a mask against his will, the fact is we did not give him any pseudonym, which is what we meant by a mask. We simply used his initials, used by the correspondent of The Modern Review whom he criticised. J. C. G. did indeed give his full name and address. These we did not publish, but there was no “sinister motive” in keeping them unpublished. The motive was quite good.
“Ajax” declares that he has assumed his mask “for a little fun and amusement”. His notions of fun and amusement may not coincide with those of others at whose expense he wishes to amuse himself. Some consider mud-slinging great fun. But we have no objection to give him credit for truthfulness in this matter. Only, if he believes it is merely fun to call people liars, he should not on his part lose his balance at being called a masked man; as, to quote his words, “masks do not necessarily hide sinister motives,” though people’s ideas of what is sinister may differ.
Just as doing good by stealth is not bad but good, though stealth for doing wrong is bad, so to mask oneself for a good purpose, i.e, to use a pseudonym for a good purpose, is not bad. But when one’s motive for masking oneself is bad, one takes offence at being called a masked man; otherwise not.
When we repeatedly asserted unchallenged that Col. Ranking got Rs. 500 a month from the University of Calcutta for doing no lecturing or other work, it ought to have been plain to men with ordinary intelligence that we did not refer to what he might or might not have done at Oxford before he was employed by the Calcutta University.
With conspicuous good taste and sound logic “Ajax” exclaims :
“It is an absolute lie to say that he did no lecture work. His lecture hours were not shown in the time-table because he did not stay in India during the summer months.”
So at long last there is here at least the admission that his lecture hours were not shown in the time-table! And yet if an outsider, not in the secrets of the University, concludes therefrom that the Colonel did no lecturing work, the conclusion must be an absolute lie!
Outsiders like ourselves could derive their information regarding the work done by lecturers only from the printed reports of the postgraduate departments. The report which we consulted related to the work of a whole year, not merely to the work done during “the summer months”, whatever that may mean. That report did not mention any lecturing or other work done by Colonel Ranking, even during the winter months; nor was there the reason mentioned that his lecture hours were not given because he spent his summers outside India. We, therefore, rightly concluded that he got Rs. 500 a month for doing nothing. Besides, none of the teachers lecture during what Calcutta people call the summer months, these being vacation months; yet the lecture hours of most of them and the other work done by them are mentioned in the reports. Therefore “Ajax’s” reply is unconvincing and absurd. In fact, it supports our statement.
To our statement that these questions were asked more than once in our previous issues without eliciting any reply, “Ajax” replies:—
“The reason however is very simple. Babu Ramananda often refused to publish the contradictions sent to his journal, and there is no wonder that the defenders of the University did not care to waste their time in writing contradiction which they feared would not be published.”
An utterly ridiculous reason this. “Ajax” himself states that the reason why the University found it necessary to have an organ of its own was to counteract our alleged mischievous activity. Why then did not that organ ever before attempt even a belated reply to this particular charge?
Assuming it to be true, which it is not, that we “often refused to publish the contradictions sent to” us, The Modern Review never was the only journal in Calcutta or in the country for publishing contradictions. There have been plenty of other journals. And in some of them so-called contradictions of some statements made in our monthlies have appeared. But in none had our criticism of paying Rs. 500 per mensem to Colonel Ranking been ere now challenged. Even the bulkiest report published by a University Committee to cloud the real issues, which attempted indirectly to meet some of our criticisms, was silent on this point.
Why?
And why does not even the redoubtable “Ajax” try even now to explain away the fact of the vast majority of matriculates passing in the first division?
“Ajax” “still repeats” that the Minutes are available in the market.
We are sorry he has not learnt by rote any other reply. He is not a gramophone.
The Minutes may have been (or may soon
