Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 2

Hello everyone! This is Swastik. I'm myself a bengali & I can guarantee that Subhas Chandra Bose didn't die of any plane on August 18, 1945, either. It is nowhere written about a plane crash in Taiwan on this date! Some people even saw Netaji till 1970. There was a huge conspiracy by Nehru, who wanted to be the PM of India. So, he locked Subhash Chandra Bose in a lockup in Siberia, Russia. There was an Indian ambassador who knew this, but was warned by Jawaharlal Nehru that if he told this to anyone, first of all, he would be killed. So, please don't mention any particular date, in which he is rumoured to be died.

If anyone wants to be further acquainted with those details, kindly click on these links:^{[3] [4] [5]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs) 18:12, September 19, 2015

@SWASTIK 25 and Padmalochanwiki: If you read the sections above and the talkpage archives, you'll see that the issue of when and how Bose died has been discussed at length, and the article reflects what scholars and historians say about Bose's death and the various conspiracy theories that have arisen in its wake. Per wikipedia policy we follow WP:HISTRS-sources on such a topic, and an official in the publication division of the India's I&B ministry in 1948 believing that Bose was still alive or newspapers reporting that "a senior government official" says that the documents show that "British and American intelligence agencies" were concerned that Bose was being trained to be another Mao etc, are not acceptable substitutes (and, the Zee News accounts are one step further removed from the IE reports!).

If the released documents result in historians reexamining the question and reaching a different conclusion, we can update the article accordingly. Sugata Bose, who is both Bose's grand-nephew and a historian has pooh-poohed the reports at the moment, but detailed examination by other (arguably less conflicted) scholars will take several months or years. That delay is not an issue for a tertiary source like wikipedia when writing about a historical subject. In the meantime we should not be trying to balance scholarly consensus with third-fourth hand newspaper accounts. Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, what's the decision now about Netaji's death? Swastik (talk)

The decision is that we follow the mainstream scholarly consensus and present that he died in a plane crash and mention that there have been persistent conspiracy theories that he didnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

SWASTIK 25, I think I can guarantee that being Bengali doesn't guarantee that you are are all knowing. I am Australian and that doesn't guarantee that I know what happened to our Prime Minister Harold Holt for example, who disappeared 'mysteriously'. 220 of ^Borg 09:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

220, I think I can also guarantee that Harold Holt is more known to the world than Netaji. Being an Aussie, u may not know about Harold Holt, but being a Bengali, rather an Indian, I do know many controversial & undiscovered facts about Netaji's death. So, I would advise u not to waste your time in arguing with me regarding some irrelevant issues. SWASTIK 25 (talk

One of the purely "irrelevant issues" is your proclamations of your personal knowledge of "controversial & undiscovered facts ". So the sooner you drop that, the better off we all will be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I feel it is time to mark the section about "Death..." as controversial. The title be changed to "Alleged Death...." or something similar to make the article appear unbiased. The current version has too many aspects that have been questioned by too many historical references.

Another alternative: May I suggest the content of the section be moved to a different page, and let us just mark Death as controversial and let the other page discuss all theories about death. As such, the current page is misleading as there is no clear proof of death to validate any side's theories.

14.99.126.170 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that indicate that the date of Bose's death is not well established. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: There are lots of reliable sources see here, here, here and here. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sanskari. By reliable sources we mean scholarly ones rather than news sources. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

For that one need to dig Supreme Court's judgements and study of chief justice committee about his death. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are primary sources and are not acceptable. Look for sources published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. --regentspark (comment) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary? Well, the courts judgements are much more reliable and acceptable (don't know why Wikipedia lacks this) since it is only based on the facts and finding and this is what laws means. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Court judgements, committee reports, etc. are all subject to interpretation (law journals consume reams of paper interpreting and parsing court judgements) and they should not be used directly on Wikipedia. Reliable secondary (peer-reviewed) sources examine these reports and judgements and that's what we use on Wikipedia. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation (from WP:PRIMARY).--regentspark (comment) 17:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My request is Netaji's death date can't anybody believe in 1945. so please hide it.

Please read discussion above on this. Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The day of death of Subhas Chandra Bose is actually unknown. The Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry which was constituted to look into the disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose conclusively proved in 2005 that he did not die in any plane crash on August 18, 1945. The supposed ashes placed in a temple at Japan are also not his - these are the findings of the Justice Mukherjee Commission (a judicial commission). here is the wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukherjee_Commission#Findings

Recently, on September 18, 2015, 64 secret/intelligence files on Subhas Chandra Bose were de-classified by the government of the state of Bengal in India. The de-classified files too point to the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose was very much alive post-1945. Here is a news article on the same: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Was-Netaji-alive-till-1964/articleshow/49005391.cms

So my request is to allow me to edit the section of this wikipedia post talking about the "Death" of Subhas Chandra Bose which in reality is "unknown". 180.151.26.68 (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Not donePlease read the discussion above, particularly the material on the nature of sources required to establish any date other than the August 1945 date as his date of death. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on the referencing of this article at template sfn. Please add comments there to ensure all interested parties read them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many files that are declassified. It says that Bose did not attended the flight at Taipei. His grand son says,'My grandpa didn't died in plane crash at least we do not support this statement' Many people in his family thinks that he died at the age of 78,but they have no proof.

It is officially agreed that 'The Death Of Subhas Chandra Bose is a deep secret like the Death Of Hitler' said by National Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God Srijan (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2016‎

What's the point of these assertions? Wikipedia is based on reliable and neutral sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear GorgeCustersSabre, Where are these assertions made in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you were replying to an IP. OK, will fix. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Have added subst unsigned. (I thought these things were added by a bot in the past. Hmm.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fowler has edited to remove a section that in summary stated that many consider Bose to have been strong influence on the decision of relinquishing the Raj, and that Atlee had made a comment to the Governor of Bengal that he himself considered the fall out from Bose's INA and the aftermath to be a key factor. This claim is attributed to a specific author in a respected website. Fowler has deleted this saying this is not backed up by Atlee's own recorded biography. Essentially, Fowler is synthesising information from what is not written to delete a verifiable source. Secondly, the substance of the article, that many in India and abroad, both scholar and laypeople consider Bose's contributions of stupendous importance may be against his niche view from post-raj historians, but tremendously POV, shallow, and one-sided as it ignores a huge body of scholarly work that dismisses this "Gandhyist-Nehruist" narrative as Raj-istly blinkered. So in summary, Fowler is essentially deleting a referenced edit that does not suit his view point (and trying to dismiss/mask a widely held view as inconsequential without any argument against) by engaging in WP:SYNTH. That is not acceptable, and moreover is POV. Since no explanation is offered here, I am going to revert this.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: We are not here to determine "who won India independence" so dont go down that argument, that is not Wikipedia is about. Thankyou.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we need more than a zee news article that relies on second and third hand quotes to upend decades of study by historians. For inclusion, this would need to be backed up by citations to articles by respected historians. Even if Attlee did'chew out' minimal, it does not follow that he believed that Bose was more instrumental than Gandhi in gaining India's freedom (perhaps he rolled out of bed on the wrong side that day). We don't build histories on uncertain passing comments by people, rather we let historians analyze those passing comments and let them decide what is plausible and what is not. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

With his accustomed eloquence and focus, RP has explained this better than I, but hopefully my sources below will be helpful in future discussions. I just did a Google search. This story is now being repeated by politicians on YouTube. Here is India's national security adviser telling one version at the 1:15 minute mark in a Youtube video (I found him difficult to understand) and an Indian cabinet minister(?) S. Swami telling slightly different version at the 5:30 minute mark. Given the current political atmosphere in India, I expect there will be many variant readings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"RP", with your eloquence I would have expected more than snide remarks of rolling out of wrong side of the bed to make an argument. Don't belittle the intelligence of those who contribute in WP, as much as your own, to pretend that "only a zee news" article had somehow survived in an " urban legend" that looked at a remark of long-dead british PM to a third hand source in concluding "who one India independence?" The remark quoted in the article is attributed and well cited in a publication authored by a respected Indian historian and his views will find many takers outwith the toffs of Cambridge, especially respected historoans across the atlantic. There seems to be a consensus with blinkers here where, in true intellectual dishonesty, consensus of one kind is claimed in the absolute lack of one. I will have to take this further in the WP:arbitration process if this nonsense persists.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is does a reliable source berify that JUstice Ca make the comments attributec to him and, do a large proportion of people jold voews similar to the justice's views, historoan or lay. I will let fowler's comments below speak for themselves without splitting hairs.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The question is whether a fringe view is due or not. Regardless of whether he said that he said that he said whatever he said. Rueben_lys, you've been here long enough to know that you need to get consensus for your edits when you find yourself reverted. If you find yourself reverted more than once, then you risk getting blocked if you keep reverting. You might want to undo your latest revert to show that you plan to continue editing in good faith. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the "fringe view that we had huge discussion in the India page a few years ago is it? Because the records I provided at the time substantiated that Bose's contribution is considered quite significant by Historians. My last edit summarised the jist and the popular perception of Bose being "not given due proportion of history" from two widely regarded long standing media reports, you nontheless stamp it as "fringe views". I am sorry, this is turning into you deciding content and then threatening me with blocking. I will have to take this to admin notice board.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: My last edit has nothing to do with the Atlee comment, why do you want this deleted? And you are suggesting Bose not being given enough weight in Indian history text books, is a "fringe view" is it? So something that has triggered a central information commissioner of India to demand an answer from NCERT is blithely dismissed by yourself as "fringe" because you havent read this in your history textbook is it?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

PPS: The consensus issue applies universally regentspark, you should note (and you have been here long enough too) it was Fowlers edit that was reverted by myself. I have raised the issue at WP:ADMIN BOARD.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading the above comments it is difficult for others to follow what the discussion is about. Was the "specific author" G D Bakshi and "respected website" Zee News (not sure whether it is that well respected)? If yes, this does not appear to be important or conclusive enough to "upend decades of study by historians", as User:RegentsPark put it. The veracity of the claims appear to be questionable - it is not as if Attlee had stated this opinion in a book. It would be helpful if any such major changes are well explained with sufficient references, rather than merely attacking fellow editors in the community. - Aurorion (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the "specific author" is R.C. Majumdar, in whose memoirs the letter attributed to Justice Chakrabarty was published. Without conducting OR on whether the letter is genuine or not or whether Atlee could have made such a remark, Chakrabarty was acting Governor of Bengal when the purpoted conversation took place, and this claim is accepted and cited by other historians, including SN Sen (Prof of History in Uni of Calcutta, retd). Regarding thie jist of the edit, Bose's contributions are considered very important in the final decision of transfer of power, especially by Indian historians (see section below with the published analysis by TR Sareen, retired director of the Indian Council of Historical research, and by SR Sardesai, visiting prof of History at UCLA) The fact that some notable broadsheets and popular newschannels repeat these claims, and on top one "specifically states" that many in India consider Bose to have been not given due credit reflects the opinions on Bose in popular culture (which is what the poorly termed section"legacy" is actually trying to say, without oing into hagiography).rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all the section in the article titled legacy is aweful and needs to be renamed and restructured. The content are more aptly headed under "controversies". Secondly for the content itself. Some editors, notably fowler have deleted sections that suggest or or state that Bose made an enormous contribution to Indian independence. This is in the same vein that Fowler stated a few years ago that nothing but Gandhi was important enough to make the cut in a short summary paragraph on the Indian freedom movement. We had a prolonged debate where I was forced to point out with extensive references that consensus scholarly opinion is far removed from what Fowler suggested and in fact attributed considerable importance to Bose's movement in the fag end of the Raj and on Bose's actions upon the decision to relinquish the Raj. This same debate has now been crept up here where every historical opinion ascribing importance to Bose's works are dismissed, usually against a lay editor who has scant access to historical journals etc and are instead stonewalled by the loops of WP:REF, by suggesting there popular newspaper or magazine quotations etc fail WP:REF and are not reliable.In so doing I am afraid, what appears to me evident is that Fowler as a historian (he claims to be a professor in his userpage and there is no reason to disbelieve he is widely read in history) belongs to the school that T.R. Sareen described in 2004 as

(SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE, JAPAN AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM, T.R. SAREEN. European Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1 (2004), pp. 69-97) Sareen explains in the previous page that

, and goes on to explain how you view Bose depends to a large extent which side of the earth you grew up in and got educated. This is the background against which this debate keeps cropping up. Now coming to the main issue of how much is fringe and how much is not. Let's review some reviews of books published in scholarly journals.

Leonard Gordon in 1977 castigated Sarvapelli Gopal's biography of Nehru (contrasting it with Brecher's). Amongst the deficiencies he pointed out in the book was

A more recent monograph by Nick Tarling, The fall of Imperial Britain in South-East Asia (1993) was criticised by D.R. Sardesai in Albion as:

(Reviewed Work: The Fall of Imperial Britain in South-East Asia by Nicholas Tarling. Review by: D. R. SarDeSai. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol. 26, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 579-581)

Even more recently, in a paper in 2010 in Modern Asian Studies, W.F. Kuracina contests the arguments of historians like Judith Brown and David Low that (in a jist) "Independence was coming anyway" by pointing out that

He later notes...

(Sentiments and Patriotism: The Indian National Army, General Elections and the Congress's Appropriation of the INA Legacy. WILLIAM F. KURACINA. Modern Asian Studies. Vol. 44, No. 4 (JULY 2010), pp. 817-856).

Here is Nirmala Bose writing in the The Indian Journal of Political Science in 1985

(SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, Nirmal Bose, The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. 46, No. 4, Special Issue on The Indian National Congress: A Century in Perspective (October-December 1985), pp. 438-450.

I hope these simple opinions and works published in peer-reviewed journals will belie the claim of "consensus" that has so blithely been claimed. It will be amply evident that a wide discrepancy exists in the historical analysis, between Indian historians and those of some "Western" ones. Of course when national newspapers and publications repeatedly make the same statement that a certain someone is regarded by "many in the country" as having made a stupendous contribution to the cause of Indian independence, and that they have been given less than due credit in subsequent period by erstwhile political rivals, then I do not see how that is fringe. For example, Area 52 being a alien landing zone would not make it to the front page of the Guardian or the TIME magazine. Similarly, I do not see the The Independent or the Spectator magazine publishing a story that the moon landings were fake or that Kennedy was murdered by the Castro govt. The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Deccan Tribune, The Hindu these are all widely read and respected publications in Indian subcontinent (I dont why this is having to be explained). Therefore when they publish something stating this is widely regarded, I am very confused why the goalpost is suddenly shifted. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is unhelpful, no response has been offered here, no attempt to address the issues I have highlighted from peer-reviewed sources in academia, and on top of that my edits are being reverted with only cursory summaries of personal opinions. There is no attempt at consensus as I see, and no contributions from other editors to address the one-sided bias that I fear is being foisted on this article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The anecdote has its origin in a letter written in Bengali by the former Acting Governor of West Bengal PB Chakravarti to the publisher of R.C. Majumdar's Bangla Desher Itihas, Vol. IV on 30 March 1976, nine years after Attlee's death and when Majumdar himself was 88 years old (he died at 92). The facsimile of the letter was published in the appendix of Majumdar's Jībanera smṛtidīpe ("The light of my life's memories") (1978) when Majumdar was 90 years old, not in Majumdar's A History of the Freedom Movement in India (whose last edition before his death was printed in 1971). The story, in my view, is apocryphal, there is no reliable secondary source to attest it, and no biography of Attlee mentions it.

More pertinently, the Chakravarti letter is a primary source and can't be used per Wikipedia policy. The Majumdar reference is not a peer-reviewed history source, only a reminiscence. Decolonization, partition and World War II, are three of the most worked on fields of modern Indian and British history. It is hardly likely that Attlee, a post-war Labour PM, sympathetic to Gandhi, and committed to decolonization, would have said this to no one other than an acting governor of Bengal, in whose official residence he stayed for a couple of days as a visiting ex-PM of Britain in the late 1950s, and with whom he had no previous acquaintance. If we are citing primary sources we can directly quote Attlee, who in his remarks after Gandhi's death, said, "for a quarter of a century, this one man (Gandhi) has been the major factor in every consideration of the Indian problem." It is highly unlikely that the same man would have said, ten years later, as the anecdote has it, as his "lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, 'm-i-n-i-m-a-l'." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The remark is attributed to a person (of considerable omportance) in the published memoirs of a respected historian, and fails wp reference only because you wish to infer it as such. The deleted section attributed a claim from Attlee tp a a secondary source with a fascimile and printed against the name of an eminent Indian historian. It is only failing your wp test because you are picking and chosing what you consider what is rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence and what isn't, and stupendously dishonest.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Attlee was one of the early backers of India's independence, long before WW2. He had gone to India for the first time in 1928. He revisited for many months with his wife in 1929. On 25 November 1931, Attlee spoke in the House of Commons: ‘we in this party stand for India’s control of her own affairs ... our position is that India, as has been said, must be allowed to make her own mistakes." (Hansard, HC 1931– 32, vol. 260 (23 November– 11 December) column 416, 25 November 1931.)

(From: Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (2012). Attlee, A Political Biography, IB Tauris B.) "If Attlee’s interest in India had been peripheral prior to the Simon Commission, it had now become central to his political aims. On 2 December 1931, Attlee spoke in a debate on the government’s policy on India after the second ‘Round Table Conference’, which Gandhi attended after agreeing to call off his campaign of civil disobedience in a deal with the viceroy, Lord Irwin. The prime minister opened the debate, with Attlee making the second speech on the problems of India: ‘On their successful solution depends not only the future ... of ... people in India, not only the future of our own country, but ... the future of the world. I believe the solution of the questions between Europe and Asia will depend very largely on what is done.’ (Hansard, HC 1931– 32, vol. 260 (23 November– 11 December) column 1118, 2 December 1931.)"

That speech was prophetic, for the independence of India was followed by widespread British decolonization (Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Guyana, the West Indies, ...) in the following decades. Attlee was a socialist, responsible for creating Britain's National Health Service, post-WW2 nationalizations, and other welfare policies. Moreover, like Gandhi, he was much influenced by Ruskin's Unto This Last. He had been committed to decolonization in India for a full 16 years before 1947. Very little chance he would have attributed Britain's decision to decolonize to these last minute additions to the mix. He may have listed those as the reasons to hurry decolonization and to set a firm date for the transfer of power, but that is hardly the reason why the British left India. It is at best one of the reasons (along with Britain's depleted post-war economy, Direct Action Day and the prospects of more Hindu-Muslim violence, ...) why the British left India in a hurry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I gather you are going to cite this or leave this as your personal opinion? Since Atlee only came to power after the war (friend of Indian cause, he was indeed), and yes hurry to decolonisation is what is the topic, the issue was whether Bose's contributions are considered key or not (See the new section below). The precise point of how much weight is given to the INA and Bose is addressed by historians and I have cited those below, and as Sreen says, there are two schools, one where Bose is evil and a walter mitty figure, and the second where Bose is a hero. However, the problem is the second group is entirely eurocentric (as Sardesai says in his review of Tarling's work). I am sorry but you are merely regurgitating tise "Cambridge scholarship of history" that has been discredited,and yes I will provide you with peer-reviewed journals citations that show historians regard this simplistic view as one sided, biased, and incomplete. More on the topic, on top of not providing a reference and alluding to what I gather is your personal study of Atlee, you do not mention that Atlee (and the labour left) also met with Bose, and considered him the successor of the Congress hierarchy as early as 1938, before all the fiasco of leaving the Congress. Moreover, you have absolutely ignored the influence of the Indian army (the police of the Raj and the colonies) or the loss of reliability of it, as a factor in Atlee's decisions to leave in a hurry from all the colonial posessions (See Bose and Jalal's work for reference). On top of that, Academic historians do not consider the Atlee comment as implausible at all, so much so that it is mentioned in an academic paper in 2006, and repeated in a work of history by a professor of history who found the evidence acceptable and repeated this in his publication. Now if you wish to discuss whether Atlee could have made such a comment or not and base your decisions on that here, then that is OR. You are more than welcome to cite a secondary source that says this is not so, but I leave it open to the reader about what is going on here. On top of that I have cited a number of resepcted broadsheets in India to reflect Bose's legacy in popular culture, but the standard of evidence is apparently different here. I leave the reader to decide who is making a more neutral an balanced argument.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please contrast the comprehensive, high-quality sources being currently used in the article, with the ones you have posted above, one of which, by the history professor says in its blurb, "This Is To Keep The Younger Generation Fully Informed About The Aspirations Of The Freedom Fighters Whose Ceaseless Struggle Brought The Final Glory Of Independence. The Book Provides An Outline On The Most Crucial Period Of Indian History By Incorporating The Fruits Of Recent Researches Both Indian And Foreign On This Subject. In The Revised Edition Special Attention Has Been Focussed On The Contributions Of South India And North-Eastern India To The Struggle For Freedom. Bose-Gandhi Controversy Assumes A New Dimension In The Light Of Recent Unpublished Thesis." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do. I have cited peer-reviewed academic papers from journals authored by reknowned authors of the field] below, and the one I have cited above is [[a academic reference work of scholarship by a Professor of history of a world reknowned university. The reverted edit re:Bose in popular culture was a broadsheet op-ed and considered a reliable primary source. Incidentally, re: the world class references you quote above, these were also identified by myself and used to build the english wikipedia content on the Indian National Army, almost single handedly if I may say so with pride.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, your argument is fallacious. There are very good references to cite what is stated. The problem is the conflict is arising because you are first of all debaing the veracity of a secondary source, and secondly you are insisting that only one school of academic opinion is allowed (which is discredited as too eurocentric) and shutting out other widely considered academic views by insisting (oddly) that that is FRINGE, even when cited. On top of that an op-ed piece that highlighted widely held views in the country and analysed why these views arose got deleted, resulting in a hilarious situation where an Indian person will be told that what he thinks about Bose is not at all what he thinks about Bose. His thoughts are in fact diametrically opposite (re:Congress never forgave Bose, a later edit).rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You will recognise that in these references there hasnt been any mention of Sumit Sarkar, Laurence James and the likes. The Attlee claim is just a sentence. What is important is that that opinion is highlighted and that wide discrepancy exists between different schools of historians exists is also highlighted, and lastly that in popular culture Bose being the uncredited person is also highlighted. That makes the article complete. No body has to decide who won India independence in wikipedia. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I will point out a bit more. You are using Hansard to backup your views, and ascribing a direct link between Atlee's speech in 1931 (with all poetic words etc epiphets) and something that happened in 1947, ignoring everything in world affairs in the intervening period. I am raising serious concern that that is WP:OR. The right place for that is a peer-reviewed journal in History, not wikipedia.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I was using Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (2012). Attlee, A Political Biography, IB Tauris Books, which cites Hansard, and whose assessment I have quoted directly above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thomas-Symonds cites Attlee's speech as evidence Attlee had strong sympathy for the Indian cause. Or are you saying he links that speech directly to the post-war disestablishment of the Raj and decolonisation proces in Asia and Africa?rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

Please indent by adding one more colon than present in the post to which you are replying, or type {{od}} if they have staggered too far to the right and you want to start on the left. Please also keep the discussion focused. The discussion is about the remark attributed to Attlee which I am claiming is an urban legend. Attlee made his first explicit statement supporting dominion status in 1931. There is no mention of Bose, let alone Chakravarti or Majumdar, in all three biographies of Attlee that I have before me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No I dont imagine there would be any mention of Majumdar in Attlee's biography, I am not aware of them having corresponded and therefore that is very improbable. Nor do I expect there to be a mention of Chakrabarty, especially if he only visited him once in his life. And if there is no mention of Bose then what does that prove. Are you going to debate the authenticity or the lack of this purpoted letter? You are analysing Attlee's works and views and passing a judgement whether something published (as correspondence or otherwise) in a noted historians memoirs, and ascribed to erstwhile Governor of Bengal may be authentic or not. That is exactly what WP:OR is. This is not the page for that, that belongs to a peer-reviewed journal or a book. You are moreover missing the wood for the trees. What that letter summarises is a view (of historians as well as lay people) that Bose's work and his army was instrumental in the disestablishment of the Raj, accelerating, triggering or whatever you want to call it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

rueben_lys, you're attaching too much importance to a word that Attlee may or may not have uttered. Few, if any, credible historians assert that Bose's INA was the driving factor in India's independence and that's why we can't include your material in the article. Even the Sen reference you quote above merely states that Attlee's remark about not being able to hold India by force was prompted by the Naval mutiny. To take all this and then to state that it was Attlee gave more credence to Bose than to Gandhi for India's independence is extremely twisted logic. The INA, rightly or wrongly, is merely a footnote in India's independence struggle.--regentspark (comment) 14:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

rueben_lys: In fact there is no biography of Attlee that mentions Bose or the "Indian National Army" anywhere. (See here.) As for Attlee himself, his viewpoint, goals and accomplishments with regards Indian independence are well summarized by J. H. Brookshire, "Attlee called the viceroy and key officials to England in early December 1946: he also met with five Indian leaders, including Nehru and M. A. Jinnah. Following the talks of 4-6 December, Attlee dominated his government's Indian policy. Attlee believed both Congress and the Muslim League were uninterested in a realistic compromise for a united India and impervious to an approaching civil war. Attlee believed a British `scuttle' from India in chaos and war would negate the goal of a positive transfer of power and would harm British prestige as a great power. In addition, Attlee was faced during this same winter with decisions on Middle Eastern and eastern Mediterranean strategy (affecting Egypt, Palestine, and Greece), production of atomic bombs, large overseas military commitments, and the future relationship with the Soviet Union. Considering the Indian, British, and global conditions, Attlee's pursuit and accomplishment of his goal of Indian independence, which a decade earlier he had envisioned achieving under more tranquil conditions, was remarkable." (Brookshire, JH; Clement Attlee, Manchester Univ Press, 1995) This is as far as I go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The published views of historians in peer-reviewed academic journals I have posted below suggests otherwise RP. Please provide a reference to justify what you are saying (as I have), otherwise you are again stating an unsubstantiated position that belonged in the 1950s 60s that has unravelled in the face of academic scrutiny and is exemplified by Sardesai's review of Tarling's work I have cited and reproduced below.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

PPS: Attlee's comment is not the issue here (please see above). Attlee's comments have been moved away from in my edits long ago. You are stretching a (justified) query on if Attlee may have made a comment (for which this is not the appropriate place) to conclude Bose's contributions (ie INA being a footnote in history) are not considered important by historians of the Raj (which is an incorrect position on academic views on this topic). You are missing Jala and Bose's contributions for example which concluded that the army (which they called the police of the Raj) could not be relied upon, therefore the British empire could not be held by "coercion or collaboration" leading unravelling of the colony. That is a far-reaching consequence. And you havent even mentioned the influence that the INA had on south-east asian Indians and activism after the war. See Lebra's analysis in 2008 for example.rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

There are many issues here. Here, in my view, is a summary of post 1943 events:

a) the effect of both Bose and the INA during the war (i.e. '43-'45) on either the Raj or the Indian Army was negligible. This, I believe, is fairly well documented; the Japanese ambivalence towards Bose and the INA too is well documented, including by Lebra, 2008.

