**Ganita vs formal math: re-examining mathematics, its pedagogy, and the implications for science**.

Here is the extended abstract, and the official tweet from the Director (seated, extreme left). (Will get a better photo.)

]]>Tweet from Makarand R. Paranjape, Director, IIAS (Official) (@ShimlaIias) Makarand R. Paranjape, Director, IIAS (Official) (@ShimlaIias) Tweeted: Prof. C.K. Raju, Tagore Fellow, IIAS, made a presentation yesterday on “Ganita vs Formal Mathematics: Re-Examining Mathematics, its Pedagogy and the Implications for Science” in the Seminar Room of the Institute. Prof. R.C. Pradhan chaired the session.@MakrandParanspe https://t.co/jpzGuDh1oX https://twitter.com/ShimlaIias/status/1139432721946595328?s=17

But this understanding of colonial math makes it easy to decolonise math. We need only to critically examine and junk church myths (such as Euclid) and related superstitions about axiomatic (or faith-based) math, and focus on the practical value of (normal) math. A key such superstition, brought in by colonial education, is that formal math is “superior” because deductive proofs are infallible.

The foolishness of this belief (irrespective of its church origins) has been argued out in detail in the article on Decolonising mathematics, published in *Alter*Nation 25(2) pp. 12-43b. Download the whole paper by clicking on the link above or below.

Not only are deductive proofs highly fallible, they are *more* fallible than empirical/inductive proofs. The purported infallibility of deductive proofs is just another church superstition like the purported infallibility of the popes who erred in understanding even elementary arithmetic algorithms for addition and multiplication. Laughably, much Western thought is founded on this superstition (because the church first hegemonised the Western mind).

The above article covers part of the keynote address I gave on “Decolonising math and science education” at the 11th Higher Education Conference, Univ. of Kwazulu Natal, Durban, in 2017. The video, presentation, and other details were given in an earlier post.

]]>It is simple commonsense, however, that a lie is always told for a reason. But the reason in this case is beyond the understanding of our smart alecs. They miss the connection of the “Euclid” myth to church theology.

Our current school texts teach children the false history that “Greeks” did mathematics in some superior way which they must imitate. The myth goes that “Euclid” gave “irrefragrable proofs”, by using the axiomatic method. For this purpose, he supposedly arranged the theorems in a particular order.

**Cambridge foolishness about “Euclid”**

Cambridge University, a church institution, subscribed to this myth. As pointed out in this exhibit, it initially adhered to the practice of blind imitation of “Euclid’s” *Elements*. Then the Cambridge Special Board for Mathematics in its Report on Geometrical Teaching dated 10 May 1887 declared the proofs in “Euclid” need not be blindly imitated but **the order of theorems in the Elements must be followed**. On 8 March 1888 this was adopted by the Cambridge Senate as part of the amended regulations for the Previous examination.

This move by Cambridge University to “reform” mathematics teaching was excessively foolish. Thus, while the book *Elements* has axioms and proofs, the simple fact is that it has no axiomatic proofs, as today understood in formal mathematics. Specifically, the first and fourth (SAS) proposition of the *Elements* have empirical proofs, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. (See, the detailed grievance against the NCERT.) If empirical proofs are admitted in one place, the order of the theorems becomes irrelevant, because the “Pythagorean theorem”, for example, can be proved in one empirical step, as was done in India. But the dons of Cambridge University failed to understand this, and made exam regulations based on their botched understanding.

**Axioms but no axiomatic proofs in the Elements**

The belief in axiomatic proofs in the *Elements* comes only from the “Euclid” *myth* **not** from a reading of the actual book, which our smart alecs never read. Even the dons of Cambridge University had not read it carefully from 1125 (when the book first came to Europe) until 1887. This Cambridge foolishness in mathematics, driven by the Euclid myth, easily exceeds the foolishness of Sir John Lightfoot, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, who, in the 17th c., refined Bishop Ussher’s absurd date of creation, to fix the time of creation at exactly 9 am according to the gospel.

