be) offered for sale for aught we know, after the publication of our last September issue, just to prove that we were wrong. The Minutes may hereafter even be included in the big price list of University publications. But why were they not mentioned in it before? Why did not the Registrar refer us to the “market” in his reply? We offered to pay for them. And why did not the Registrar mention even one of the many things which “Ajax” has said in his two replies on this point?
According to “Ajax,” the Statesman secured a copy of the Report before it was released by the senate “by its superior journalistic enterprise.” It is not clear why other journals, including those “friendly” to the University, could not have got it by the same sort of enterprise. The writer asks us to place before the public an iota of evidence that any editor got this report from anybody connected with the University before it was made public property. As we do not maintain a corps of detectives in our service, we are sorry we are unable to oblige “Ajax”. But he will, we hope, admit that the Statesman did not manufacture its copy of the report, and that it got if either from some University Press employee, or from some University office employee, or from some Fellow. Now these persons are all “connected” with the University.
When we wrote that some “friendly” paper which had published extracts from the Post-graduate Reorganisation Report, did not say that their extracts were taken from the Statesman, we simply wanted to suggest that they also had secured copies of it by “superior journalistic enterprise”, which does not exclude “friendliness” to the University. Therefore the sarcastic fling at Prabasi is quite irrelevant and need not be discussed.
“Ajax” wonders how we could lay our hands on some back numbers of the Calcutta Review though we wrote at a distance from our library. He need not be surprised. We found the numbers in the library at Santiniketan, where we were and are staying.
The critic admits that Prabasi did not mention M. K. G by name as one of the abler teachers of the University, which was our contention, but says he was entitled to draw the inference which he did. We do not question his right to draw any inference he chooses to; we only deny the inference.
He observes:—
“It is really amusing that Babu Ramananda claims credit for making known the achievement of the abler teachers of the University”.
Not “Babu Ramananda” personally but Prabasi and The Modern Review which he edits.
We referred to this side of our journalistic activity not to claim any credit, but merely to counteract the wrong impression sought to be produced by “Ajax’s” false and mischievous allegation that we are “never tired of proclaiming the inefficiency of our [Calcutta University’s] teachers.”
The critic admits that only two cartoons and only one serial story were published in the Calcutta Review. But at first he wanted to produce a different impression by giving only a list of distinguished contributors of articles of academic importance. Naturally he does not say to how many ordinary serials combined this single one was equal in length. Nor does he mention the other serial stories in verse or in dramatic form.
He leaves certain things to be judged by his readers. That is distinctly good of him.
There are some facts, observations or arguments in our last month’s note on the critic’s article, e.g., relating to non-publication of expenditure on the Calcutta Review, supply of unpublished records to a “friendly” organ, etc., which he has discreetly avoided facing. We will not however tire our readers’ patience by repeating them.
A Defender of the Calcutta University Speaks Out
The September number of the Calcutta Review contains an article entitled The Apology of “Ajax” (that being the pen name of an unknown “defender” of the Calcutta University against ill-wishers of the same University of whom the Editor of The Modern Review is alleged to be one). In this article “Ajax” brings “Some serious charges against Babu, Ramananda” (the Editor of The Modern Review). The “serious charges” are among others:
1. That the Editor of The Modern Review published attacks on the University and used to send back “contradictions to which he had no reply to give” “unceremoniously” “if legal convenience permitted it”.
2. A “lack of editorial policy from which The Modern Review suffers”.
3. An insinuation that The Modern Review does not pay its contributors and propitiates the same by “advertising” their “achievements”.
