkar’s information is that one student met his professor in the tutorial class for actual work on only three occasions in two years. It should be remembered that the Calcutta University has no principal or whole-time Academic Vice-chancellor to see whether the scheduled work is being done on the day in question. In a College such omission is impossible.

Prof. Sarkar has nowhere, as alleged by Prof. Chakrabarti, contrasted 5 hours (in History at Calcutta) with 18 hours (in English at Dacca), but with 12 hours (in History at Dacca). This wilful confusion of two separate things will mislead no careful reader of our Review.

Prof. Sarkar has nowhere said that “every University lecturer must deliver at least 18 lectures per week”. He insists that every teacher in order to justify his salary must work for considerably more than five to seven hours a week. At professors who take part in post-graduate teaching work for fifteen hours a week (lecture and tutorial taken together). This is reasonable.

Professor Chakrabarti is requested to cite the passage where Prof. Sarkar has claimed that he used to deliver 18 lectures per week. The charge is imagi-