Central Jain College Controversy
Summary
In a detailed letter to the editor, B. Jhuman Lal examines the ‘Central Jain College Controversy’. Dissatisfaction with the management of the Jaina Mahavidyala at Muttra led the Mahasabha to order its transfer to Saharanpur, and the move occurred in January. Jhuman Lal argues that this decision was taken without proper constitutional authority: the proposed Jain college is an all‑India institution and its fate should be decided only by representatives of the entire Jain community. He recounts how donors’ offers — including Rs. 10,000 from Babu Khub Chand, Rs. 1,000 and land from another gentleman and a monthly stipend from L. Jugmander Das Banker — created euphoria and the false impression that a new college would automatically be located at Saharanpur, even though no resolution authorised the move. Jhuman Lal warns that basing the college’s site on the largest donation is unwise and that money should not dictate educational policy. He criticises the local committee in Saharanpur for exceeding its mandate by making rules, determining staff and budgets and generally usurping powers that should vest in trustees appointed by the Mahasabha. Although he praises the committee’s success in raising about Rs. 40,000 locally and potentially Rs. 60,000 more, he questions whether such generosity would continue if the college’s location remained unsettled. Moving beyond procedural concerns, he questions the necessity of a central college when many government and private colleges already exist. Instead he proposes establishing boarding schools attached to existing colleges, with Jain pundits providing compulsory instruction in Sanskrit and religion outside normal hours. Such an arrangement would allow students to receive modern education while preserving religious heritage. He recommends Benares as a more suitable centre for any institution devoted to higher Jain philosophy because of its scholarly environment and rich libraries. Summarising his proposals, he advises against spending money solely on university education, cautions against centralising elementary religious instruction, urges investment in spreading Sanskrit and religious learning through multiple centres and suggests that any central institution focus on higher Jain philosophy while also offering English and technical training. An editorial note appended to the letter concurs with his call for economy and practicality and invites further correspondence on the issue.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Jhuman Lal’s correspondence warns against hasty, donor‑driven educational schemes and argues that national institutions require national consensus. He criticises the Saharanpur committee for overstepping its authority and questions the need for a central college when decentralised boarding schools could better combine modern study with Jain religious education. By proposing Benares as a scholarly centre and outlining practical principles for funding, he challenges his community to balance tradition with modernity. The editor echoes his call for sober debate and broader participation.