PART - I
India takes pride in its IITs as
globally celebrated centres of excellence. Indian taxpayers money goes into
funding these institutes to compete with the best in the world. When media
(Wire.in: https://thewire.in/caste/400-academics-condemn-caste-discrimination-institutional-harassment-in-iit-kanpur;
Countercurrents: https://countercurrents.org/2019/04/05/caste-discrimination-at-iit-kanpur/)
reported that 400 scholars, academics and activists from 16 countries,
representing a comic mix of institutions and freelancers have endorsed a
statement of solidarity against the “caste-based discrimination and
institutional harassment” of a Dalit academic from IIT-Kanpur, Dr. Subramniam
Saderla, I could immediately sense that yet another sinister conspiracy against
India is brewing fast and furious.
The smear campaign against IIT Kanpur
arouses suspicion for the following reasons--
- The only source of the petition is a report in
The Indian Express. No original source or document has been cited. Surely,
the signatories, eminent as they should know that a Petition cannot be
based on a news report.
- A motley group of academics in remotely placed
foreign universities had joined hands with political activists, writers,
dancers, filmmakers- have arrogated to themselves the right to sit in
judgement over and demonise IIT Kanpur--one of the prime educational
institutions of India-- without even the pretence of seeking facts from
the concerned institution, leave alone carrying out a thorough
investigation into the matter;
- Even a casual glance at the list of
signatories is enough to convince any non-partisan person with a modicum
of integrity that this is a well calculated move by forces hostile to
India to use their Indian mercenaries to defame and destroy the best of
academic institutions in India in a manner similar to the CIA backed
puppets targeting ISRO in 2000.
- Most of these worthies have an established
track record of being sympathetic to Break-Up India Forces & the Tukde
Tukde Gang.
- The most astounding name is #276 on the list:
Robert Langdon, the fictional character of Dan Brown’s best seller-‘Da
Vinci Code’ and ‘Angels and Demons’. Intriguing how he came out of
the fiction to sign the petition to support one Dr Dr. Saderla in Kanpur
-- A new code, definitely.
- Professional India/Hindu basher Arundhati Roy
is leading this pack along with another professional India basher and
Sonia Gandhi acolyte Noam Chomsky; accompanied by Mallika Sarabhai, Gita
Hariharan, Gayatri Spivak Chakravarthy- -and many such compulsive critics of
the political party currently heading the Government of India;
- The list of signatories also includes some
well known Urban Naxals such as Nalini Sundar, Ram Punyani, Achin Vanaik,
Anand Teltumbde, Abhishek Atreya, Abhishek Dhar, Nivedita Menon among others.
- Most of the foreign academia signatories are
repeat offenders who are willing to lend their name to any and every
campaign against India whenever their political bosses order them to do so
as for example, Alpa Shah, Dilip M. Menon, Abhishek Bhattacharyya, Chandra
Talpady Mohanty.
- Just as the leaders of this group – Arundhati
Roy and Noam Chomsky -- have no connection to science and technology, the
majority of signatories are from the field of humanities and social
sciences, with not even a cursory knowledge of what a Ph. D. in Aerospace
Engineering from an IIT entails. Such a ham-handed hit job can only be
unleashed by paid hirelings or those who are executing hidden agendas of
powerful vested interests due to ideological commitment or monetary rewards.
- None of these signatories or partisan news
reports unleashed by them, mention the fact that Dr. Saderla had filed
FIRs against four eminent professors of IIT Kanpur under the draconian
SC/ST Atrocities Act. This law has been often misused by unscrupulous
persons as an instrument of blackmail, extortion and vendetta. So rampant
has been its misuse that the Supreme Court of India had recommended
amendments in this Act to remove easy-to-misuse & lawless provisions
in this Act. Are the local police of Kanpur competent to decide the
veracity of plagiarism charges and the suitability of a candidate to hold
an academic post?