b) Although the British were worried, the 2.5 million strong Indian army did not rebel and its demobilization went smoothly after the war (i.e. most soldiers recruited just before the war were given lump-sum payments and discharged). The Indian army remained loyal despite near civil war conditions 1946-47. This too is well documented, including by Lebra, and by the historians of the Indian army,

c) After Bose's death the INA trials did create turmoil in India and caused worry for the British, but this had little to do with Bose. It was mostly orchestrated by the Indian National Congress, and especially by Nehru, who had earlier said uncharitable things about the INA. In other words, the effect of the INA trials on the Raj (i.e. as one of the factors in hurrying decolonization) belongs to the Nehru page, the INA page, the Indian National Congress page, or the Raj page, but has little to do with the Bose page. If it is at all mentioned on the Bose page, it has to clearly cast in terms of the INA trials and their hijacking by the Congress, not in terms of Bose personally. A similar scenario, on a smaller scale, would likely have played out if Bose had stayed on in Germany and the First INA had been court-martialed, but we'll never know.

d) After most INA soldiers were pardoned by the British, some/many(?) joined militant organizations or paramilitary groups attached to Indian political and communal organizations (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) and thereby exacerbated political and communal violence during the partition, but this too does not belong to the Bose page. It belongs to the INA or the Partition of India page. This too, I believe, is well documented.

e) Bose's legacy: although he has had many supporters in Bengal, and latterly in the Hindu right, his legacy has rarely gone beyond the symbolic. Lebra, writing in 2008, says, "The INA leadership has not survived as a cohesive political-military elite, and Bose did not return to become India's man on horseback, as his counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia did. The man on horseback---German or otherwise inspired---has not found a real place in the post-war Indian politique. For a variety of historical, sociological, psychological, and cultural reasons he does not conform to the political culture of independent India." (Lebra, Joyce; Indian National Army and Japan, 2008)

f)Bose's ideological underpinnings, too, are murky and somewhat random. Although commonly described as leftist, Bose spent the last five years of his life dependent on the support of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which few leftists of the era would have contemplated (eg Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Nehru,). In that respect, he is more an all-purpose-adaptable nationalist like Aung San or Sukarno, than a more ideologically committed one like Mao or Nehru. For example, some 600,000 Indians left Burma in the wake of the Japanese invasion. Yet, in 1943-44, after arrival in Burma, Bose was unconflicted about requesting the Japanese to be given access to their assets, which the Japanese denied. This too is well documented. Although some family members have claimed that he was unhappy at the news of German atrocities, he never publicly condemned the Holocaust, though he had a full year in which to make that condemnation (the first concentration camps were liberated in Spring/Summer of 1944). Bose, obviously, never condemned, not even in private, the Japanese atrocities, not just in China, but also in the Death Railway in Burma-Thailand, about which he certainly knew, and the use of which he made in his final exit from Burma. His legacy, as the lead of the article says, is troubled. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

PS I should add that I have edited very few sections of this article: the lead, the "With the Indian National Congress" (section 2), and Death of SCB, which is a summary of the article of the same name which I wrote. The other sections legacy, ideology, etc I have not even cursorily glanced at, and they probably are terrible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me address your points one by one

a) the effect of both Bose and the INA during the war (i.e. '43-'45) on either the Raj or the Indian Army was negligible. This, I believe, is fairly well documented; the Japanese ambivalence towards Bose and the INA too is well documented, including by Lebra, 2008.

Effect of Bose and INA during the war is not negligible (what is negligible? In the battlefield? on the stability of the army?On resources?) The INA required the founding of a whole new intelligence branch dedicated to itself and a whole program of propaganda and newsban to preserve loyalty of the troops. I am not sure what you mean by ambivalence of the Japanese to the INA, but there was friction between the two at field level. Pre-Bose INA's relationship with Iwakuro is different from Bose-led INA's relationship with Kawabe or Tojo. I am not sure if you're trying to forward the "...they were pawns at the hands of the Japs, poor soldier and danced to their tunes building roads as coolies..." line of argument, or making an actual assessment of the impact of the INA (pre-Bose and post-Bose) eg from the works of Toye, Faye, Lebra, Aldrich, Sareen or any other noted authors for example.

b) Although the British were worried, the 2.5 million strong Indian army did not rebel and its demobilization went smoothly after the war (i.e. most soldiers recruited just before the war were given lump-sum payments and discharged). The Indian army remained loyal despite near civil war conditions 1946-47. This too is well documented, including by Lebra, and by the historians of the Indian army,

I am very confused here. We are talking about the same time-period ? "Did not rebel" as in during or after the war? I believe you are trying to say the Indian army did not suffer a whole-scale coordinated mutiny post-INA trials. The histories of the Raj extensively records the problems (Lawrence James does in fact use the word "mutiny") in the Indian armed forces during and after the trial. The briefings of the Indian Armed forces concluded the army, navy and the airforce were no longer trustworthy and that "only day-to-day assessments" of stabillity could be made(See James, making and unmaking of the British Raj, and any other modern history of India for that matter). Moreover, the Indian army sent to support post-war recolonisation in South-east Asia very rapidly began being naughty (See eg, Hyam, Sengupta, and many others) so I am not sure what it is that you mean by "did not rebel" or "remained loyal".

c) After Bose's death the INA trials did create turmoil in India and caused worry for the British, but this had little to do with Bose. It was mostly orchestrated by the Indian National Congress, and especially by Nehru, who had earlier said uncharitable things about the INA. In other words, the effect of the INA trials on the Raj (i.e. as one of the factors in hurrying decolonization) belongs to the Nehru page, the INA page, the Indian National Congress page, or the Raj page, but has little to do with the Bose page. If it is at all mentioned on the Bose page, it has to clearly cast in terms of the INA trials and their hijacking by the Congress, not in terms of Bose personally. A similar scenario, on a smaller scale, would likely have played out if Bose had stayed on in Germany and the First INA had been court-martialed, but we'll never know.

Again a very flawed self-defeating argument. The INA trials created turmoil in India very much because it was to do with Bose and the lifting of the reporting on Bose and his army. The second-INA was Bose's baby from birth (Azad Hind) to death (still drawn out,, see any of the memoirs of INA veterans, Jap veterans, or of British officers who worked with the INA) and as far as India is concerned Bose is the second INA (just google Subhas Bose). In fact as far as INA-solders are concerned INA was Bose and Bose was INA. A horse-drawn carriage cannot be very little to do with the Horse. The Congress only joined the fray after the tension started to grow in India in support of Bose and the INA, right after the newsban was lifted, and is in fact the very thing that Kuracina highlights in his paper I have quoted below. Congress churned an already volatile situation, and Nehru upped the ante to grab the upperhand over both the Raj and the Muslim League with one eye to the 1946 elections, public support had started building before that prompting Gandhi to make a statement. I am not sure how you are finding the link between INA trials and everything under the sun and the moon except for the INA and it's leader Bose. Ofcourse it needs to be clearly clarified that the Congress hijacked the INA turmoil, but I am not clear at all what you mean by Bose peronally. Are you saying you want to make sure "Bose does not get the credit for this"? That is where the problem is coming, that is not wikipedia is for.

I am not sure what would have played out if Bose stayed in Europe, again that is not wikipedia is for. What I do know is that the HIFFS were transported to India and scheduled for trials, which did not attract any attention either from Congress or from the defence committee, but they were released along with the JIFFs.

d) After most INA soldiers were pardoned by the British, some/many(?) joined militant organizations or paramilitary groups attached to Indian political and communal organizations (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) and thereby exacerbated political and communal violence during the partition, but this too does not belong to the Bose page. It belongs to the INA or the Partition of India page. This too, I believe, is well documented.

They were not pardoned. The trials stopped after ten trials to stop inflaming public passion (ie, the Raj was forced to stop). I am not sure what militant organisations or paramilitary organisations you are alluding to but yes they spread to many organisations in India Pakistan, Burma and Malaya and did many things, political and otherwise. That is indeed for the INA page, and is in fact there already.

e) Bose's legacy: although he has had many supporters in Bengal, and latterly in the Hindu right, his legacy has rarely gone beyond the symbolic. Lebra, writing in 2008, says, "The INA leadership has not survived as a cohesive political-military elite, and Bose did not return to become India's man on horseback, as his counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia did. The man on horseback---German or otherwise inspired---has not found a real place in the post-war Indian politique. For a variety of historical, sociological, psychological, and cultural reasons he does not conform to the political culture of independent India." (Lebra, Joyce; Indian National Army and Japan, 2008)

Bose's legacy is a godawful name to start a section with and bears all the hallmarks of either offering an argument to prove he was the best thing since Jesus Christ and George Washington combined, or the devil-incarnate and Hitler's lovechild with the devil.

