Sri Aurobindo
Bande Mataram
Calcutta, March 30th, 1908
Part Six. Bande Mataram under the Editorship of
Sri Aurobindo with Speeches Delivered during the Same Period 6 February – 3 May
1908
A Misunderstanding
We have noticed a paragraph in the last issue of Basumati which may lead to some misunderstanding in the public mind and needs therefore to be corrected.
The Basumati practically charges the National Council with disregarding the claims of Srijut Aurobindo Ghose to reoccupy the post of Principal and Srijut Satish Chandra Mukherji, who has done so much to organize1 the College, with clinging to the post to the exclusion of his colleague.
We are able to state the real facts.
Srijut Aurobindo Ghose left the College when he was implicated in the Bande Mataram sedition trial and a conviction seemed, from the temper of the authorities, to be a foregone conclusion.
He expressed in his letter of resignation a readiness to rejoin his duties at some 
future date if the Council thought his services required.
After his acquittal the Executive Committee at an early date passed a resolution appointing Srijut Aurobindo Ghose a Professor of History and Political Science in the College, but as the result of a special request from Srijut Aurobindo himself to the Secretary to excuse him from the onerous duties of a Principal which he had neither the time nor, as he himself thought, the necessary capacity to discharge, the post of Principal was not included in the reappointment.
Srijut Satish Chandra Mukherji had no hand or voice in the matter; he had taken the post of Principal with reluctance and holds it now as a duty until it pleases the Executive Committee to relieve him.
Many groundless rumours have been afloat from time to time about the National College, and it is a pity that they should be printed without previous verification.
Srijut Aurobindo Ghose sent in his resignation spontaneously, and would certainly not have returned if, as it was at one time persistently rumoured, he had been compelled to retire; and his return as Professor and not as Principal was also due to his own unwillingness to accept the latter charge.
Neither the National Council nor anyone else can be held responsible in either case.