Sadly, the fear of political backlash
prevented Government of India from implementing the suggestions of the Supreme
Court with regard to SC/ST Atrocities Act. Under the abovementioned Act (as
with domestic violence law & anti rape law) mere allegation is enough to
get the accused person arrested and jailed even before the trial has begun.
Contrary to the foundational principle of Indian jurisprudence that a person is
assumed innocent till proven guilty, under the SC/ST Act, the burden of proof
is on the accused. Getting bail is extremely difficult in such cases. Proving
one’s innocence in such cases can take years, if not decades. This means that
the lives and academic careers of the accused professors would have been
destroyed forever even if at the end of the trial they are declared innocent,
while Dr. Saderla would have lorded over IIT Kanpur unchallenged for times to
come since everyone in IIT would be terrorised into silence by the harm he
could inflict on those who dare question his wrongdoings.
Since the names and political track
record of signatories against IIT Kanpur rang alarm bells in my mind, I decided
to contact my old friends in IIT Kanpur and get their version of the story.
I delineate below the facts provided
by the academic community of IIT Kanpur and relevant documents in support
of their version which prime facie indicate that Dr. Saderla is likely to have
misused the SC/ST Atrocities Act as a weapon of vindictiveness to escape
scrutiny of charges of outright plagiarism.
Given all these implications, I urge
every Swarajya reader to give careful attention to the following facts as
provided to me by reliable sources in IIT Kanpur.
The IIT Kanpur version:
This case is not about
caste. It is about cheating. Let’s look at facts.
Subramniam Dr. Saderla was appointed
assistant professor on January 1, 2018 in the Department of Aerospace
Engineering, under a Special Recruitment Drive (for SC/ST/OBC/PwD) in IIT
Kanpur. On March 14, 2019, IIT Kanpur’s highest academic body - the Senate
- pronounced him guilty of plagiarism in his doctoral thesis and decided that
his Ph. D. thesis be withdrawn and recommended to the Board of Governors of IIT
Kanpur that his Ph. D. degree be revoked. This decision has triggered a media
protest alleging that a Dalit professor’s degree is threatened because he had
complained about being harassed on account of his caste by some IIT
professors.
Without any investigation into the
academic document and no knowledge of technical subjects, a media campaign has
been orchestrated to question and protest against the expertise of the
institution to judge whether a technical document of research is plagiarized or
not.
An entire Institute is being harassed
and destroyed by people who think they know more about doctoral thesis and its
evaluation than established Professors with years of experience. This is
a systematic conspiracy to suppress plagiarism simply because the person
involved in plagiarism happens to belong to a certain caste. Does conjoining
the word ‘Dalit’ with ‘professor’ make plagiarism acceptable? No matter how
many ‘leading scholars’ sign a petition to pressure IIT Kanpur’s Board of
Governnor’ decisions, let us remember (1) only the IIT Kanpur Senate –
comprising 200 odd senior Professors holding doctoral degrees from leading
Universities across the World -- is qualified to make that judgment, and (2)
being an expert in one field does not qualify one to comment on another. The
experts who have signed the petition should know this.
The facts are simple and speak for
themselves. On 15.10.2018 an email was received by the Director, IIT
Kanpur and other faculty members of IIT Kanpur from an anonymous source which
alleged plagiarism in the Ph. D. thesis of Roll no. Y10101064, which was, in fact,
that of Dr. Saderla when he was enrolled in IIT Kanpur as a doctoral student.
The email included the thesis of Dr. Saderla and sources from which entire
pages had been lifted. The common portions had been highlighted. In this email,
the sender compared Dr. Saderla’s case to a previous case of plagiarism by
Abhishek Singh, an M. Tech. student of the Department of Electrical
Engineering, IIT Kanpur, whose M. Tech. degree was revoked by the IIT Kanpur’s
Board of Governors in 2017, following a recommendation by the Senate. The
sender demonstrated that the amount of plagiarism in Dr. Saderla's thesis was
not just limited to introductory chapters, as in the case of Abhishek Singh,
but is of a much greater magnitude.
