Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Misc

IMHO, this is an inaccurate description of Subhash Chandra Bose. He was neither a coward nor a refugee to flee to Germany, for his life. He fought with the British, he struggled for his cause within Indian National Congress, formed Indian National Army. during that course of action, he met with Italians and Germans as well as Bolsheviks. His real intention was to bring an armed struggle against British imerial forces as opposed to pacifist approach of Gandhi. I will try to put my 02 cents here, but forgive me for my (very) limited history knowledge.

Sudhir

I reverted an attempt to replace the article with copyright material. A reference to the article is in Extermal Links. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see it made explicit why Bose travelled to Germany. I presume, from the context, that it was to secure German support for Indian Nationalism and to promise the support of his followers for the German War effort in return for that support. Is that the case?

Also, what is the unit's "heroism"? There is no mention in Indian National Army of heroic actions. Just being a successful fighting unit does not make them more heroes than the British or Japanese units. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In what way would be it incorrect or biased to state that India was "cruelly oppressed"? What about the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre or the way the colonial authorities let millions starve in the Bengal famine? Perhaps they don't teach that in US/UK schools? --Soman 22:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't. I think it was. But it is a matter of opinion, and we follow a policy of NPOV. Everyking 00:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for putting NPOV. While Germany, Italy, Siam and Japan were internationally recognized states, the same cannot be said for the others on the list. Croatia was recognized only by the member states of the Axis, as was Manchukuo {puppet of Japan}, the puppet Chinese government {also of Japan}, the Philippines {who went from a puppet of the United States to direct rule under Japan, then back to being a puppet state} and Burma {which was run basically as a Japanese colony until the creation of a puppet state there in 1943}. If someone wishes to remove it... --Hikaru79 4:58 August 27th, 2004 {UTC}

Dear 'disputers': You won't change a couple of facts, even if you don't like them. Today, at least in Bharat, Netaji is the most popular politician in Indian history. Croatia is by now an independant state, recognized by all other nations in the world, even by Serbia. And so will be Manchukuo again, as soon as the so-called 'PR of China' will break down, as the Soviet Union did. And I am sure that I shall see it in my days.

Impassioned rhetoric aside, some of the disputes are legitimate. Croatia may be an independent state now, but it was not when it recognized the Free India government. Hence the dispute about the validity of including the recognition of a regime that wasn't recognized itself by any country other than its ruler. For more information, see Ustashe.

Important people met by Bose

Is this section really necessary? utcursch 10:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's pretty frivilous. Alren 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mukherjee Commission

Something ought to be written about it, see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/984440.cms --Soman 11:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rumors of a daughter in germany?

I read an article a long time ago that bose had a daughter with a german woman. Is it true?

Traitor?

The NPOV-tag is ridulous. Who sees Bose as a traitor? (In India that is, he could hardly be accused of having betrayed any other country, say United Kingdom). --Soman 19:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

From a european and an allied view Bose is certainly a traitor. For some in India he is a hero, but I guess not all, as there was a significant number of Indian soldiers fighting with the allied forces during the war. When one looks at the consequences of a victory for Nazi Germany and Japan one also has to ask the question if Bose was betraying the Indian people. Little doubt that they would have been very bad off by a Japanese occupation, to take that possibility.

So I believe that there is a very good reason to rewrite the article. That does not mean that Bose only should be described as a collaborator with the Axis, but this is a vital part of the history of him and needs to be mentioned in order for the article to be balanced. You may for examble see whats written of him in answers.com

"Bose, Subhas Chandra (shʊbhäsh' chŭn'drə bōs) , 1897–1945, Indian nationalist. He began his political career in Calcutta and soon became the leader of the left wing of the Indian National Congress party. He was president of the party in 1938–39 but was forced to resign after a dispute with Mohandas K. Gandhi; he advocated militancy to achieve independence for India and believed in dictatorship to unify the country. Jailed by the British for his Axis sympathies in World War II, he escaped (1941) and fled to Germany. In 1943 he headed in Singapore a Japanese-sponsored “provisional government of India” and organized an “Indian national army.” Although sympathetic to totalitarianism, his collaboration was principally directed toward freeing India from British rule and the establishment of an independent regime. He was killed in an airplane crash.