Eventually, Bertrand Russell, among others, pointed out the foolishness of the belief in axiomatic proofs in the *Elements*, calling the proofs in the *Elements* a “tissue of nonsense”. But, because of his Cambridge indoctrination, he kept believing in the Euclid myth that, the mythical “Euclid”* intended* axiomatic proofs. Hence, Russell along with David Hilbert invented formal math on that equally foolish belief in the intentions of a non-existent person, and in the church superstition about the superiority of deductive proofs (more details on that superstition in the next blog post).

**Actual Greeks tied math to religion**

Actual “Greeks” (Pythagoreans, Plato, Proclus) were NOT interested in axiomatic proofs, and interested only in the religious aspects of geometry, in arousing the soul and making it recollect its past lives (mathesis). This required turning the mind inwards. I have described this in great detail in various places, including my book *Euclid and Jesus*.

**Axiomatic proofs a church tradition**

But the church adopted the method of proof based on axioms (i.e., assumptions about the unreal), as in Aquinas’ proof about the number of angels that fit on the head of pin, based on certain axiomatic beliefs about the amount of space occupied by unreal angels. The church found the axiomatic method convenient, as part of its theology of reason (advocated by Aquinas and the schoolmen as the best way to convert Muslims). Obviously, basing reasoning on facts, as in universal *normal* math (including Indian *gaṇita*), would go contrary to all church dogmas (about angels etc.). As a loyal handmaiden of the church, Cambridge University, promoted the superstition that the axiomatic (or faith-based) method is “superior” to the empirical method, and that authoritatively laid down axioms (like Aquinas’ axioms about angels) are “superior” to facts.

We started imitating this way of doing mathematics as part of colonial education (which imitated Cambridge).

**“Euclid” myth teaches us to imitate the church**

**So, when millions of students are taught the “Euclid” myth, and told that this way of doing math (formal math) is “superior”, they are being taught a church myth about “Greeks”, to teach them to imitate a foolish church practice.** Neither they, nor our smart alecs, understand this tricky way of indoctrinating children to teach them to imitate a church practice though a myth about the only “friends of the church” — the early Greeks. So, the Euclid myth is just a simple innocent lie, is it?

He had some of the magic of Mahatma Gandhi: a leader who could inspire people to act in ways they never imagined they would. He inspired all Malaysia. Regretfully, I forgot to ask him the secret of that. Very widely read, up-to-date and sharp. Totally dedicated to others and unwaveringly honest. Therefore, even when we disagreed, there was never any rancour, just laughed it away. Here he is at the International Islamic University Malaysia (to receive an honor) wearing a robe which he did not want to wear, but did so anyway!

Most obituaries have remembered him for his remarkable work on CAP and SAM and the Third World Network. But he also took a major initiative in education in the form of Multiversity and the many conferences he initiated to decolonise education, and the series of books he got published through Multiversity and Citizen’s International. As Tan Sri Dzulkifli Razak noted, that was way before #RhodesMustFall.

Uncle Idris will certainly live on through the numerous initiatives he took.

]]>The new grievance is given below.

This grievance is raised as a response to the response received to grievance DOSEL/E/2019/01152 (signed Smt. Tulika Verma, Under Secretary).

The response received from Smt. Tulika Verma, unfortunately, does not address all the five points (falsehoods) DOSEL/E/2019/01152 contained, and at best, can be seen as a partial (and unsatisfactory) response to FALSEHOOD 2.

Vide this grievance, we request clarity on FALSEHOOD 1 in DOSEL/E/2019/01152:

1) Does NCERT consider Euclid a historical person who lived in the past (Yes / No / Not sure)

(There are 63 references to Euclid, and one image, in just the 9th standard NCERT math text)

2) If the answer to question 1 above is a yes, what is the serious evidence NCERT can furnish to support the claim that Euclid is historical

Serious evidence means evidence from PRIMARY sources. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia are unacceptable, as are secondary sources. The related point also being made is that Euclid is part of church propaganda. Therefore, merely producing some Western secondary text in support of the propaganda is NOT acceptable. (Or if NCERT regards it as acceptable, it must also agree to put a bold warning at the beginning of the school text that it has no serious evidence for the story stated about Euclid, and that its policy is that all Indian children are obliged to accept whatever nonsense is stated in Western secondary texts, and have no right to challenge those texts by demanding primary evidence).

