Indology and plagiarism
Apart from borderline cases there are also cases of undeniable massive plagiarism.
One case was discussed long ago by Roy Andrew Miller (JAOS 115.2 [1995]: 343-344), and
a new episode in the same case history was discussed eight years later, now twelve years
From a quick online search I infer that the publication based on massive
plagiarizing is apparently still for sale and present in university libraries.
Some similarities with the current case under discussion, except, I hope, quantitatively:
R Diekstra, till 1997 prof of psychology at Univ of Leiden: those who discovered textual
borrowings which were not or very incompletely acknowledged were aggressively attacked by a
dherents of their favourite public intellectual Diekstra, his sources were (page after page)
from sources relatively unknown to his target public (dutch readers on psychotherapy), he
claimed to be working in haste for a higher aim (helping those needing psychotherapy).
This could be a suitable occasion for the Indology List, the ONLY ONLINE FORUM IN THE WORLD
since 2001 specializing in academic exchange for bona fide scholars, "east"
and "west", in Indology and classical South Asia studies, to give a stronger profile
to Indology's "brand name".
Would there be any harm if the current dvārapālas of the Indology List specify
"Indology"'s position on plagiarism in the Guidelines, for instance that the
hypothetic case of plagiarizing (at least if it is massive?) leads to cancellation
of full membership (should have been self-evident but perhaps it is not), and that
emphatic encouragement and condoning of plagiarism leads to first a warning next to
suspension of full membership? Pro-plagiarists and those in favour of plagiarism
leniency may feel irritated through such explicit stance but 95% others would either
welcome it or consider it self-evident.
This move could liberate bandwidth of the List for more useful and interesting topics and
issues.
Jan Houben