January 31, 2014
Alex, not satisfied with my analysis, has cited some material in the public domain to 'prove' plagiarism by Arvind Kejriwal.
I've reviewed that material but am NOT at all impressed.
1) The largest block of "similar" text cited has a DIFFERENT MEANING in Arvind's text
Consider this text from Nagar's book:
This means that:
When a person complains against someone from a department, the complaint is examined by the same department's officials. In such inquiry the person complained against is protected by the person inquiring against him (I'm not sure about the meaning of 'vajib shulk bhi janch adhikari dwara vasuli jati hai").
And consider this text from AK's book which is cited as an example of plagiarism:
The actual English translation of AK's text is provided in Swaraj:
"When complaint is lodged against these officials with their senior officer, the inquiry is conducted by the officers of vigilance department. Under political pressure, or by accepting bribes or just because of carelessness they do not take any action. The citizens on the other hand have no control over these vigilance officers."
Now, Arvind is referring to a general issue about complaints and neither his idea or words bear resemblance Nagar's text. Except for a couple of words there are no similarities. (The actual Hindi text in Arvind Kejriwal's text cites "senior officers" of the department, not "vigilance department"). There is no reference to "senior officers" or "vigilance officers" in Nagar's text. Further, AK's text cites three reasons why complaints may not be acted upon, and mentions that the citizen has no control over these senior officers.This is not part of Nagar's text. Vague resemblance of concept (about complaints) means nothing. Such vague resemblance is probably found in 100s of other writings. Plagiarism involves LIFTING SPECIFIC CHUNKS OF TEXT. AK has not lifted Nagar's text.
2) Most examples cited as plagiarism are largely 4-5 words of common language that anyone can create/think of.
From Nagar [Click for larger image]
And from AK's Swaraj: [Click for larger image]
It is beyond absurd to suggest that sets of 4-5 words, which are NOT EVEN EXACTLY IN THE SAME ORDER, but part of (in some cases) entirely different concepts, represent "plagiarism".
Sorry, I'm not impressed.
This is NOT a case of plagiarism.
Plagiarism, in common parlance, involves SIGNIFICANT USE OF EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS. Ideas, when paraphrased, do not represent plagiarism (although they may breach intellectual property rights in some cases).
It is clear that Arvind's ideas were emanant well before Nagar's book reached Arvind. The apparent similarity of a few words here or there – in no particular order – which are not even a paraphrase of Nagar's ideas – does NOT amount to plagiarism.
I've only see a couple of pages as examples, and there may well be some "exact" words copied elsewhere. But based on what I've reviewed, there is no case of plagiarism against Arvind.
COMPLETE LIST OF POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT