Subverting Special Recruitment Drive 2017 @ IIT Kanpur : How Nepotism Damaged Dalit Cause & Threatens IITK Survival

PART - II

“Relaxing the rules for some and not for other SC/ST candidates would tantamount to a mockery of the great affirmative aims of a special recruitment drive.”

Prof Kamal Poddar (another reserved category professor of IITK) in his submissions to National Commission for Scheduled Castes

An Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Prof. S. Saderla, had alleged in early 2018 that he was harassed and discriminated based on his caste by:

1. Four senior faculty in particular;
2. Board members of IIT Kanpur;
3. The Faculty Forum of IIT Kanpur, as alleged in press reports;
4. Finally, its Senate.

He alleges that he was knowingly, wilfully harassed by faculty of his own Department as well as other Departments because of his caste. Several actions taken or recommended based on his allegations by institutional mechanisms like NCSC, IIT Kanpur as well as the Police have currently been stayed by the Allahabad High Court. The then Officiating Director, Prof. Manindra Agrawal  and the Head of the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Prof. A.K Ghosh strongly believe that the allegation of discrimination is valid. As the then Officiating Director and Head of the Department, their decisions played a strong role in the recruitment of Dr. Saderla. It was their responsibility to ensure that due diligence was followed in the recruitment process. Both of them have repeatedly stated in various committees and newspaper reports that no procedural irregularity took place in the recruitment procedure. 

However, faculty, students, staff and even the faculty spouses on IIT Kanpur campus believe that this entire case is a witch hunt to punish the whistle blowers who pointed out serious lapses in the recruitment process, silence the voices of dissent, and settle personal scores. After two inquiries, two NCSC reports, and one FIR, and over fourteen months of intense stress, these four faculty members continue to stand by what they are convinced is the truth. Now, the entire Faculty Forum is fearlessly calling for the resignation of Prof. Manindra Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh for abusing their positions and vitiating the atmosphere of the Institute. The Faculty Forum resolved that the conduct of Prof. A.K Ghosh and Prof. Manindra Agrawal should be investigated for violation of official conduct rules. These officials should be divested of their official responsibilities with immediate effect.

For last fourteen months, over several spurts of media outbursts, one has heard the story of harassment of Dr. Saderla and even his family in minute chronological details. However, for last fourteen months, not once have the four alleged faculty members- Profs. C.S.Upadhya, Sanjay Mittal, Rajiv Shekhar and Ishan Sharma spoken a word. They don’t make any press releases defending and justifying their actions, give no quotes to newspaper. There is not even that elusive line- XYZ was unavailable for comments, but, what does speak for them is the Indian judicial system. They have been given four stays in fourteen months by the Honourable High Court of Allahabad against the actions of NCSC, IIT Kanpur and now the police. More recently, one hears that the court has summoned data from IIT Kanpur in response to one of their writs. The data provided in their writs at the court, a few RTIs, and documents available on the IIT Kanpur website exposes some graver issues that need public attention because they raise serious concerns about the transparency, accountability and fairness of recruitment processes in Institutes of National Importance. Especially, when it involves a special recruitment drive for SC, ST, OBC, and PwD (Divyang).

Affirmative Action Recruitment Drive Vitiated through Nepotism

IIT Kanpur advertised the minimum eligibility qualification in the Special Recruitment Drive (advertisement number DF-4/2017) through which Dr. S. Saderla applied in 2017, as:

“Ph.D. with first class or equivalent (in terms of grades) at the preceding degree in the appropriate branch, with a very good academic record throughout.”

You can all read this on the website of IIT Kanpur. https://www.iitk.ac.in/dofa/current-openings.

It is claimed on several fora, and by the Officiating Director, Prof. Agrawal,  that Dr. S. Saderla whose Ph.D CPI is 7.0 meets the advertised  minimum eligibility criteria of the Special Recruitment Drive. But, on the other hand, the contention according to some faculty members was that 7.0 CPI is not equivalent to first class in IIT Kanpur and, therefore, the Department of Aerospace Engineering flouted minimum eligibility norms during the Special Recruitment Drive. Thus, the selection, led by Prof. Agrawal, provided relaxation selectively to a candidate who happened also to be the Masters and Ph. D. student of the Head of the Department, Prof. A.K Ghosh. As is apparent, providing relaxation selectively to a single candidate and not to others, is a discrimination against all other reserved category candidates. According to the ex-Liaison Officer of IIT Kanpur, relaxing the rules for some and not for other SC/ST candidates “tantamounts to a mockery of the great affirmative aims of a special recruitment drive.”  

