Puranapravesa (1934) and “The Malavas” (1937)

Summary

This article is a personal defence by N. N. Basu against accusations of plagiarism and impropriety by A. Banerji-Sastri concerning their respective studies of the Malava tribe. Basu recounts that he published a Bengali book “Puranapravesa” (1934) and that in 1937 Banerji-Sastri published an article on the Malavas, in which Basu believes his findings were reproduced without acknowledgementfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/Puranapravesa_1934_and_The_Malavas_1937.pdf#:~:text=%E2%80%9CPuranapravefa%E2%80%9D%20,without%20acknowledgment. Basu wrote to the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society asking that his letter be published unchanged, but it was printed with omissions, additions and under Banerji-Sastri’s name, creating a false impressionfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/Puranapravesa_1934_and_The_Malavas_1937.pdf#:~:text=cnough%20to%20write%20back%2C%20%E2%80%9C%E0%AA%A6,Sastri. Basu denies Banerji-Sastri’s accusation that he abused the scholar Pargiter; he argues that his criticisms were legitimate academic critiques and points out that Pargiter himself used strong languagefile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/Puranapravesa_1934_and_The_Malavas_1937.pdf#:~:text=Referring%20to%20Dr.%20Banerji,L.H.Q.%2C%20JUNE%2C%201039%20%E0%AA%A6. He also refutes the charge that he merely adopted Pargiter’s results, noting that his methods of puranic interpretation and the conclusions he reached differ markedlyfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/Puranapravesa_1934_and_The_Malavas_1937.pdf#:~:text=Dr.%20Banerp,has%20thus%20not%20only%20deli. Basu criticises Banerji-Sastri for misquoting his dates and for using his chronology without creditfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/Puranapravesa_1934_and_The_Malavas_1937.pdf#:~:text=Dr.%20Banerp,has%20thus%20not%20only%20deli. The remainder of the article (not fully cited here) contains detailed tables and arguments comparing chronologies of the Malavas, but the central issue is the ethics of scholarship. Basu seeks to restore his reputation by clarifying the matter, highlighting the misrepresentation of his work and emphasising his independence from Pargiter’s research.