In January 1929, Jadunath Sinha, a relatively unknown lecturer of philosophy at Meerut College, accused Radhakrishnan of extensive plagiarism. Sinha claimed that Radhakrishnan had plagiarised from the first two parts of his thesis, titled ‘Indian Psychology of Perception, Vol I & Vol II,’ which were submitted to Calcutta University for the Premchand Roychand Studentship in 1922.

The allegations, documented by Utpal Aich, retired Indian diplomat and independent researcher, pertained to Radhakrishnan’s book ‘Indian Philosophy Vol. II,’ published in 1927, which allegedly incorporated stolen paragraphs from Sinha’s thesis. Radhakrishnan had published another book titled The Vedanta according to Sankara and Ramanuja in 1928, which was actually a reprint of Chapters 8 and 9 of his book “Indian Philosophy Vol. II.” That book also had extensive pirated paragraphs from Sinha’s Premchand Roychand Studentship thesis. Luckily for Sinha, he had published extracts from those two parts of his Premchand Roychand Studentship thesis in the Meerut College Magazines of 1924 and 1926.

After writing letters about this matter, which were published in the Modern Review magazine, and defamation from Radhakrishnan, Sinha sued him in the Calcutta high court for infringement of copyrights of his original literary works.

There was a lot of pressure on Sinha to settle the case out of court. All the senior professors who sympathised with Sinha and were convinced of the plagiarismrefused to stand as a witness for him in the court. Sinha also didn’t have the wherewithal to fight a prolonged legal battle .

On the other hand, Radhakrishnan had both financial and social capital to manipulate, manage and obtain the help of his friends, especially that of Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, son of Sir Ashutosh Mukheriee. It was Sir Ashutosh Mukheriee, the then vice chancellor of Calcutta University, who had brought Radhakrishnan from Bangalore to Calcutta University for the prestigious post of King George V Professorship on a salary of Rs 1000 per month. His son, Shyamaprasad, who was also a close friend of Dr. Radhakrishnan, therefore, wanted to hush up the matter.

The only book on Radhakirishnan’s plagiarism, titled A Reported case of Radhakrishnan’s Literary Piracy by Barin De, based on the documents submitted by Sinha in the court, conveniently vanished from the libraries in India, according to Aich.

The plagiarism allegations against Radhakrishnan cast a shadow over his legacy as an educator and philosopher. Such accusations not only question the integrity of a celebrated figure but also challenge the principles of academic honesty and authenticity.

https://thewire.in/society/the-case-for-not-celebrating-teachers-day-on-september-5

Mind you, the day everyday Indians themselves start celebrating LGBTQ+ unions and parades, The Wire will start questioning those practices as well.

This so-called intellectual reporting agency has never once produced an intellectually stimulating article. Instead, it produces garbage, highly opinionated pieces bereft of facts or evidence while claiming them to be news reporting. I genuinely feel that both the readers and the writers are suffering from severely diminished mental faculties. Take care, guys!

My bottom line is simple: you can genuinely question anything and everything, but before doing so, first understand the idea behind it. Also, ensure you do not deface any deceased person, especially someone who played a key role in the Indian struggle for independence.