At a more serious level, I think this section is a poor-attempt with good intentions that fails terribly to state anything meaningful from a WP:BIO point of view. What is the content intended for this bit? If this section is intended to convey what his influence was in post-independence India, then we need to find or identify (from sholarly sources) what if any of independent India's policies followed Bose's proposals or thinking. Incidentally, Bose's following is not limited to Bengal (where it's huge) but to South-India and to massive extent in Indian community in south-east Asia, mostly Tamils., and also if any other organisations, eg the CWC, or the tamil fronts in Malay and Singapore followed his model/theory/predictions etc. Note that this is very distinct from a very different section of "Influences on popular culture" which will have to highlight that the views that he is regarded as a very important (and with relevance to post-independence India, and anti-establishment) figure in the last days of the Raj, many things in popular culture he popularised, eg Jai Hind, Give me blood..., etc, death controvery, Nehru-Bose rivalry and perceived "writing out"s (which is where the HT referenced edit I made came in), and the knight-on-horseback-awaited views, controversies over rumours that he was on a war-criminal list, rumours about repeated sightings, and yes, the theories regarding the fakirs in various parts of India being him. That makes it a complete wikipedia bio article.

f)Bose's ideological underpinnings, too, are murky and somewhat random. Although commonly described as leftist, Bose spent the last five years of his life dependent on the support of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which few leftists of the era would have contemplated (eg Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Nehru,). Although some family members have claimed that he was unhappy at the news of German atrocities, he never publicly condemned the Holocaust, though he had a full year in which to make that condemnation (the first concentration camps were liberated in Spring/Summer of 1944). Some 600,000 Indians left Burma in the wake of the Japanese invasion. Yet, in 1943-44, after arrival in Burma, Bose was unconflicted about requesting the Japanese to be given access to their assets, which the Japanese denied. This too is well documented. Bose, obviously, never condemned, not even in private, the Japanese atrocities, not just in China, but also in the Death Railway in Burma-Thailand, about which he certainly knew, and the use of which he made in his final exit from Burma. His legacy, as the lead of the article says, is troubled.

Great, do you want to put that into a section in the article? Makes it perfectly complete, don't you think? Be careful however to clarify that what is being said is that "many", historians, scholars, as well as lay people find the fact that he worked along side Japan and Germany inexplicable and debate why this may have been so, and not put out a blanket statement that he was a nazi-sympathiser or imply a weak-man for not standing upto Japan because remember that makes it PoV. Especially in South-east Asia he is regarded (along with N Raghavan) as the man and leader who saved the Indian community from terrible fate after the British army "raced past refugees" to retreat and blow up bridges in Malaya and Burma. I dont quite follow the logic of "Bose was unconflicted about requesting Indian assets...", Indians will offer the counter-argument that "Churchill was unconflicting about starving Bengalees..." ie that that is a hippocritical argument that was often propounded in the dinner tables of Cambridge in 1950-60. Indians left behind in Burma in fact consider Bose having saved them. Moreover I believe what you are saying is that Bose claimed under Azad Hind all abandoned Indian property in all of south-east Asia (which the Japs agreed), I dont see why you or I should be casting a judgement there, and I am in fact not aware of any substantiated criticisms of his policies other than some bizzarre statements by Philip Mason which I wont regurgitate here. They decided they said its a war time measure, state it, job done (although belongs to Azad Hind page). That is exactly on the same lines as not saying Churchill was a perpetrator of Genocide for his responsibilities for the Bengal famine. Or accuse the Governor General of Burma of being a nincompoop for abandoning the Indians to their fate, taking all the Europeans and running for Shimla (See eg R.S. Benegal, Burma to Japan with Azad Hind) That is not wikipedia's role. Incidentally, Bose did criticise Japan's role in China, and therefore when he met the Japanese envoy in Calcutta, the latter pleaded that he take a more sympathetic view of Japan, so that is an incorrect statement to make and I am not sure how this has crept into your stream of facts and reasoning.

More importantly, the issues you highlight regarding "left-over property" is to do with the first-INA, the entire fiasco that triggered the "we are not stooges of Japan" furore culminating in its dissolution (Toye records this in very extensive detail). The point I am making is there is many faces to history, you have immediately highlighted that self-defeating half-baked arguments that led to the Cambridgist views on Bose being so widely mocked and ridiculed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have appetite for long rambling arguments. I am writing quickly and eschewing Wiki language, but obviously I know how to cast an idea in acceptable NPOV prose. I stand by (a), (b), (c), and (d). (The legacy and ideology, I will address later below.) I will quote from just one book. Daniel Marston (2014), The Indian Army and the End of the Raj, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-89975-8, but many others Lebra, Bayly and Harper, Peter Fay, and the more general Indian history textbooks say similar things:

a) "The INA's battlefield performance was quite poor when assessed either alongside the IJA or against the reformed Fourteenth Army on the battlefields of Assam and Burma. Reports of its creation in 1942/3 caused consternation among the political and military leadership of the GOI, but in the end its formation did not constitute a legitimate mutiny, and its presence had a negligible impact on the Indian Army." (pp 17-18) "Slim had to issue orders that Indian Army soldiers were to take INA troops prisoner, not kill them out of hand. He recalled that 'our Indian and Gurkha troops were at times not too ready to let them [INA] surrender and orders had to be issued to give them a kinder welcome'" (p 127)

b) "In the final analysis, the historical record shows unequivocally that the vast majority of Indian Army soldiers, NCOs, VCOs, and officers were as loyal to one another and to the regiment as many previous generations had been, and under far more trying circumstances. Bonded by the battle experiences of the Second World War and by a shared sense of pride and professionalism that crossed ethnic, religious, and regimental boundaries, the army remained overwhelmingly cohesive and impartial, even when standing alone in the midst of the civil war that had erupted among their own villages and families. Ultimately, with only itself to rely upon, the Indian Army in the last days of the Raj was indeed a rock in an angry sea. (page 351)"

c) "There can be no doubt that the INA trials placed significant strain on the Indian Army. Gen. Auchinleck, in his attempts to reinforce the success of the Indian Army during the Second World War and offset the INA's impact, was upstaged and outmanoeuvred by Nehru and the Indian National Congress. This was possible partly because of Auchinleck's decision to make the trials public in order to send a message. Nehru and many in the Indian National Congress may not have agreed with the INA's inception or purpose but, in the public presentation of the trials, they recognised a major political opportunity, and seized it. (p150)"

d) "Released due to political pressure from both Indian and British political leaders, many of these (INA) men sought employment as 'military advisers' to the growing number of paramilitary political volunteer groups forming in 1946 and 1947, including the Congress Volunteer Corps, Rashtrya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS Sangh), Revolutionary Socialist Party of India Army, Muslim League National Guards, and Sikh Jathas (legion). INA veterans provided advice in military tactics, weapons, and organisation, and many went on to command and lead various 'gangs' in their pursuit of killing rival political or communal groups, wreaking havoc not just in the Punjab but also in Bengal and the United Provinces." (pp 118-119)

e) and f) There is positive legacy of course (which the Indian National Congress adopted, and which the Hindu nationalists are dismantling even as they elevate Bose symbolically): Not just the slogans, "Jai Hind," etc, but the language (Hindustani = Hindi-Urdu) in contrast to Sanskritized Hindi adopted by the right wing Congressmen and today's Hindu nationalists; Jana Gana Mana as the preferred song, and "Kadam Kadam" (in Urdu) as the marching song, in contrast to the Vande Mataram (harking back to the anti-Muslim protests following the 1905 partition), which again is being revived now by the Hindu nationalists; the appointment of Muslim, and Sikhs in addition to Hindus at the highest levels; the flag with the springing tiger, as has been noted by scholars, that was more religion-neutral than India's current flag or the Congress's flag at the time; the women's regiment; and the religious pluralism. All these were also values that many liberal Congressmen, eg Nehru espoused, and many were incorporated in the Indian Constitution or adopted in popular culture of independent India. Some of this is already summarized in the lead. But then there is the troubling legacy. This too is tersely stated in the lead and references given. He might have criticized the Japanese in Calcutta, before he jointed the Japanese, but after August 1943, all his arguments with them were about control and rights with respect to himself, and the INA, not about Japanese cruelties. As already stated, he was completely silent about the Nazis, with whom he spent two full years. That the Japanese saw him as militarily inexperienced, unrealistic, and yet insistent on his viewpoint is attested by several authors (Marston, Lebra, Gordon, Fay, and others). As for the legacy in politics, except for the Forward Bloc, the larger political legacy is symbolic. His death etc is treated with balance in the Death section and the post-death incarnations treated in the article Death of SCB in NPOV language. Again, I am responsible only for the lead, and I think the description there is fairly neutral and describes a large body of scholarly opinion. Then there is the private Bose: his personal religion; his quick intelligence; his need for an emotional and sexual relationship (with Emilie Schenkl from 1935 to 1943 and his fathering a daughter, whom he left behind as a four-month old baby), and yet---perhaps a reflection of the conservative religious atmosphere around him or the impossible ideals and expectations---his inability to even tell his Indian family at the time, his self-denial during his life in India and southeast Asia, his statements that he was married only to the freedom of India. There is more tragedy there than just the plane crash. I think a proper Wiki biography will need to address all those issues (in a neutral, balanced, comprehensive, and reliably sourced fashion, of course). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fowler I am sure you stand by points to a-f because they do arise from a historical perspective and analysis of Bose that did exist and still has a vocal proponent. The reference quotes you provide from Marston merely strengthens what I said about the INA. Nobody is here to argue the INA won many battles (as Shah Nawaz Khan did, and got castigated by Fay as much as Fay also rips Slim's accounts as too gung-ho to be true). In fact on top of affirming that INA caused a grave headache and saw imposition of drastic measures during the war, your reference confirms that the INA placed a significant strain on the IA as you yourself have reproduced. In fact on top of the paragraph you reproduced, the author in that very book quotes Bayly and Harper saying the INA was to become a bigger enemy in defeat than it did in the battlefield. The INA men may have worked in paramalitary organisations after release, I am not sure what that says about Bose or the INA, I am only come accross more famous ones who were courted by Nehru after the war or became important or famous in their own countries. I am not sure what that means or why that is relevant. What you (rather Marston) has missed out is the influence of INA on Indian army policing British French and Dutch colonies in south-east Asia. I am not sure what you mean by the troubled legacy for not criticising Japs during the war or Nazis in Europe or what conclusions you want the reader to draw from it? what do the scholars say about this? The point is not whether you think he was a bad man who should not get credit for winning India independence (Fascist and enemy agent as Sareen puts it) but what Scholars think about him (many differing view points each diametrically opposite to each other). Sure if he didnt say anything between 1943-45 then he didnt say anything, say so, and say what historians say about that. Let's not start foisting our PoVs to try and character assassinate someone. America turned away Jewish refugees, Churchill starved Bengalees to death, An Australian general did a runner from Singapore, Mountbatten blew up a war memorial, many things happened. It is not for us to judge who was an angel and who isnt. State the scholarly opinions on what is relevant, mention other prominent viewpoints. The problem is that in this article it is either Bose the fascist stooge or Bose the all conquering hero. Every relevant point with regards to WP:BIO is getting deleted in the middle, in which my edits have been oh-so-irritatingly caught and now I am having to explain what the Historians of Magadalene college thought, thinks and may keep thinking, what Harvard and UCLA historians think, and by the name of allmighty lord that is somewhere in between what what the Institute of South-East Asian Studies is saying.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

One more time. Whatever I have written above are not my personal beliefs, but what I have inferred to be a balance summation of the reliable sources I have read. In all the work I do on Wikipedia I follow a hierarchy of reliability based on WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. ... a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." I stick to publications of academic or scholarly presses. The hierarchy I follow is 1) Widely used text-books published by academic/university presses (as these have been vetted for WP:UNDUE 2) Review articles of the literature published in scholarly journals, 3) Monographs published by academic presses. I seldom use papers, especially new ones, based on primary source material. I hardly ever use newspapers as my sources. For Bose, for me, the definitive biography remains Leonard A. Gordon's Brothers Against the Raj (as can be seen in the notes in the Gordon page, his book being even mentioned when the review is of other books eg Sugata Bose's. Similarly all the books I have used the textbooks Thomas R. Metcalf-Barbara D. Metcalf, Burton SteinJoyce Lebra, Christopher Bayly-Harper, Peter Fay, Daniel Marston, are all academically vetted books with high citation indices written by historians of high citation indices. As you will see in Subhas_Chandra_Bose#Works_cited, I have not added many research papers based on primary research, because once you open that can of worms, you are writing a review article about sources, not a biography in summary style. If you have issues with this approach you can approach the powers-that-be and start whatever it is they advise you to do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

PS Part of the problem here is that we are arguing about intentions. There is no text. Allow me to write a summary style "legacy" or "ideology" section in the coming months, and we can then discuss it. After all, this article had remained in this state, without discussion on the talk page, for more than two years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I note what you're saying. My opinion however is peer-reviewed journal articles are more reliable than text books, nonetheless your approach is another way that I am sure is as valid. Let's make a start and clean up this article. One reason this article is in the current state is it has turned into a part hagiographically and part unreviewed summarisation of everything known about Bose that tried to cover everything. Let's break this down into summary style decent comprehensive article. I look forward to fowler's contributions (dare I say I will keep a close eye also).regardsrueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

:) I like the close eye bit. And speaking of text books, there is a new one out: Talbot, Ian (2016), A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-19694-8, which takes a less convention view of Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Since there is a serious ongoing issue regarding the death of Subhas Chandra Bose, and there is at least one unresolved argument stating that his death has not taken place in Taiwan in 1945, is it not slightly brash, and in the interest of truthful record-keeping, slightly dishonest, to make a bold pronouncement of his date of death in the box below the main picture?

I would like to present the proposal that the field titled "Died" be set to the string "Uncertain", "Unknown", "Controversial", etc. or at least that such a text be appended to the date and location stated in the field.

Sincerely and out of concern, Rajarshi Bandopadhyay, Indian citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.81 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 January 2016‎

I'm afraid, the evidence for the August 18, 1945 death in the plane crash is overwhelming and reliable. All major internationally recognized historians of Bose and of WW2 in southeast Asia are agreed on this. There were many witnesses, who were interviewed, by the Figess report (1945), the Shah Nawaz Committe (1956), the Khosla commission (1970) and interviewed by Leonard Gordon, the author of the definitive biography of Bose, "Brothers Against the Raj: The lives of Sarat and Subhash Bose," Harvard University Press, 1990. The last commission (Mukerjee) had no living witnesses (they had all died by then); its report is unreliable. The latest declassified files (1/23/16) suggest the same, that in 1995, the government of the day had concluded that Subhas Bose died in the plane crash. There were Japanese generals on board the same bomber, who did the extraordinary courtesy to Bose by taking him aboard, when all the aircraft mechanics advised against it. They perished in the same plane crash. Their families celebrate their death anniversaries on August 18. Col Habibur Rahman, Bose's trusted lieutenant, without whose help Bose would have perished in the plane itself, and who sustained third degree burns in the same plan crash and carried scars on his body thereafter, testified in the first two commissions. He lay on the adjoining hospital bed in the Tohuku Military hospital and watched Bose die. The Japanese surgeon, orderly, nurse, who administered aid (digitalis for the heart) etc, testified, the officials of the Tohuku Civil Crematorium testified, the Japanese army major who carried the ashes to Tokyo testified. The evidence is overwhelming. The reliable sources have concluded so. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler&fowler. Yes, there are various fringe theories regarding date of death - just as, for example, there have been occasional sightings of Elvis Presley in places called X, Y or Z - but the reality is that they are seriously on the edge of credibility. Conspiracy theories can be notable in their own right on Wikipedia but when the overwhelming evidence of scholarly sources etc confounds them then, obviously, we should assign due weight to the most sensible opinion. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence in support of Netaji's continued survival after 1945 is considerable, especially after the recent declassification drive in India. The secret archives of the Indian intelligence, together with the letters retrieved from the remaining possessions of the one known as Gumnami Baba, are quite strong, although not necessarily conclusive. It is an ongoing issue. Hence, I beg to differ from the currently accepted theory of 1945 plane crash. - Rajarshi Bandopadhyay, concerned citizen of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.81 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Soon now all your so called eminent historians and their "rigorous" research and all the "overwhelming" evidence will be nullified when the GOI declassifies all the files. You conveniently cite the Shah Nawaz Commissions and the Khosla Commissions and forget the Mukherjee Commission. It is clear that no one in India believes Netaji died in 1945 in a plane crash. The very fact that there is such a huge controversy regarding the same and the Govt had classified information on him for 70 years should be proof enough that the date of death is not at all certain . Even the GOI has agreed that there is NO evidence that he died on 18 th Aug 1945 , that's why the Mukherjee Commision was formed in the first place due to a court order. It is clear that the theory that he died from a plane crash is itself a FRINGE theory and a figment of imagination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 994u (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia uses only reliable secondary sources, to which category neither topical newspaper stories about recently declassified files, nor declassified files themselves (which are primary sources) belong. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct to say that his "defiant patriotism made him a hero in India". The majority attitude was that he was a revolutionary and enemy of India. His support of the Axis powers put him at odds with the British and Indian governments and the Indian National Congress. His treason did not have much support in IndiaRoyalcourtier (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry Royalcouriter but either your sources are wrong, or you have misread their content, or you are reading a history book from 1950s authored by one of the discredited colonial apologists. As a clarification, and to guide you in the right direction, may I suggest you search any of the Indian Newspapers online. Highy regarded publications like The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Hindustan Times, with quick read of their headlines over the last two or three days should disabuse you of the wrong perception you seem to have been given by your sources.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. You think being at odds with a colonial empire exploiting their homeland would make him less liked? The Congress leadership didnt like Bose or any other revolutionaries because they didnt want anyone else to hijack the independence movement. Gandhi ousted virtually all the contenders until they he was the undisputed leader of the party. 43.224.156.140 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

About 3 weeks ago user:Ugog Nizdast raised an issue at Template talk:Sfn#Muiltiple sfns with a single .22ps:.22 field. Having had a look at this article I felt that a thorough overhaul of the technical aspects was required, and volunteered to do it. I've been a bit busy, and there has been a lot of content activity recently. I hope to get a chance to work on it tomorrow (UK time). I'll slap an {{In use}} template on it before I begin. If anyone has a problem with this, speak up now, here! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @Martin of Sheffield:, I've noticed that too. I was away for two years, but don't remember this problem before I left (and this page and some others have not substantially changed since). So, thank you and good luck! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Same problem in Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

After this, I'll try to do Death of Bose; it shouldn't be hard once I've seen how it's done. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done See edit, it was easy and hope it's right. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks great! Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking a break! The cite errors are sorted out, and I've been bringing all the "cite XYZ" type references into the existing "citation" style. Can someone please check up on the following points:

• Reference 20: "Gordon", I'm assuming that this is Gordon (1990) and not Gordon (2006). Can someone please confirm.
• Reference 44: "DesaiMeghnad" is a name and nothing else.

