Talk:Death of Subhas Chandra Bose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject India / West Bengal / Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bengal
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Bengal, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Bengal. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 
* Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions

About Soviet captivity conspirancy theory[edit]

One such claims that Bose actually died in Siberia, while in Soviet captivity.


i am refer at some information why support these conspirance theory,this appareing in Axis history forum "Japanese POW's in the USSR?":


Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posted: 28 Mar 2004 19:25


The Soviets attacked Manchuria and Korea after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fighting did not stop in Korea until late september 1945.

Some of those captured were reputedly nuclear scientists of Japan's project to build an atomic bomb in North Korea (F-Go Project). Others were involved with Unit 731 which pursued biological warfare methods. Me thinks the real reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed was to force Japan's surrender before Stalin could capture these laboratories.

Some of those captured in Manchuria may have been Indians fighting for Japan recruited by Indian nationalist Chandra s Bose. Bose was sent by Hitler on the U-180 to help with Japan's war effort against the British.

Japanese POW's in the USSR? Simon Gunson

Member

If these comment poses any sustain,acase indicate the existance of some indians was captured in Manchukuo by Soviet Forces for conduct to siberian gulags? or more specifically between these captured INA indians stayed the "Netanji" Chandra Subhas Bose?

if only one historical curiosity.

According to Babajan Gouffrav, India's Ambassador in Moscow Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was allowed to see Netaji some where in the Soviet Union on the condition that the Ambassador would not talk and mutely converse in any manner with Netaji. After this strange meeting, Ambassador Radhakrishnan informed Prime Minister Nehru about Netaji's presence in the Soviet Union. This fact came to be known and speculations were rife in New Delhi about the ways and means of securing the release of Netaji from the Soviet custody, but nothing was done at the official level to secure Netaji's release. Thus ended one dark chapter in the history of free India.

The last two sections are destrcutive trash[edit]

The penultimate section is an obvious attempt to discredit a newspaper [Pioneer is a fairly large name] while the final is a self promtion advert. Nimishbatra 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupidity removed. The two sections are now lopped off. --Nimishbatra 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Verifiable evidences of a published and well-received novel and it's author is not promotional advertisement and it is not being mentioned that he is a 'Hero' or a 'Saviour'. Check the links and get back to me before blanking out those sections, as it is considered vandalism to just say it's trash and to delete it. Please do not bring in the clashes between various Netaji Death Mystery forum into Wikipedia, as I notice that the 'Indiansforaction' forum has been mentioned thrice wheres various cited reports from 'Mission-Netaji' have been either deleted or moved down below. We are here only to present things as they are, verifiable and citeable and not to present promotional views. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sudharsansn (talkcontribs) 14:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).


  1. Err... the words 'hero' or 'saviour' are out of context.
  2. And if someone publishes a NOVEL, does that make it fact? I've written a short SF story on my blog. Does that mean that the Earth's magnetic field will reverse and we'll all die a horrible death because the pigeons will fall out of the sky?
  3. As for the links, none of those webpages actually loaded.
  4. 'indiansforaction' as a website is an EXPIRED domain. Why is it mentioned so often when it's DEAD? It should NOT be here.
  5. Please sign your name if possible.
  6. Please look at the edit history. There was deliberate malice aimed at Pioneer in para 1.
  7. What are you talking about when you say "Please do not bring in the clashes between various Netaji Death Mystery forum into Wikipedia"? What forums? Forums make not a citation.
  8. wrt 'vandalism' ... I'd wager two.. no THREE bucks that eliminating uncited 'novel summaries' and malicious satire at a newspaper is removal of vandalism.
  9. "We are here only to present things as they are, verifiable and citeable and not to present promotional views." How come the last section is all about Mission Netaji and NOTHING else ? Does it not strike anyone as odd? Especially after Sudarshansn complains so bitterly about Mission Netaji not receving as much Wiki-love as that expired domain?