Bibliography

See his collected writings and letters, ed. by J. S. Bright (2d ed. 1947); L. Gordon, Brothers Against the Raj (1990)."

I do not feel capable to do this rewrite, but I am sure someone else with a knowlegde of the issue can do it, so until she/he emerges I do belive the article is best left with the NPOV tag. Ulflarsen 19:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Bose as a collaborator with the Axis powers

From the article it seems quite clear that Bose was collaborating close with the Axis powers. He cooperated with both the Germans and the Japanese. If the axis powers had won India would probably been worse off than under the British, and so his acts here was against the long term interests of the Indian people as well.

eh? How on earth do you conclude that "his acts here was against the long term interests of the Indian people" ? Are you an Indian? Had you been in India during the British rule? Do you know *anything at all* about British rule in India? Do you read, at all?

I am not an Indian, but I can read. There is no doubt that the British supressed India, and had a long list of shameful and tragic acts to answer for, one may for example look at the Bengal famine of 1943. But - if the Axis powers that Bose relied on had won, India would most probably been ruled by the Japanese. If one look at how they ruled the areas they occupied I find it quite easy to say that Bose worked against the long term interests of the Indian people. And interestingly - after the Allied forces crushed the Axis powers, India got its independence in 1947. If the japanese militarists had won, India may well have been a colony or a puppet state of Japan today - and not the strong independent state that it is. Ulflarsen 19:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Parts of the article, like:

"Bose himself claimed he could see little difference between the fundamentally oppressive nature of either British imperialism or Axis's fascism despite having lived in Colonial India, democratic Britain and Fascist Germany."

-shows quite clear how naive he was about Nazi Germany.

had you been in the British ruled India, you would've known. Please don't go around making gauche/careless statements when you don't know about the subject.

The Amritsar Massacre was a shameful incident. But reading the article you link to one will see that the event was widely discussed and condemned in the west. If you then compare that massacre, and the famine of 1943 with the suffering the Chinese people led under the Japanese war of aggression - you may see a clear difference in cruelty in Japans war on China. That same Japan was the country that aided Bose in establishing an army. I have little doubht that the Japanese would have used him - and deposed of him if they had won over the British and occupied India. That Bose aligned himself with that aggressive country, that still today has not sufficiently excused itself of its wartime misdeeds, needs to be reflected in the article for it to be balanced. Ulflarsen 19:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"A testament to Bose's organizational acumen, the Indian National Army consisted of some 85000 regular troops, a separate women's army unit named after Rani Lakshmi Bai (in a regular army, the women's army unit was the first of its kind in Asia), who gave her life in the First War of Independence in 1857. These were under the aegis of a regular government, with its own currency, court and civil code, named the "Provisional Government of Free India" (or the Arzi Hukumate Azad Hind) and recognised by nine states: Germany, Japan, Italy, Croatia, Nationalist China, Siam, Burma, Manchukuo and the Philippines."

The countries liste above recognising the "Provisional Government of Free India" was all Axis controlled countries.

so what? They were *freedom fighters* and they were fighting the *British* (read this ten times). No country aligned with British would've ever recognised/helped them.

I have no doubt that they saw themselves as freedom fighters. But to achieve his goal Bose aligned himself with two of the most supressive countries that the modern world has seen. And a list of countries supporting his provisional government that all were defeated by the end of the war says something about the value of that support. Again, this website tries hard to be an encyclopedia - and it is not a place where various political cases should have a place to singlemindedly went their ideas - articles should be NPOV. Currently the article about Bose is not so, and therefore the NPOV tag should stay until someone with knowledge manage to rewrite it in a balanced way. Ulflarsen 19:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten before the NPOV tag can be removed. Ulflarsen 20:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

19:12, 10 May 2005 Ulflarsen (I believe this article is rather biased, not NPOV and should be rewritten, as Bose is seen as a traitor by many)'

Who sees Bose as a traitor? you do? History should be taken into account before making such careless statements. It is true that he collaborated with axis powers, but he did that to try and liberate India from the oppressive British. You just don't know what it is to fight one's freedom. Go and do some homework kid, before marking articles blindly as POVs. get around and do some reading.

The article is rather biased as I tried to show with the citations above. I suggest you comment on them instead of making comments about my reading. I base my NPOV on the article's content and I belive it is rather easy to see that Bose is seen in a most favourable light.

Talking about freedom, and freedom fighting that is also a point I examine. If the Axis powers that Bose aligned himself with had won the war (as Bose certainly hoped), India would have been very bad off today. Witness the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Japan. This is not a defense for the British rule of India which was wrong - but Bose's alternative would have made matters worse for the Indian people.

You may also notice that I did not write anything myself about Bose, as I do not have that kind of knowledge that I feel competent to write about him. But reading the current article about him is enough to see that it needs to be written over again, with less bias. Ulflarsen 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

My two paise: Bose was a radical, opposed to the British and refused to follow the non-violent path to freedom. The only reason he aligned his organisation with the Axis was under the logic "an enemy's enemy is a friend". He was careful enough not to support their ideology. In a war of such implications, ideology takes a backseat, thus creating some unthinkable alliances. It would be another issue if Bose had ideological sympathies with the Axis, but he didn't, and its ludicrous to brand him a traitor to India's freedom cause. (PS please sign your replies)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 05:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

And in connection with what Nichalp is saying about Realpolitik, let's not forget that even the USSR was for a while allied with Hitler – this is the country that subsequently made by far the greatest sacrifices to bring him down. I have to say, though, that the article as currently written really seems to be bending over backwards to justify Netaji's alignment with the Axis. Can we not find some dissenting voice (with attributions!) to describe as taking an alternate POV? (I'm especially thinking of Nehruji and others who took his approach to the Allied cause... Or perhaps M. N. Roy?) QuartierLatin1968 14:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As you may see from the various replies I have written above I understand very well that one has to think "Realpolitik" - as Churchill did when he fully supported the USSR after the Nazi invasion 21 June 1941. But it has its consequences - and Churchill was for the rest of his life haunted by how the poles and the balts were sold out during Jalta. And to look at the consequences of Bose seeking support from the Axis one have to look at how they treated the countries they colonized. I do believe that it is easy to say that India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese. As of today, it seems to be little hostility between Britain and India - the same can not be said about Japan and China. I guess that says a bit how hard the japanese occupation was.

Again - I am not out to remove that Bose is seen as a hero by many in India - but the other view of him needs to be written in, if the article is to be balanced. Ulflarsen 20:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

hello, I don't know what you have against Japan or the "Axis powers". Please vent out your anger on the "Axis powers" elsewhere. But the stand you're taking is clearly a POV and not the article as it is currently. You seem to suggest that we label Subash chandra bose a *traitor* 'cos the other view (your view) is that? Don't mark in POV just 'cos you view it from an opressor's viewpoint.

India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese

This is ridiculous. We're not juggling with the possibilities and exploring things that could've happened. We're recording things that happened and writing about a freedom fighter. I see no sense in your false 'POVed aticle' stand. Its time to move on. --59.92.226.23 14:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem in that some disagree with me in my view on the article. But then they should argue their position. I have tried to extensively show that Bose also could be seen as a collaborator, also by Indians. Labeling my arguments as "ridiculous" does not bring the discussion forward. Whether he was a freedom fighter is also a question of how one look at him. For some he was a freedom fighter - for others a collaborator. The article as it stands paints Bose in a very posivite light, the darker side of his political work should be more clearly pointed out before the NPOV tag can be removed. Ulflarsen 14:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, don't be a moron. What more explanation do you need? Didn't you read the words by the other fellow wikipedians? --59.92.226.23 15:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I believe I have argued the case for a rewrite of the article. Have posted this before, but here is an article from Answers.com regarding Bose:

"Bose, Subhas Chandra (shʊbhäsh' chŭn'drə bōs) , 1897–1945, Indian nationalist. He began his political career in Calcutta and soon became the leader of the left wing of the Indian National Congress party. He was president of the party in 1938–39 but was forced to resign after a dispute with Mohandas K. Gandhi; he advocated militancy to achieve independence for India and believed in dictatorship to unify the country. Jailed by the British for his Axis sympathies in World War II, he escaped (1941) and fled to Germany. In 1943 he headed in Singapore a Japanese-sponsored “provisional government of India” and organized an “Indian national army.” Although sympathetic to totalitarianism, his collaboration was principally directed toward freeing India from British rule and the establishment of an independent regime. He was killed in an airplane crash.

