The Modern Review/Volume 29/Number 5/Mr Sharp and the Calcutta University
Mr Sharp and the Calcutta University
The last letter of the Calcutta University addressed to Mr. Sharp, Secretary, Education Department, Government of India, has been widely quoted, as it is sensational and quite in the smart journalistic style. It has also been copiously commented upon. It has been described as a parting kick, a Parthian shot, &c. We think it would be doing an injustice to the University to suggest that the pungency of the letter was due to the fact that the official connection of the Calcutta University with the Government of India is now at an end, and it can, therefore, expect neither favours nor be afraid of retaliatory measures. Even before the severance of its connection with the Government of India could be foreseen, the University and its protagonist Sir Asutosh Mukherjee gave some hard knocks to Mr. Sharp.
Our own position has been throughout consistent. We have urged that the University should spend carefully and with a view to obtaining the best and greatest results, cutting down unnecessary and disproportionate expenditure and feeding more freely the most useful and efficient departments of teaching and research. We have also urged an independent audit of its accounts, and the control and guidance of its affairs by competent representatives of the educated public. At the same time we have urged that the Government of India should have come forward with liberal grants in aid of genuine university work, taking a strict account of its subsidies.
We think Mr. Sharp has been hostile to the University. We exposed the hollowness of Mr. Sharp’s inspired reply to Rai Bahadur Lalit Mohan Chatterjee re Government grants to the University. But we cannot support the present letter of the University in all its details. For instance, it complains of the inordinate delay in receiving a reply from Mr. Sharp. It points out that the University letter was dated the 6th of September, 1920, while Mr. Sharp’s reply to it is dated the 4th of December, 1920—a delay of three months. But it has been pointed out to us that the University itself has not been more prompt in matters like these. The very letter which makes this complaint is a reply given in mid-April to Mr. Sharp’s letter dated the 4th of December, 1920—a delay of more than four months. Another point raised is
“That the Senate deeply regret to find that the letter under reply abounds in misleading statements. The Government of India express their regret that they are not in full possession of the facts regarding the position of the University, and it is added that the last statement of accounts which is laid before them was that ending the 30th of June, 1919. Under these circumstances one would have expected that the obvious course for your department to follow would be to seek for further and up-to-date information from the University authorities. There was abundant time for such enquiry, as the letter of the University was dated the 6th of September, 1920, and the reply of the Government thereto is dated the (illegible text)th of December, 1920.” The reason suggested bv the University for such abstention of enquiry is that the framer of the Government reply apprehended that the enquiry made might lead to the discovery of facts completely destructive of the position intended to be taken up.
The consequence has been, as the University surmises, that on the (illegible text)th of December 1920, the question of the needs of the University in 1921 is determined with deference to the supposed financial position on the 30th of June, 1919.
We think in this matter the University cannot be absolved from blame. That the Government of India based its reply on a statement of accounts ending the 30th of June, 1919, may have been because the University did not take care to send a statement of accounts ending the 30th of June, 1920, which it ought to have done, and could have done if it had been prompt and efficient in the conduct of its affairs. It is usual for those who seek grants (or “favours” of any sort) to furnish the most favourable facts to those who are to make the grants. It is rather curious that the University should turn round and accuse Mr. Sharp of neglecting to seek information. As if it was more Mr. Sharp’s business to disburden himself of a plethora of wealth than it was the University’s business to get money. Of course, if Mr. Sharp had sought further information it would have been “generous” of him. But was it wise for the University to wait for such “generosity” on his part?
As for the cost of conducting examinations, we think the cost per candidate has not appreciably increased. For at present, examinees are instructed to write on both sides of the paper, which was not the case some years back, the paper now supplied is of worse quality than before, the remuneration of examiners, paper-setters, &c., has been decreased, and the numbers of candidates have been continually increasing, thus reducing (at least, not raising) the cost of establishment per capita. On the whole, examinations have been a more lucrative business than ever before.
The cost of printing calendars has, no doubt, increased. But we do not see why they should be distributed gratis in such large numbers. That objection may be flimsy, but in any case considering the large income and expenditure of the University Rs 26,000 for printing calendars and Rs 7500 for purchase of stationary are not big items—though we know every mickle makes a muckle. Such items of expense, at least those which were absolutely unavoidable, could have been met from savings effected by not opening for the present classes to teach Tibetan, &c., which are, comparatively speaking, more expensive than useful and helpful to any appreciable number of students.
As we did not support the proposal to raise the examination fees of Matriculation, I. A., I. Sc., &c., candidates, we cannot blame the Government of India for not viewing it with favour.
Not possessing the advantage of having the original papers or their printed copies before us, we hope if we have erred, our mistakes will be pointed out.
We would urge the Bengal Government to make liberal grants to the Calcutta University after going into its financial condition with the help of an independent committee.
Knowing as we do how persistently and consistently hostile and obstructive Mr. Sharp’s attitude has been for years towards another institution, we can understand why he has not been friendly to the Calcutta University. But the latter, too, ought not to have laid itself open to just criticism.
We wish to make our position quite clear with regard to the Calcutta University examination expenses. There is not the least doubt that, as the University letter contends, the total expenditure in connection with examinations has increased. But the real question is, has the surplus, left after deducting the examination expenses from the fee-incomes, been increasing or decreasing or has it remained stationary? Our impression is that the surplus has been increasing, or, at any late, it has not been decreasing, though, not having the accounts of the University before us, we cannot make any positive statement. This is the drift of what we have observed regarding the incidence of examination expenses per candidate. We shall be glad to publish the exact figures if some one in the know will kindly send them to us.
As regards the increasing cost of management of the general department of the University and of the University press, due to increments of salary granted, &c., we should like to know whether the increasing fee-income and the increasing income from the sale of University publications presented as text-books, do not cover the aforesaid increasing cost.
In conclusion we should like to state our clear opinion that the letter of the University is, on the whole, a powerful indictment of the attitude of the Education Department of the Government of India towards the Calcutta University.
ERRATA
Page 461, column 1,
- Read 'on' for 'or' in line 2,
- Insert "annam, from annam" between 'from herbs' and 'retah' in the 38th line
Printed and Published by A. C. Sarkar at the Brahmo Mission Press, 211, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta