A cursory look at the attachments received from the anonymous source suggest that the extent of plagiarism in the PhD thesis was 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. 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 almost exactly the same as 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). 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 was copied, can we trust the data? If not, then what was the PhD given for?

Technical explanations of anomalous data are the same in places from the 2011 PhD thesis of Dr Rakesh Kumar. How can it be that data collected after an interval of five years has exactly the same discrepancy? Was the data the same, simply mined again? Then, what was Dr Saderla’s own PhD research about?

On p. 43 of his PhD 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 that “The exact location of CG during flight is determined from the instantaneous fuel quantity…”.

Did Dr Saderla forget that his vehicles run on electric motors, not fuel?

Finally, around 50 per cent of the final conclusions are copied. If so, then have you really said anything new in your PhD?

The evidence suggests that Dr Saderla has copied large portions of both his post-graduate theses, as well as a published a journal article. Repeat offences attract higher penalties. (See, for example, the UGC guidelines cited below in this article)

Before proceeding further, let’s first note the process through which plagiarism complaints are handled at IIT Kanpur:

Step 1: The matter is referred to the 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 the Senate Post-Graduate Committee (SPGC, see step 3 below) and the 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 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 comprises 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 a 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 plagiarised.

This is a very thorough and transparent process.

The IIT Kanpur Director asked the AEC to investigate both the PhD and 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. The 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 Saderla was to give an apology letter to Director IIT Kanpur, in view of his misdemeanour. However, Dr Saderla is not reported to have tendered an apology for his misdemeanour, as subsequently noted by the institute.

The SPGC, a statutory sub-committee of the Senate, considered the report of the AEC and the evidence provided, and recommended that several pages were plagiarised and, as such, the current PhD 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 March 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’s recommendations, which included the one 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 PhD 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).

The IIT Kanpur Senate decision on Dr Saderla has a precedent in 2017. It had withdrawn the master’s thesis and revoked the M Tech degree of Abhishek Singh, a student of electrical engineering, when his thesis was found to have been partly 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 worse than that of this M Tech student because the degree in question here, a PhD, 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 in other parts of his PhD thesis.

The decision of the IIT Kanpur Senate, clearly follows the practice of universities world-wide which defines 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 on 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 his 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: One, 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; and, two, 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 may be 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 per cent similarity constitutes plagiarism, without discriminating between introduction and other parts of the work. Section 8 of the UGC guidelines stipulate 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 allegedly plagiarised a substantial chunk of both his M Tech and PhD theses, which makes him a repeat offender, and the least punishment, as per UGC guidelines, would be that Dr Saderla’s PhD degree be held in abeyance for at least a year. Because no such mechanism exists, IIT Kanpur had, previously, revoked the degree of M Tech student Abhishek Singh in 2017. To newly create such a mechanism only to save Dr Saderla’s PhD degree, but not Abhishek Singh, who had plagiarised less, and that too 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 smidgeon of proof, the media has decided to lend full support to a 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, colour, nationality, ethnicity, region and 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 against 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 the 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 PhD 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), at its meeting on 6 September 2018, found that there was no evidence to invoke Section 3 of 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 (National Commission for Scheduled Castes) to challenge the decision of the BoG in exonerating the four professors of caste allegations. The NCSC orders were again stayed by the Allahabad High Court.

Dr Saderla has discovered that by invoking his caste and the SC/ST Act he can counter and suppress questions about his academic credentials or convert serious academic concerns into media hysteria and signature campaigns over Dalit persecution. Does that augur well for the Indian academic system?

The attack on the academic autonomy of IIT Kanpur, the sanctity of its institutional mechanisms, and the policy framework, and most of all the experience and expertise of our academicians, will inflict long-term damage to the IIT system and its academics.

Strangely enough, the institute administration appears to be cowing down under the media onslaught and seems 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.

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 the 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 the IITs? Isn’t this hypocrisy when the same critics talk of the assault on institutions under the current regime?

· 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 any Western university, even under their programmes of diversity hiring, accept as faculty a minority candidate whose thesis violated the anti-plagiarism policies followed by them?

· Would even acclaimed scholars, whose names are associated with the petition that ‘calls upon’ the 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 judgements? If not, is this a campaign to dumb down IITs?

· Why are journalists assuming, without serious investigation of credible evidence, that the Senate of an eminent institute like IIT Kanpur — which has 200-and-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 ‘civilising mission’ in a new sinister avatar.

We had better wake up to the fact that those interested in ‘Breaking India’ have been working hard to create caste and communal conflicts in India for centuries. They have on their payroll 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 atrocities 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 at key institutions and ministries, we are sounding the death-knell of higher education in India.

For a different perspective on this story, see this article.