R & P

Research and Plagiarism ( R & P) are two sides of the same coin. As they that, "Copying from one is Plagiarism (P) while from many is Research (R) ". It becomes particularly important in our indian context where R & D practically and ironically stands for "Read and Duplicate" rather than its usual meaning i.e. "Research and Development". There is a thin line dividing Research and Plagiarism and usually it's very context-sensitive. All top universities in the world treat P as a criminal offence and they have publicised their anti-plagiarism policies on their web-sites. But our premier research institutions like IITs and IISc don't seem to have a policy on this in place. Even if a policy exists who cares in this country. There are so many policies and only policies on other matters also but .... I guess you got the point.

Again, as usual, there are two school of thoughts. One which says that there is nothing wrong in borrowing the idea than trying to become failed but so-called original creative. And the other which values the capability or Human mind to think independently and to create something new. This is what research is all about. It's not always putting old wine in a new bottle rather it's a creation of new flavour itself. Imagine without true researchers what would our life had been? Have a look around in your surroundings? Could you mention even a single thing which is a result of plagiarist's effort?

Let's become devil's advocate for a moment and ask ourselves, Why should not people plagiarise? What's wrong in sticking to reverse engineering and rejigging a tried-and-tested formula? To put it Shakespearically, If to P or not to P, that's the question, then why not P? i.e. the easier way out of the two. There are so many strict deadlines to meet, so much researh fundings to get, and there is so little time for research. Who has got the patience and time of Thomas A. Edison or Claude E. Shannon to spend so many years on single research topic? Then why is it a criminal offence? If people say it's just an act of morally-impaired researcher, let them say that. Well, I would exclude software copyright supporters vs open source movement enthusiasts from this writing. Interseted are directed to this article by Richard M. Stallman.

So, let's stop worrying about P and assume that our researchers too responsible to make any policy to check P. In my views, P has always been there and will continue to exist as a shadow of R. e.g. Louis Kahn got inspiration fom Piranesi, Mozart copied tunes from his arch-rival Salieri; Martin Scorsese did a remake of J Thompson Lee’s Cape Fear, and Spielberg’s background score in "Raiders Of the Lost Ark" is virtually copied from a Tchaikovsky composition.

Now coming back to the "original" question, To P or not to P? I neither advocate P nor I say that it's good for R. Since there is nothing absolutely good or bad, everthing is relative. So, I leave the ultimate choice to you. I would like to end this monologue by quoting a very famous statement by bollywood film maker Mahesh Bhatt,

"For me, there is nothing like plagiarism, since there is nothing like originality. The human brain is a recycling bin. If you hide the source, you’re a genius." :-)

--------------------------

-Narendra Shukla