Innaiah Narisetti, humanist from India who lives in USA has submitted this unique story .
=================================
Philosophical consequences of Modern
science-Thesis Antithesis
The facts relating to this Thesis constitute interesting reading. The
zigzag turns, the twists all give a touch of drama to the
course of the Thesis. Its chequered career is influenced and shaped by acts of
well meaning and honest persons as well as by the sly and subtle ways of some others.
Mr.
N. Innaiah enrolled himself as a research scholar for Ph.D. degree
course of Osmania University in the Department of Philosophy
in October, 1965. The topic of research was "The
Philosophical Consequences of Modern Science with special
reference to the problem of Determinism." (Appendix-1) He had passed
the preliminary Ph.D. test held in September, 1966 (Appendix
- 2). Mr. Innaiah was then one of the Lecturers in the
Philosophy Department of Osmania University. As such, he
submitted some research papers. They were commended by
his supervisor for publication as articles (Appendix-3). He
submitted his Thesis on 3rd October, 1969. He was not
informed about the fate of his Thesis even by 22nd June, 1973.
Then the scholar wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor of
Osmania University requesting him, for the information (Appendix-4).
On 17th December, 1974 he was asked
by the Controller of Examinations to revise his Thesis
(Appendix-5).
He was furnished with
extracts from the ,reports of the Examiners. (Appendix - 6). He submitted
his revised Thesis on
30th March, 1976 (Appendix. 7).
It is not out of place to refer to something that 'happened prior
to March 1976. There was a move to get an Aurobindo
University established, by Prof. Madhusudhana Reddy. He is an
Aurobindite. It was felt in many circles that he was making
strenuous efforts to get an Aurobindo University established,
This gave rise to a tirade against the said move 'by the
rationalists and radical humanists in the form of a press statement
(Appendix-8). They wrote a 'Letter to the Editor' in a local
English Daily (Appendix-9). This seems to have irked the
Aurobindites of Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, a One-man
Commission headed by a retired Judge of Andhra Pradesh High
Court, Mr. V. Parthasarathi, was appointed to go into the
affairs of the University. Naturally, the way the Thesis of Mr N.
Innaiah was dealt with, figured as one of the matters enquired
into by the commission. The report of the Commission in
respect of the manner in which the Thesis was handled is revealing. It spoke of
the entire episode as one of 'wrecked hope'
and 'a blasted career. It stated that one could not part with the case "without being shaken to the core of one's being."
Elsewhere in the report it is observed that "it is frustration that grows out of weary years of waiting that enhances or
Deepens the pathos of the tragedy." The Commission
commented that the matter was "muddled through for several months
with the incept handling repeating itself in an incredible
manner.'' This evidently referred to the University's delay in taking
the necessary action just prior to its directing the candidate on 17th December, 1974
to revise his Thesis. The Commission
did not leave the matter without indicating the examination branch of the University by saying "that no one associated with the matter is free from blame." It seems that the report of the Commission was sent to Dr. V Madhusudhana Reddy for comment. Events followed fast. Mr.
Innaiah's supervisor and guide Dr.
Madhusudhana Reddy tendered his resignation
to the post of Professor and Head of Department of Philosophy. The news of this event was reported in the
press with the date line of 25th April, 1976. Even this
incident created problems for Mr.
Innaiah for he was asked to submit the
revised Thesis with the certificate from his supervisor. Under
the circumstances then prevailing, it was impossible.
Several factors till then unknown to the candidate became known,
thanks to the enquiry by the One-man Commission. It
seems that at first three examiners were appointed to evaluate the Thesis. They are :
1.
Prof.
Leo Gabriel of Austria.
2.
Dr.
Daya Krishna, Jaipur.
3.
Dr. V.
Madhusudhana Reddy, Supervisor.
While Prof. Leo Gabriel and Dr. V Madhusudhana Reddy had
recommended the award of Ph.D degree, Dr. Daya Krishna had
recommended its rejection. The University Syndicate at its
143rd meeting, held on 17th April, 1971, had resolved that
the Thesis of Mr.lnnaiah be referred to the fourth examiner. The
offer was made to three foreign examiners in succession and ultimately it was
sent ro Prof. Richard Hecking of
USA, on 6th July, 1972. Since the report of Prof. Hecking was not received for
a long time, Dr. Milick Gapek of Boston University was appointed as examiner.
He sent the report in February 1974, stating that the Thesis should be
thoroughly revised and resubmitted. The case was submitted to the University Syndicate on 10th June, 1974. It seems that the syndicate has resolved to call upon the candidate to
revise the Thesis. The communication of
the Syndicate's direction was made on
17th December 1974. Thus it can be seen that it took nearly two years from 17th April, 1971 onwards, for selecting an examiner who could be expected to agree
to do the evaluation. Thereafter it took nearly four months
for submitting the matter to the Syndicate i.e., from
February, 1974 to June, 1974 . Yet
another six months were allowed to
lapse from 10th June, 1974 to 17th December, 1974 to communicate the syndicate's resolution to the candidate.