In his email, the student writes:
“I am also unhappy and misillusioned
to see the severe discrimination between student and faculty on campus when
applying academic rules. For a small error, SSAC and Senate easily terminate a
student. Our intentions and capability are questioned when we may be merely acting
out of ignorance. Even more importantly we do what we do because we have faith
in our guide and our teachers. But when a faculty commits serious mistakes he
is left off without even a warning. I have seen faculty exploit students, forge
data, misuse project funds and even plagiarise. Some do it openly and are
never challenged. Some are challenged but never punished. Some are never
challenged and also awarded. The hypocrisy of IITK and the academic system is
getting to me now. It makes me wonder, why do I spend sleepless nights over my
work at all? I can simply copy.”
According to the student, paragraphs
after paragraphs, pages after pages have been copied by Roll no Dr. S. Dr.
Saderla in his Ph. D. thesis from at least two theses of his seniors, and even
a paper published by one of them. Not only the Ph. D. thesis, but Dr.
Saderla has also copied material worth an entire page in a paper published by
him in International Journal of Intelligent Unmanned Systems from the thesis of
Roll no Y4101064. Would a good Journal have accepted this paper if it knew of
this plagiarism? Will this Journal continue to accept this if it was told about
the plagiarism? At the same time, the plagiarized paper would, no doubt, have
played a role in Dr. Saderla’s career progression.
The email sender attached Dr.
Saderla’s thesis with highlighted portions that were copied from the thesis of
his seniors. The student mentions: “For example, page 1-5 of Chapter.1
of Prof. Prof. Subrahmanyam.S’s thesis are an exact copy of page 29-34 of
Chapter.1 of Prof. N.Peyada’s thesis. Again, page 145-149 of Chapetr.6 is an
exact copy of page 87-92 of Prof. N.Peyada’s thesis. Section 7.3.1 of Prof.
Prof. Subrahmanyam.S’s thesis is an exact copy of Section 5.1 of the 2014 paper
of Kumar & Ghosh in The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 118. So is Section 7.3.2
from Section 5.2 of the paper and section 7.4 from section 5.4 of the same
paper. The entire Appendix A of Prof. Subrahmanyam.S’s thesis is a complete
copy and paste of the Appendix B of the thesis of Prof. R. Kumar
Dr. Saderla immediately converted
this into a caste issue. He filed an FIR against four professors of the
institute, without any evidence, to support his charge that they were
responsible for the email. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, stayed the FIR in
totality on 22.11. 2018 — a very rare event which only highlights the
mischievous intent of the FIR.
On 12.11.2018, another anonymous
email was received by the Institute Director and faculty in which the sender
claimed that he/she had been proved right. While there were reports that police
action will be pursued against the anonymous sender, no action was initiated
against Dr. Saderla. The sender alleged that Dr. Saderla had
plagiarized his M. Tech. thesis as well. The sender said that entire Chapter 1
is copied from Chapter 1 of the thesis of Girish Sagoo. This is identical to
the plagiarism of the EE student Abhishek Singh whose M. Tech. degree IIT
Kanpur cancelled. Large parts of Chapter 4 are copied from Chapter 6 of another
student (Roll no. Y210165). Section 4.4 is taken from a book of Jategaonkar
without any reference. The introduction of Chapter 5 is copied from an
AIAA paper. The gravity of the plagiarism in Dr. Saderla’s M. Tech.
thesis is perhaps best captured by the fact (see included image) that nearly
the entire last chapter on “Conclusions and Future Work” is copied! If the
Conclusions are copied, what was the contribution of the M. Tech. thesis?
A cursory look at the attachments
received from the anonymous source reveals that the extent of plagiarism in the
Ph. D. thesis is alarming and, indeed, far more extensive than the precedent
case of Abhishek Singh’s M. Tech. thesis as briefly shown below:
- Descriptions and discussions of his results
are copied. For example, as the anonymous student points out, on p.