It is surprising that for over fourteen months, an Institute of higher learning, having highly educated and decorated faculty and administrators has not been able to examine its own documents and practices to figure out whether or not 7.0 CPI is equivalent to first class. Even the two external committees led by Prof. Pathak and Hon’ble Justice Siddiqui have nothing to comment on this matter. The silence of the Board of Governors is even more deafening. IIT Kanpur would not be torn apart today, if someone could simply follow the norms laid down transparently in the grading scheme. Is this rocket science?

The PG manual (Institute approved Post Graduate manual prescribing academic norms which can be accessed here - https://www.iitk.ac.in/doaa/data/pgmanual-02Sep2015.pdf) of IIT Kanpur says the following: minimum CPI requirement for continuing in the Ph.D programme is 7.0.

That is, the minimum graduating CPI is 7. This implies that, if Dr. Saderla had a CPI of 6.99 he would not have been awarded a Ph.D degree by IIT Kanpur. The Ph.D CPI of  Dr. Saderla is exactly 7.0. Thus, Dr. Saderla barely met the minimum passing requirements of IIT Kanpur. Can a minimum passing mark be considered equivalent to a first class in any academic system, let alone an IIT?

Moreover, not only does Dr. Saderla not have first class in his Ph.D, he was on academic probation in the first semester of his M.Tech. He had a CPI of 6.0 — for which, as per the PG manual rules (- https://www.iitk.ac.in/doaa/data/pgmanual-02Sep2015.pdf), he should have been issued a warning letter from the then Head of the Department. According to the testimony of one of his M.Tech Professors, Dr. Saderla got a ‘D’ grade in his departmental course and his performance was not very good.

However, for the sake of an argument, even if it is assumed that the appointee was given relaxation (which was not advertised), the UGC guidelines permit only a 5% relaxation from the minimal requirement. In this case, even if we assume the minimal requirement to be Grade B (CPI 8) described as ‘Good’ in the IIT Kanpur academic system, then 5% of 8 is 7.6 CPI. Thus, Dr. Saderla, even after relaxation does not meet the minimal requirement, as his CPI is 7.0 in Ph.D.

Does IIT Kanpur, an Institute indebted to the Indian taxpayer not owe a clarification to ALL aspiring and desiring SC-ST candidates on what its minimum qualification requirements are?

Why does IIT Kanpur along with all other IITs simply not announce that 7.0 CPI is first class?

Why does IIT Kanpur not fill all its faculty posts with candidates having a CPI of 7.0 in their Ph.D?  Why is there just one amongst 400 faculty who has a CPI 7.0?

It is interesting to observe the record of the academic qualifications of General and Reserved category candidates selected in the Department of Aerospace Engineering since 2016. Here, it is important to emphasize that the advertised minimum eligibility requirements for General candidates is NOT different from the Reserved category candidates; at IIT Kanpur, they are one and the same. Check it out for yourself on the website - https://www.iitk.ac.in/dofa/current-openings.

Information revealed through RTIs clearly show (see table below) that no candidate -- General or Reserved category -- below a CPI of 8.5 has been shortlisted for final interviews by IIT Kanpur in the Department of Aerospace Engineering since 2016. The only exception being Dr. Saderla whose CPI is 7.0 – the minimum passing mark for a Ph. D. at IIT Kanpur! The aberration is unexplainable, unless the advertised minimum eligibility norms were indeed selectively relaxed for the student (Dr. Saderla) of the Head of the Department, Prof. A.K Ghosh. But, relaxation itself was not advertised. In fact, information obtained through RTIs makes it amply clear that IIT Kanpur did not state any relaxation policy in its advertisement.  

