The Calcutta Universıty and “The Modern Review”
“Calcutta Review,” which is the organ of the Calcutta University, has published in its August (1925) issue an article entitled “Our Critics.” It bears the pseudonym of “Ajax”.
As the writer uses the first person plural in the heading and body of the article, it will not be unfair to ask whether he is the editor of “The Calcutta Review”, or whether he writes officially as the authorised representative of the Calcutta University. If neither supposition be true, it would be difficult to find any justification for his use of the editorial or collective “we”.
But as in his article he takes the opinions of Professor Jadunath Sarkar, T. D. (Dr. Taraknath Das), A. C. (Ashoke Chatterjee), and the editor of this Review to be equally the opinions of the last-mentioned person, it would not be unfair, following his example, to hold Dr. Henry Stephen, the editor of “The Calcutta Review”, responsible for his (‘Ajax”’s) views. The reader may take that to be our justification for taking up the challenge of a masked man.
Even tiros in journalism know that though the editor of a journal is legally responsible for whatever appears in it, the views of his contributors are not necessarily identical with his own opinions. But “Ajax” disingeniously quotes from The Modern Review several passages in his article without indicating who the writers are. On pages 323 and 324 he quotes two passages without mentioning that they bear the initials T. D. On page 324 he quotes another passage without mentioning that they bear the initials A. C. On page 328 he quotes another passage without mentioning that it is initialled T. D. Lastly, he quotes a passage on page 330 omitting the initials A. C.
No wonder, “Ajax” innocently asks, “What our contemporary really advocates it is very difficult for us to say.” As our contributors have not been dragooned into saying exactly what the editor desires, there is naturally some diversity in their opinions. We encourage such variety and diversity. And that for good reasons. When two statements are diametrically opposed to each other, it is usual to use the words “antipodes” or “the two poles” to-indicate such opposition and yet it is the same earth which contains the antipodes and the poles. Therefore, not being supermen, we believe that even those who flatly contradict us may be wholly or at least partly right.
Whatever is beneficial, right and true, is what we “really advocate”, and as it is impossible for us with our limited powers to comprehend and give expression to all the good, the true and the right, we are grateful to all who help us by contributing their views to our pages and also to those who criticise us honestly or even dishonestly.
The Modern Review has been in existence for more than eighteen years, and for the greater part of this period we have tried to point out some of the defects of the Calcutta University. We still maintain that that body “has always been discreetly silent” when “our criticism was unanswerable.” The statements which “Ajax” tries to refute were not made by us but by Professor Jadunath Sarkar. As that gentleman would be well able to defend himself, should he care to parry the blow aimed at his head by a masked man, we do not think our interposition is at all needed.
It is neither necessary nor practicable to give a summary of all our criticisms, published during more than a decade. But let us mention one or two points. In recent years it has been found that the majority of Calcutta matriculates are placed in the first division. It has been pointed out by others, besides ourselves, that in no walk of life do first-rate men outnumber third-rate men. Why does not “this piece of experience,” as The Educational Review calls it, “apply only to the University of Calcutta”? May we also enquire why a few years ago a certain Englishman (we can mention his name if required) was appointed a professor of an oriental language and used to draw Rs. 500 a month without doing any lecturing or other work? These questions were asked more than once in previous issues of this Review without eliciting any reply.
“Ajax” quotes our complaint that we
367