194-195 in Sec. 7.3.4(b) of Chapter 7 when discussing his research data,
Dr. Saderla writes “The estimated parameters are compared to the
wind tunnel estimates (column 2). It can be observed [Tables 7.5(a-b)]
that the estimated aerodynamic parameters such as C_(Y_β), C_(l_β),
C_(l_(δ_a )), C_(n_β) are consistent and in close agreement with the wind
tunnel estimates for most of the lateral-directional flight data sets. The
most of the flight data sets gave consistent values of the estimated
damping (C_(l_p) and C_(n_r)) and the cross (C_(l_r) and C_(n_p))
derivatives (parameters). The obtained values of aerodynamic parameters
such as C_(Y_p) and C_(Y_r) were also consistent for most of the flight
data sets. However, the values of the estimated parameters such as
C_(Y_0), C_(l_0) and C_(n_0) deviates from the wind tunnel estimates but
their value is quite small or negligible as desired for most of flight
data sets.” This is copied almost exactly from the top para of
“Estimation of lateral-directional aerodynamic derivatives from flight
data using conventional and neural based methods” by R. Kumar and A. K.
Ghosh (The Aeronautical Journal, 118, 1453-1479, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000010149).
So blatant is this copying that even Dr. Saderla agreed to this
tacitly in comment 3 of his rebuttal letter to the institute. Of
course, this begs the question: If the description of data is copied, can
we trust the data? If not, then what was the Ph. D. given for?
- Technical explanations of anomalous data have
been copied verbatim in places from the 2011 Ph. D. thesis of Dr. Rakesh
Kumar. How can it be that data collected after an interval of 5 years has
exactly the same discrepancy? Was the data the same, simply mined again?
Then, what was Dr. Saderla’s Ph. D. research about?
- On p. 43 of his Ph. D. thesis, Dr. Saderla
claims that “our flight vehicles are powered by electric motors, the
weight of the aircraft remains constant throughout the flight.” Later, in
Sec. 6.2, where all four pages are lifted verbatim from REF, Dr. Saderla
writes, however, that “The exact location of CG during flight is
determined from the instantaneous fuel quantity …”. Thus, while
plagiarizing Dr. Saderla has forgotten that his vehicles run on
electric motors, not fuel!
- Finally, around 50% of the final conclusions
are copied. If so, then have you really said anything new in your Ph.
D.?
All the evidence, all facts suggest
that Dr. Saderla is a repeat offender -- who has plagiarized portions of both
his postgraduate theses, as well as a published journal article. Repeat offence
attracts a far higher penalty — see, for example, the UGC guidelines cited
below in this article — and this would make it even harder to defend the
continuation of Dr. Saderla in his current position as a faculty in one of the
premier Institutes of the country.
Before proceeding further, let’s
first note the process through which plagiarism complaints are handled at IIT
Kanpur:
Step 1: Matter is referred to
Academics Ethics Cell (AEC) for investigation. The AEC only identifies the
extent and source of plagiarism. It is a preliminary fact finding body and its
recommendations can be overruled by statutory bodies such as SPGC (step 3
below) and Senate (Step-4 below). It does not have the mandate to recommend
punishment and the final decision in any case lies in the hands of the Senate
or the Board.
Step 2: The report of the AEC is
shared with the accused for his/her response/clarification/defence.
Step 3: All documents are given to
the Senate Postgraduate Committee (SPGC) for discussion and recommendation,
which includes suggestions for appropriate punitive action.
Step 4: Everything is placed before
the Academic Senate of IIT Kanpur, which is the highest decision making body
for all academic matters and consists of nearly 200 members, all Professors.
The Senate discusses the matter in detail and gives a decision. In academic
matters this is the final decision. It can, when necessary, also recommend
revocation of degree in matters related to plagiarism of theses to the Board of
Governors of IIT Kanpur. Only when the Senate has decided, can it be claimed
whether or not IIT Kanpur has found a student to have plagiarized.
