The Emperor's 'Borrowed' Robe: 2

I borrowed Narang’s nice-looking book from him. I went through it within next four days. As I was going through this award-winning book I was extremely astonished to discover the fact that how valiantly, without having a second thought to his reputation, Narang had translated several chapters from the books by the Western interpreters without acknowledging the actual sources.

- Imran Shahid Bhinder

PART TWO OF THE INTERVIEW

When and how did you first find out about the plagiarism?

In 2005, I was enrolled for the Master of Arts in English Literary Studies at Birmingham City University (formerly known as University of Central England) to study contemporary trends in literary, social or cultural phenomenon, strictly in the Western context. Before I enrolled for the above course, I studied Post-modern epistemology privately and developed an enormous interest in the epistemological and sociological aspect of postmodernism, which is well known as post-structuralism.

Philosophy in general has always been a passion. I have been studying post-Cartesian Philosophy for the last sixteen years. For the first semester, I wrote two essays, one on great German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s extremely complex philosophy of aesthetics, and second on one of the foremost French psychologist Jacque Lacan’s theory of fragmentation of the self, deeply influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theory. At that time, I had already studied Robert Scholes, Christopher Norris, Catherine Belsey, Terence Hawkes, Raman Seldon and so on.

A friend of mine came from Pakistan, had a huge book in his hand, which he had bought from Islamabad, by Gopi Chand Narang entitled Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtiyat aur Mashriqi Sheriyat. We exchanged thoughts about the epistemological dimensions of structuralism that can be located within the periphery of the highly systematic Kantian philosophy. I established that there is nothing new in Structuralism; it is not even an extension, on any level, of Kantian transcendental philosophy. Structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure is just a linguistic description of Kantianism.

He suggested to me to read Narang’s book because he believed that Narang had taken an original angle. According to his reading of Narang’s controversial book, structuralist philosophy and Derrida’s deconstructive reading of the whole history of western metaphysics had absolutely rejected the entire philosophical tradition. Moreover, Narang, according to him, had shown it. I was inquisitive to learn more about structuralism but this time through Narang’s reading of structuralist theory.

I borrowed Narang’s nice-looking book from him. I went through it within next four days. As I was going through this award-winning book I was extremely astonished to discover the fact that how valiantly, without having a second thought to his reputation, Narang had translated several chapters from the books by the Western interpreters without acknowledging the actual sources.

Can you share with us what portions of his book is lifted and from where?

In all my previous articles, I have written extensively about Narang's plagiarism. I would like to enunciate here few important aspects. English readers will certainly be astonished to know about this strange episode. The first part of Narang’s award winning book entitled Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtiyat aur Mashraqi Sheriyat, in which Narang seems to have discussed structuralism and post-structuralism, consists of exact three hundred pages.

Narang and all the members of his literary company, who have been ingredients of Narang’s award related conspiracy, cannot come up with twenty original pages. When I pronounce twenty original pages I do not refer to ideological, linguistic or sociological originality, I mean those twenty pages, which Narang has not plagiarized. Is anybody out there to prove it wrong? I would say no. As I have claimed that a substantial part of the book on western structuralism, Narang has awfully grabbed. It is now Narang’s or his well-wishers responsibility to break the silence and crack this enigma however.

I will now indicate the books Narang has plagiarised. Professor Raman Seldon’s significant introductory book entitled A Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (1993) has been so unhesitatingly abused that this act would definitely seem to any genuine intellectual unimaginable. Narang has just spared the first chapter where Seldon discusses New Criticism of academic Marxist critic F R Leavis, and the last chapter of the book in which Seldon introduces Feminist theories.

Rest of the book, which consists of about 150 pages are reincarnated (but this time in Urdu) as Narang’s award winning Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtiyat aur Mashriqi Sheriyat. Apart from this extremely deplorable act, an interesting book by Robert Scholes entitled Structuralism in Literature (1974) suffered from the same fate at the hands of the winner of “Padma” awards. Similarly, particular chapters from Christopher Norris’s entitled Deconstruction (1990), John Sturrock’s Structuralism and Since (1979), Catherine Belsey’s Critical Practice (2003), originally published in 1980, are also word for word translations. However, this is not the final episode.

You can read Anthony Easthope’s British Post-structuralism since 1968 (1980), for an interesting, precise although superficial analytical study of Derridean deconstruction and Terry Eagleton’s Marxism and see how Narang has lifted that discussion in the last chapter of his book. For an interesting discussion about Readers Response Criticism and inauspicious aspect of Narang‘s plagiarism, also see Elizabeth Freund’s The Return of the Reader: Reader Response Criticism (1987). For equally interesting facts see Terence Hawkes’s Structuralism and Semiotics (1977).

COMING UP...

'NARANG THREATENED PUBLISHER OF JADEED ADAB'