Nimishbatra 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Mission Netaji do deserve a lot of lines here, as i find them very much organized & informative. Can anyone show me another site where there is anything compared to it? partha (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Redundant[edit]

The following para seems to be superfluous and redundant so I am removing it from article to the talk page for further ref

Inquiry

Anuj Dhar, a Delhi-based journalist has lead a one man independent research into the probe and has compiled all his findings in his book Back from the Dead which was very well received by all audience and critically acclaimed and it led to startling insights into Netaji's death mystery. More such resources have been compiled to be read by the public in a Netaji death mystery probe portal. Legaleagle86 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this legaleagle person is more serious about siding off Anuj Dhar than getting the real story to all people. The book is not a storybook. It has a lot of Data, and of course, well established data. You are deleting a reference item here. If you find other reference as valuable, add it.


partha (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Japanpaper111.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Japanpaper111.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed inline external link[edit]

I removed "For details go to this site http://khonjkhabor.com/storyline.php?from=archive" from the final section. This is not properly formatted at a reference, and it seems the site itself is under construction. I am suspicious that it might be spam, but it's hard to evaluate since the site itself doesn't seem to be up and running. Purgatorio (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moved[edit]

The article on Death of Subhas Chandra Bose has been moved to Disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose as the "death" of Subhas Chandra Bose is disputed and not proved. This article refers to the incident of August 18, 1945 in the Taihoku airport of Taiwan which "killed" Bose. But the latest commission (Justice Manoj Kumar Mukherjee Commission) which gave its report in 2005-06 made it clear that Bose did not die in this plane crash. So, the only concrete information after 18 August 1945 is that Bose "disappeared". So the title of the page is being moved accordingly. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The change is similar to the page here -- Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh

POV tag[edit]

Placed this tag, I've check most of the current refs and it's quite clear the article is biased and does not differentiate between facts and speculation. This tag remains as long as anyone tries to improve it, I'm open and ready to help. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Account of the plane crash[edit]

The account of the plane crash fails to properly record the circumstances. For example, it does not report the extensive and repeated testimony of Bose's companion and others present on the flight, nor even describe who else died or survived. I will try and improve this when i have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTSN (talkcontribs) 15:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC) the revised version addresses these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTSN (talkcontribs) 16:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Khosla Commission[edit]

The Khosla Commission article is another pointless, stubby sideshow of a Bose article. It says little and that which is said can easily fit into this, the main article covering his death. Sitush (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support for the reasons you give. --Yaush (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Support both mergers. Even the Mukherjee commission article should considered for merger, since it is largely sourcable to primary sources, and contemporaneous news accounts, and its greater length is simply due to easier access to more recent sources, rather than greater historical significance (in fact, it is the only report of the three that was not accepted by GoI, which commissioned it). Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. Also support the merge of Mukherjee commission article into this. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Support per Abecedare and XrieJetInfo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now rewritten the Khosla section and redirected the Khosla Commission to that section. Could someone double check that I did it right. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Shah Nawaz Committee[edit]

The Shah Nawaz committee article is another pointless, stubby sideshow of a Bose article. It says little and that which is said can easily fit into this, the main article covering his death. Sitush (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. For the reasons you give. --Yaush (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Support -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


OK, I've now rewritten the Shah Nawaz Committee subsection and sourced it to RS. I am now redirecting the Shah Nawaz Committee page to the subsection. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

This article seems to be on its way of presenting a decent historical account of Bose's death. But I think, that should not be its sole focus. From the literature I have reviewed, for the past few decades historians have not even bothered rebutting alternate theories of Bose's disappearance point-by-point. Rather they have have regarding these theories as a sociological phenomenon, and the wikipedia article needs to to cover that aspect explicitly. See for example this quote from Democracy Indian Style: Subhas Chandra Bose and the Creation of India's Political Culture, Anton Pelinka, Transaction Publishers, 2003:

... in the imaginations of millions of people in India (and likely also in Pakistan and Bangladesh), Bose lived on. There were many circumstances that did not meet nationalist expectations in India after 1945, particularly the division of British India into India and Pakistan, but also the cautious foreign policy of Nehru's government. Above all, there remained the fact that independence did not come to mean a high standard of living for the many but rater expulsion and death for millions and then the still unsolved problem of mass poverty. In the face of these, Bose embodied the hope that remained unfulfilled.

And for that reason,he was not allowed to die. The Bose mythos begins with the doubts that Subhas Chandra Bose actually perished in the plane crash of August 18, 1945 in Taepei. Many people were willing to believe in a cover-up of mass proportions, regardless of who might have carried it out. Bose was alive, it was said, or had been seen somewhere, he was alive in a Soviet camp, he was a high-ranking member of Mao's People's Liberation Army and would soon, very soon, in fact return to India. He would come, like a messiah, to eradicate evil and thus, to fulfill the unfulfilled promise of independent India. ... Numerous commissions of the Indian government have examined the circumstances surrounding his death. They all arrive at the same conclusion: Bose died on August 18, 1945 in Taepei from the severe burns sustained in a plane crash. Bose's family also subscribes to this interpretation.... But the legend refuses to die...

The fact that Calcutta was and continues to be the place where Bose's mythos is cultivated points to a further function of this mythos. Bose stands for Bengal's disappointments....

Bose's death is a given for everyone who has a certain understanding of empirically provable reality. Confirmed by eyewitnesses and underscored by numerous investigative commissions, the fact remains that Bose dies on August 18 on the island of Taiwan. But Bose's afterlife, the fantasies produced about his life after the fact: they pertain to the mythos, to Bose's very function. Hopes and expectations are projected onto him. He stands for the underdeveloped energies of India—in the center of the country as well as in its influence abroad

I am tempted to go on, but don't want to abuse fair use beyond its limit!

I wouldn't be quoting a political scientist like Pelinka, if this issue was only a matter of weighing historical evidence to determine the true circumstances of Bose's death. But as I stated above, the political/sociological dimensions are what give the issue legs and should be covered in the article (and not just dismissively; and, obviously with proper attribution etc). Thoughts/ objections? Abecedare (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE and WP:VALID we give the mainstream academic perspective full coverage and need to make sure that any conspiracy theory coverage is presented as fringe conspiracies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Abecedare, I didn't see this until a few days ago. I entirely agree with you. I've kind of done something similar in the "The Myths" section, but from the perspective of historians (Bayly-Harper, Lebra, Gordon). I'm a little leery of going into psycho-social-political implications/causes of the persistence of the myths, especially well into the 21st century. It is one thing to say, as Bayly and Harper do, "The legend of 'Netaji' Bose's survival helped bind together the defeated INA. In Bengal it became an assurance of the province's supreme importance in the liberation of the motherland." but it is quite another to say, "Bose stands for Bengal's disappointments," which, in my view, is too big a leap of inference, and would need attribution from more than one scholarly source. If you have such sources, please go ahead. I'm now done with section 1 (The Crash); section 2 (The Myths); Section 3 a (Feggess report) (caveat: I do still need to add cites here and there). Also, I'm afraid "Bhagwanji" can't get a mention, only his alias "Gumnami Baba." The latter alone is mentioned in a few scholarly sources; Bhagwanji is not, mostly only mentioned in Anuj Dhar's writings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If Pelinka is cited on the "politics/psychology" behind the conspiracy theories, it would definitely need in-text attribution as an opinion, and not stated as a fact. But I also see your point that it may be prudent to see if other scholars have voiced similar opinion, or cited Pelinka's take approvingly. So for now I am fine with either options: proving a one line summary of Pelinka's views, or leaving this here on the talk page for reevaluation a year or so down the line, to see if other sources pick up (or pick on) this theme. Abecedare (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The article on the death of Subhas Bose contains references from Sugata Bose who is a blood relation of Subhas Bose. I understand that Wikipedia considers writings about a person by a family member as non-independent. -- Xrie (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that a great-nephew, who is a history professor at Harvard, who moreover has written a book published by Harvard University Press, and reviewed both in academic journals and the better-known English language newspapers, would be considered a blood relative in the sense of one constituting a conflict of interest. I have used him very sparingly. He's one of the only scholarly sources that mention "Gumnami Baba." As for Bhagwanji, he's best merged with the Anuj Dhar article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
PS And you are right about one cite, the one in the lead sentence. It was mistakenly carried over from the SCB article (where it was removed). I have now removed it. Now the only place Sugata Bose is being used is in the Gumnami Baba reference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Myth[edit]

