It’s a tragedy that Modi didn’t implement his views on privatisation.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bibek-debroy-chairman-of-pms-economic-advisory-council-dies-at-69-6919418#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll

Sorry, that's just not true. His doctoral thesis got turned down twice for not being up to the mark, and most of his academic work have been heavily criticized for flawed models and assumptions. His work on Sanskrit texts was enthusiastic, but full of holes and oversimplifications as discussed by more than one knowledgeable critics in the field.

Not sure who contested it. It is a matter of record that he had returned from Cambridge without his doctorate degree because he had been asked by his supervisor twice to revise his thesis as the latter was found not being satisfactory. He himself had referred to it in more than one interview, calling his own actions back then juvenile.

Do you have any documentation - especially primary source(s) from Cambridge - substantiating the part of the statement where you talk about his doctoral thesis? Any respected secondary source(s) would also be helpful. Thank you very much indeed in advance for anything you may be able to direct us to.

Mod, before putting the contested tag on every post, learn to practice a little diligence yourself. Here's what Debroy himself had admitted.

https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2022/05/20/i-have-been-walking-around-with-a-letter-of-resignation-says-bibek-debroy.html

It clearly mentions the Cambridge event and his own criticism of his actions.

This email was sent today to everyone at Jindal today by Prof R Sudarshan. The mail debunks the lies being spread by both wokes and BJP supporters (the former claiming that Prof Debroy failed his PhD and the latter claiming that Sonia Gandhi sacked him after he praised Gujarat).

Bibek, Ratna, and I have been friends since our Cambridge days 1977-1982. I accompanied Bibek to Clare College when he had his PhD viva. Ravi Kanbur, an external examiner from Oxford, asked Bibek to add a chapter to his thesis on information theory to illustrate its application to something more recognisably economics, in addition to examples of dowry market equilibrium conditions in India, information implications of Mao’s policy of making intellectuals help farmers to build furnaces, and another similar esoteric example I can’t remember.

Bibek, whose thesis had been praised by his supervisor, the great Frank Hahn, did not think Kanbur was fit to examine it. He opted for an MSc and refused revision. He was in a class of his own, with a fantastic breadth of eclectic interests. I worked closely with him from 1993 to 1998 on a UNDP-supported project. The $1 million project I managed was relatively large, so we created an acronym for a large project: Legal Adjustments and Reforms for a Globalising Economy (LARGE). After he completed that project, Bibek joined the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies at Manmohan Singh's prompting. Bibek and I organised inter-school debates, starting with NCR Delhi, then nationally and with South Asian entrants, in memory of Mahbub ul Haq. Bibek wrote a report on states that put Gujarat at the top of India’s states on the dimension of ‘ease of doing business’.

When the Chief Minister of Gujarat gloated about it, many Congress netas (but not Sonia Gandhi, as he told me then) were unhappy with him. Bibek felt that he had to quit. He joined the PHD Chamber of Commerce, which was lucky for him. There, he met Suparna. She transformed a somewhat self-effacing and eccentric person into someone worthy of joining the Delhi Durbar. Prime Minister Modi respected him as a Raja Rishi for his knowledge of the Itihasas, Vedas, and Puranas. I don’t think the PM took Bibek’s advice on economic policies, instead of expecting him to defend some bad ones. Individuals like Bibek get better with age, like whisky, wine and temple idols. That’s why it is such a loss to so many that he passed away so soon. I cherish fond memories of the time I could spend with him (much less after he teamed up with the PM). Bibek was inspiring, educative, and provoking to everyone who knew him. The grief of each of us is unique.

Exactly. The researcher doesn't get to choose the examiner. If the university and the supervisor have chosen someone to evaluate the thesis and that person asks for a revision and the researcher doesn't do it, then the thesis fails its test. It's really as simple as that. What his friend or colleague thinks about his brilliance is not relevant in this context. It's not as if the fellow who has written the email was deemed worthy of examining the thesis. As for Kanbur being a follower of Sen, that is precisely why people from different schools are called upon as thesis examiners so that they can highlight its flaws and not merely become part of the same echo chamber. Did the university or the supervisor think Kanbur's comments were unjustified? But of course that doesn't suit the Bhakt ideology or narratives.