User:Prk1949/Plagiarism by Outlook Weekly

The December 21, 2009 issue of Outlook India Weekly has the cover page as JOURNALISM FOR SALE, and some related articles inside. The main one is by Vinod Mehta, editor-in-chief of the Outlook Weekly. The main title of his article is Please Do Not Sell, with the following description below it: Paid-for news is emerging as the single-most serious threat to our collective credibility. A related article is by Neelabh Mishra, Every Word For A Price. Mishra has been in the eye of a storm for plagiarism in the Outlook India, and Vinod Mehta is accused of complicity for his silence even after repeated complaints by the victim of plagiarism and other readers of the Outlook Weekly. In these circumstances, the theme of the Outlook Weekly issue of December 21 is like Devil quoting the Scripture. For a proper perspective on the related issues read the article below.

On October 12, 2009, the rediff.com published an interview with P. Radhakrishnan by Shobha Warrier (see 'Brahmins dominate all modern professions'). The rediff.com website published as many as 422 comments on this interview. This was rediff.com’s fourth interview with Radhakrishnan. The earlier ones were 'If Prabhakaran surrenders, Tamil suffering will end'; 'In the Case Of Reservations, There Is No Exit’; and Dalits Have Not Benefited From Quotas. It is gratifying that all these interviews resulted in a lot of debate on the rediff.com website, which is the purpose of any interview. This certainly goes to the credit of the interviewer, rediff.com, and most important of all, the readers and browsers of the rediff.com website. One is not sure if the earlier interviews were plagiarized, though they were picked up by the media and websites across the world and debated. While plagiarism is age-old, the emergence of the World Wide Web or Internet has increased it manifold. The plagiarists often get away with the act. Even if caught by chance, in a country like India it is impossible for the victim to get any redress. Radhakrishnan has been a victim of plagiarism on at least four occasions. He does not include in this category plagiarism by bloggers. The scourge is mainly in academics and journalism. A special article of Radhakrishnan (with his student) was lifted from a journal and published verbatim as a chapter in a book. By a sheer coincidence the book landed on Radhakrishnan lap for review. Though Tejeshwar Singh, Managing Director of Sage Publications, publisher of the book, who had also published one of Radhakrishnan’s books, profusely apologised for what happened, the author sent a long letter to him, sent through Tejeshwar Singh stating that he is willing to tender a public apology. But even the apology did not take place; and the  author got away with his plagiarism. At that time someone mentioned to Radhakrishnan that if this were to happen in the US he could have sued the person for millions of dollars. But India is not US and Indian judiciary is a poor specimen of justice delivery system. Considering this he did not move the court. Instead he sent an article to The Hindu. Its then editor of the Sunday Magazine was concerned and considerate. Radhakrishnan’s article, Plagiarise or perish, was published in two parts on July 7 and July 14, 2002. Those interested can go to this article which is now available online. Plagiarism by the Outlook Weekly The plagiarism of Radhakrishnan’s latest interview with the rediff.com is something which should make the journalists and editors in the Indian print and electronic media sit up and think. A few days after the interview, he happened to read an article in Outlook Weekly by Neelabh Mishra. When he read it he had a feeling that he was reading his own ideas, and in some places his own language. So he compared the article with the interview. The article had appeared on the Outlook website and Outlook Weekly print edition of October 26, 2009. He does not read this magazine regularly. If he had not read this particular issue of Outlook on the website, the plagiarist would have got away with his act. For, until he posted the following on the Outlook website, nobody had noticed the plagiarism: Plagiarism by Neelabh Mishra in OUTLOOK Weekly The write-up What Caste Is A Nobel? by Neelabh Mishra (Outlookindia.Com, October 26, 2009) is disingenuous and plagiarised for at least two reasons. One, the author gives the impression as though none other than the author thought about the Brahminical `twist’. Read this sentence: “I am surprised how nobody here has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical ‘twist’ to the Nobel, considering that out of the six Nobel winners of Indian origin, four are Brahmins, of whom three are Tamil Brahmins.” The fact is that the rediff.com published a lengthy interview with an Indian sociologist on October 12, 2009 under the title 'Brahmins dominate all modern professions'. It has been picked up by various websites and sections of the media in different parts of the world. At the time of writing this I see as many as 18,900 related hyperlinks on the Internet, Two, the author feigns ignorance of this interview in the claim “I am surprised how nobody...” and goes on: “No one will be so facetious as to argue for a Dalit and obc quota in Nobel prizes based on this fact, but some genetic supremacists will latch on to it to insinuate that some communities are congenitally more advanced than others, what with another fact that most Nobel prize winners have been Jews. But it is not genetics, it is cultural capital, which in a hierarchical order is concentrated at the top and is a result of various historical factors and contexts that explains the apparent correlation between communities and achievement. Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations, which makes its recipients well-entrenched. Intelligence is distributed across all sections of society, but opportunities are not. So it is with geography. There are plain historical reasons as to why most Nobel winners in India are from the upper castes of Tamil Nadu and Bengal.” Compare the above paragraph with the following portions of my rediff.com interview. “We also see a co-relation between the Nobel Prize and Jews as most of the Nobel Prize winners are from a Jewish background. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the crucial importance of cultural capital in intellectual achievements; and virtually all the Nobel Prize winners possessed cultural capital. In one sense, you can use the genes theory -- genetically some groups are advanced. But that may not happen in a hierarchical society, and ours has always been a hierarchical society.” Why do you say that in a hierarchical society, the gene theory won't work? It can only happen randomly. In a hierarchical society, the cultural capital is concentrated at the top. Brahmins are at the summit of the social hierarchy. So, they had all the advantages of society traditionally, though they may not be having the same advantages now. CULTURAL CAPITAL GETS TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AND OVER GENERATIONS, THIS TRANSMISSION MAKES ITS RECIPIENTS WELL-ENTRENCHED... UNIVERSALLY, INTELLIGENCE IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE ENTIRE SOCIETY. BUT OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT. The sentences above are given in block letters to highlight that they are also there in the Neelabh Mishra write-up. What a shame! Will Vinod Mehta pay attention to this, publish an explanation and apology, and contain the damage before I take up the issue with the larger print and electronic media? In response to Radhakrishnan’s protest, two persons condemned the plagiarist on the Outlook website on Oct 22, 2009. I am reproducing below their messages: ONE CULTURAL CAPITAL GETS TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AND OVER GENERATIONS... The sentences above are given in capital letters to highlight that they are also there in the Neelabh Mishra write-up. What a shame! Radhakrishnan While I appreciate your keen eye to notice Neelabh Mishra's plagiarism, I am afraid you are expecting too much from Mishra. What else one can expect from a pseudo secular and boot licker like Mishra? He is one of those paid piper. Sandilya Chennai, India TWO Points made by Neelabh Mishra are valid!! Really!!! It is obvious to all but the most stupid and gullible people what is going on here!! Just put the words in google and see!!! If it was as common words as Mishra would like us to believe, a search should show up at least some more instances where the same LONG sentence structure is used. Mishra and outlook really insult the intelligence of its readers by so blatantly lying despite getting caught. You have been exposed. Have some shame and just own up. And the lies are not in one place but throughout: first in the column and now in the reply. It is clear by a cursory reading that Mishra had read the interview and copied it. He could make a clean breast of it, but he is being dishonest. Vikas Aggarwal New York, United States Meanwhile the Outlook website carried Neelabh Mishra’s following reply defending the indefensible. That was also on October 22: Neelabh Mishra replies to Dr Radhakrishnan's allegation of plagiarism: Dr P Radhakrishnan doesn't have a copyright over Bourdieu's concept of Cultural Capital. 1. The whole thrust and focus of my article is when will a Dalit from India be capable of winning a Nobel in the light of Obama, a coloured American, getting one, a point not dealt with at all in Dr Radhakrishnan's interview carried by Rediff. His interview is mainly about why communities like Tamil Brahmins dominate the list of Nobel Prize winners from India, a point I only refer to in passing in my column while making a subsidiary argument. 2. I wrote: 'I am surprised how nobody here has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical twist to the Nobel....' In this, 'Brahminical' refers to an ideology that believes Brahmins are inherently and genetically superior and Dalits and backward castes genetically incapable of excellence, which is what many despisers of quota system believe. Even Dr Radhakrishnan has argued against the genetic superiority of Brahmins and hence not 'courted controversy', which is what I have said: 'nobody has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical twist...' Moreover, read as a whole, my sentence means that no fanatic from the other ideological end has accused the Nobel establishment of a Brahminical bias. It doesn't mean that no one else has pointed out that three Tamil Brahmins have been Nobel winners. One should pay attention to the nuances of English language and not rush to misinterpret. 