Bibliography: See his collected writings and letters, ed. by J. S. Bright (2d ed. 1947); L. Gordon, Brothers Against the Raj (1990)."

As you can see, this short article gives a quite balanced view of Bose, and it also mentions that he fell out with Gandhi. This is not a question of whether Bose was a freedomfighter or not, it is a question of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and therefor should present all relevant information in as balanced a way as possible. Ulflarsen 15:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

My dear fellow, are you sure of what you've been writing here down? You seem to be mincing your own words. First you say the countries in the "axis powers" were forever evil and even seem to suggest that British were better off for India than Japanese. I don't know wether you were justified to go on making such careless comments, but I surely know that you've been changing positions in your stand.

First you say label S C Bose as a "Collaborator" and a "traitor". Now you seem to suggest that the article should mention 'he fell out with Gandhi. This is not a question of whether Bose was a freedomfighter or not... which makes me to ask you the inevitable: are you sure you aren't nuts?

P.S: *you, Mr. Ulflarsen said this*: (The hieght of carelessness)

• I do believe that it is easy to say that India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese

Seen from the Allied side Bose was a collaborator and a traitor. Seems that quite many of his countrymen must have had that position, if not they would not have enlisted in a war against the Axis powers.

First off, nobody in India joined hands to fight with allied forces. It was *thrust* upon them. A war was the last thing they needed. Read about the Congress's opposition on India's inclusion in the world war by the ruling British.

Yes - I did write that I "I do believe that it is easy to say that India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese".

It is insane to portray some pre-concieved notion about any event that would happen or would've happened. It is the hieght of your carelessness that you make such gauche statements. I really fail to understand what you've personally got against Japan. But no country is to be termed *forever evil* just 'cos it once participated in a World war against the allied forces.

If you do not agree in that statement, then please argue against it. That is not to say that India and any other country is best off as an independent country.

?? Care to explain? (add it below with another title - "Ulflarsen explains and suggests what was best for India")

But quite often one has to choose between two evils, and the Japanese was clearly the worse in this case.

ok, so both are evil, now, for you.

I believe it is very good reasons for rewriting the article, as as you see I have started a new part discussing that. I hope we can discuss a rewrite that gives a more balanced view of Bose, an article that also shows the serious problem in him collaborating with the Axis powers. Ulflarsen 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How to solve the problem with the current article

I do not see the point of more reverts, so I will just drop adding NPOV to the article as it is quickly reverted. That however does not change the situation that the article as I see it is NPOV. The rules for resolving differences over articles are listed here.

The first move is to talk to the opposing party. I have listed my reasons for the current article not being NPOV, but little facts has come forward except claiming that Bose was a freedom fighter and that I as not being an indian can not judge on the article.

This is wrong. There's been sufficient information provided. The disputant should stop acting blind and patiently read whats been written here and review his own careless statements. --59.92.226.23 16:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I challenge those who defend the article as it is to come forward to defend it, especially its pro-Axis view and the light treatment of Bose's collaboration with the Axis powers.

I hope we can discuss this here and that a revised article can be written that treats the subject in a more balanced way. Ulflarsen 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article is now more balanced but I have a problem with a sentence which seems odd:

...Azad Hind Fauz (in Hindustani) was an organization devoid of any of the divisive energies of provincialism, casteism, communalism, bigotry, parochialism, religious fundamentalism, orthodoxy due to social obscurantism and social intolerance, which in their wake, have more often than not, caused harm to India's secular and socio-cultural fabric.' Clarifications needed.

 =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

A Historian's view

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/bose.htm

From the page:

Dr. Jyotsna Kamat is a historian living in Bangalore. India's freedom struggle is one of her favorite topics

She mentions these:

For common Indians, Axis and Allied powers hardly mattered

Bose wanted to free India from the Eastern front. He had taken care that Japanese interference was not present from any angle

INA marched through Burma and occupied Coxtown on the Indian Border. (Please note: INA and *not* Japan army)

So, those who would opt to call him a collaborator or traitor should go through a sanity check. --59.92.140.94 06:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

During the war he sided both with Nazi Germany and the Japanese. There is little doubt that he was a collaborator. That ordinary indians did not care is not that strange, as they never lived through Japanese occupation. If they had done so they would have taken a different view of Bose.

