Search This Website

Jilla Antrik & Jilla Aras Paras Badli Babat 28-04-2021

Jilla Antrik & Jilla Aras Paras Badli Babat 28-04-2021

જિલ્લા આંતરિક અને જિલ્લા અરસ પરસ બદલી બાબત.

Important Link:
Click Here To Download
Radhakrishnan's appointment, as a southerner, to "the most necessary chair of philosophy in India" in the north, used to be resented by means of a quantity of humans from the Bengali mental elite, and The Modern Review, which was once fundamental of the appointment of non-Bengalis, grew to be the essential automobile of criticism. Soon after his arrival in Calcutta in 1921, Radhakrishnan's writings have been typically criticised in The Modern Review. When Radhakrishnan posted his Indian Philosophy in two volumes (1923 and 1927), The Modern Review puzzled his use of sources, criticising the lack of references to Bengali scholars. Yet, in an editor's note, The Modern Review stated that "As professor's Radhakrishnan's e book has now not been obtained for evaluation in this Journal, The Modern Review is now not in a role to shape any opinion on it.


In the January 1929 trouble of The Modern Review, the Bengali logician Jadunath Sinha made the declare that components of his 1922 doctoral thesis, Indian Psychology of Perception, posted in 1925, had been copied by using his trainer Radhakrishnan into the chapter on "The Yoga machine of Patanjali" in his e book Indian Philosophy II, posted in 1927. Sinha and Radhakrishnan exchanged quite a few letters in the Modern Review, in which Sinha in contrast components of his thesis with Radhakrishnan's publication, imparting altogether a hundred and ten cases of "borrowings." Radhakrishnan felt compelled to respond, mentioning that Sinha and he had each used the identical classical texts, his translation had been trendy translations, and that similarities in translations have been consequently unavoidable. He similarly argued that he used to be lecturing on the issue earlier than publishing his book, and that his e book used to be geared up for guide in 1924, earlier than Sinha's thesis used to be published.

Scholars such as Kuppuswami Sastri, Ganganath Jha, and Nalini Ganguli established that Radhakrishnan used to be distributing the notes in query given that 1922. Ramananda Chatterjee, the editor of The Modern Review, refused to submit a letter by way of Nalini Ganguli confirming this fact, whilst persevering with publishing Sinha's letters. The General Editor of Radhakrishnan's publisher, professor Muirhead, in addition verified that the guide was once delayed for three years, due to his continue to be in the United States.

Responding to this "systematic effort [...] to ruin Radhakrishnan's popularity as a student and a public figure," Summer 1929 the dispute escalated into a juristic fight, with Radhakrishnan submitting a go well with for defamation of personality against Sinha and Chatterjee, worrying Rs. 100,000 for the injury done, and Sinha submitting a case in opposition to Radhakrishnan for copyright infringement, traumatic Rs. 20,000. The fits had been settled in May 1933, the phrases of the agreement had been no longer disclosed, and "all the allegations made in the pleadings and in the columns of the Modern Review had been withdrawn.