Controversies:

1.Written scathing attack on Rajaji (C.Rajagopalachari and K.M.Munshi about their Hindu revivalistic attitude. published in Prajavani Telugu weekly from Guntur in 1958. At that time working as Personal assistant to N.G.Ranga, the president of Swatantra Party. Naturally political people in the party did not like it. Soon left the post to join as teacher in Sangareddi, Medak district A.P 1960-64)
2. Articles written in Vahini against the revivalistic literature of Viswanatha Satyanarayana. These articles written jointly under the psuedo names as N.Sulapani (myself) and Radharani ( Mr. Siddabattuni Ramakrishna my friend and class mate in A.C.College, Guntur) evoked much controversy and got the attention of famous liberal poet like Katuri Venkateswararao. Katuri wrote appreciation article about us in Krishna Patrika.
3. Articles under the Pen name N.Sulapani continued in Andhra Bhoomi daily from Secundrabad. Editor Gora Sastri. Editor came to know the real name only after 5 years when I met him personally.
4. Controversy about supernatural powers of humans. Articles and rejoinders between me and Dr. Sripada Gopalakrishna Murthy in Andhra Bhoomi. Jillellamudi amma a god woman is the theme. Mr. Potturi Venkateswararao was the editor.
Mr. Kodavatiganti Kutumbarao wrote appreciative critical article when I published on supernatural powers.

Marx-Marxism
Andhra Jyothi daily carried series of my articles on Marx. The theme was how communists eclipsed Marx by not revealing some of his early writings and life in England. When the Editor sent the articles for comment the communist Marxist leader Makineni Basavapunnaiah declined to answer saying that these matters are well known!

Tanguturi Prakasam
During 1982 election campaign in Andhra Pradesh article published about Tanguturi Prakasam got much attention. Mr. Gajjela Malla reddi was editing Eenadu daily. They received several letters protesting my article but none answered the points raised. Prakasam was supposed to have bared his chest to police gun in 1928 in Madras when Simon Commission arrived. Prakasam himself wrote in his autobiography that he wanted to see a dead body after the protest subsided in the evening. A police stopped him but the person standing next to Prakasam informed the police that they just wanted to see the body. Then they were allowed. That was the theme of the article. People who falsify the history and accustomed to hero worship did not appreciate the fact. Eenadu people also taken aback at the reaction of the readers.

Vivekananda
Article on Vivekananda, published in Udayam Telugu daily led to violent protests from Hindu fundamentalists. Some people came with sticks to the gates of the newspaper. At that time the editor was A.B.K.Prasad. The manager was K.Ramakrishna Prasad. Dasari Narayanarao was the managing proprietor. They all resisted the attempt of the protesters and asked them to send the reply so that it may be published. Surprisingly next day the editor A.B.K.Prasad wrote one article on Vivekananda euloging him without referring to the facts mentioned in my article.

Homeopathy
Articles published on homeopath raised bitter controversy in Udayam daily. Puranam Subrahmanya Sarma editor of weekly in Udayam published the article. Mr. Devipriya was assistant editor.
Protest processions in Cuddapah, Gudivada, Nellore and other places took place. The controversy continued in dailies, weeklies and monthlies. Most of the answers to the points raised by me were not met. The main contention is that it never proved scientific test anywhere.
There was much curiosity among the humanists, rationalists and atheists about my criticism on homeopathy system. None could establish that homeo is scientific in its method. But some humanists, atheists and rationalists practice homeo and earn money. They were in fix. Mr. Baksh Siddarth a humanist who was running educational institute in Mandapet, East Godavari Andhra Pradesh India organized an open debate in Rajahmundry on Homeo. On one side I am there. On the other side Dr.KrishnaChoudary and N. V. Brahmam were there. Dr. Yerneni Venkateswararao professor in physics and principal of college in Gudivada Krishna district AP presided over. The largely attended meet went on for three hours. I attacked homeo both theoretically and in its unethical practice. The defenders failed to answer except to repeat what Hahnemann says.
then onwards the debate continued in journals, dailies and in meetings. Dr Mitra in Hyderabad failed to answer our criticism.
I published a book in Telugu and articles in English. Even radical humanists at Bombay and Delhi were in dilemma, including V.M.Tarkunde.
When they fail to apply scientific method to their beliefs these confusions arise.
Some communists failed to raise to the occasion since some of them also practice and earn money.