This is a very thorough and
transparent process.
IIT Kanpur Director asked the Academic
Ethics Cell (AEC) to investigate both the Ph. D. and the M. Tech. theses. The
AEC submitted its report to the Director in early November, which was then
passed on to Dr. Saderla for his response. What did the AEC report say?
It most certainly did not exonerate Dr. Saderla of plagiarism, as is being made
out in the media. The committee [AEC] felt strongly about the infractions
of matching or nearly matching passages should be immediately corrected.
AEC report found copying in certain introductory passages in several chapters
and in mathematical basics and preliminaries. It found the complaint to
be prima facie correct because sections specified pages in the thesis
matched corresponding specified pages in the other research documents
by other authors. Dr Dr. Saderla was to give an apology letter to
Director IIT Kanpur, in view of his misdemeanour. However, Dr. Saderla has
never tendered an apology for his misdemeanour, as subsequently noted by the
Institute.
The Senate Post-Graduate committee
(SPGC), a statutory sub-committee of the Senate, considered the report of the
AEC and the evidence provided, and recommended that several pages were
plagiarized and, as such, the current Ph. D. thesis of Dr. Saderla should
be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, noting that the letter tendered by the
student (Dr. Saderla) is not an apology, the SPGC said that there should
be an apology by Dr. Saderla for plagiarism. A revised thesis needs to be
submitted and be evaluated de-novo according to the Senate’s decision.
The SPGC recommendations were unanimous, and were agreed upon by the
Chairperson of the Academics Ethics Cell who is a member of the SPGC and
attended the meeting.
Matters finally arrived at the
Academic Senate on 14.03.2019. It is widely held that a strong Senate is the
core that protects the academic integrity of an Institute, and their presence,
and probity, is why, even after 60 years, the older IITs have gone from
strength to strength. The Senate discussed the matter in excruciating detail
and finally accepted the SPGC recommendations, which included that Dr.
Saderla's thesis be withdrawn immediately. The Senate, exercising its statutory
powers, also recommended to the Board of Governors that Dr. Saderla's Ph. D.
degree be revoked, as was done in the precedent case of the M. Tech. student
Abhishek Singh. This is consistent with the Plagiarism Policy of IIT Kanpur as
given in the Senate approved manual on disciplinary matters (so called SSAC
manual of IIT Kanpur).
IIT Kanpur Senate decision on Dr.
Saderla has a precedent in 2017. IIT Kanpur had then, withdrawn the
Masters thesis and revoked the M. Tech. degree of Abhishek Singh, a student of
Electrical Engineering, when his thesis was found to have been plagiarised. The
student was recalled from his job in order to register, revise, and resubmit a
corrected thesis. This decision of IIT Kanpur, as of universities worldwide,
seeks to implement a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism. It is
noteworthy that in his M. Tech. thesis, Abhishek Singh had plagiarised only the
Introductory chapters and nowhere else, but IIT Kanpur held that plagiarism is
unacceptable in any form. Dr. Saderla’s plagiarism is severer than this
M. Tech. student because the degree in question here, a Ph. D., is much higher
than the M. Tech. degree of Abhishek Singh. While the latter’s copied content
was limited strictly to the Introductory chapters, Dr. Saderla has copied
content throughout his Ph. D. thesis, as indicated above.
The decision of the IIT Kanpur
Senate, clearly follows the practice of universities world-wide based on the
understanding of Plagiarism as “The practice of taking someone else's work or
ideas and passing them off as one's own.” (Oxford English Dictionary).
Plagiarism is a fundamental crime in academics, where communication is through
the written word. It is wrong on all ethical and moral counts because a
plagiarist
- Seeks to build his/her reputation, gain credit
or some benefit fraudulently by relying upon the efforts of someone else;
- Tries to cover his/her own lack of knowledge,
expertise, creativity or hard work by misrepresenting the work of someone
else as their own.
- Plagiarism is also legally wrong, as the ownership of a written work lies with the author (or the publisher), and taking it without permission is tantamount to stealing.
