The Modern Review/Volume 29/Number 4/Calcutta University Reform
Calcutta University Reform.
For years we have pointed out irregularities and defects in the working of the Calcutta university, but there has been no improvement, for which one reason is that there is no vigilant public opinion. And what little public opinion there is can not work in the absence of adequate information. Calcutta journalists have made no combined effort to obtain information. We have had to depend on the chance supplies of information. But even if there had been an adequate supply of information and even if there had been a vigilant public opinion, Sir Asutosh Mookerjee would have been able, as at present, to do what he pleased. For, as stated by Mr Ramaprasad Chanda, a Post-graduate teacher of the University, in an article contributed by him to the Phalgun number of “Manasi O Marmabani”, Sir Asutosh holds the majority of votes in all university bodies in the hollow of his hands. The passage is quoted in part below in the original
বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় সম্পর্কে সার আশুতোষের প্রধান অপরাধ তিনি বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের বিভিন্ন বিভাগে নিজের আত্মীয় এবং অনুগত লোক ঢুকাইতে একান্ত ব্যস্ত। ইহাতে হয়ত সময়-সময় যোগ্যতম লোকের সেখানে প্রবেশ করা ঘটিয়া ওঠে না। সুতরাং আত্মীয় এবং অনুগত জনের একান্ত পক্ষপাত সকল সময় অনুমোদন করা কঠিন। কিন্তু এইপ্রকার পক্ষপাতকে নিতান্ত দোষ বলিয়া ঘোষণা করিবার পূর্ব্বে স্মরণ রাখা কর্ত্তব্য যে সার আশুতোষের যে কিছু পদ প্রতিপত্তি তাহা ভোটার উপর নির্ভর করে। এক্ষেত্রে ভোটারের মধ্যে যত অধিক লোক সার আশুতোষের আত্মীয় অনুগত এবং নির্ভরযোগ্য হইবেন, ততই তিনি নিরাপদে এবং নিশ্চিন্ত মনে কাজ করিতে সমর্থ হইবেন। অর্থাৎ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে সার আশুতোষের নিজের প্রভাব অক্ষুন্ন রাখিতে হইলে আত্মীয় অন্তরং ঢুকান প্রয়োজন। যদি একবার এই কথা স্বীকার করা যায়, তবে তাঁহার অনেক কাজ ততটা নিন্দনীয় বলিয়া বিবেচিত হইবে না। সার আশুতোষকে বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের কিছু কাজ করিতে হইলে সেখানকার প্রত্যেক সমিতির অধিকাংশ ভোট নিজের হাতের মুঠোয় রাখিতে হইবে। নতুবা তিনি কিছু করিতে পারিবেন না। নানা উপায়ে এইরূপ করিতে সমর্থ হইয়াছেন বলিয়াই সার আশুতোষ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের সর্ব্বেসর্ব্বা অথবা ইংরেজিতে যাহাকে ডিকটেটর বলে সেই ডিকটেটর হইয়াছেন।
Freely translated the passage means
“The chief offence alleged against Sir Asutosh is that he is extremely eager to get his own kith and kin and dependants into the different departments of the University. Perhaps this occasionally prevents the accession of the fittest men there. Consequently it is difficult on all occasions to approve of the extreme partiality towards relatives and followers. But before declaring partiality of this sort to be a fault it should be remembered that whatever position and authority (or influence) Sir Asutosh has depends upon votes. Under the circumstances, the larger the number of persons among the voters who are his kith and kin and followers and are “dependable”, the more safely and with a mind free from anxiety would he be able to work. That is to say, in order to keep his influence in the University intact it is necessary for him to get his relatives and “intimates” into it. If this be once admitted, then what he does will not be considered so blameworthy. If Sir Asutosh is to do any work in the University, he must be able to keep the majority of votes in each University body in the hollow of his hands else he will not be able to do anything. It is because he has been able to do this by various means that Sir Asutosh has become all-in-all, or what is called in English a dictator, in the University.”
This description and characterisation of Sir Asutosh’s policy by one of his supporters has the merit of honesty, though it may not be considered complimentary to themselves by his other supporters. But that is their look out. What we are concerned with is the good of the University and the public good. One-man rule is apt to produce various evils, which need not be described. These exist in the Calcutta University. To destroy these evils, it is necessary to destroy one man rule. This can be done only by making all or a majority (say, at least four-fifths) of the Fellowships in the Senate and the memberships of the other bodies elective, and by making the electorates quite broad-based. It may be tentatively suggested that all graduates of the University of five years’ standing, whether registered or not, should form one electorate. All professors, lecturers, tutors and demonstrators in affiliated colleges should form another electorate. A third electorate should consist of all teachers in high schools recognised by the University. The schools swell the revenues of the University, they should therefore be represented therein on the principle of no contribution without representation. If considered necessary, steps may be taken to prevent overlapping. We are informed that the Patna University electorates are more democratic and wider than here, and are hence productive of good results.
It is to be noted that ours is not the foolish idea of destroying Sir Asutosh’s just influence and ascendancy. That cannot and should not be destroyed, because it is born of his intellectual powers, his knowledge of university affairs, his industry and his devotion to the work of the university. We only want that other men’s powers should also have fair and independent scope in the university and that favoritism and jobberies should cease.