3. Coming to the most crucial point, Dr Radhakrishnan cites three sentences about Cultural Capital in an article of 800 words to allege that my write-up is plagiarized. I would like to remind Dr Radhakrishnan that he does not have a copyright over the concept of Cultural Capital and the fact that it is acquired over and transmitted through generations. This is originally French Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's concept. He first elaborated it in his work written jointly with Jean-Claude Passeron, 'Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction' (1973). In his later work, 'The Forms of Capital'(1986), Bourdieu explored Cultural Capital's relationship with other forms of capital, namely, Economic Capital and Social Capital. He added Symbolic Capital to the list later. Dr Radhakrishnan has borrowed from Bourdieu but not cited Bourdieu in his interview. Should Mr. Radhakrishnan then be accused of plagiarism? Yet, I would not be foolish enough to do this because Bourdieu's concept of Cultural Capital is so well known that one need not cite him every time one uses it journalistically just as one doesn't cite Einstein every time one refers to the Theory of Relativity or Newton every time one mentions the Laws of Gravitation. Yes, I like many others, including Dr Radhakrishnan, owe my point about Cultural Capital to Pierre Bourdeau. A journalistic piece's word limit does not often allow for a complete bibliography, set of references and footnotes. Why only Bourdieu and Radhakrishnan, many others would find their echoes in my small opinion piece. Neelabh Mishra, New Delhi. The same day  Radhakrishnan refuted Mishra’s rejoinder: Neelabh Mishra's reply is diversionary. The issue is not Bourdieu or cultural capital. It is plagiarism, which is an open and shut case in Mishra's write-up. To restate part of what was said in the earlier post (no. 30): Read from Mishra: Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations, which makes its recipients well-entrenched. Intelligence is distributed across all sections of society, but opportunities are not. Read from the rediff.com interview: Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations; this transmission makes its recipients well-entrenched... universally, intelligence is distributed across the entire society. But opportunities are not. That Mishra is allowed to write only 800 words is irrelevant to the issue. I am glad he was not allowed to write 8000 words, in which case his culpability would have been a lot more. The issue here is journalistic ethics. The editor of the Outlook magazine cannot allow journalists and Outlook to thrive on plagiarism Radhakrishnan After Radhakrishnan posted the above rejoinder, three more letters appeared on the Outlook website, one on October 26, and two on October 27, 2009: ONE The plagiarism reported by Dr Radhakrishnan is absolutely disgraceful and even more shameful is that a respected editor like Vinod Mehta allowed the brazen and despicably dishonest response by Neelabh Mishra. I won't be surprised if the whole controversy is sought to be hushed up now with not even a word about the complaint or the disgusting response finding its way into the print magazine. Yashodhara New York, United States TWO This is truly blatant and beyond belief. Shocking. I hope some serious corrective action is taken. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States THREE What is truly ironical is that only a few days back, Outlook had carried this piece which said, "The recent case of plagiarism is only symptomatic of the truly serious issue: the utterly cynical and self-serving attitude of a great many people who walk the corridors of power in New Delhi, wearing cloaks labelled 'Culture' And 'Education'" http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261517 I wonder what Mr Vinod Mehta has to say on this. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States One of the readers of Outlook sent Radhakrishnan a personal email as follows: Dear Prof. Radhakrishnan, After reading the Outlook article, in my mind there is not even a shadow of doubt that Neelabh Mishra has plagiarised your article. However, I consider that his plagiarism is the highest tribute paid to your scholarship. Please bring the plagiarism to the attention of Vinod Mehta. I would be satisfied if the journal acknowledges your original contribution. Neelabh Mishra stealing your ideas is bad. But most journalists make a living doing just that. So far the no section of the media has come forward to report the Outlook plagiarism. Radhakrishnan and some others sent emails to Vinod Mehta. He has not replied. The irony is Neelabh Mishra’s column appeared both in the print and web editions of Outlook. The correspondence on plagiarism has appeared only on the website. Those who have read it only in print and not on the website will think that the column is original. When editors are expected to uphold journalistic ethics, the appearance of Mishra’s column and the silence of Vinod Mehta are ominous and pernicious. As a small time editor of a glossy magazine, Debonair, Vinod Mehta does not appear to be a journalist or editor of any worth or integrity, capable of upholding journalistic ethics. However, as editor of a news magazine his silence is also culpable. As he has been an affront to the readers of the Outlook magazine and the media fraternity, the management of the Outlook should get rid of him as editor, and appoint a really competent person as Outlook editor.