Today’s Times of India carries the latest expose by Manoj Mitta on Mashelkar. The previous ‘victim’ says Mashelkar is irresponsible, if not dishonest. I would like to know Shamnad Basheer’s comment.
Latest expose on Mashelkar
Further reading
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test is scheduled to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of India. This piece highlights the inadequacies of the ERP Doctrine, and argues for a change...
Blurb: The article advocates extending euthanasia to non-terminally ill patients, emphasizing autonomy and dignity under Article 21. Critiquing current laws, it highlights ethical dilemmas and...
In this piece, the author revisits the legacy of Bhulabhai Desai and his masterful defense at the Indian National Army Trials of 1945, exploring how Bhulabhai’s arguments not only reframed the INA’s...
The blog analyses the Mineral Area Development Authority decision, specifically analysing the question of when states can start taxing mining entities, along with an analysis of the doctrine of...
Dear Venkatesan,
Thanks for pointing this out to me. I know Dr Dutfield— he is a very respected academic in the UK and writes some fabulous stuff. Its unfortunate that his paper has been plagiarised. Certainly a far more serious charge than the earlier one –which I didn’t think was “plagiarism” anyway, not least because I had made a submission to the Committee for the very purpose of hoping that the Committee would rely on it. Secondly, the committee had included all that they “borrowed” from me in an Annexure to the Report, indicating indirectly that I was the source. Thirdly, what the Committee borrowed were mere conclusions. Given these circumstances, I’m not sure if you could call it “plagiarism”, which somehow connotes a calculated move to hide your source and pass stuff as your own. And given the allegation that the Committee sold out to Western multinational firms, I think a “plagiarism” charge would indicate that they cleverly hid their source since they were trying to further the interests of these firms. Which is why I think some people are very keen on labelling this as “plagiarism”. I would put it down to “sloppy” drafting–not expected of a Committee with so many reputed members.