It is this delay that was the subject of adverse comment by
the One-man
commission headed by Mr. Parthasarathy,
The English daily press reported the news of the report by the Commission and
the consequent resignation of the guide. As per Rule 26(b) of Ph.D. rules of Osmania University, the revised Thesis shall, as tar as
possible, be referred to the same examiners for their opinion. But this rule
was not brought to the notice of
the Vice-Chancellor who appointed on 18th May, 1976, the following
three teachers as examiners
:—
l. Prof. K Satchitananda
Murthy, Tirupathi
2. Prof. N K Devraj, Varanasi
3. Dr,
Barlingay, Poona
The Thesis was sent to the
said examiners who submitted the reports. While Dr. K. Satchitananda Murthy
recommended the award of Ph.D.
degree, Prof. N. K. Devraj and Dr. Barlingay, have suggested the revision of the Thesis.
On 11th January, 1977
the syndicate passed a resolution to call upon the candidate to revise and resubmit his Thesis
in the light of the remarks made by
examiners (2) and (3). All these facts are adverted to in the note before the
syndicate at its meeting on 4th June, 1977 (Appendix-10). The Dean, Faculty of Arts was requested
on 1st March, 1977 to communicate to the candidate
that he should revise the Thesis. He was suggested that the reports of the three
examin'rs be
communicated to the candidate. Accordingly, on 10th Marh, 1977, the University
sent a note to the candidate calling upon him to revise the thesis (Appendix-11 ).
The extracts from the reports of the
examiners were supplied to himn (Appendix-12). On 21st May, 1977 he wrote a letter
to the University protesting against
the procedure and requesting that he be awarded with the degree of Ph.D (Appendix-13).
The University seemed to have been
perplexed by the very irregularities
it had been committing and so it was considered by the syndicate at its meeting on 4th June, 1977. It decided to cancel the communication dated 10th March, 1977, directing revision. It further directed the Controller of
Examinations to send the revised
Thesis of 30th March, 1976 to Dr. Mitlic Gaspek of USA, Dr V. Madhusudhana Reddy and Prof.
Leo Gabriel. In June 1977, two
copies of the Thesis were sent to
Prof. Leo Gabriel and Prof. Gaspek. Prof. Gaspek sent it to his
colleague Prof. N. Bhattacharya and the University later acquiesced in it. Prof. Bhattacharya sent his
report on 30th March,
1978. to Prof. K J Shah, who was appointed in the place of Prof. Madhusudhana Reddy, who did not
reply to the University's
communication, he being out of service then, Prof. Shah sent his report on 18th September, 1978. Both the examiners
rejected the thesis. All these facts became known when the University filed a counter to the W.P. 476 of 1979, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Appendix-14).
On 15th June,
1977, Mr. Innaiah was informed that his representation
was under consideration (Appendix-15). Evidently the
University did not choose to inform the candidate about the
revised Thesis being sent to the original examiners. As
time was running fast, as nearly 10 years have elapsed
after the candidate's submission of the Thesis on 3rd October,
1969, he became courageous enough to file a Writ Petition No.
476 of 1979 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 19th January
1979, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing
the University to constitute a Board of Examiners to conduct the Viva-voce
for him in relation to his Thesis (Appendix-16). The University filed the counter earlier referred to as Appendix No-14. The position stood thus — The original Thesis was read by four
examiners out of which two have
recommended award of the degree; one recommended rejection and one opted for directing revision. The revised Thesis was perused by five examiners out of
which one has recommended acceptance,
two for rejection and two opined that
it needed revision. Thus out of nine Scholars who had the privilege of examining the Thesis either in
the original form or in the revised
form, opinions were expressed as follows. Three examiners recommended acceptance, while another three examiners rejected its worthiness and the
remaining three chose to direct
revision. Thus it is evident that the matter was not free from doubt. Moreover, one fact became evident that there was a wide difference of opinion
between the Austrian school and the
American School in respect of the subject
itself. This can be inferred from the communication of Dr. Gaspek to the
University as referred to the counter to WP. 476 of 1979 (Appendix-14). Prejudices seemed to have played a vital part in the decision of the
examiners who ought to be above these
considerations. Apart from that, the University
cannot be expected to direct the candidate to revise the Thesis twice, as rules do not permit the same.
What all happened after the reports
of the original examiners i.e., what happened
after 1971 is null and void as being contrary to law and he rules. At any rate, as two out of the three
examiners of the First Board
recommended acceptance of the candidate's Thesis, it should have been accepted for award of the degree.
Then Mr.
Justice Alladi Kuppuswami, dierected the University on
6th February, 1980, to consider the position as it obtained in
1971 after the receipt of the reports of the examiners viz. Prof. V.
Madhusudhana Reddy, Prof. Leo Gabriel of Austria and
Prof. Daya Krishna. The Vice-Chancellor was directed to decide within one month
whether he should direct the viva-voce examination to be conducted, or the Thesis should be
revised or rejected.(Appendix-17). The Court was also pleased to
direct that viva-voce should be conducted within two months if the
Vice-Chancellor chose to do so.