That does not mean that Bose was not a freedom fighter, in his own view, just that he was not as wise as his fellow freedomfighter Gandhi, to name one. The Japanese were using INA for their own goals, like they did with other similar movements. Again, India as a colony was much better off under the British than they would have been under the Japanese. The huge mistake Bose did was not to see this and unite with the British during wartime, and then continue fighting them after the Axis had been defeated. Ulflarsen 06:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised at this line of reasoning. Why on earth do you consider that "Again, India as a colony was much better off under the British than they would have been under the Japanese. "??? Isn't that a little bit too much of Anglo-worship? How can you be sure the British were a lot better than whatever the JApanese would have done? Wasn't Britain's fortune made through exploitation of India? Anyway, history is written by the victors, and thus favors victors with unlimited virtues. And since WHEN is following a different path called "Collaboration"? Finally, Traitor would mean betraying the trust. Why should any indian nationalist leader try utmost not to betray the trust of the British government/empire? With due respect, are you implying the Indians should have been bootlickers of the British forever, never protesting or trying to throw out the 200 year old enemy/occupiers? --Ragib 07:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To say that clearly first of all - the British should never have colonized India (or other countries for that sake). And when so happened they had full right to resist the British. But the fact was that Britain was the colonial power, had been so, but was slowly starting to see that this had to end. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, on the contrary - had to be crushed to give up their imperial ambitions. That the Japanese were ten times worse (even remembering disasters as the 1943 Bengal famine) is easy to see when one compares the British rule in India with the Japanese in China. During WW2 China lost some 20 million due to the Japanese war and occupation.

So, if the one Bose aligned himself with had won, India would have gone from bad to worse. Most Indians must have seen this at that time, if not there would have been large uprisings against the British that would have benefitted the Japanese. One that seems to have started out like Bose was Aung San. He started to collaborate with the Japanese invader, but saw their rule and then went on fighting them together with the Allid forces. Bose showed very bad judgement and was betraying the trust of ordinary Indians, and that I believe should be better stated in the article of him. That he was in idealist and hoped to free his people can not let him escape his disastrous decisions. Luckily for India - and the Allies, he did not succeed. Ulflarsen 11:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Disastrous decisions? Bose was like Aung San? Dude, convince me that you aren't nuts. --59.92.140.216 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If you disagre with me you should put forward your arguments. As I have showed earlier more than 2 million ordinary Indians fought with the Allies, their view surely must have some weight. Also, as you may notice - the Chinese still has a huge problem with the Japanese due to their massacres in China during WW2. Last but not least, Aung San saw the true character of the Japanese occupation and changed from supporting them to fighting them - aligning himself with the Allied forces. Ulflarsen 19:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I just want to comment on one thing, "ordinary" Indians didnt not fight, the Indian soldiers did. They would have fought anyone they were ordered to by the British officers. That doesn't mean they "saw the true character", many of the Indian soldiers also fought against the rebel Indians during the Indian rebellion of 1857. That doesn't mean Indians at that time supported the British rule and hated their own people. So your logic that since soldiers fought along with the British, they all supported the British in WW2, is completely wrong. Come up with some other arguments please. --Ragib 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Indian Army's official website says this "In 1939, the Army had 189,000 in its ranks -rising to 2,644,323 at peak strength in 1945."

http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist.htm

-and it shows the enormous expansion of the Indian army during the war. Some probably fought for money and that alone, but if the British rule at that time was as Bose stated it is strange that they did so. I do not say that they supported the British rule - but that they aligned themselves with the Allied forces and their fight against the Axis powers (the Japanese, Germans and Italians). And history showed they were right, as India got its independence in 1947. If Bose's allies had won, that is the Japanese and Nazi Germany - that would not had happened, and not seeing that is Bose's dangerous mistake, which would have to be paid by ordinary Indians, as the Indian soldiers he left behind in Germany when he escaped to Japan. I would ask you to check the Indian Army history as presented by its website, it shows clearly who Bose were up against. Very good for ordinary Indians that he and his Indian National Army lost against the Indian Army.