Andhra Pradesh Open University
When Andhra Pradesh Open University started in 1982 I was staunch supporter of it. Mr.Bhavanam Venkatram as chief minister was chief protagonist of it. Dr G.Rami Reddi was its first Vice Chancellor. Later Ram Reddi deviated from its principles and ideals. He converted it into a large-scale tutorial institute forgetting the Open University aims. There was thin margin between the traditional university and Open University. I organized a seminar in Osmania University (ICCSR hall). In my paper I criticized the present Open University functioning. G.Ram Reddi was at Delhi at that time as vice chancellor of Indira Gandhi national Open University. Even then he could not gulp the criticism and started a tirade against me, not through answering my points but by mean tactics. He sent his disciples to chief minister N T Ramarao, ministers, judges, secretaries, and media editors asking them not to give any publicity to my viewpoint. Even my close friends like Polu Satyanarayana, his wife Sesharatnam joined the campaign. They also tried to victimize my wife Komala who was working in Open University at that time. Nothing came out except all came to know the other side of Ram Reddi and Open University.

Ph.D Thesis
My Ph.D thesis hit headlines in press. It took 13 years to confer Ph.D degree. My guide was proof V.Madhusudan Reddi. He was disciple of Aurobindo. My subject of the thesis was The Philosophical Consequences of Modern Science with particular reference to Determinism. I consulted Dr. Sripada Gopalakrishna Murthy, Dr. Ravada Satyanarayana, Dr. CTK Chari (Madras Christian College) and few other eminent science persons for the completion of the thesis. I also borrowed the unpublished manuscript of M. N. Roy on similar theme from AB Shah. The thesis was submitted in 1969. My guide Dr. Madhusudan Reddi approved it in writing and then only I submitted. Later the twists and turns it took became interesting subject. The panels were changed, and altogether 13 people had gone through it with their own observations. The university appointed justice Parthasarathy to go into the case history. He wrote devastating report against the guide. Justice Jagan Mohan Reddi was the vice chancellor at that time. Fearing that he would be punished Dr V Madhusudan reddi my guide resigned to his post in the university and left to Aurobindo Ashram Pondichery. Later he joined with the connivance of G.Ram reddi, vice chancellor. The high court ordered the university to follow rules and decide my Ph.D case. The department conducted viva voce. Dr. Daya Krishna from Jaipur came as external expert. Dr. Madhusudan reddi rejected my thesis in interview. The high court ridiculed him for double-tongued attitude. At that juncture the university followed the majority principle and confirmed the degree to me.

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 thesis. Its chequered career is influenced and shaped by acts of well meaning and honest persons as well as they 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.” . He had passed the preliminary Ph. D. test held in September 1966 Mr. Innaiah was then one of the lecturers in the philosophy Department of Osmania University. As such, he submitted some research papers. They were commanded by his superior for publication as articles He submitted his thesis on October 3. 1969. He was not informed about the fate of his thesis even by June 22, 1973. Then the scholar wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor of Osmania University requesting him, for the information On December 17, 1974 he was asked by the controller of examinations to revise his thesis Philosophical Consequences of Modern Science . He was furnished with extracts from the reports of the examiners . He submitted his revised thesis on March 30, 1976.

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 . They wrote a ‘Letter to the Editor’ in a local English Daily. This seems to have irked the Aurobindities of Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, a One-man Commission headed by a retired Judge of Andhra Pradesh high court, Mr. V. Parthasatathi 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 the respect of the manner in which the thesis was handled is revealing. It spoke of 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 repost it is observed, “it is frustration that grows out of weary years of waiting that enhances or deepens the paths of 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 necessary action just prior to its directing the candidate on December 17, 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. Mahdusudhana 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 April 25, 1976. Even this incident created problems for Mr. Innaiah for he was asked to submit the revised these with the certificate from his supervisor. Under the circumstances then prevailing, it was impossible.