Name	Category	Educational Qualification (Converted to CPI out of 10.0 or percentage)
Candidate 1	GN	M.Tech- 9.82 Ph.D- 9.84
Candidate 2	GN	M.E- 9.8 Ph.D- 10.0
Candidate 3	GN	M.Tech., 9.75 Ph.D-9.74
Candidate 4	SC	M.Tech., 7.25 Ph.D- 7.0
Candidate 5	OBC	M.Tech., 8.7 Ph.D- 10.0
Candidate 6	GN	M.Tech., 9.75 Ph.D-10.0
Candidate 7	GN	M.Tech., 10.0 Ph.D-10.0
Candidate 8	GN	M.Tech., 9.4 Ph.D- 9.6
Candidate 9	GN	M.Tech., 8.79 Ph.D-10.0
Candidate 10	OBC	Ph.D- 8.5
Candidate 11	GN	M.Tech., 91.3% Ph.D- 9.0

Such aberrations were noticed by several faculty within the Department of Aerospace Engineering after Dr. Saderla joined the Institute. Eleven faculty of the Department expressed it in writing to the then Officiating Director, Prof. Manindra Agrawal. They said:

"We the undersigned faculty members of Aerospace Engineering would like to communicate to you our extreme displeasure at the way the department faculty advisory committee and Head ignored the faculty inputs and concerns and went ahead with their recommendations for the recent selections held in December 2017, to the posts of Assistant Professor in AE to the Institute committee."

How is anyone’s caste, creed, religion, gender or any other divisive trait attributed or interpreted in this communication?  It simply reflects an apprehension that could easily have been addressed by the then Officiating Director, Prof. Manindra Agrawal or the Head, Prof AK Ghosh. Unfortunately they didn’t/couldn’t do so. Their failure to address these lapses and take corrective measures has today cost IIT Kanpur its academic image that has been tattered in the media.

Instead of addressing the concerns raised by the Department faculty, the Officiating Director turned the entire case into a caste issue. Prof. Kamal Poddar is one of the eleven signatories of the letter mentioned above. He is a very senior and well respected faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Few know that he himself belongs to a reserved category because IITs pride themselves in being concerned with merit alone, and nothing else. Belonging to the same department as Dr. Saderla, he has first-hand knowledge of this issue. He was also the Institute Liaison Officer for the SC-ST cell when Dr. Saderla was recruited, in which capacity he corresponded with the National Commission of Scheduled Castes on this matter.  He informed NCSC, in writing, that he did not find any caste issue in this episode. All interactions of Dr. Saderla with the faculty have been cordial. In fact, the Department faculty have hugged and welcomed Prof. Saderla.

To quote from Prof Kamal Poddar’s letter to NCSC,

“Here is what I think has happened: Several faculty flagged the possibility of violation of advertised minimum eligibility norms and the possibility of conflict of interest as the Head (Prof. A. K Ghosh), who is also Prof. Saderla's adviser, being involved in all committees of the selection process. These issues were flagged privately to the Director (through Head), by email to only Board members, and over a restricted Senators only list. This was I repeat, only concern raised about the possibility of violation of advertised minimum eligibility norms and conflict of interest. Because, relaxing the rules for some and not for other SC/ST candidates would tantamount to a mockery of the great affirmative aims of a special recruitment drive. Nothing in these private notes/mails was specific to a person, leave alone person's caste.”

Instead of listening to the testimony and evidence of its own officer (Office of the Liaison Officer is expected to assist NCSC in the investigation of complaints as mandated by DoPT), NCSC recommended in its minutes dated 10-04-2018 to remove him from his post. Of course, such an overreach and unfair judgement lacking any evidence by the NCSC could not escape the eyes of the Honourable High Court of Allahabad which immediately stayed the order. But, it still makes you wonder Who is harassing whom?  And is this a caste issue at all? considering that the NCSC prefers the version of one SC person (Dr. Saderla) over another (Prof. Poddar, LO, IIT Kanpur); the former backed by upper castes (the Officiating Director and Head of Department), to protect his recruitment while the latter questioning it, to protect his Department and his Institute from nepotism, and the wider SC, ST, OBC and PwD candidates from discrimination in the form of unequal opportunities. Clearly, this is not a caste issue but one of transparency and equity as Dr Poddar said, but for which he was rapped by the NCSC itself.

If Relaxation Was not Advertised, Was it Implemented?