This is not to say that Bose was dishonest, he probably believed in his ideas, but he was led astray, possibly by his own hatred of the British colonialists that had occupied his country for centuries. Ulflarsen 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Norway, I am not saying that you are dishonest, you probably believe in your ideas. but you are probably led astray by your own hatred of the axis powers. What you don't see is the fact that taking help from the Axis power is not the same as believeing in their ideology. So what exactly is your point? His intensions were right but his judgement was flawed, or his intensions were bad too?

128.125.20.196 08:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have presented a list of arguments, that shows the following:

• Most Indians fought with the British, against the Axis - some 2.6 million, against the INA's 85.000. That is a ratio of roughly 30 to 1. If ordinary Indians had supported Bose the number would possibly be the other way around. The numbers are from the official website of the Indian Army:

http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist.htm

There is no point in disputing the numbers and stats you present. However, you have to consider that these were *Soliders* of the regular army. Whatever they think of Nazi or Japanese or whoever really doesn't matter here. They were regular soldiers under the Indian Army, whose superiors were British. So, they would fight *anyone* when ordered. I'm not sure if you would understand the notion, but while the people of an occupied country hate the occupier and colonial rulers, that doesn't mean that some of the people would join the army for a living (paid handsomely during ww2) and do whatever told. Consider the fact that at that time India's (undivided India) total population was 330 million. So if 2 million of them were soldiers, and they were ordered by the British to fight with the Japanese, they would do so, that fact doesn't change any thing, or prove yourn point. All Indian politicians of the time including Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah opposed the British. They didn't have any special love for the British that they'd pull Indians together to fight with them against the "British's enemies". You can easily add tens of millions of people who supported Bose during the war. --Ragib 11:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Bose collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Some claim that whether the Axis won, or the Allies was of no difference for the ordinary Indians. I have showed, with the Japanese atrocities in China, that there indeed was a difference. If we say that the famine of 1943 claimed 4 million lives, then compare that to the 20 million lost in China during the Japanese occupation. That is a ratio of 5 to 1. Some seem to believe that Bose actually controlled the INA. They should read about Aung San, how he changed side after trying the same as Bose, that is to use the Japanese against the British. I quote from the San article:

"However, his cooperation with the Japanese authorities was to be short-lived. He became skeptical about their promises of true independence, and was displeased with their treatment of Burmese forces".

This is indeed, yet another fallacious logic. Did you ever think what would happen if, in any battle of history, the other side won? Whoever wins makes the other side look awefully bad. Just to give you an example, suppose that Bangladesh was defeated in the Bangladesh Liberation War with the West Pakistani rulers. What would the Mukti Bahini (Bengali freedom fighers) be called? Traitors? Definitely! Also, what would history say? Definitely, that people would have been a lot worse off in independent Bangladesh, than in East Pakistan. My point is that if the Japanese, hypotheticlaly, won, we would be reading about British and American atrocities instead o f the Japanese ones in our school textbooks.

• In the end, the Axis was crushed, and shortly after India, Burma, and other countries got their independence. If the Axis had won, the forces that Bose had allied himself with, India would not have had its freedom for many years. That is not speculation, one can read the history of Imperial Japan and see how they treated other countries they occupied, no reason to believe they would have treated India any better.

• Wrong again. India won independence because that was inevitable. The nationalist movement was already quite strong, with or without the WW2. Also, that part is sheer speculation, not supported by facts. You CANNOT say what people would have done. --Ragib 11:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This does not mean I support the British colonial rule of India. It was illegal and the British (or other european powers, like Portugal, Denmark-Norway etc) should not have been there at all. The point about my writing is to try to balance the article about Bose, in line with the [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV policy].

To round this up; I am not a historian, and neither am I an expert on India or its history. I have however read and experienced enough to have my hair raise when I read statements as this:

"Bose himself claimed he could see little difference between the fundamentally oppressive nature of either British imperialism or Axis's fascism despite having lived in Colonial India, democratic Britain and Fascist Germany."