Thank you for your attention.

The NCERT in its response failed to supply any evidence for Euclid. This laughable response is further proof of the total irresponsibility of the NCERT. Its implicit policy is that students dare not ask questions, for if NCERT cannot answer, obviously the teachers would be unable to answer similar questions in class.

]]>The author, a facebook expert, is unable to separate the *myth* of Einstein from the *theory* of (special) relativity (this intellectual sloppiness is critical to his argument). I had made this distinction (between the person Einstein and relativity theory) very clear, even for layperson, in my TGA acceptance speech, on Einstein’s mistake. Einstein plagiarised the special theory of relativity from Poincare, without fully understanding it, and *consequently* made a mistake.

Decades earlier, I had pointed out Einstein’s mathematical mistake (about functional differential equations) in my book *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory*, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994 (Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 65). Before pontificating on “poor Einstein”, Srivastava should have bothered to inform himself. He should have read at least the reviews of that book say the one by J. F. Woodward in “An Essay Review of C. K. Raju’s *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory *(Kluwer Academic:, Dordrecht)”,* Foundations of Physics ***26** (1996) 1725-1730, or by **G. J. Klir**, Review of *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory * (*International J. General Systems* **27** (1999) 427-8). Perhaps Srivastava reads so many registered letters, he has no time to read scientific books.

Third, because the physics involved is so elementary (special relativity is a first-year under-graduate subject), my point about relativity was published even earlier as a series of articles in *Physics Education* (India). (Ironically, one of the referees for those articles was from TIFR.) My argument *was* debated internationally, and my claim (of a paradigm shift) was attacked by H. D. Zeh. But the debate was effectively settled after I actually published the first solution of the functional differential equations of electrodynamics (in a journal edited by Zeh). This debate is described and explained in my more recent series of six expository articles on functional differential equations in the same journal. (References to all articles can be found in the 6th article.)

Sadly, Srivastava, is unfamiliar with all this elementary physics. He is a scientist by virtue of his job, not knowledge. He would have done better to avoid this public exhibition of his ignorance.

The fact is that no one refuted any of my arguments, either mathematical or historical, about Einstein, in the past 25 years, since my first book was internationally published. To the contrary, on the centenary of Einstein’s special relativity paper, in 2005, the supposedly great mathematician Michael Atiyah, a former President of the Royal Society, in his Einstein lecture, *endorsed* my argument, against Einstein, for it is an argument readily understood by a mathematician. Actually, Atiyah plagiarised my thesis (about Einstein’s mistake) from my above book. (Imitation is the best form of flattery!) So keen was he to falsely grab credit for my argument, that even after he was personally informed, he kept plagiarising it until he was eventually exposed and forced to admit it, and later indicted for plagiarism. Ironically, again, two former directors of TIFR, including the late M. G. K. Menon, supported my efforts (”Petition against celebrity justice”) to bring Atiyah to book, against the Western ethics of always defending cheating by Westerners.

**Colonial attitudes**

However, people like Srivastava exemplify the colonial trick of using science to deprecate Indians by putting them down to establish mental authority over them. This results in the widespread but wrong impression about “inferior Indians”. To correct it, I recently wrote a series of article on “Scientific temper in ancient and modern India”. My point was that the experimental method was used in India long before it was used in the West.

My other point was that Western science is not real science because it is inextricably mixed with myth and authority. The truth of Western science is too often decided by prestige: by *reputability*, not *refutability*, because that (reliance on authority, e.g. of the gospel) was the traditional Western way for centuries.

Elsewhere, I have given detailed examples of the resulting bad science from Stephen Hawking, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, etc. and the related false myths.

Particularly important is my Euclid challenge prize of Rs 2 lakh against the current NCERT text which corrupts the minds of our children. Far be it from people like Srivastava to academically answer any of these objections.

