Editing Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (section)

==== Feud with ''The Modern Review'' ====
Radhakrishnan's appointment, as a southerner, to "the most important chair of philosophy in India" in the north, was resented by a number of people from the Bengali intellectual elite, and ''The Modern Review'', which was critical of the appointment of non-Bengalis, became the main vehicle of criticism.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=37}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=30-31}}{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=116}} Soon after his arrival in Calcutta in 1921, Radhakrishnan's writings  were regularly criticised in ''The Modern Review''.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=116}} When Radhakrishnan published his ''Indian Philosophy'' in two volumes (1923 and 1927), ''The Modern Review'' questioned his use of sources, criticising the lack of references to Bengali scholars. Yet, in an editor's note, ''The Modern Review'' acknowledged that "As professor's Radhakrishnan's book has not been received for review in this Journal, ''The Modern Review'' is not in a position to form any opinion on it."{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=34}}

In the January 1929 issue of ''The Modern Review'', the [[Bengalis|Bengali]] philosopher [[Jadunath Sinha]] made the claim that parts of his 1922 doctoral thesis, ''Indian Psychology of Perception'', published in 1925, were copied by his teacher Radhakrishnan into the chapter on "The Yoga system of Patanjali" in his book ''Indian Philosophy II'', published in 1927.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=34}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=31}} Sinha and  Radhakrishnan exchanged several letters in the ''Modern Review'', in which Sinha compared parts of his thesis with  Radhakrishnan's publication, presenting altogether 110 instances of "borrowings."{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=35}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=31}} Radhakrishnan felt compelled to respond, stating that Sinha and he had both used the same classical texts,{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=36}} that his translations were standard translations, and that similarities in translations were therefore unavoidable. He further argued that he was lecturing on the subject before publishing his book, and that his book was ready for publication in 1924, before Sinha's thesis was published.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=35}}

Scholars such as Kuppuswami Sastri, [[Ganganath Jha]], and Nalini Ganguli confirmed that Radhakrishnan was distributing the notes in question since 1922.{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=32-33}}{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=117-118}} Ramananda Chatterjee, the editor of ''The Modern Review'', refused to publish a letter by Nalini Ganguli confirming this fact, while continuing publishing Sinha's letters.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=117-118}} The General Editor of Radhakrishnan's publisher, professor Muirhead, further confirmed that the publication was delayed for three years, due to his stay in the United States.{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=32-33}}{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=35-36}}

In Summer 1929, the dispute escalated into a juristic fight. Responding to the alleged "systematic effort [...] to destroy Radhakrishnan's reputation as a scholar and a public figure,"{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}} Radhakrishnan filed a suit for defamation of character against Sinha and Chatterjee, demanding Rs. 100,000 for the damage done,{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}} and Sinha filed a case against Radhakrishnan for copyright infringement, demanding Rs. 20,000.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}}{{refn|group=note|The timeline is not clear from these sources. According to Gopal, Radhakrishnan filed his lawsuit in the summer of 1929, to which Sinha filed a clounter-claim.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}} According to Minor and Murty & Vohra, Sinha filed a lawsuit first, to which Radhakrishnan responded.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=37}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=33}}}} The suits were settled in May 1933, the terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and "all the allegations made in the pleadings and in the columns of the ''Modern Review'' were withdrawn."{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=37}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=32-33}}