If IIT Kanpur had clearly advertised in its recruitment policy that applicants with 7.0 CPI are eligible to apply, more SC-ST candidates would have applied in response to the special recruitment drive. All SC-ST candidates who had similar or better qualifications than that of Dr. Saderla, but did not apply for the post because they did not possess a First Class in their Ph.D or M.Tech have been deprived of an opportunity to apply, compete and be hired at IIT Kanpur. All eligible SC-ST candidates with a 7.0 CPI have been discriminated against by IIT Kanpur by following a selection criteria that was not advertised to the public. IIT Kanpur has discriminated against all eligible SC-ST candidates, by bending its selection norms and procedures to accommodate the student of the Head of the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Do all SC-ST candidates have to be students of HoD A.K. Ghosh and Director Agrawal to be hired in the IITs? 

This preferential and privileged treatment given to the student of Prof. A.K Ghosh in full support of Prof. Manindra Agrawal (who chairs the Selection Committee) seems even more discriminating when you look at the CPI of the other SC-ST candidates who applied during the Special Recruitment Drive. In response to an RTI (see Table 2), IIT Kanpur has admitted that there were four SC-ST candidates who applied in the Special Recruitment Drive for a position in the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Even though Dr. Saderla only had a CPI of 7.0, IIT Kanpur selected him over two other candidates who had a CPI of 8.2 and 8.25 in their Ph.D. The other SC-ST candidates were not even shortlisted, let alone interviewed and selected for the post despite their obviously better CPI than Dr. Saderla. One had heard of discrimination between General and Reserved category, but this is a novel blatant misuse of reservation by elite castes to discriminate and favour selected reserved category candidates only. IIT Kanpur has taken caste-based discrimination to yet another level. It has pitched a Dalit against another Dalit.

Table 2: Marks of all candidates who applied for the Special Recruitment Drive of IIT Kanpur

No	Degree	Marks	Shortlisted	Interviewed	Selected
1	Bachelor of Engineering Nagpur University	76	-	-	-
	Master of Engineering Shivaji University	75.2
	Doctor of Philosophy Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur	8.2
2	Bachelor of Technology Rohilkhand University	6.70	-	-	-
	Master of Technology IIT Guwahati	6.83
	Doctor of Philosophy University of Liverpool	NA
3	Bachelor of Technology JNTU Hyderabad	75.86	Shortlisted	Interviewed	Selected
	Master of Technology Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur	7.25
	Doctor of Philosophy Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur	7
4	Bachelor of Technology Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University College of Engineering	52.71	-	-	-
	Master of Engineering Andhra University College of Engineering	7.88
	Doctor of Philosophy Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati	8.25

This fraudulent practice and the blatant misuse of the affirmative actions of the SC-ST reservation has also been recorded in the Supreme Court judgment in the District Collector, Vizianagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990(4) SLR 237. The Honourable Supreme Court states in its judgement

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned.  The aggrieved are all those who had similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint a person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable.  No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

Both Prof. Manindra Agrawal, Chair of the Selection Committee and Prof. A.K Ghosh, member of the selection committee which recruited Dr. Saderla in writing have confirmed that requirements of academic qualifications were indeed relaxed for Dr. Saderla.

Statement of Head, Aerospace Engineering:

“Dr. Saderla has M.Tech CPI=7.25 (well above graduating CPI), PhD CPI=7.0 and thesis of good quality (paper from PhD=6). Yes for general candidate, we would not have short listed the candidate. This point was clearly mentioned in DFAC-IFAC meeting. This being special drive and for SC category DFAC-IFAC agreed to take it for interview.” (Emphasis added)

Statement of Officiating Director, IIT Kanpur on the Head’s statement:

“… the department would not shortlist a candidate with this record in case of general category candidates. However, given that this was recruitment in special category, some relaxation was done during shortlisting. In other words, he [Head, AE] is saying that the candidate does meet minimum qualifications, however, for general category candidates, shortlisting is done with more stringent norms which were not applied in this case.” (Emphasis added)

But, we all know by now that relaxation was not advertised, therefore, it could not have been selectively offered to the student of Prof. A.K Ghosh. This, as the Supreme Court judgement emphasised is a fraudulent practice for which both Prof. Manindra Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh are liable to face a disciplinary inquiry. Of course, such an enquiry, if held impartially, will also nullify the Special Recruitment Drive, further implying that Dr. Saderla will have to re-apply whenever a fresh advertisement is floated by IIT Kanpur. With this as a background, does it surprise us anymore that all three- Prof. Manindra Agrawal, Prof. A.K Ghosh and Dr. Saderla are moving heaven and earth for last fourteen months to divert the attention of the entire nation, and now even the world, by spreading the news that the four faculty in particular, and the faculty of IIT Kanpur in general are casteist.