Several factor till then unknown to the candidate became known, thanks to 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. Mahdusudhana 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 April 17, 1971, had resolved that the thesis of Mr. Innaiah be referred to the fourth examiner. The offer was made to three foreign examiners in succession an ultimately it was send to Prof. Richard Hecking of USA, on July 6, 1972. Since the report of Prof. Hecking was not received for a long time, Dr. Milick Gapek of Boston University was approved as an 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 June 10, 1974. It seems that the syndicate has resolved to call upon the candidate to review the thesis. The communication of the syndicate’s direction was made on December 17, 1974. Thus, it can be seen that it took nearly two years from April 17, 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 June 10, 1975 to December 17, 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 Parathasarathy.

The English daily press reported the news of the report of 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 far as possible, be referred to the same examiners for their opinion. But this rule was not brought out to the notice of the Vice-chancellor who appointed on 18th May 1976, the following three teachers as examiners :-

1. 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 Satchitanada Murthy recommended the award of Ph. D. degree, Prof. N. K. Devraj and Dr. Barlingay, have suggested the revision of thesis. On January 11, 1977 the syndicate passes 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 June 4, 1977 . The Dean, Faculty of Arts was requested on March 1, 1977 to communicate to the candidate that he should revise the thesis. He was suggested that the reports of the three examiners be communicated to the candidate. Accordingly, on March 10, 1977 the University sent a note to the candidate calling upon him to revise the thesis . The extracts from the reports of the examiners were supplied to him On May 21, 1977 he wrote a letter to the university protesting against the procedure and requesting that he be awarded with the degree Ph. D. . The university seems to have been perplexed by the very irregularities it had been committing and so it was considered by the syndicate at its meeting on June 4, 1977. I decided to cancel the communication dated March 30, 1977, directing revision. It further directed the controller of Examinations to send the revised thesis of March 30, 1976 to Dr. Millic Gaspek of USA, Dr. V. Madhusudhana Reddy and Prof. Leo Gabriel. In Jun 1977, two copies of the thesis were sent to Prof. Leo Gabriel and Prof. Gaspek. Prof. Gaspek sent it to his colleague Prof. N. Bhattacharaya and the University later acquiesced in it. Prof. Bhattacharya sent his report on March 30, 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 September 18, 1978. Both the examiners rejected the thesis. All these facts became known when the university files a counter to the W.P. 476 of 1979, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh High Court .



On June 15, 1977, Mr. Innaiah was informed that his representation was under consideration . Evidently the University did not choose to inform the candidate about the revise these being sent to the original examiners. As the time was running fast, as nearly 10 years have elapsed after the candidate’s submission of the thesis on October 3, 1969, he became courageous enough to file a Writ Petition No. 476 of 1979 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on January 19, 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 . The University filed the counter earlier referred to as Appendix-14. The position stood thus – the original thesis was read by four examiners out of 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. This 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 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 . Prejudices seemed to have played a vital part in the decision of the examiners who ought to be above those 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 in null and void of being contrary to law an the rules. At any rate, as two out of the first board recommended acceptance of the candidate’s Thesis, it should have been accepted for the award of the degree.



Then Mr. Justice Alladi Kuppuswami directed the University on February 6, 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 . The court was also please 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 was called upon by the University by its communication dated April 16, 1980 to appear for the viva-voce examination on April 27, 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. Madhusudhana 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 not utilized for the purpose for which it was intended i.e. to determine whether after all the scholar has written the these 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 fourth. What transpired at the interview was referred by the candidate in his letters to the Vice-Chancellor dated April 27, 1980 i.e., the very day of the examination and dated May 6, 1980 . On June 16, 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 real as 1970. Presumably he must have changed his mind. 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 when back on his earlier recommendation. Mr. Innaiah filed the Writ Petition No. 3452 of 198, praying that the Andhra Pradesh High Court might be pleased to direct the university to award the degree Ph.D. to him . The university filed a counter . Ms Justice Amareswari by her judgment dated April 14, 1981, accepted the contention of the scholar that viva-voce conducted on April 27, 1980, was against the rules framed by the university, as only two examiners were present then. The honorable 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 April 27, 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 this 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 discuss 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 . To a call attention of an M.L.A the honorable Minister for education stated in the A.P Legislative of Ph.D. to Mr. Innaiah in the convocation to be held on May 14, 1981. Ultimately, he was awarded with the degree. Thus, Mr. Innaiah 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 this 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 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 an steadfastness of purpose.