- It is important to make two remarks in the
context of plagiarism in academic research in engineering: In
contrast to, say, literature, the entire contribution of an engineering
research can often be in a sentence or two. Therefore, plagiarism in
engineering cannot simply be measured in terms of volume or percentage.
- In a thesis, or even a research article, the
Introduction is a crucial part. A well written Introduction says that the
author has understood the work of past researchers, and is able to place
his/her work in the proper context. Thus, by copying an Introduction, a
plagiarist is attempting to falsely misrepresent his/her academic depth
and/or hide the fact he/she is unaware of the current state of knowledge.
UGC guidelines state that more than
10% similarity constitutes plagiarism, without discriminating between
Introduction and other parts of the work. Section 8 of the UGC guidelines
stipulates that, in case the degree has already been obtained and plagiarism is
proved after award of degree or credit, then the degree or credit shall be put
in abeyance for a period recommended by the appropriate statutory body
overseeing academics in the Institute. The punishment increases greatly if this
is a repeat offence.
Dr. Saderla has plagiarized close to
25% of both his M. Tech. and Ph. D. theses, which makes him a repeat offender,
the least punishment, as per UGC guidelines, would be that Dr. Saderla’s Ph. D.
degree be held in abeyance for at least a year. Because no such mechanism
exists, IIT Kanpur had, previously, revoked the degree of the M. Tech. student
Abhishek Singh in 2017. To newly create such a mechanism only to save Dr.
Saderla’s Ph. D. degree, but not Abhishek Singh, who had plagiarized less, only
once, and in a lower degree (M. Tech.), would, of course, suggest that IIT
Kanpur discriminates between students on the basis of caste.
Despite due diligence having been
followed in the case of Dr. Saderla and the precedent case of Abhishek Singh,
enormous pressure is being mounted upon the Institute by one-sided/ motivated
reporting in the media. Without a smidgen of proof, the media has decided to
lend full support to a weird collection of academics and activists attempting
to give a casteist hue to a straightforward case of plagiarism. Without
accessing the details of the case, reporters are pronouncing judgement on what
constitutes plagiarism. Where were the campaigns and the international
luminaries in 2017 when IIT Kanpur revoked the M. Tech. degree of Abhishek
Singh who was from the general category? Therefore, is what is being played out
in the media caste politics, or an objective academic discourse? Plagiarism is
a fact, and not a matter of opinion, and hence is blind to race, religion,
gender, caste, color, nationality, ethnicity, region, age.
Practice Makes Perfect?
This is not the first time that Dr.
Saderla has taken refuge under caste or invoked the SC/ST Act to escape the
scrutiny of his academic credentials. This is what he did when he was initially
recruited as Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering, by
IIT Kanpur. Within 12 days of joining, Dr. Saderla alleged that he was harassed
and discriminated based on his caste by four senior faculty, in particular, of
IIT Kanpur. This claim was filed ONE day after several faculty raised questions
that the manner in which the 2017 Special Recruitment Drive (meant for
SC/ST/OBC/PwD), through which Dr. Saderla was recruited, had compromised
fundamental rights of other SC, ST, OBC and PwD candidates. Available facts do
indeed raise serious questions about the Special Recruitment Drive of 2017. But
that is a story for another day. The issue today is “Did Dr. Saderla
plagiarise his M. Tech. and Ph. D. theses?” This is an academic question,
bereft of caste and not a matter of opinion or social justice. The answer
to the question is, unfortunately, an unequivocal “Yes”. The response to
plagiarism is a matter of Institutional policy, and not social crusade. The
Academic Senate of IIT Kanpur has, under the autonomy given to it by the Indian
Constitution, taken the stand of “zero-tolerance” to plagiarism. This stand
should be respected and applauded, not made the villain of an ill-informed,
neo-colonial campaign. Of course, how one can have a percentage of tolerance
towards plagiarism boggles the mind. Would Chomsky tolerate plagiarism at MIT?