But the colonised mind is angered by any suggestion of pre-colonial or anti-colonial science, for that threatens the false myths of the colonial master, the falsehoods which were the real source of colonial power.

Therefore, the main response of our “scientists” (and other academics) is to howl “Hindu fanatic”. This shows what third-rate academics they are, for they always attack the person (without even checking whether I am a Hindu), never the argument. This personal attack is intended as a “clever” way to hide their inability to respond to my arguments. This is the mob mentality of the colonised/racist mind, which was the result of “colonial education” (i.e., church indoctrination). This is also an easy way to indirectly defend the genocide by Christian fanatics in three continents, on which Western wealth is based. The objective of the colonial mob is to kill the truth in favour of church myths implanted from childhood. They hope to use the authority (not knowledge) of science for that purpose, the way the church did.

The full form of the above article on scientific temper (to be brought out as a book) included the total lack of scientific temper in modern India, especially among scientists and those others (of our elite) who rely on the authority (not knowledge) of science.

Clearly, for the colonised, “science = authority”, and Einstein etc. are symbols of Western scientific authority which no one is permitted to challenge because it threatens the authority of the colonial master. But that authority is being challenged, and it will fall—soon.

]]>I know the defence that will be offered for the Hyderabad conference, on mathematics education and society. That the participants do not care about plagiarism and lack of editorial and academic ethics, because they are campaigners for social justice in relation to math. This is false.

Colonialism, or invasion of the mind through colonial education, is the most pernicious and oppressive form of social injustice today, affecting the largest number of people. For social justice in relation to math we need to decolonise math. To decolonise math we need to critically re-examine its false history and bad philosophy, as I pointed out in my censored article, now in Journal of Black Studies, and Rhodes Must Fall. But critical re-examination of the West (except the lightweight criticism pre-approved by the West) is** **taboo for the indoctrinated and superstitious colonised mind.

Let me take a simple example. The fake church-story of Euclid is used today to teach formal mathematics by glorifying metaphysical reasoning in the manner of the church theology, and contrary to common sense. The story is fake and NCERT or anyone else in the world is unable to provide serious evidence for Euclid despite my Rs 2 lakh prize for such evidence. There are five lies in that false claim about “Euclid” (see the related section on five lies in my IIT-BHU talk). These multiple lies aim to indoctrinate young children into church dogmas. Why do we still have these false church stories in our school texts? Did our social-justice-mongers ever object. No way! They cannot because they have to show their loyalty and submissiveness to the Western master. They think that keeping silent is a great way to support not only plagiarism but also all kinds of Christian chauvinism packaged with colonial education.

Millions of students fail to understand the resulting metaphysics of invisible points, as in current Indian class VI math texts. This “education” forces them into a state of ignorance about math, hence, science, to force them to accept Western authority as the sole index of truth about both. It enables continued colonial exploitation, even after the supposed end of colonialism. When our social justice-mongers peddle inclusiveness in education (without any critical check on its nature): all they are peddling is inclusiveness into church propaganda to keep people colonised! Note, incidentally, that the related myth of :”Euclid” was invented, like Christian rational theology, during the Crusades, long before capitalism!

Note, also, that this Christian chauvinism in history relates to the genocidal “doctrine of Christian discovery” on which Vasco “discovered” India, or Columbus “discovered” America. How many times did our social-justice seekers condemn this genocide, the largest human genocide known to the world? (On my principle of proportionate condemnation, they should condemn inustices proportionately.) This evil doctrine of Christian discovery is still part of “ideal” British and US law, and states that any land or knowledge is “owned” by the first Christian to “discover it”, i.e. they are at liberty to steal it.

Joseph and Dennis Almeida know that plagiarism by Christians from a non-Christian was regarded as a high act of Christian morality, as was the genocide in three continents. Joseph, a trained lawyer, knows this evil Christian doctrine is part of US and British law. Hence, also, Joseph et al., have been serially and shamelessly plagiarising my work: they believe as Christians they have a right and duty to steal from non-Christians. And our purveyors of social justice concur by keeping quiet not only about the genocide, but also about the present-day plagiarism! Ha, some social justice this!

