4. That the Editor of The Modern Review “has been guilty of wilfully defaming the fair name of the University and widely disseminating falsehoods” and that “he has done all that he could to prejudice the cause of higher education in Bengal”.
The apologetic soul sums up by inviting the Editor of The Modern Review to sue him for defamation and damages.
Now the first charge along with the rest is false. The Editor of The Modern Review may or may not suffer from biases, insane view points and a black heart which constantly yearns to undo the good that “Ajax” and Co. are doing to India in general and to “higher education” in particular; but he is not in the habit of suppressing opinions that contradict his view point. If in a given case “a defender of the Calcutta University” received back his “contradiction” from the Editor of The Modern Review; that does not necessarily prove that the Editor sent back the contradiction out of malice or bad motives. Can the apologetic “Ajax” publish the number of contradictions that were sent to the evil editor of The Modern Review and were unceremoniously returned? Just because The Modern Review has the misfortune to hold views regarding University “ideals” and “management” which do not please certain individuals who control the University of Calcutta, (let us suppose for the advancement of “higher education” in Bengal), that is no reason why people should expect The Modern Review to be under obligation to publish (and that in toto) whatever “contradiction” that may come from any “defender” of the University, irrespective of the quality and volume of the same. Nevertheless we repeat that the allegation of “Ajax” is not based on facts.
The second charge is that The Modern Review lacks a definite policy. This again it not true. It is not possible for any human being or institution to go through life with one inflexible set of opinions. With changes in the conditions, facts and realisations of life, the opinions with which one begins life may also change more or less. In the case of The Modern Review it may be claimed that it has, since the first day of its life tried to uphold the cause of Indian Nationalism and Human Civilisation. In this The Modern Review has had to face dangers and run risks which no one who knows the facts would deny. Whenever The Modern Review has made public unpleasant facts or criticised persons or institutions, it has done so in the hope that India and the world would benefit thereby and not because of any morbid desire to “defame fair names” and “disseminate falsehoods”. Those who have followed the career of The Modern Review and the trend of its opinions are best able to judge of the truth of the charge which the Calcutta Review brings against it. The M. R. sincerely believes, and has adduced facts from time to time to prove that its belief is not blind bias, that the Calcutta University is not run on anything like ideal lines, that it is controlled by a clique of inner men who have brought higher education in Bengal to a state of uselessness and high-sounding ignorance, in order to feed, let us say, only their sense of achievement. The thousands and thousands of “highly educated” Bengalis, sorry products of a system of selling cheap academic distinction, who feel and mourn their “higher education” every minute of their lives and curse the day when they were sent to obtain the same by fond parents; the thousands of degree-holders of the Calcutta University who know hardly a thing that is worth knowing and cannot write or speak correctly either English or.their Vernacular; the hundreds who have done “research” and provided material to amuse sincere scholars and the scores of professors, lecturers and others who draw upon the funds of the nation without giving an adequate return in the way of proper research or teaching of students; all go to prove that those in power at the University have not done their duty. The Calcutta Review as well as the builders of the University, have often blamed The Modern Review for not offering constructive suggestions and only criticising what they do. First of all The Modern Review has on numerous occasions suggested things to the University. The University have seldom acted up to these suggestions and when they have done so, have never (to one’s knowledge) acknowledged their debt to The Modern Review. Secondly a Review is primarily meant for evaluating things as they are and only indirectly for making constructive suggestions. If The M. R. criticises the doings of the Government of India or those of the Government of Italy, it does not mean that it desires to or that it should run these Governments. The journalist’s function in society is that of a reviewer and critic and not that of runners of governments or of Universities (or of tea shops if he criticises the same). This may lower the