I don't feel the heading "The Myth" conveys the right meaning when it comes to the alternate theories about Bose's death in 1945. Myth means some sort of a fable, which isn't the case in this matter. The alternate theories must get due weightage. For instance, please see this article and the weight the heading carries. We must surely rewrite this section, and I think I can contribute to it in some time. As I had told Abecedare before, I am collecting more sources which can be cited. -- Xrie (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely crazy! Some editors elaborate on the expressions of Bose's wife on hearing his death story without citing any sources. But they just cannot tolerate anything about the alternate stories of his death/escape. I cited the following paragraph with proper sourcing of BBC, The Guardian, and British historian Hugh Purcell. But an editor removed it twice, first stating a silly reason that the BBC report's headline was bad and they did not mean what they wrote! Now the user asks me to gain concensus before adding. What is the problem in citing authentic secondary references? Apparently, some editors are not helping to keep NPOV here.
Though it was reported in 1945 that Bose died in a plane crash in Taiwan, the Taiwanese authorities said Bose could not have died in their country because there was no such crash.[1] Bose's body was never recovered after the death story, and this led to the belief that Bose had escaped to Russia. No evidence of the plane crash exists. There are no pictorial or written evidence of the crash in the airfield log of the airport. No local newspapers reported about such a crash. The Taiwan government does not hold any information about the crash. There were also no death certificates or cremation certificates issued in Bose's name.[2] Though oral accounts were in favour of the plan crash, a government appointed inquiry commission concluded that the oral accounts could not be relied upon and that there was a secret plan to ensure Bose's safe passge to Russia with the knowledge of Japanese authorities and Habibur Rahman. The ashes kept at the Renkoji temple, reported to be Bose's, were of Ichiro Okura, a Japanese soldier who died of cardiac arrest.[3]
-- Xrie (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Please use scholarly sources. The section title is "The Myths," not "Myth." In any case, "Myth" or "Legend" are perfectly acceptable, and used by two of the best-known Bose scholars, Joyce Chapman Lebra and Leonard A. Gordon. I'm not averse to changing "The Myths" to "The Legends," but "Alternate Theories" is nonsense. You are presenting deadlinks and popular histories written on internet websites or magazines. They won't cut it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want scholarly source only? Have a good look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and you will understand that mainstream newspapers can also be considered as verifiable sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources article mentions that all majority and significant minority views should be mentioned by maintaining NPOV. In Bose's case, the alternate theories are significant and these are not just minority views. How can you say those are dead links? They are very much working and carry significant information such as a government's denial that a plane crash took place in its country. It is not something some editor can scoff at, saying that the news report is nothing more than a bad header. Maintain NPOV please! -- Xrie (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, I am asking the same editors why they have added (and why the other hasn't removed) the myriad paragraphs that detail Bose's death in the section "The Death"? Roughly 90% of the information is given from a witness' perspective and those information are not sourced. -- Xrie (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Please note that in Google books there are 160 book returns for Shaulmari, and only about 30 for Shoulmari, the remaining 49 refer to a district in Bangladesh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Shoulmari is a place in West Bengal and since the hermit belonged to that place, he was called "Shoulmari baba". The official spelling of the place is Shoulmari. The place belongs to Jalpaiguri district and the PIN code is 735224. See this. There are references to Shaulmari also, which could be an alternate spelling although not official. That is also okay. By the way, I pointed this out because initially you had written it wrongly - "Shaulamari". -- Xrie (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Mystery[edit]