Finally, no doubt, people like Guru will say they are fighting for dalits even if they know nothing about math education. But is even that really true? Joseph is peddling nothing but a dirty mix of Kerala and British chauvinism, as already shown in part 2. Hence, Guru is doing a a great disservice not only to academic and editorial standards of integrity but also to the dalit cause by tacitly supporting Joseph.

The truth will eventually out, and ignorance is no excuse for scholars. Therefore, this is how they will be remembered, Joseph and Almeida as academic thieves of the worst kind, and those who tacitly support them as staunch supporters of academic and editorial dis-integrity and social injustice.

]]>Plagiarism, or the theft of knowledge, whether of the calculus, or of the calculus transmission thesis, has ill effects on mathematics education. This is not just about cheating in exams. When cheaters turn teachers it will naturally create a problem for the students.

As explained in part 1 of this blog post, in my Hawai’i paper of 2000 I had proposed a tough new standard of evidence for the history of transmission of calculus, as “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal law. This paper involved the very thesis that Joseph and Almeida have serially plagiarised over the last 18 years in the most shameless way imaginable.

However, later on, in my book *Cultural Foundations of Mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof and the transmission of calculus from India to Europe in the 16*^{th}* c. CE* (Pearson Longman 2007) I introduced a further test for transmission: the epistemic test. Those who cheat and copy, like students in an exam, do not fully understand what they copy. Hence, lack of understanding is positive proof of copying in a suspicious context. (I used to apply this test to my students,) Therefore, imitating the plagiarists spreads a wrong understanding of mathematics. Let us first take the case of calculus.

Though Europeans stole the Indian calculus (for their navigational needs) and understood some of its practical value, they did not fully understand it, exactly in the way they had earlier failed to fully understand imported Indian arithmetic for centuries.

Two simple examples are as follows. Precise trigonometric values were a key motive for the theft of the calculus. The Indian calculus was used to calculate the most precise trigonometric values then known (accurate to 9 decimal places). Arithmetically challenged Europeans desperately needed those values for a solution of their navigational problems (to determine loxodromes, latitude, and longitude at sea), as acknowledged in the huge prizes instituted by various European governments from the 16^{th} to the 18^{th} c.

The Jesuit general Clavius published exactly those Indian trigonometric values (to exactly the same precision) in his own name in 1607. Clavius cheated, but though he claimed to have calculated trigonometric values to such high precision, he did not understand how to apply elementary trigonometry to calculate the radius of the earth, a critical parameter for navigation. Ha! Indians accurately calculated the size of the earth, from at least a thousand years before Clavius (as confirmed by al Biruni who cross-checked also Khalifa Mamun’s physical measurement of one degree of the arc).

Likewise Clavius authored the Gregorian reform of 1582 based on Indian calendrical texts (as his favourite student Matteo Ricci confessed; see Ricci’s handwritten letter in my MIT video or presentation “Calculus the real story”.) But arithmetically backward Europeans even then did not know the correct duration of the tropical year, hence Protestant Europe did not accept the Gregorian reform for the next 170 years, until 1752, long after Newton’s death, leading to many more European deaths at sea.

Likewise, George Joseph and his accomplice Dennis Almeida reveal their utter lack of understanding of basic concepts (taught in 9^{th} standard math texts) and have made terrible mathematical blunders, on the record, which show that they are complete mathematical ignoramuses. Some of these have been discussed in my book, in the section on the transmission of the transmission thesis: for example, they foolishly and repeatedly say that solar declination can be measured at sea (how?), thereby also completely failing to understand my point that the Gregorian reform was needed to be able to measure latitude at sea in daytime.

