Teacher’s Day in India, celebrated on September 5 since 1962 to honour Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, has come to face critical scrutiny.
Allegations that Radhakrishnan plagiarised philosopher Jadunath Sinha’s thesis and held conservative views on women have sparked debate over the moral basis of the observance, prompting calls to reconsider whom the nation chooses to symbolise its teachers.
INDIANS CELEBRATE TEACHER’S DAY on September 5, 2026, which began as a traditional practice back in 1962. The date coincides with the birthday of Dr Radhakrishnan—a philosopher and India’s second president—and is widely observed across the country. Schools, colleges, and various other institutions officially celebrate the day, commemorating the teachers; the northern star guiding our societies ahead.
However, with the revelations of Radhakrishnan’s alleged plagiarism and his views on women, many have resorted to critiquing the foundational principles of such celebratory gestures and its appropriateness. Since then, questions have loomed large over the validity of celebrating the birthday of Radhakrishnan as Teacher’s Day across the country.
Indian society has always held the ‘Guru-Sishya’ (teacher-disciple) relationship to be largely pious. Be it through religious texts, works of mythology, or the anecdotes from the pages of recent past, the pedagogical interaction between the teacher and student, as an inherent part of one’s life, has occupied the imaginations of the Indians for long.
Radhakrishnan was a teacher and philosopher, who was grounded in the study of Advaita Vedanta—a school of Indian Philosophy. His works depicted the meanings and nuances of Hinduism and also acted as a bridge between the western and eastern school of philosophy.
The roots of the controversy first took shape in January 1929, when the claims of Radhakrishnan’s alleged plagiarism first took shape. Jadunath Sinha—a lecturer and scholar of philosophy at the Meerut College—accused Radhakrishnan of extensively copying his work without any due attribution or citation. The accusation was serious. Sinha claimed that the first two parts of his thesis, which were submitted to the Calcutta University for the consideration of the Premchand Roychand Studentship in 1922—titled, ‘Indian Psychology of Perception, Vol I and Vol II,’— was extensively plagiarized by Radhakrishnan, and used in his own works. Jadunath Sinha completed his postgraduation (Master of Arts) in Philosophy from Calcutta University in 1917 and had then applied for the prestigious Premchand Roychand studentship in 1922.
During this time, Calcutta university had appointed Brajendranath Seal and Dr. Radhakrishnan as examiners of Sinha’s submitted thesis. Following this, Sinha claimed that parts of his thesis were extensively stolen by Radhakrishnan, which came to his notice only in November 1928.
After this, Jadunath had lodged a serious complaint in the Modern Review Magazine in the form of a letter dated December 20, 1928, which was subsequently published in the January 1929 issue of the magazine.
Utpal Aich—a retired Indian Diplomat and researcher—documented the allegations levelled against Radhakrishnan. In an essay stating this incident, Aich stated that some parts of Radhakrishnan’s book ‘Indian Philosophy Vol II,’ published in 1927, was directly stolen from Sinha’s work. Jadunath Sinha had submitted the Vol. I of his thesis in 1922 and the Vol II in 1923. He had also published extracts of these two parts in the Meerut College Magazines of 1924 and 1926—allowing him to strengthen his claims later.
This tale further extended to 1928, when Radhakrishnan had published another book titled ‘The Vedanta according to Sankara and Ramanuja’ which was a reprint of the 8th and 9th chapter from his ‘Indian Philosophy Vol II.’ This book too, Aich notes, had extensively pirated paragraphs and excerpts directly taken from Sinha’s Prenchand Roychand Studentship Thesis.
After the first letter, Prof Sinha had written three more letters which were published in the magazine’s February, March and April 1929 issues. This was followed by a series of counter-exchanges in the magazine’s columns, including one where Radhakrishnan had accused the editor—Ramananda Chattopadhyay—of harassment.
In the first of August 1929, Professor Jadunath Sinha sued Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in the Calcutta high Court for copyright infringement of original literary works. The charge was serious and Sinha claimed Rs 20,000 as compensation. This was followed by a counter suit filed by Radhakrishnan against Jadunath and Ramananda Chattopadhyay demanding compensation of Rs 1,00,000.
Sinha was a well-acknowledged academic among his peers, professors and the academic community in Bengal. He faced a lot of pressure to settle the case out of court. He also fell short of money to ensure the proceedings go ahead. On the other hand, Dr Radhakrishnan was already a well-revered academic and had a lot of social and economic capital. Utpal Aich, in this essay detailed on this incident. He mentioned how the senior Bengali professors, who initially stood with Sinha, eventually withdrew their support.
Additionally, Asutosh Mukherjee—the then Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University, also the son of Shyamaprasad Mukherjee—was a close friend to Radhakrishnan, and reportedly used his influence to hush up the matter.
Finally, Professor Jadunath Sinha succumbed to these pressures and agreed to settle outside the court, whose terms were not disclosed.
This instance is at the heart of the criticisms leveled against Radhakrishnan. Hence, many oppose celebrating his birthday as ‘Teacher’s Day.’ The opposition is due to a simple fact: celebrating Teacher’ day on the birthday of a man, who has allegedly plagiarised someone’s intellectual creation.
Alongside the allegations of plagiarism, Dr Radhakrishnan’s views on women were also controversial. Scholars of social science and other notable commentators on education, have constantly flagged Radhakrishnan’s views on women as being problematic. He believed that the role of women was best fulfilled in the duties of marriage and motherhood. Political commentators also flag his personal family choices as a testament to his conservative belief.
In his biography, written by his son—Sarvepalli Gopal—there is a mention of how Radhakrishnan arranged the marriage of his daughters without consent, with some of them being married off at a young age.
These instances have stood at the forefront of opposing the celebration of Teacher’s Day on September 5. Critics highlight the significance of a teacher's philosophy and their ideas in guiding the society. Hence, they feel it is not appropriate to celebrate a day as important as ‘Teachers Day’ on the birthday of Dr Radhakrishnan.
Some suggest the celebration be held on January 3, on the occasion of Savitribai Phule’ birthday—who had worked extensively in securing the rights of marginalized women, their rights to education and dignity.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store