There is enough sources to suggest the importance of a mystery in the death story of Subhas Bose. I have added this section and included references that are acceptable to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. As per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, all majority and significant minority views can be included in the article based on reliable published sources. I will be adding more information and more reliable sources to this section. -- Xrie (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: No section is a repeat of what is mentioned in Hoaxes. All the statements in the new section are factually correct and verifiable. For instance, the Hoaxes section does not say about Hugh Purcell the historian. It does not say about the official rejection of crash story by Taiwan. It does not say about secret files about Bose's death. These are not hoaxes, but confirmed facts (check sources please). -- Xrie (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now twice removed this. My rationale is that the new section appears to repeat information - such as the lack of a death certificate - that is already stated in the "myths and hoaxes" section. Just because another source says the same thing does not justify creating an entire new section. It could well be that there are some elements of that contribution which might merit inclusion but since the article is presently tagged as undergoing a major edit, I think that it would be courteous to await the completion of that work before making major adjustments such as adding a new section. Awaiting the outcome of a major series of edits does not, of course, preclude discussing items that might potentially be included. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You have removed it THRICE now. Even when an article is undergoing a major edit, another user can contribute to it. There has not been any edit conflicts in this. And knowing the edit patterns of the other editors, I don't expect them to add such information to this article either. I will be glad if proven wrong. Every Wikipedia article should be neutral and give due weight and balance to all views. I haven't committed any deviation from it. If you are an Indian or interested in Indian history, you will know that the disappearance of Bose is having an equal weight as his death. How will an article become neutral and balanced if those information cannot be included in it? -- Xrie (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I feel that we are discussing things which may not be appropriate on this article's talk page. :) -- Xrie (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Xrie, the issue is not plain verifiability or reliable sources, but due weight. As we, or at least I, realized during our discussion at the Bose talkpage and as demonstrated through the sources cited in this article:

  1. There is complete consensus among historians and biographers who have looked at the issue in detail that Bose dies in the 1945 plane crash.
  2. There are numerous popular theories and widespread lay belief that Bose did not die in the plane crash.

Both these issues are well covered in the current article using the best available sources (see WP:HISTRS). Trying to "balance" such consensus using isolated news articles is simply undue, and definitely does not warrant another section. In particular, looking at the content you recently added in some detail:

  • As Sitush says above the plane crash, and lack of photographs and death certificate are already discussed in the article using better sources.
  • Discussion of "Declassification Day" and "secret files" (which may or may not relate to Bose's death) is pure trivia/recentism/argument through innuendo. If/when such files are released, studied by historians, and causes them to change, or at least question, their conclusions about Bose's death, we can include them here.
  • Lastly there is a small bit in your edits about the Mukherjee commission, which is a relevant subject for this article. If you want to add a sentence about the report's conclusions in the "Mukherjee Commission 2005 " section citing the The Guardian, I don't think anyone will object. My understanding though is that that and the Khosla Commission sections are already slated for rewriting in the near future, so it may be easier to just wait a bit.

