Datta Analysis
One of the few documents that sheds light on R.
D. Oldham's life as a field geologist is a letter written by P. N Datta to William King, the Director of
the Geological Survey of India. The letter consists of 8 neatly written pages that were found in
a state of advanced decay in a file of Hugo Sigmund FriederichWarth's 1896 field notes and diaries in
Calcutta. It was clearly out of
place. The letter is a response to Oldham's review of Datta's first season of
work with him, Nov 1888 to May 1889, and it is clear that Oldham was quite
outspoken both in thought and deed.
In fact he is accused of much that would today, or at any time, be
considered unacceptable. Although
there is no doubt that Datta would have attempted to place a positive spin to his own character
in this letter, he would not wish to risk attributing statements to Oldham that
were untrue. Thus Oldham's comments are probably correct, if out of context. Oldham's original
letter to King is missing although we can infer its contents from Datta's
itemized response.
Datta was appointed by King's predecessor Medlicott with some reluctance following a dissappointing initial performance by a previous Bengali, P. N. Bose, the first Indian student to have been trained in the UK who had subsequently been appointed as an officer to the Geological Survey of India a few years earlier. [Medlicott's disappointment was premature because Bose went on to become a household name in India following discovery of the the largest iron ore deposits in India]. Datta's academic record boasted the highest exam scores both in Edinburgh and the Royal School of Mines, and a glowing recomendation from James Geikie written in May1886, plus a persuasive follow up response in July of that year. Medlicott's misgivings were overuled by the government in September 1886 and Datta was consequently appointed. Medlicott retired and William King succeeded to the Directorship of the GSI in April 1887. The timing is such that it is possible that Medlicott decided to retire because of this issue, but it may have been that his concern with the legacyhe was about to leave the GSI, that caused him to write so passionately against Datta's appointment.
Datta's response to Oldham's assessment takes the form of an itemised response to its detailed accusations. In fact the response provides considerable insight into the very real real difficulties and physical hardships of field work. Despite ten days to martial a considered response Datta demonstrates by his answers that he is clearly far from blameless. His response to a question about the identification of rocks is not at all well thought through since he offers proactively a definition
of an agglomerate and a quartzite (section 2) that reveal either a studious
avoidance of the accepted definition of these rocks (e.g. as in Oldham's own
glossary published 8 years earlier), or a stubborn attempt to demonstrate that
the definition at some level should be considered ambiguous. The bombshell, however, occurs on page 7, section 7 (see
transcript below).
The 31
year old Oldham comes across as unsympathetic to Datta's
ailments, and critical of Datta's failings, or perceived failings. Less charitable interpretations are
possible, but it seems hardly fair to judge Oldham's personality on the
basis of a single letter. Aggravating our problem is that we cannot place Datta's accusations in
context, or elicit a word of explanation from Oldham himself.
Moreover, Oldham's view of the study of the Himalaya as to not leading to anything of interest (last page) is clearly at variance with his earlier and later work, and is contradicted by his numerous insightful articles on Himalayan tectonics and geophysics. Could this have been stated in jest, or was it articulated in the context of mineral exploration? Either way it demonstrates that Oldham had little idea of the big picture on his return to India as a qualified geologist.
In spite of the harsh
words on either side of this confrontation, Datta continued to work with Oldham
for the next decade, and authored numerous works. In 1898 he acted as Professor at Presidency College,
Calcutta.
Datta finishes his 1889 letter with-
"I must leave the future to the future" little realizing that in 2007
his almost disintegrated appeal to justice would find a sympathetic if somewhat puzzled audience,
and provide us with our only glimpse of Oldham at work in India - a decidedly
unflattering view of an outspoken perfectionist. Datta's words have a ring of truth about them even if they come from the pen of an indignant young man defending his credibility as a geologist, who according to Geikie's July letter, may well have been on probation.
Some fragments of Datta's letter to King
were missing in April 2007 especially at the frayed edges of the pages, although it was
often possible to complete the words or parts of the missing words from their
context. The extract on page 7 is typical. Extrapolations and interpolations are indicated by square
brackets [thus]. Where a whole
line or part of a line is missing due to a tear in the page it is indicated by
dashes thus: -------- The top photo is
of Datta was taken in London some time between 1886 & 1888 and the lower one in 1898. Both are reproduced courtesy of the
Director of the Geological Survey of India.
to Dr W. King Calcutta
Director Geological Survey of
India June
25 1889
Dear Sir
In
reply to your letter of the 14th instant, upon the report about myself by Mr.
Oldham, which I could not answer earlier than this for several unavoidable
reasons, I beg to offer the following remarks:
1st with regard to
the instruments:
The
instruments that were used during the time I was with him were the clinometer
and the prismatic compass. The
former I had used before & do not understand his charge of ignorance on
this point, unless it be perhaps I did not use it exactly in the same way in
which Mr. Oldham used it, but it would I think matter very little how [he] used
an instrument so long as he got the correct result. As to the prismatic compass, I had never used it before ,
& I must acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. Oldham for showing me how to
use it. But about the way of using
it I find it sometimes difficult to understand his instructions; for instance
he would at [times ask] me not to take the bearings of a point from a house [it
being] too big an object for the prismatic compass, though he would afterwards
himself take bearings not only from houses, but even from hilltops which were
even much more indefinite than houses.
2ndly: About the determination of the
commonest forms of rock:
It
seems a great pity that he does not specify instances as to what common rocks I
had failed to determine with certainty.
If a rock that shows on fracture distinct grains of quartz sand grains
& by weathering crumbles into ordinary coarse quartz grains sand, I
would not call it a quartzite, but would call it a sandstone (I here refer to
the sandstone band forming Mr. Medlicott's base of Krol limestone),
page 2
which according to Mr.
Oldham, would be a quartzite because it had a "glaze" in it - this
was Mr. Oldham's reason for calling that rock a quartzite, a term which he
always applied to that rock- then I admit my ignorance as to the distinction of
a sandstone from a quartzite.
Again the calcareous rock between Mr. Medlicott's base of the Krol
limestone and the pink shales above, I used to call limestone although it has in
places a large amount of impurities in it, but Mr. Oldham would not call it
limestone, but certainly he did not propose any other name for it at the time,
and I do not know whether he has or has not changed his mind since then on this
point. Again for instance,
according to Mr Oldham a rock can only be called an "agglomerate" if
it is volcanic, and if it is non volcanic it must be called
'breccia". But I could not
agree with him as I considered you can have both volcanic as well as non-volcanic
agglomerate, just as you can have volcanic and non-volcanic breccia. I will
refrain from giving more instances of disagreement of this kind in this
connection as Mr. Oldham does not give specific instances of my error, and as
the above will I think indicate the nature of the causes of difference of
opinion between Mr. Oldham and myself in the determination of rocks,
3rdly He says in
paragraph 4 of his letter to you that "when working by himself he (Mr.
Datta) never made any observation of value & accuracy while some important
points he ignored entirely"
This
is not the first time I have heard charges like this. For instance when I met
him in Camp 2 or 3 miles S.W. of Solon in the 2nd week of March after having
done the southern face of the Boj, he characterized my work as that of a
"Sub Assistant" , said that my work showed that the structure of the
country was far too plain, that I must have "skipped over" and
"evaded" any difficulties I might have met with and so on. The words within inverted commas are
the words Mr. Oldham used towards me.
But he went over the ground himself after I had mapped it, and I should
thank you to ask him if he found any simple mistake in that gr[ound], or any signs of the "difficulties" I had been accused
of "skipping over" and
"evading". And I would
beg to enter my protest against the use of insulting terms by one member of the
Survey towards another.
4thly About the
work shown in the tracing No.1.
This
was done between Dec 24th and Jan 1st, that is during a week just after I had a
sprain and when I could only go about with difficulty. And in working over this ground I did
not follow every boundary at a time as I should have done, but only followed
the method I had seen Mr. Oldham work in in November and December in mapping
different bands, that is to say, that the method of crossing over from
band to band , when 2 or more bands ...... points on the boundaries of the bands
of rock occurred separated by a different rock, fixing the points on the
boundaries of the bands crossed and then joining the lines joining the points. While at camp in Kalka in the middle of
December-------
in this manner, being told to go over differnet spurs, to fix points on the boundaries of shale on those spurs, but not to go over intervening valleys, through which afterwards Mr. Oldham continued the lines himself. Then I followed his example by mapping the ground near Dagshai-----
----fore (I have not got the maps with----
----fixed as being on the boundaries of----
----night. As to the boundary on the----
----.in the northern part of the tra----
----Oldham's continuing the line----
----is an utter
misrepresentation----
----reference to the original
map----
page4
beyond the road. I certainly saw some shales close,
south of my boundary point in the road (near point x), but where Sabathu shales
pass conformably into the Dagshai group there is a conformal passing of shale
into sandstone and sometimes one cannot be quite sure of the exact boundary
point. Beside if Mr. Oldham will
be kind enough to refer to his map and field notes of Dec 4th he will
see that he himself fixed a point in that very position as being on the
boundary line between the Subathus and the Dagshai [Note added: see Oldham(1893) page 350 ].
As
to the boundary line by "x" in the southern portion of the tracing:
Having mapped the ground in the way previously mentioned this particular part
was not crossed over, & was thus overlooked until about the last moment
when I had not time to go over this bit to rectify my line.
It
was as late as the beginning of January when working near Kasauli he gave me
the same advice, that is to say, he said that, when 2 or 3 bands of a rock ran
more or less parallel & near one another, the proper way was to pass from
band to band [sideways?] thus go on fixing points here & there in the
several boundaries of the
different bands from one part of the country to another and join the points
afterwards. After finding that
that plan did not answer well he told me to follow one particular boundary at a
time.
5thly: Leaving the
subject of the tracing No. 2 for the next paragraph
I should like to refer to a sentence in the second para in the Memorandum: that is "it was the third occasion on which Datta was not under direct control or merely filling in----
----more
general structure had been determined by
----nd
there was an error of this kind but me
----he
had been directed to map was omitted
----Here
to I must repeat that it would have been
----pecified
the particular ground referred to here
----particular
boundary that "I had been directed
----I "omitted entirely". If Mr. Oldham
Page 5
here refers to the
determination of the boundary lines between the thin strip of Sabathu , the
infra Krols, the arenacous band forming the base of the limestone (according to
Mr Medlicott) & the Krol limestone above, that is to say it here refers to the
ground on the southwestern side of the Boj; and if he implies that the mapping
of this ground (was done by me) had been done by him & that the results of
that mapping had been communicated to me
before I went to map that part of the country, then I beg distinctly to
state that his implication is
without foundation & that I knew or had seen to nothing whatever of the
structure of that ground before I was sent there to map it. As to "one boundary" that I
had been "directed to
map" but had omitted entirely,
I cannot understand what Mr. Oldham means. If he means the upper boundary of
the pink shale on the southwestern face of the Boj, then I must say that Mr.
Oldham utterly forgets or misrepresents the matter. When he asked me to go
& map the pink shale there I remember having distinctly asked him
whether he meant that both the lower and the upper boundary of the band should
be mapped; and I remember his saying clearly and distinctly that it was only
the [lower] boundary that was to be mapped. On my return from doing the lower
boundary he admitted that he did not know if it was possible to draw the upper
……
----e pink shales in the Krol limestone but that fro----
----what he had since seen he thought it was----
----that
----.upper boundary could be determined----
----said
that it was probably possible to do so, but since he [had] told me to draw the
lower boundary only I had [done] that only. (I had to go back again & do
the upper bo[undary].
6th In regard to the tracing no 2:
----in the mapping of the
ground on the south face of----
I admit that in drawing the boundaries in the position [shown] in the tracing I was not sure of the structure----
page 6
and the consequent weakness I
had been suffering from since I had had the first attack of lumbago in January
increased much about the middle of March with an occasional return of the
lumbago. About this time too I contracted a nervous headache which
used to give me sleepless nights often for days together. This continued into April and while I
was working on the Krol, all this increased to such an extent I often hardly
knew what I was doing. On the
ground in between where I put the thin lines of fault the rocks are much
jumbled. About the position of my
northern line of fault I felt almost sure that there was a fault here. The sandstone band (base of Mr.
Medlicott's Krol limestone) runs nearly parallel and regularly below the pink
shales as far as this point; then for a space further southwestwards the rocks
are much disturbed (as I have said before) , but again from where I put the
southern fault , the sandstone band runs on again southeastwards regularly below the pink shale
band. The exposures of the pink
shales just north of the northern fault are very few, & the ground is
overgrown with grass [and] slipped rock,
& most likely the far en----
----to fix the band when I did in this part ,----
----going on this part I could not see any f----
----on the hillside. Again
finding the pink----
----position as shown in the
southeastern----
(i.e. south of the letter x), I
thought it was probably the same band and thus the probable intervening
position of the band I indicated by dotted lines within the faulted position. I
certainly noted the pink shales at x in the northern part of the tracing but
could see no pink shale s whatever on the hillside northwest of it, of which
the eastern portion might be a continuation. As to the pink shales that I saw about x in the southern
part if the tracing they looked too much jumbled and disturbed that I thought they
were not in situ, & so I did not connect with them the pink shales further
south.
page 7
As this face of the Krol is
exceedingly steep and high and my health was so bad I simply noted the pink
shales about points in the map hoping that the other side of the hill might
give a clue to the northern face of the hill. My weakness continued so that I could not give that
undivided attention to the work I was……
and consequently on this side
too I could not go over the ground as well as I should have done & must
have made many mistakes in the rough work that I did there. In fact while working over the Krol my
health was on the point of giving way and I have not the least doubt that if I
had continued any longer I should have utterly broken down.
7. lastly, Sir, I must with
your leave beg to protest strongly against charges such as that of
"deliberate dishonesty" that Mr. Oldham has thought fit to use against me. I appeal to you----if he had any right or
authority to use-----language against a member of the Survey. I will [now] give an instance of the
kind of insults that [I have receiv] ed at his hands. One day he said one of his s---------------- what I had done with it;
another day he called me a blackman.
These instances are en[ou]g[h].
I
was too unnerved owing to my state of
h[ealth] even to send you a protest against these insults. [As for] the want of enthusiasm that he
noticed in [me]. I ask you is if any body could work satisfactorily on such
steep ground, in such a state of health and [with an] associate who was always
ready only to find fault [with you] and insult you. While I was laid up with
the lu[mbago] he said it was only my "imagination"; and at the very
beginning of the season Mr. Oldham said he
Page 8
did not believe that there
was any good to be had from the Survey of the Himalaya, and certainly that was
not easy for a beginner to hear.
What
permanent injury may result to my health from having worked in such a strained
state of health I cannot yet tell.
For the nervous headache has not left me, and other disagreeable
symptons that used to trouble me occasionally show themselves yet. But I must leave the future to the
future.
I
am Sir yours truly
P.N.
Datta.