In my opinion the lead is too detailed. It should be about half its present length giving a brief outline for a reader who knows nothing about the subject, not an extended précis. I suggest a read of WP:LEAD, in particular WP:LEADCITE.

All quotations have been retained, but only one copy of each one. I am not a subject expert and so am not changing content. There does seem to be an excessive amount though, see WP:QUOTEFARM for guidelines. My personal feelings are:

• If the quote amplifies the text then it probably ought to be paraphrased and incorporated as part of the plain text.
• If the quote explains an obtuse point, then it is valuable.
• If the quote is merely to justify the reference, then is in needed? The reference itself ought to provide the verifiability.

In all cases remember WP:RF. I'll have a further go at the remaining references tomorrow. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing this. As I can plainly see it took a lot of work. I am the one who put all the Sfn quotes in the lead some two years ago to ward off the drivebys who were daily tweaking this controversial page in the best tradition of WP:Lead fixation. The idea was that high quality watertight sources in the lead, and some vigilant eyes, would have the effect of discouraging them, and to a large degree it worked. As you will have likely seen, there is little connection between the lead and the rest of the article. This is because the lead was also written as a template for rewriting the article, not as a summary of its content. Then I had to go away for two years ... so it languished in its current form during my absence ... and that is where it is now. I don't remember this Sfn problem before I left though, otherwise I would have attempted to fix it or to request help. I wonder if Sfn itself (i.e. what arguments it can take) was changed during my absence. Anyway, thanks again. I do feel guilty. I will try to answer the questions you have asked very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 20 is Gordon 1990; and 44 is just a name which can be replaced with a "citation needed." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)  DoneMartin of Sheffield (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I was also wondering if instead of splitting the former Sfn into an Sfn (without ps) and and efn, we could write: {{Sfn|Gordon|1990|p=33, Quote a|ps=: "This is the law of the jungle."}}? For another quote with the same page number, we'd write: {{Sfn|Gordon|1990|p=33, Quote b|ps=: "This is the law of the city."}} That way there will be less superscripts following a cited sentence and no error messages seem to appear But I don't know if this is acceptable on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

One could change the comma before the "Quote a" to a period/full stop if desired. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

{{sfn}} is meant to be short footnote. Some templates have a parameter for a quotation, SFN doesn't because it is discouraged. You are right though that SFN has been changed (or if not SFN itself, one of its underlying templates). Whereas before some errors were just ignored and only the first instance used, now they generate an error. I came across this issue when a reference like {{sfn|jones|1845|ps=. cited in {{sfn|Smith|1960|p=34}}}} failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 February 2016‎

Thanks! That was very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Finally  Done! Sorry it took so long, but I kept being distracted and then coming back to it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I found this article claiming Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose survived the 1945 crash citing this document File No 870/11/p/16/92/Pol

"File No 870/11/p/16/92/Pol, contains the content of these broadcasts, supposedly from Netaji.

The content likely came from Governor House in Bengal. It's mentioned in the file that one PC Kar, an official thete, claimed that a monitoring service had picked up the broadcasts on the 31-metre band. Kar apparently told then governor R G Casey about them.

The first broadcast, supposedly by Bose, was on December 26, 1945.

"I am at present under the shelter of great World powers. My heart is burning for India. I will go to India on the crest of a Third World War. It may come in ten years or even earlier. Then I will sit on judgment upon those trying my men at the Red Fort," the broadcast said. The second broadcast was on January 1, 1946."

Here are other related documents regarding the file numbers cited in the above article

http://www.netajipapers.gov.in/

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/29/netaji-declassified-files_n_9560450.html

http://bdnews24.com/neighbours/2016/03/29/india-to-release-more-files-of-freedom-hero-netaji-subhas-bose-online-tuesday

Another related link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Documents-hint-Bose-may-have-escaped-crash/articleshow/51403312.cms

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightinkarma (talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree to the above views and details. These details needs to be added in Netaji article suitably.... Yogee23 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read this section above.--regentspark (comment) 12:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with the section above. I have however, added some information into an Aftermath section about the declassification requests. It seems like it's more than just the information about his death (it's about surveillance against his family after his death) and I think it relates to the conspiracy theories about the death. I'll look for more reliable sources than various newspaper reports but those do seem like reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This is implausible:

"... and grew a beard on the night of his escape...."

One would have to be impossibly hirsute to do this.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fixed in line with cited work. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi Respected Editors,

In reading the article about our respected "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose", I found this small mistake.

I think under the "Aftermath" section second sentence of first paragraph, "These theorists also demanded also the declassification..." second "also" word should not be there. So it should start like "These theorists also demanded the declassification..."

I would like to request "Wikipedia" to incorporate the requested change.

Since I am very new registered user of Wikipedia, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, Arnab Das

Arnabdas1982 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Melotown and RegentsPark: This is starting to look a little like edit warring. Please continue the discussion here and not by reverting each other. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:: for reference, these were the edits done by the above pinged editor, the rest were previously reverted. You may want to leave a courtesy refutation for the editor. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ani1977 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't said what you want changed, merely that you want a change. Please include a "complete and specific description" of what you want changed, see the template text. If you do reactivate this request you will need to change the template parameter to "answered=no" to alert other editors. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The current section "Works cited" includes a number of works which are not cited. As I've previously said, I'm not a subject specialist – merely a gnome. I propose to move the uncited works into a new "Further reading" section by the end of the week, and once I've done that can some knowledgeable types have a look at them and see if they are relevant to the expected readership? Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Thanks for doing this. Ideally, as your post implies, editors should have all the relevant references they plan on using in the Further Reading section, and as and when they use them, move them to the Works Cited section. Will take a look when you're done. Let us know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was quicker and easier than I thought, and I got it done during lunch. If you are interested see also Death of Subhas Chandra Bose where I've done a similar thing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I have now commented out the less relevant, or less reliable, sources in both articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

subash chandrabose also had german citizenship.....plz edit it 117.248.41.33 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is part of a lengthy quotation included as footnote "u" (27 March 2017). I am wondering if "Dithering, ill and decisive..." should read "Dithering, ill and indecisive...". Otherwise - at least to me - it doesn't make too much sense. Might it be a typo?

The source, as you can see, is given as "McLynn, Frank (2011), The Burma Campaign: Disaster Into Triumph, 1942–45, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-17162-4, retrieved 6 November 2013".

But I don't have access to the source. Is there someone out there who does who might be able to check this, please? And thank you.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Charles01: I have the Kindle version, and unfortunately it does say, "Dithering, ill and decisive, ....," though as you point out, it doesn't make obvious sense. Perhaps it is a mistake made in the optical character recognition (OCR) process for Kindle, though, those sorts of mistakes (indecisive-->decisive) seldom happen. I did check Google Books, there on page 427 there is no mention of Kawabe or of busted flushes! A search there didn't give a different page, further deepening the mystery. But then Google Books searches, too, are based on OCR, and they certainly make errors. Most likely the author did mean to write, "Dithering, ill and indecisive, ...," but, who knows, perhaps he meant something else. The best solution for us is to remove this anomalous bit from the (long) quote since, in any case, it is not so relevant to what it is citing. Thanks for your close reading. This bit has stood in this page for many years, and for many years before that, I suspect, in McLynn's book, part of the Yale Library of Military History series. Let me offer my thanks and admiration, especially since I may have added it, and it escaped me. I will be amending the quote now. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My (Proquest) copy says decisive as well. The rest of the text doesn't support decisive at all. I can check the physical copy but not for a couple of days. Assuming it's not resolved before then. --regentspark (comment) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did take a general look at the book. There are all sorts of strange constructions ("by the end of June Tanaka had lost altogether 12,000 dead, 7,000 killed in battle and another 5,000 to disease") and repetitions. "Dither," "dithers," "dithering," for example, occur seven times in the book. They are almost being used as military terms. ("because of initial poor intelligence and dithering," "another attack of the dithers") "Busted flush" occurs twice. I have a feeling the book may not have been carefully copy edited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's pleasing when a concern such as this triggers such thoughtful overnight (I'm in England) responses. Thank you.

Given that User:RegentsPark will have access to a hard copy of the book in the next few days, that looks like a solution approaching over the horizon. Thank you in anticipation, and I hope I'm not setting you (or someone) up for checking all the other quotes from this book that have made it through to wikipedia via OCR based transcriptions. It will be interesting to learn if it's simply some kind of an "OCR" error, or if the book itself contains (what I still am inclined to think is probably) a typo. Or rather a type setting error. Printing firms certainly did let such errors through, back in the old days. But I do remember, when I was about ten, looking on in awe at a whole room full of proof readers at a printing business in Edinburgh, me - as instructed by Mother - taking care not so much as to sniff for fear of disturbing them. It's a bit sad that poor little Google are so dismally underfunded that they can't afford proof readers. But maybe that's a digression too far on my part. Thank you again. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is to bring to others' notice that an important point regarding the controversy surrounding Subhas Bose's death is missing in this article,specifically regarding the Mukherjee Commission's report and why it was discarded.^[1]

Sagnik12 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Death date/year to be removed as there are mo conclusive evidence till date. Sd2017 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

124.123.7.42 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No details supplied. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

his death date is not declared by indian government so please remove it

2405:205:6308:CF8B:ACD1:B1A1:CDA7:F136 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It does have a reference, unless another can be provided, or one pertaining to the fact there is dispute over the date, it will remain. Subhas_Chandra_Bose#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaylyHarper20072-1 — IVORK _Discuss 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence of the death of netaji in 1945. Infact there have been evidences of him being alive after that. Hence the date and place of death should be written as unknown. Tushangi Gupta (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest to remove the death date of Subhas Bose as the latest commission's report (available in national archived Delhi) has concluded there was no plane crash and so there was no death of netaji due to that.