Abecedare (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And don't you think it is relevant to mention about the secret files about Bose's death which the PMO says it holds? The PMO accepts it and it is about his death. - Xrie (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • At least in this article there is no GOI/PMO admission that the files are about Bose's death.
  • Even if, for argument's sake, the files were about Bose's death there is no way to know if they supported or refuted reports of his death following the plane crash.
  • Aside: Read the amusing anecdote related by Mihir Bose here (starting from "One supreme irony" to "dead horse") on the risk of building up conspiracy theories based on unseen "secret documents". That's the reason, we should be relying on scholarly interpretation rather than innuendo in writing wikipedia articles. Of course, in the real world, I would support the release of these files,but that is irrelevant here. To be clear, I don't think we should be using a popular history like Mihir Bose's book as a source either, even though it supports the plane crash view.
Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
And to add to Abedecare's example of Mihir Bose, we can't even tell scholarly books from the name of the publisher. Sugata Bose's 2011 defense of his great uncle has been published by Harvard. It turns out though it is a trade book, not a scholarly monograph. Here is a short quote from a review in the American Historical Review: Zachariah, Benjamin (2012), "Review of Sugata Bose. His Majesty's Opponent: Subhas Chandra Bose and India's Struggle Against Empire", American Historical Review 117 (2): 109–110 Quote: "Sugata Bose's biographical tribute to his great-uncle, the Indian nationalist politician Subhas Chandra Bose (1897–1945) is a gripping tale of a life of anticolonial struggle and of a quiet, religiously oriented individual who spent much of his adult life in prison or in exile, tormeneted by his colonial overlords, becoming a politician, a warrior, and a legend and inspiration to some after his death. The pace and tension of the book's prose at times approaches Patricia Highsmith at her best. As a trade book, it also eschews some of the scholarly paraphernalia that enable a more critical engagement with its contents. Academic circles have long had in Leonard Gordon's Brothers against the Raj: A Biography of Indian Nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose (1990) a careful and detailed account of the lives of Subhas Bose and his elder brother Sarat. Sugata Bose's book is not likely to replace Gordon's account. ... Once World War II enters the narrative, biography gives way to adventure story (the great escape from India via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union to Germany in 1941) and then, with a pause for breath for the period of waiting in Germany, to military history, with its accounts of the submarine voyage to Japan, to the Indian National Army and its campaigns and marches. Military failures or almost-successes are contrasted with successes in integrating Hindus and Muslims ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Abecedare, the files are indeed about the death of Bose. See this and this. Most of the evidences and records used by all the commissions remain classified even today! The government says if the truth comes out, it will cause serious law and order problems in India, especially West Bengal. The government also says the if the information comes out, it will harm India's soverignity and foreign relations. One of the original decision notes is here. Sections 14, 17, and 23 make this point very clear. Now, what I am going to write next is irrelevant for Wikipedia, but in the real world, if a government keeps secret information about the death of a leader citing reasons such as law and order problems, affecting foreign relations and soverignty, etc you know there is a conspiracy involved. :) Keeping aside all own researches and analyses, it is a factual information that the government holds secret information which they refuse to make public. -- Xrie (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just glanced at your first link and it does not support what you say. It is referring to a protest that is effectively happening because that conspiracy theorist (nutter?) Dhar has released a new book - it is Dhar & some distant relatives of Bose who are saying that files exist that relate to the death of Bose. I've not looked at your other links yet but if you cannot get such a basic element correct then I don't hold out a lot of hope for them. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've checked the other sources you have listed and they confirm that ca. 30 files exist. They do not confirm that they relate to the death of Bose. Some don't even seem to relate to Bose at all but rather to his wife and daughter. If/when those files are released and sensible people have investigated and pronounced on them, there may be a point to this. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not too many close relatives exist today. All are humans and most of them died. You might not know that Subhas's brother who was on one of the enquiry panels had dismissed its findings. Regarding the files, the 33 secret files which the PMO holds ARE NOT the ones about his wife and daughter. These are separate things. Anyway, before you ask if any secret records exist, let me share this. The second last paragraph has information, which is confirmed by the Central Information Council of India. Most of the items related to Bose's death in the electronic era will be linked to Dhar simply because he is in this generation and not much people show interest in his field. Some people just stand to judge before reading the whole thing. They don't want to read. It's easier to wake someone that sleeps, but not someone that feigns sleep. -- Xrie (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
And FYI, the government had released the names of some of the said secret files (still holding the names of 4 or 7 files) some time back following a CIC order. Not sure if it exists on the CIC website. -- Xrie (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Xrie, no-one - not me, not even the government - is denying that classified files exist. The problem is, you haven't yet produced a source that says they relate to his death and all the sources that you have given seem to be connected to Dhar. You yourself admit that Dhar is a bit of a loner in this area and that in itself makes him a fringe player. There are people who still insist that the Earth is flat but it doesn't mean we give acres of space on Wikipedia to promote their bizarre notions. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's an analogy: the person who appears to be my great-great-grandmother claimed to have been born in Bangalore but there are no birth/baptism/christening etc records, only a repeated mention in the "birthplace" column of UK decennial censuses. I don't assume from the lack of primary childhood records (and complete absence of photos) that she wasn't born or wasn't born where she says she was - it is possible but until evidence emerges to the contrary, it isn't really likely. Ditto with the lack of photos/death certificate etc for Bose.

