We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
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