After several inquiries, the Board of
Governors (BoG) in its meeting on 6th September, 2018, found that there was NO
evidence to invoke Section 3 of the Act 33 of 1989 (Atrocities Act) against any
of the four faculty whom Dr. Saderla had accused of caste harassment. In
fact, one of the faculty was exonerated of all charges.
Despite, the decision of the BoG, Dr.
Saderla did not give up on invoking caste. He went to the NCSC to
challenge the decision of the BoG in exonerating the four professors of caste
allegations. The NCSC orders were again stayed by HC Allahabad.
It is clear that Dr. Saderla
has found out that by invoking his caste and the SC/ST Act to complain to the
NCSC and file FIR, he can terrorize and suppress questions about his academic
credentials, or convert serious academic concerns into media hysteria and
signature campaigns over Dalit prosecution. Does that augur well for the Indian
academic system? The attack on the academic autonomy of IIT Kanpur, sanctity
of its institutional mechanism, policy framework, most of all the experience
and expertise of our academicians will inflict long-term damage to the IIT
system, and its academics which is immeasurable and irreparable.
Strangely enough, the Institute
administration appears to be cowing down under the media onslaught distorting
the issue of plagiarism into one of harassment of a Dalit professor and is
afraid to bring up the issue of plagiarism in the M. Tech. thesis of Dr.
Saderla to the notice of the Senate. This is especially relevant given that the
Board will meet on 8 and 9 April to discuss this matter and knowing the Dr.
Saderla is a repeat offender would have important bearing on the Board’s
decision.
Lastly, those in the media who lent
enthusiastic support to this hit job aimed at IIT Kanpur need to answer the
following questions
- Will the verdict of media, writers,
dancers, activists and the local police constable on technical
scientific matters over-ride the Senate of IITs?
- Are signature campaigns going to usurp the
academic sovereignty of IITs?
- Is a motley crowd of scholars based in
western universities, and fictional protagonists like Robert Langdon,
going to dictate the academic standards in India’s institutes of national
importance?
- Would the Western universities, even under
their programs of diversity hiring, accept as faculty, a minority
candidate whose thesis violated plagiarism policies followed by them?
- Would even acclaimed scholars, whose
names are associated with the petition that ‘calls upon’ IITK Senate
to ‘rescind’ its decisions on Dr Saderla’s PhD thesis and degree,
allow and accept similar ‘social justice’ media petitions from
sundry fields to influence their academic judgments? If not, is this a
campaign to dumb down IITs?
- Why are journalists assuming merely by word of
mouth and without serious investigation of credible evidence, that the
Senate of an eminent institute like IIT Kanpur — which has 200 odd senior
Professors — is trivialising and distorting academic issues into
caste- based vendetta?”’
Given this background and the facts
provided by respected academics from IIT Kanpur, the smear campaign unleashed
by this international network of academics and activists comes with a clear
message —“You natives don’t know how to run your institutions or manage inter-
community affairs. We, who are situated in foreign universities, will teach you
how to behave.” This is a ‘civilizing mission’ in a new sinister avatar.
We had better wake up to the fact
that those interested in Breaking-up-India have been working hard to create
caste and communal conflicts in India for centuries. They have on their
pay roll very glamorous names among academics, journalists, writers,
filmmakers, politicians and people within the system. And they have spared no
occasion to humiliate and demonise India by using dubious and controversial
propaganda tracts about caste and religion based atrocity as
their favourite weapons.
This is not just a matter affecting
four IIT professors or the survival of IIT as a premier institution. It is also
about the survival of India as an independent nation instead of being ruled by
foreign agencies through remote control. If we allow foreign lobbies to destroy
the autonomy of IITs and hijack decision making of key institutions and
ministries, we are sounding the death knell of higher education in India.
First published in Swarajya, April 7, 2019. See Link: https://swarajyamag.com/
No comments :
Post a Comment
Comments will be moderated only to censor profanity