If the files are secret then the only people who can verify their subject matter are people inside government or those others who have been authorised to view them and given clearance to divulge their contents. Unless you have evidence that the government has confirmed they relate to his death and are somehow contrary to accepted opinion, you're just throwing a straw in the wind. Conspiracy theorists thrive on "what-ifs", on absences and on syntheses of ideas that rely heavily on unproven assumptions: until shown otherwise, they are constructing a house of cards. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush: You got me wrong there. Dhar is a lone player, I too agree with that. But then, for god's sake, it is the government that says secret documents exists. This information is vital, however little a player Dhar is. That part does not contain any fringe theory. There are other findings in Dhar's book which claim Bose was in India and he lived as a hermit etc. No government has confirmed those facts yet and hence it is okay to call them fringe theories. My point is, Dhar is just a trigger in this case, but it is a government that informs the CIC tha secret documents do exist. And regarding whether the documents are related to Bose's death - the life and times of Bose till 1944/45 is "known" to the historians, academicians, and the public. There is nothing secret in that. These documents are essentially about his death, and that is why the government keeps it a secret. Don't overlook the heading. And one of the 33 secret files, the name of which was released following a CIC order was "Whereabout of Subhas Chandra Bose". Now, don't tell me that it was about his times in Bad Gastein or Tokyo. It is a post Second World War record. :) -- Xrie (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I shall introduce a different perspective to your analogy. Suppose the same person (your great-great-grandmother) says that she was born on 10-Jan-1901 in the D block labor room of Christian Mission hospital Bangalore. You go and check the hospital records. You find the names of all people who were born in that hospital on that date, and also during a period of 3 months before and after that date. But none could be related to your great-great-grandmother's. You check at the hospital whether the records were damaged for some reason or they had a separate register, and the hospital authorities reply in the negative. What does that leave you with? You may say the person was born in a different hospital or on a much earlier or later date etc. But the fact will remain that the person was not born at that hospital on the said day or period. Now this is what happeend about Bose. Taihoku airport was not civilian and you know about the record keeping at non civilian airports, don't you? Taihoku airport and the whole place was not subject to any invasion or military action during the war. No records were lost from the airport. And the airfield logs were prompt and up to date, but it did not have any information of such a crash on 18 Aug or 3 months before and after it. The local newspapers were being printed despite the world war situation and none of them carried any such crash news. No hospital records either. Dr Taneoshi Yoshimi who deposed before the commission gave different statements at different times and the commission observed that he was unreliable. Habibur Rahman claimed to have taken a photograph of him sitting next to Bose's covered body. No commission could see that picture. Even if they could see it, who can identify the person from a covered body? The easiest way for Bose's death to be established was proper records. None exists at the hospital and the record of his cremation is that of Ichiro Okura, a Japanese soldier who died of cardiac arrest. And you should note that the said crematorium would not accept bodies without death certificates issued by the doctor treated. And given the importance of Bose and his connections, he was no ordinary man to die without records when there were many who were attending to him in different capacities. -- Xrie (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the discussion is getting into areas which may not be relevant for the context of this talk page. :) -- Xrie (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Myth of the Shaulmari sadhu[edit]