Do note that I have not tried to change or delete that paragraph, but I have added one below listing the opposite view, that it INDEED made a differece if it was Axis or Allies that won the war. Ulflarsen 09:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have started a poll below. Lets see how that turns out. I think you don't know enough about the British rule in India which is why you think Japanese would have been worse. Also you don't know much about Bose either. I think arguing further is fruitless since my convictions are as strong as yours. 128.125.20.196 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I suggest that you and the others argue the case. I have listed a number of my arguments above. I invite both you and others to challenge them. For example, what do you make of that more than 2 million Indian soldier were fighting the Axis, compared to the 85.000 in INA? Or the Japanese atrocities in China? Or the way Aung San changed from collaborating with the Japanese to supporting the Allied forces? Ulflarsen 10:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think all your arguments have already been refuted several times. 24.126.17.155 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say that the disputed paragraph is based on several speculation 1. Indians supported British Rule/British War 2. Indians fought against Axis because they were against the Axis powers 3. Subhash Bose is a collaborator because he wanted to get rid of the occupiers of his own homeland. Claim 1 is wrong because history shows almost all Indians were against British rule (several rebellions support this), Claim 2 is wrong because PAID indian soldiers of regular army would have fought the French (or write any other nationality) too if the British superiors wanted them to, and finally claim 3 is wrong because that would have made all nationalist people traitors. Would the Americans call Nathan Hale a traitor? I doubt that, and the same applies to Subhash Bose. --Ragib 11:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ulflarsen explains and suggests what was best for India and thereby rewrites the history

This space is for a lunatic who's ready to re-write the history labelling the good - evil and has been acting blind to the fellow wikipedians' comments.

I have tried to balance the article about Bose. If you do not agree with me that is just fine, but then you should come forward with your arguments, as I have done myself. Ulflarsen 19:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody cares about what you think. Its what you write here that matters. You hardly have presented any argument here, only a wild speculation which is as good as any other. 128.125.20.196 08:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

See my comment above. I have presented a list of arguments that you are most welcome to counter, as that is how we can develop a good encyclopedia. The article is in need of improvement and that is what we work towards. Ulflarsen 09:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Poll on user Ulflarsen's views

• Strongly disagree. 128.125.20.196 09:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree. --Ragib 10:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree. 24.126.17.155 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Stop reverting and start discussing and improving the article

I suggest that we stop this reverting and try to improve the article. As listed above I have a number of arguments that has not been commented on. I hope that one can concentrate on the value of the arguments, as that is the basis on which we can develop Wikipedia as a respected encyclopedia. Ulflarsen 10:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A poll is not a good idea, and listing on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress isn't, either.

It's quite inappropriate to vote on content. Encyclopedic content and reliability aren't proper subjects for a popularity contest. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is not the right place to list editing disagreements either. Please try instead to broaden the discussion by inviting more editors to take part; this you can do by listing the page on Wikipedia:Requests for comments. And please try to keep the discourse civil, I'm sorry to see plenty of personal attacks and name-calling from one side above. Calling other people morons and telling them to go do homework does not help your own cause look good.--Bishonen | talk 10:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Incidentally, please everybody go read Wikipedia:Three revert rule before I'm forced to block somebody.--Bishonen | talk 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read the policy and if I have violated it I will keep away from doing any changes. There is however a disagreement over content her not easily solved. I have, as you can see from the discussion above tried to engage in finding some solution and arguing my case. I have mostly been met by rude comments and changes to the content I have added.

I believe this article is ripe for a third party intervention as there seems to be difficult to reach a middle ground. Hope you can look into it and give further advice and/or possibly involve someone with a balanced view of the issue. Ulflarsen 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Ulf, I don't have the time or the knowledege of the subject to become involved in the editing myself, although I agree that this editing process needs help. Do please list it on WP:RFC as I suggest above: that page exists for exactly such situations as this. I'm willing to assume that nobody working with this page was previouosly aware of the 3RR, but if anybody continues to revert war now, after my warning, I will block them for 24 hours. If people game the rule by reverting as a team, I will protect the article. Incidentally, the reason I noticed the problems was the inappropriate listing of Ulf Larssen as a vandal at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Please don't throw around the word "vandal" so lightly. It amounts to a personal attack and seems quite unwarranted here.--Bishonen | talk 11:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift feedback. I will try to list it at the RFC page. As I have stated in the discussion above I am an amateur in this issue - but have tried to find data showing that Bose's alignment with the Axis powers was troublesome, especially so for ordinary Indians. Last but not least, I will not make any more edits of this page as I believe someone with more knowledge and a balanced view should take the task to clean in up. Ulflarsen

