The Modern Review/Volume 38/Number 2/Post-Graduate Reorganisation in the Calcutta University
Post-Graduate Reorganisation in the Calcutta University
From the controversy that is now raging around the Report of the Post Graduate Re-organisation Committee one cannot form much of an opinion on the subject because on the one hand a set of people are trying to make things appear in such light as would enable the Government to refuse to help the University with grants as if for the sake of truth, justice and public opinion; and on the other hand there is another party, the party in power at the University, which is attempting to broadcast everything that will favour a continuation of their regime with additions to the income side of their budget, shelving the main items of any scheme of Post-Graduate Reorganisation. The conscious and unconscious helpers of the Government cause are expressing the opinion that the University is extravagant and is running a large number of departments which are useless as they lack a proper number of students; hence it it should not receive any help. Moreover as things stand now it is possible to run the University Machine at a much lower cost than has been usual for several years. Leaving aside questions of technical detail, let us examine the purpose for which the Committee was appointed.
The Recommendation of the Syndicate in regard to the appointment of the Post-Graduate Reorganisation Committee contained among other things, the following.
That in view of the immediate necessity for formulating a definite scheme for the stabilisation and development of Post-Graduate studies in Calcutta, a Committee be appointed to enquire into and report to the Senate on the following and other related matters.
(a) Whether Retrenchment is possible in the Post-Graduate departments concerned.
(b) Whether the pay and conditions of employment and service of the members of the teaching staff are satisfactory.
(c) Whether the members of the teaching staff have been given proper facilities for carrying on research work.
so that it is mainly for the Stabilisation and development of post-graduate studies that the Committee was appointed. That there is need for stabilisation as well as for development is true beyond doubt. But the majority of the committee seem, from their report, to think that such stabilisation and development could be assured by a few of touches here and there, on salaries, grades, method of recruitment of lecturer and hours, while keeping intact the general scheme of the organisation. And their opponents think, that the cause of higher studies would be best served if certain posts were abolished and the occupants of the remaining post began to deliver more lectures per week than they have done so far. Between these two opinions we find that of Mr. J. C. Ghosh, who says in his note of dissent that the University should make it a point to appoint Professors “mainly on the ground of research work done by them”, and should select readers, lecturers etc., “on the ground of high academical distinctions and experience in teaching; and that by reducing the number of lecturers it may be possible to better the condition of those who are retained in service and who evidently will be the more deserving and the fittest people in regard to carrying on the work of the Post-Graduate organisation.)
We can very well see why some people should think of reducing expenses; for the Government will have to pay something if expenses were not cut down. The Government have not ever been anything like over-generous in their support of education, higher, middle or lower. We find that up to June, 1925, they contributed only Rs. 646,331 out of Rs 42,82,837 spent on post-graduate teaching in Arts; and Rs. 1,56,000 out of Rs. 26,38,486 spent on account of the College of Science. So that nobody will side with the Government in order to save them from going bankrupt through extravagance in their support of education. Whatever indirect support the Government may get in not paying anything to the University, they will get because many people have no faith in the present rulers of the University. It is believed by a large section of the educated public, that the University is run for the benefit of numerous worthless people, who have found employment not on the grounds of great scholarship, research work or brilliant academic career. It is also believed that Progress is impossible unless some of the present heads of departments as well as some of the lesser members of the teaching staff are removed and replaced by better men. Any disinterested body of scholars will be able to judge how far the University authorities have been guided in their selection of Professors etc., by principles of advancing higher studies and how far by motives which have little to do with research or learning. According to their report the majority want to keep things in their existing shape, as it would not be fair to throw some people into unemployment. But it is not right that a national cause should suffer because of such considerations. If owing to reasons, into which we need not go here, the appointment of professors and lecturers at the University up to the present time, has not been guided by ideal principles, that is no reason why steps should not be taken to undo the evil. Bad appointments may be considered as a bad debt and the University should formulate a scheme, something like a sinking fund and even at some monetary loss, whereby higher education may recover its health. It is foolish on the part of those who want retrenchment to judge the value of a branch of studies by the number of students it attracts; for the absence of students may only prove the need for carrying on the work more vigorously. It is equally foolish for the authorities to compose wonderful paragraphs to prove the worth of certain branches of study and then to leave the control of such studies in the hands of people who only vaguely realise the import of their own epigrams. In their work of stabilisation and development of the post-graduate organisation, the question of how much money will be spent is of no importance compared to the more vital question of selecting the people on whom the money will be spent.
The cause of higher studies will suffer as long as abler men do not go into the University and stay there contented and with the conviction that they are secure in their posts so long as they do not cease to carry on their work properly and whole-heartedly. Even some very great scholars in the University do not know where they stand and when they would be asked to leave. And the relation of salaries to qualification or that of control to scholarship is even more of an anomaly.
It is not desirable that the Government should be allowed to come into the field of University management, nor is it fair that the Government should allow the University to be controlled by vested interests and cliques. It is necessary that the Government pay for the advancement of learning; but they should see that things are done properly. We are not suggesting official management of the University. The scholars of the nation should control the University, but in this kingdom of scholars there must be democracy and not oligarchy or tyranny.