Again in their *Race and Class*** 45**(4) 2004 article, written even as the Exeter ethics committee was going on, Joseph and Almedia copied from my Hawai’i paper of 2000, shamelessly failing to acknowledge it, though they had access to it since 1999, which they themselves acknowledged only in 2007 (but not in 2003, or 2004 when they copied from the Hawai’i paper). While some of my points about Indian pramana vs deductive proof are copied with only a few inaccuracies (but copied without acknowledgement, even while an ethics committee was on in which both participated)Joseph and Almeida some interesting statements which expose their mathematical illiteracy. Thus, my Hawai’i paper mentioned floating point numbers, and used a computer program which I then used to teach as part of my C programming course, to make a philosophical point about the failure of the associative law with floating point numbers. I pointed out that present-day practical computations with calculus are all done on a computer which uses floating point numbers.

Not understanding this mathematical subtlety, Joseph and Almeida blundered that (p. 46) “the use of irrationals…**was accepted in Indian mathematics by the use of floating point number approximations**“. How foolish! This was no typo, for they repeat , even more amazingly (p. 51), “**the Kerala mathematicians employed…floating point numbers to understand the notion of the infinitesimal and derive infinite series**.” My foot! Floating point numbers are a recent IEEE technical standard (No. 754 of 1985) specifically adapted to digital computation. Nothing to do with the Kerala school. And there is absolutely no way in which floating point numbers can be used to derive infinite series. Utter balderdash. Possibly neither Gopal Guru nor Rochelle Gutierrez understands the huge mathematical blunder involved here. But they are all ready to address a conference on math education!

As a matter of fact (see e.g. IIT-BHU presentation for the reference and sloka) Nilakantha states the EXACT sum of an INFINITE geometric series. (Finite geometric series were known from several thousand years earlier since the Eye of Horus fractions, and the Yajurveda.) So Joseph also proved he is a historical ignoramus. He lacks knowledge of the original sources or even the related language (but is ever ready to bluff and cover up one crude lie with another, as he did about rajju ganit in my presence in Berlin in the year 1999). Rajju Ganit, by the way, is a major alternative decolonised course on mathematics that I am proposing at school, as preparation for my decolonised course on calculus without limits, as clear from the linked articles in the IIT-BHU workshop. Obviously, these ignoramuses don’t understand any of its concepts. That damages mathematics education.

Why because a valid history is important to arrive at the correct philosophy with which the calculus originated, and the way it ought to be taught today.

Indeed, Europeans particularly failed to understand the epistemic issue of the Indian method of summing the infinite series from which precise trigonometric values were derived. Descartes blundered saying the circumference-diameter ratio was “beyond the human mind”, alluding to the related Indian infinite series today fraudulently called Leibniz series. Leibniz himself did not understand it, and sought help, as pointed out by Newton who called him the “second discoverer”. But Newton’s own absurdly confused doctrine of fluxions, had to be abandoned despite the foolish responses of Jurin to defend it against Berkeley’s objections to Newton and Leibniz. (Detailed references in my book *Cultural Foundations of Mathematics.*)

The fact is that Newton’s physics failed just because he made time metaphysical (as explained in my book *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory*, Kluwer, 1994), and Newton made time metaphysical (“fluxions”, “absolute, true, and mathematical time flows equably without regard to anything external”) just because he failed to understand the Indian calculus.

But, of course, Joseph, an economist, knows nothing of physics either. He only understands chauvinistic politics and lies of a low variety. Since Joseph is constantly trying to balance his claims of Kerala origins with his British citizenship, in his handcrafted fake-news release for the Manchester university website, he tried to balance both. He said the Indian discovery of the calculus did not affect Newton’s greatness!

<”The brilliance of Newton’s work at the end of the seventeenth century stands undiminished - especially when it came to the algorithms of calculus.”

Ha! What algorithms of calculus?

Eventually, because the purported originators of the calculus (“Newton and Leibniz”) failed to understand it, in the 19^{th} c., the West developed a different metaphysics of infinity (formal real numbers), aligned to church dogmas of eternity, and in the 20^{th} c., the West developed the metaphysics of infinity called formal set theory to make sense of formal real numbers, while avoiding the multiple paradoxes of Cantor’s naive set theory. And that is how we teach calculus today (using real numbers; I regret to say I too taught calculus and real analysis that way for several years); because colonial education means blind imitation of the West and denouncing every Indian critique of the West as Hindu chauvinist, is an easy way to preserve bad philosophy related to church dogma and contrary to elementary common sense (e.g. see my IIT-BHU presentation).