One would expect smooth sailing thereafter, but alas, it
was not so. Mr.Innaiah as called upon by the University by its
communication dated 16th April, 1980 to appear for the
viva-voce examination on 27th April, 1980. (Appendix-18).
He complied with the direction. There, to his dismay and
consternation, he found only two examiners, one who rejected his Thesis viz.
Prof. Daya Krishna and the other his erstwhile supervisor Prof, V. Madhusudhan
Reddy who
by that time rejoined service in the University. What happened at the
interview was far from being happy. The viva-voce
examination was riot utilised for the purpose for which it was
intended i.e. to determine whether after all the scholar has written the Thesis or
somebody else did it for him with the
connivance of the supervisor. The two examiners did not have the advantage of reading the Thesis again for they did not have copies of the same with them.
The last time they read it was in 1970 or so i.e., nearly a decade ago. The copy of the scholar was borrowed by them and
questions poured forth. What
transpired at the interview was referred by the candidate in his letters to the
Vice-Chancellor dated 27th
April, 1980 (Appendix-19) i.e., the very day of the examination and dated 6th May, 1980
(Appendix-20). On 16th June, 1980 the
Vice-Chancellor of the University chose to reject the Thesis submitted by Mr.
Innaiah (Appendix-21). This was unexpected for the supervisor and guide commended the Thesis as early as 1970. Presumably he must have changed his stand. Consistent with his earlier
stand, Prof. Daya Krishna might have
rejected the Thesis as unworthy for acceptance. Eyebrows were raised as
it is probably the first time in the
University that a Thesis was rejected in viva-voce and probably first occasion in the academic
history of India when a guide and
supervisor went back on his earlier recommendation. Mr. Innaiah filed the Writ Petition No. 3452 of 1980, praying that the Andhra Pradesh High Court
might be pleased to direct the
University to award the degree of Ph.D. to him (Appendix-21). The University filed a counter (Appendix-22). Ms. Justice Amareswari by her
judgement dated 14th April, 1981,
accepted the contention of the scholar
that viva-voce conducted on 27th April, 1980, was against the rules framed by the University as only
two examiners were present then. The
Hon'ble judge set aside the viva-voce. She
opined that there was neither logic nor justification in appointing Dr. Daya Krishna as an examiner for the
viva-voce as he had earlier rejected
the thesis outright and denounced it
in the harshest terms. Prof. Madhusudhana Reddy was found to have written on 27th April, 1980 to the
Vice-Chancellor. His letter reads as
follows ;- "In the context of the
disturbing controversy into which my name got involved, I request you kindly to keep me out of any panel of
adjudicators that you may
contemplate for the purpose," This attitude of Prof. Madhusudhana Reddy was quite appropriate and befitting the membership of the academic
community had the matter stood there.
Moreover Mr. Parthasarathy
as the One-man Commission, opined
that one of the contributory
factors for the delay in respect of the Thesis was “remissness" on the part of the internal
examiner, thereby meaning Dr.
Madhusudhana Reddy. It was unfortunate that he should have decided to sit as an examiner for viva-voce. The Court thought that Dr. Madhusudhana Reddy's
presence at the viva-voce examination,
should be dispensed with, in the circumstances of the case, It opined that the
University has power under Rule 32 to dispense with the viva-voce
in certain
cases. It directed the University to adjudicate upon the Thesis in
the light of its observations without any further delay
(Appendex-23). To a call attention of an M.L.A., the Hon'ble Minister for Education
stated in the A.P. Legislative Assembly that
the University has decided to award the degree of Ph.D to Mr. Innaiah in the Convocation to be held on 14 th May,
1981. Ultimately, he was awarded with the degree. Thus, Mr. !nnaiah became Dr.
Innaiah,
The
price paid by Mr. Innaiah was heavy. For want of Ph.D. degree
he had to lose the opportunities of continuing in the
University. He became a freelance journalist and ultimately ended up
by now as a working journalist. It took him nearly 12 years after the submission
of his Thesis to get the degree. It involved
two legal battles in the High Court. The
University took nearly eleven years to reject the Thesis at the first instance. Such an inordinate delay
engendering horrible mental agony to the scholar is unheard of in the
annals of the academic life.
Mr. N K Acharya
the present president of the Hyderabad
Rationalist Association and editor of the 'Indian Rationalist' during 1967-1971 stood the ground and argued Mr.
Innaiah's case with ability and steadfastness of purpose.
I The success of Mr. Innaiah is the tale of victory of the cause of
'Justice to the Scholars.' It may appear to be the lone fight
of a single person; yet it partakes of the character of a fight
for the vindication of rights of scholars to have their dessertations treated with
consideration and sympathy in keeping with the highest principles of the academic
life. It
is neither a craving for charity nor is a praying for mercy. It is a reminder
to the Academies to keep flying the banner of intellectualism
in the country. It is a beaconlight beckoning the academic
community to develop spirit of enquiry, respect for knowledge
and attitude of detachment. All kudos to Dr. Innaiah who
braved the hardship and suffering to raise the standard of revolt for a just and
noble cause.
-
M.
V. RAMA MURTHY
No comments:
Post a Comment