For example: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-crash-at-Taipei-that-killed-Netaji-Taiwan-government/articleshow/1010605.cms

Why were the images of his wife deleted in this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhas_Chandra_Bose&diff=851057430&oldid=846980498 Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that happened as the result of a much needed cleanup of the article. If you think the image needs to be added, I suggest adding it along with a rationale on the talk page. If someone has objections, a discussion can ensue. --regentspark (comment) 01:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Can everyone hold off say for half an hour, while I try my hand at something? Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I am done recovering some of the material that I believe was worth retaining. The images and corresponding captions that remain deleted are shown below, and we can discuss if any of them need to be re-added to the article. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Bose's parental home in Odia Bazar, Cuttack, now converted to a birthplace museum.
• 
  Congress president Bose with Mohandas K. Gandhi at the Congress annual general meeting 1938.
• 
  Bose, president-elect, INC, arrives in Calcutta, 24 January 1938, after two-month vacation with Schenkl at Bad Gastein, and secret marriage on 26 December 1937.

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am a published author and want to write a book on Netaji, and his exemplary life and those against him. Chander perkash (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You do not need to edit Wikipedia articles to be able to write books on subjects covered by Wikipedia. Iffy★Chat -- 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

HIS death date is not declared by Indian government so please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sougatam (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• An Indian pilgrim...1897-1920 : Section works need to take note of un finished auto biography of Subhash Chandra Bose titled An Indian pilgrim...1897-1920 Ref ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.154.16 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

HIS death date is not declared by Indian government so please remove it. Sougatam (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Sougata MSougatam (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

HIS death date is not declared by Indian government so please remove it. Sougatam (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article cites sources for his death. If there is are sources that show a different death date please start a discussion to get consensus on changing the article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a subheading under the "Legacy" heading with the following comment and entry:

Please add a picture which is easily recognised by people Sunaina Sahu (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

S.RAMA KRISHNAN (18 SEPTEMBER 2003)[1][a] was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India,[2][b][3][c][4][d] but whose attempt during World War III to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left an ambivalent legacy.[5][e][6][f][2][g] The honorific RAMA KRISHNAN (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the name granted to him in the early 2019s by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, was later used throughout India.[7][h]

Bose had been a leader of the younger, radical, wing of the Indian National Congress in the late 1920s and 1930s, rising to become Congress President in 1938 and 1939.[8][i] However, he was ousted from Congress leadership positions in 1939 following differences with Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress high command.[9] He was subsequently placed under house arrest by the British before escaping from India in 1940.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:7184:8A34:6D16:F740:1798:5A3 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Death date:18th august, 1945 to death date: Nobody knows when he died, he could have escaped the plane, no bodyy knows on what day netaji died. Don't put an abrupt guess on a legend. It's possible for him to die in an independent India too. 2405:204:419B:4077:0:0:2371:A0A0 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this article has so many images? It seems to be an extraordinary number and I'm not convinced that they are all needed as a means to inform the reader. It makes for a particularly tedious experience using the mobile version of Wikipedia. Using the Commons categorisation seems a better route. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For such a whirlwind life, whose retelling today is so ideologically fraught, selecting one image for a five- or ten-year period is well nigh impossible. This was my experience earlier. If you choose one image, someone soon replaces it with something they think is more representative, or less revealing, depending on where they are coming from. I do agree that there is a surfeit. For now I have reduced the image size, and also limited the numbers to four per section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if anyone wants to change one image for another they should first seek consensus to do so, just as I suppose I am seeking consensus to reduce the number. I have no preference regarding which are retained but suspect that one image per section is ample. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll be bold and reduce them to two per section, for now preserving the gallery display format (because it is easier). This discussion can continue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You are more brave than me! I'll keep an eye out for further comments on this page, which I long ago took off my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As I had too. I have to say, after reducing them, and now in retrospect, few definitely is better than many. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Matter given here is not entirely correct. V.Srinivasrao (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the info of Netaji's Death date. He was died on 18th august 1945 but in his Wikipedia, there mentioned as 1982 which is incorrect... Shivamojha121 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't now see any reference to him dying in 1982 in the article. It was fixed in this edit. MPS1992 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The article claims Netaji was married- which is a disputed fact. There is no evidence of the marriage. There is no certificate and never any DNA test, no birth certificate with father's name for Anita. Emely was just a secretary. In Subhas's autobiography 'The Indian Pilgrim' (published Dec. 1937 from London Press) he wrote " I am not going to marry—-hence considerations of worldly prudence will not deter me from taking a particular line of action if I believe that to be intrinsically right" ( http://eagle262.dedicatedpanel.com/Ebook/bangla/An_Indian_Pilgrim.pdf). Again, Netaji's Visa to China on 23rd Nov. 1939 claims marital status as 'unmarried'( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Researchers-protest-Netajis-marriage/articleshow/1093983.cms).

Mukherjee commission plainly dismissed the fact that Subhash Chandra Bose was killed in Taihoku plane crash. Considering the fact that this inquiry was commissioned by the Govt of India, Kindly respect the report findings and ensure that the platform is not used for spreading propaganda.

Following is the link to the findings of the Mukherjee Commission Inquiry Report: https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/jmci-I-eng_3.pdf

--Sayantan life (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Arguing that the the Mukherjee report should outweigh scholarly consensus because "this inquiry was commissioned by the Govt of India" is a curious appeal to authority, since the Indian government rejected Mukherjee's findings. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Without Reliable, Proper & authentic information, How Wikipedia Admins Allowing Soo Called Death date adding ?. Its totally illogical, and Childish. Those Who adding the That Death Date, does those admins did proper Research? Or Just Making Propaganda? Even Family of Mr. Bose don't recognize the Death Date. By Which Act Admins Adding That Date? Have they got DNA Report? Mr. Bose is related to 1.25 Billions peoples Emotion, its not a JOKE. Does Govt of India Officially Publicized The Death Date of Mr. Bose? If Ayes than OK, If NO than Easily A Case Can be registered In IT Act. So I AM GIVING SHUT UP CALL to Those Immature Admins. --Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk)

Please don't write garbage. I know Indians who were in Calcutta in 1945, in the same school as many girls of the extended Bose family. The girls came barefooted to school (a sign of mourning) for many days. And, especially, please don't make threats. It will get you banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I am Sorry for This Portion A Case Can be registered In IT Act. ---Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The information on death is not proved, and based on rumours. Mukherjee commission clearly reported Netaji did not die in that accident. If India Govt rejects, that does not mean it is not true. If yes, why map of India in Wikipedia still show Kashmir as diputed ? Does India not reject that ? Then,again, Asiatic Society scholars found evidences of Netaji alive inRussia in 1946- but then "in 2001, a conspicuous order was passed at the Society, locking up the papers and stopping further access to them".( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49038874.cms ) Netaji's elder brother Suresh Chandra, who was a member of Netaji Enquiry commssion ( 1956), accused that Nehru as well as the head of the committee, Shah Nawaj Khan was already convinced of Netaji's death; so they just clinged to the idea of plane crash(https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-looked-the-other-way-as-netajis-brother-published-secret-papers/article8410450.ece). Also : Taiwan Govt said there was no plane crash between 14th August and 20th September 1945 ! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4236189.stm)

I am not saying everything is false, but at least there is a question mark, and this Wiki article is disallowing it.

The reliable sources, especially the scholarly sources, for example Leonard A. Gordon's monumental biography, Brothers Against the Raj, are agreed that Subhas Chandra Bose died of third degree burns in the evening of August 18, 1945, in Taihoku Military Hospital, (now) Taipei, Taiwan. The Japanese generals who generously went out of their way to make room for him and his assistant Col Habibur Rahman, and Bose's luggage, in an already overcrowded bomber, all perished in the plane crash. Their families mark their deaths every year on August 18. Rahman, who survived Bose, who carried a flaming Bose out of the plane, and later testified in the first commission, had very visible burns on his own body. The Japanese, a remarkably organized political and social culture, did everything they could at a time of great chaos (between the surrender of Japan and the beginning of the new American administration). It doesn't behoove opportunists in India's generally random contemporary political culture to continue to flog this dead horse of a conspiracy theory. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

LINE NO: 1; Subash Chandra bose year of death is Unknown. It is not officially confirmed that his death in plane crash, Because his body is not found. T0nyGir! (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the repeated previous discussions on this talk page and in the archives. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox, change "Head of Azad Hind, a provisional government formed to liberate India with Japanese support, and based initially in the Japanese occupied Andaman Islands and later in Japanese occupied Singapore during World War II." to simply "Head of Azad Hind". The information can be stated somewhere else in the article and it is not standard to include long explanations in the infobox 78.108.56.35 (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Moved to a footnote. @Fowler&fowler: your referencing competence is required, could you take a look? --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Referencing cleaned up. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)