Prof. A K. Ghosh and Prof. Manindra Agrawal have played divisive politics twice. Firstly, they misrepresented the minimum eligibility qualifications to all reserved category candidates by advertising that First class and very good academic record is an eligibility requirement to be a faculty at IIT Kanpur. Due to this several Dalit candidates who had a CPI less than first class or an academic record which is not ‘very good’ could not apply for the post of Assistant Professor. They lost an opportunity of employment.

Secondly, between the candidates who applied, Prof. Ghosh selected Dr. Saderla, who was Dr. AK Ghosh’s very own student, despite the fact that the other SC/ST candidates had a higher CPI than Dr. Saderla. This divisive politics will break the movement for empowering Dalits by pitching one Dalit against another and also destroy the academic ethos of a great institution. And, of course, it will destroy IIT Kanpur, as we are in the process of witnessing.

Right to equality of opportunities in matters of public employment (Article 16) is the fundamental right of all  Indians. All eligible reserved category candidates have the right to avail equal opportunity to apply to IIT Kanpur. For this the entry level qualifications have to be the same as the ones that are advertised.  No other department in IIT Kanpur even shortlisted, let alone recruit an applicant with a 7 CPI in the Special Recruitment Drive. Either all departments, other than Aerospace Engineering did not follow the advertised recruitment guidelines and are therefore guilty of committing SC-ST discrimination. Or, Prof. A.K Ghosh flouted the advertised guidelines to facilitate the entry of his own student, Dr. Saderla, with the help and support of the Officiating Director, Prof. Manindra Agrawal. The nexus between the three is apparent. Indeed, given that both Prof. Ghosh and Prof. Agrawal have done their Ph. D. from IIT Kanpur, it would not have been lost upon them that a CPI of 7.0 is the minimum passing mark, not first class.

IIT Kanpur, and in particular Prof. Manindra Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh owe an apology to the entire Dalit struggle of over a hundred years to gain equal opportunity to all Indians. Instead of correcting the centuries old social ill, they have wilfully subverted the reservation policy and systematically sabotaged Special Recruitment Drive to serve their own ends and people. Prof. Agrawal and Prof. Ghosh also owe an apology to their alma mater, IIT Kanpur, for destroying its name and reputation for fairness and high academics by their blatant nepotistic and casteist actions.

Sadly, the well-intentioned SC-ST Act lent itself to easy abuse in many cases even while genuine victims of caste oppression don’t often get justice thanks to poor implementation of laws meant for their empowerment. It is tragic that even in an institution of national eminence like the IITK a handful of influential & unscrupulous administrators ( all upper caste) are misusing the draconian SC/ST Act for their own selfish purposes even at the cost of destroying the lives of eminent colleagues. The saddest part of this saga is that they are doing so to cover their nepotism towards one SC student even while brazenly harming the careers of several better qualified SC/ST candidates.

First published in Swarajya, April 8, 2018

See Link: https://swarajyamag.com/politics/iit-kanpur-fairness-was-subverted-in-special-jobs-drive-for-scs

Break Up India Gang Targets IIT Kanpur: Proven Plagiarism in PhD Thesis Counter Blasted by Fake Charges of Caste Discrimination

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-- 

1. 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. 
2. 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;
3. 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. 
4. Most of these worthies have an established track record of being sympathetic to Break-Up India Forces & the Tukde Tukde Gang.
5. 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.
6. 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;
7. 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. 
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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:

1. 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?
2. 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? 
3. 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!
4. 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/politics/iit-kanpur-case-is-plagiarism-okay-if-you-are-from-the-right-caste