This section currently contains only a reference from the Gordon book. For someone who does not know anything about the sadhu, this information will be too less to understand the myth. As of now, there is no mention who the sadhu was and how he became linked to Bose. Are any editors planning to exapand this section? -- Xrie (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I put that in as a place holder. Gordon has three pages on the Shaulmari baba and the Subhasbadi Janata the group associated with promoting the story of his life. I will soon fill the section out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There are at least three sanyasi stories associated with Bose, of which the Bhagwanji (Gumnami Bab) story is most important for several reasons:
  1. because the enquiry commission confessed he was sure the sanyasi was Bose.
  2. because a Bose relative staked a claim to the belongings of the sanyasi.
  3. because two out of three handwriting panels confirmed his writings match with those of Bose.
  4. because the Uttar Pradesh high court asked to constitute a new panel of a retired high court judge, experts, and high officials to investigate his identity. -- Xrie (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Why are those not applicable to Shaulmari baba? -- Xrie (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I sort of agree with Xrie. Why not just fold the shaulmari babu into the section immediately above? Gordon wrote the 'most elaborate' comment more than 20 years ago and, perhaps, he might have thought differently today.--regentspark (comment) 11:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You preempted me. While I was drinking coffee, I came to the same conclusion, driven perhaps by plain tiredness I was feeling when I contemplated writing the Shaulmari section. I too agree with Xrie. The new sections will be: Immediate post-war legends, Later legends, and Patterns and explanations. Thanks for weighing in, both RP and Xrie. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Essentially, all these stories are discussing the hypothesis that Bose escaped the plane crash. Some say he died in Russia, some say he was killed inside the Red Fort, and some say he died in Faizabad. Is a longer heading (like the one you suggested) required? In any case, 'patterns and explanations' sound odd. -- Xrie (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering the context of this section, how does the heading "Alternate death hypotheses" sound? As these are stories with partial or no evidences, the term hypothesis (hypotheses) looks good for me. And it sort of indicates what the section explains. Your thoughts? -- Xrie (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm afraid there is little chance of that. In the scholarly literature, SCB, died on 18 August 1945; consequently, stories that imply that he did not belong to the realm of legend, myth, or hoax. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. No objections. But then why the heading "Patterns of myths and explanations offered for them"? Sorry if it is a case that I don't know, but is it easy to comprehend what's being explained? Can't we get something more simple and easy to comprehend? -- Xrie (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Noticed the new heading for the section "Models of myth-making about Bose". Still have my doubts whether this will make any sense to the layman. Just my thoughts. -- Xrie (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Listen Xrie. What is it about Wikipedia rules and etiquette that you don't understand? Don't you have the common decency to stop nipping at my heels? I am rewriting an article that has been rotting away in the gutter for seven years now. There has been plenty discussion on this for seven years. Stalwarts such as Dwiapayan have asked me to help out with the page as long ago as 2007. I am human. Cut me some slack. I have told you a dozen times that I have place holder sections which I will make more appropriate as I fill them out. There is an "underconstruction" tag, and moreover an "inuse" tag when I edit. Is that not clear to you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you get irritated? I am thinking from the perspective of a layperson. Someone who reads this section may not understand what you are talking about. Out of the blue come some sadhus and every human who doesn't know the background will wonder who wrote it and what sense it makes in this article. Why do you experiment with too many placeholders that talk rubbish (like the Shaulmari baba section)? At least, give a background and some basic meaningful information in the placeholder when you save it, as Wikipedia is a reltime system. Why don't you make up your mind and write the right stuff and then post it? I have been giving my feedback, which I am entitled to do. And it is good for your understanding that this article is not a personal property of yours. Others can suggest changes and modifications, and that is why we have a talk page here. And I see that, with every feedback that I had given, you changed the header - that is you are unsure. And in the same thread, you contested one suggestion and went back from your stand and agreed with me when another editor posted the same thoughts. Hope you will consider the larger perspective. -- Xrie (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)