But this Western misunderstanding is an INFERIOR way to teach calculus, it is better to teach calculus the way it originally developed, as in my course on calculus without limits. But how can serial plagiarists and mathematical ignoramuses like Joseph ever understand that?

The problem is there is no way to actually teach a calculus course if one starts believing in wild remarks like those of Joseph and Almeida that floating point numbers can be used to derive infinite series. Nor can one understand how the calculus developed in India if one keeps wrongly imagining like Joseph and Almeida that it was purely the work of the Kerala school.

But Hyderabad university has invited such mathematical ignoramuses to speak on mathematics education at its conference which aims to influence our math education. How shameful, and how damaging to the interests of millions of students.

This is already enough social injustice, for the purported champions of social justice to commit. But the next part of the blog will have more.

]]>History, they say, repeats itself. In 1998, I officially started my research project on the origin of Indian calculus and its transmission, on a grant from the Indian National Science Academy, and publicly advertised for a post-doctoral position, outlining my project objectives. Ever since then, George Joseph, author of the *Crest of the Peacock*, and his accomplices have been systematically stalking my work and serially plagiarising it. I trusted an utterly dishonest Joseph who got hold of my unpublished papers from 1998, and used them without acknowledgement since the 2000 edition of Joseph’s *Crest of the Peacock*. (The earlier edition had no mention of calculus transmission, the 2^{nd} edition mentions copied various passages in my works, copying at least 3 of my mistakes.) But it is still little known that not only was calculus stolen from India, but my thesis that the calculus was transmitted, was similarly stolen.

This despite the fact that George Joseph and his accomplice Dennis Almeida have twice been indicted by ethics committees of Exeter and Manchester universities. Exeter University later sacked Dennis Almeida who apologised twice, once in 2005, then again in 2007. The second apology was a total deceit, since shortly after that he teamed up with George Joseph to plagiarise a full paper of mine, almost verbatim.

The plagiarised paper was one submitted to George Joseph who organized a conference in Trivandrum in the year 2000. As conference organizer Joseph had privileged access to the paper, which privilege he violated by copying the papers verbatim. It is so sad that editors of respected journals like EPW indirectly support this kind of editorial fraud by sharing a platform with Joseph.

The proof of verbatim copying is easy. There are three very similar papers involved: (1) my paper (part 1 and 2) of 2000, submitted to Joseph’s Trivandrum conference and called Trivandrum 2000 paper, (2) a slightly modified version of that same paper published ANONYMOUSLY and in violation of copyright law and ethics in the proceedings of the Trivandrum conference edited by Joesph, called Trivandrum 2003, and (3) the same paper (Manchester 2007) but with Joseph included as author, by the artifice of changing the affiliation of the anonymous author to include Manchester university, put on the Manchester university website in 2007, and accompanied by a fake news release which clearly identified Joseph and Almeida as the authors, and led to media blitz in India. The news was clearly fake, since the relevant “research paper” was never published, not even as of now.

After the resulting media blitz only the *Hindustan Times* was decent enough to publish a retraction.

It is very easy to check that the Manchester news release was fake news. Just compare the papers Trivandrum 2003 (in the proceedings edited by Joseph) with the Manchester 2007 paper which accompanied the fake news from Manchester. How did a paper published in 2003 turn into a new research paper in 2007 just because it acquired a new author? The news release also said that the publication was funded by the British Arts and Humanities Council (AHRC). How could that be when the paper was already published by the beginning of the grant? Incidentally, that also shows that Joseph and Almeida are financially corrupt.

This already shows that Joseph is a brazen liar who can tell any kind of lie, which normal academic plagiarists will not conceive of. But Joseph’s plagiarism can be proved through the internal contradictions in his own claims, and without reference to my Trivandrum 2000 paper.