The success of Mr. Innaiah is the take of victory of the cause of ‘Justice to 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 dissertations treated with consideration and sympathy in keeping with the highest principles of the academic life. It is neither a craving for charity not is a praying for mercy. It is a remainder to the Academics to keep flying the banner of intellectualism in the 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

President of Indian Radical Humanist Association, Editor Vikasam monthly, For more details see the publication: The Philosphical consequences of Modern science with special referece to Determinism

Published:

Booklinks, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 200029

India 1982



Evelyn Trent-M N Roy

Ms Eva Alexandra Uchmany referred in her edited book (in Spanish) entitled Mexico-India Kiran Saxena of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi in the article Su Busquedo de liberated en Mexico pp 156-177

Extensively quoted my book Evelyn Trent Ispat Mexicana, S.A.Dec.V Fondo deculturo Economica 11550 Mexico D.F 1998

The news hit the head lines: Indian express put it: Thesis and Anti thesis!

Evelyn Trent and M N Roy
I am an admirer of M N Roy’s Humanism. But in my research I found that Roy was concealing facts about his first wife Evelyn Trent. During my visit to USA from 1992 onwards I started searching for papers in library of Congress, National Archives, New York Public Library, and several other places. Finally I got papers from Amsterdam, which shows the separation M N Roy, and Evelyn in 1927.I also met Devin Meredith near Los Angels. He was nephew of Evelyn. He provided some information. Then I published articles in Radical Humanist and then brought out a book. Some Royists did not like my articles and revealing facts against Roy. D.B.Kaarnik was furious with me. V.M.Tarkunde tried to justify Roy’s attitude. M.N.Roy claimed himself as lie hunter. This research material belies it. Roy wrote his autobiography in 1950s, which he dictated to his second wife Allen. But he did not mention a word about his first wife. My contention was that Evelyn was not mere wife to Roy. She was co founder of Indian communist party at Tashkent in 1920s. She worked with him in international communist movement, edited journals and traveled along with him to Mexico, Europe, Russia etc.
how can Roy ignore all these historical facts?

N.G.Ranga
Written articles and exposed the defections of N.G.Ranga political leader in India. He started his early academic career in Madras Pachayappa College as economics lecturer. He was associated with Justice party, which cooperated with British rulers and fought against Brahmin hegemony in social fields. Ranga denied that he ever associated with Justice party. But when Simon commission visited Madras in 1927 Congress party organized protests but Ranga though present in Madras never participated in it. When Nellore Venkataramanaidu asked him to contribute against Zamindars Ranga was hesitant since he was in Pachayappa College. Only from 1930 onwards he came out openly against Britishers and Zamindars.
Similarly he was bitter opponent to Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi. Later he joined her party and supported emergency during 1975 onwards.
All that criticism against him was not welcomed by his associates. I also interviewed him in Doordarshan Hyderabad.

Tripuraneni Ramaswamy
I wrote articles on Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudary both appreciative and critical on his role in Andhra social reform. He started his career as casteist. His name had the suffix Choudary, which is Kamma caste .He, was associated with Arya samaj and Hindu Maha sabha while staying in Tenali town as municipal chairman. When he had interview with MN Roy in Tenali, Roy was disappointed with Ramaswamy`s Hindu views. Gradually Ramaswamy changed and converted himself as iconoclast and published critical works on Hindu epics Ramayana Bharata, Gita etc.

Humanists & Rationalists

Child Abuse

who's who in hell