I could not attend Joseph’s Trivandrum conference of 2000 because I was invited to deliver a keynote address at an overlapping major international conference (8^{th} East West Conference) in Jan 2000 in Hawai’i. The related paper was published in *Philosophy East and West* **51**(3) pp. 325–62 in 2001. In that paper, I introduced a new standard of evidence for the history of calculus transmission: the standard of proof beyond doubt used in criminal law. Here is the relevant extract on the history of calculus from that published 2001 paper (and here is the whole Hawai’i paper). The Hawai’i paper was the first to be published in 2001, and the first to state this standard. That is the essence of the paper plagiarised by Joseph. Just compare it with the Trivandrum 2003 paper, and the Manchester 2007 paper. Some more details of cut paste copying from the Hawai’i 2001 paper, in the later papers, are posted online.

Another oddity, the UNPUBLISHED version of the Hawai’i paper from 2000 is acknowledged in the Manchester 2007 paper, but not in the Trivandrum 2003 paper. Obviously, if Joseph and Almeida knew about my paper for the Jan 2000 Hawai’i conference, but not of the published version, they knew it from 2000. So, why is it not acknowledged in the earlier (Trivandrum 2003) paper, but acknowledged in the later (Manchester 2007) paper. And once my Hawai’i paper is acknowledged, what exactly is original in either of those plagiarised papers?

This is not the sole attempt to fudge references. In the 2000 edition of his *Crest of the Peacock*., Joseph copied a key passage with mistakes, but without acknowledgement from my 1999 Agra paper on the Yuktibahsa. The Trivandrum 2003 paper acknowledges this Agra paper in notes 3 and 48. But because of the Exeter indiction, in which he participated as a “disinterested party” feeding all sorts of lies to the ethics committee, by 2007 Joseph was aware that I was on to his tricks. Hence, the Manchester 2007 paper makes a clumsy attempt to cover up, by deleting this Agra reference. The attempt is clumsy since a reference to the Agra paper as “cited earlier” is still present in note 53. What clumsy crooks Joseph and Almeida are! Is this what Hyderabad university wants its students and faculty to imitate?

The Manchester University ethics committee in 2010 asked its media office to apologise for its fake news of 2007, about Joseph and Almeida, which grabbed media headlines in India because Indian journalists still believe the prime formula of colonial education “trust the West, mistrust the non-West”. Only the Hindustan Times actually investigated the matter and then put up a retraction to its earlier front page news item. As for Manchester university it first said the ethics committee was not authorised to ask the media office to apologise. Later, it took down its fake news of 2007, for even in 2010 that fake news from Manchester university was still unsupported by any published paper. But then it slyly put the fake news right back, after some time, with just an acknowledgement of my work (falsely implying that the the verbatim plagiarist Joseph had contributed even an iota). No sir, neither Joseph nor Almeida did any serious work on calculus transmission; they just stole the thesis, like Jesuits earlier stole the calculus .

By inviting a serial and verbatim plagiarist Hyderabad University is doing a grave disservice to the academic community. Is it sending a message to its own academics to plagiarise in this way? Or does it till subscribe to the colonial ethical standard for history that it is OK for Britishers to plagiarise from Indians, but not the other way around. That is the colonial standard isn’t it: loyalty and submission to the Western master?

I even put up a blog some time back giving some details “George Joseph: serial plagiarist”. Upon hearing of the Hyderabad conference, I wrote to Gopal Guru and Rochelle Guttiriez who are other plenary speakers at the conference. But neither responded back. I am sure Gopal Guru understand the ethics and politics of silence, and I had hoped that he would refuse to participate. If he does still participate, he surely knows that by doing so he is asserting his and EPW’s tacit academic support for such plagiarism and awfully dishonest editorial standards by sharing a platform with a serial plagiarist, and a dishonest editor. On the Jain ethic, actions speak louder than any purported intentions, so this precedent sets the unwritten policy of EPW as regards plagiarism. Double standards are anyway to be expected from Western academics. Not like #MeToo is it? What does it matter if the minds of millions of colonised are damaged?

The second part of this post will deal with the issue of how condoning plagiarism results in bad math education.

]]>