While I have not been a party to any reverts, I would like to point out that the issues raised by Ulflarsen has been discussed, and I have presented my rebuttal of his 3 claims above in this talk page. However, most of the time, Ulflarsen has unilaterally reverted with the edit summary like "points still not disproved, so reverting article" (not exact, but close to that). I do believe in discussion, but I think Ulflarsen's continuous reverting and insistence on adding speculative materials have added to this conflict. It is ok for him to have any views, but I think many of his arguments have correctly refuted in the discussion, and the insistence on them further on is inappropriate. Of course, listing Ulflarsen in the Vandalism page was totally wrong and so was the personal attacks against him. I just hope this issue would be resolved pretty soon through discussion. --Ragib 11:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your comments in-between mine now, good if you place them after the article. Regarding Indian soldier; the numbers is from the Indian Army official site. If Bose were that celebrated, and the British fight of the Axis despised, one would assume that the Government of India made sure its army website reflected that. It does not. It says: "The Indian Army by the end of the War was thus rated as among the best in the world whose Officers and men displayed the highest levels of motivation and gallantry on the field of battle." The way I read that statement is that the Indian Army and thus the Indian government, and the Indian people - at large, is very proud of the hard fight and the victory against the British, and rightful so.

You write: "I am surprised at this line of reasoning. Why on earth do you consider that "Again, India as a colony was much better off under the British than they would have been under the Japanese. "??? Isn't that a little bit too much of Anglo-worship? How can you be sure the British were a lot better than whatever the JApanese would have done? Wasn't Britain's fortune made through exploitation of India? Anyway, history is written by the victors, and thus favors victors with unlimited virtues."

I have showed, with numbers, that India indeed was better off under the British than under the Japanese, for the time we talk about (the war years). Again, it does not mean I support British colonialism - I do not. They should not have been there at all. You have not proved me wrong, and not looked into Japanese atrocities in occupied areas. This is vital to the article about Bose as it says that Bose could not see any difference between Axis and Allied forces. Most people could (especially those living under both) and luckily India did not got the experience of an Japanese occupation. About history written about victors - it is true, but with democracy one can always get a wider and more open view. Consder the Bengal famine of 1943, if that had been under Japanese or German occupation, it would probably have been unknown today.

The central question is: Was the war irrelevant for India - or was it important who that in the end would win?. Bose and most of the article takes the first view, but for a balanced article to be written the opposite view also needs to be presented. Ulflarsen

Facts of Subash Chandra Bose

I was shocked to read this talk page . I never knew people were so ignorant about Subash . Some facts -

• Adolf Hitler contacted Subash and asked him if he was willing to join hands with him to fight against the British . Subash quickly put down the offer because he knew that Hitler saw his own interest rather than that of the Indians . Hitler wanted INA to help aid Axis powers in uprooting British from India , its most valuable colony and chief financer during the war .Subash knew that once British were defeated in India ,Hitler would try to take over it and make India finance his campaign .He was smart to detect that .
• The only reason why Subash opposed British campaign during the war :

On one hand britain was fighting for independence of European nations under Nazi control ,but at the same time it was not granting India independence .This was being hipocritic . Subash wanted to take the advantage of WW2 in creating pressure on Britain to grant india freedom since Britain wouldn't have the resources to foil any independence movement in India as their army was involved in operations in Europe . That doesn't mean Subash was pro-axis.

• Regarding Subash's collaboration with Japan - As everybody knows , Subash formed Azad Hind Fauz (INA) with the help of Indian forces under Japanese control. Japanese decided to support the army financially and politically . He never asked for their help but Japanese knew it was in their interest to do so .

When the Japanese forces attacked North Eastern states of India through Burma, he realised Japanese intensions and ordered INA not collobarate with them . INA was ordered to attack British India instead from Bhutan and Chinese front . It was during this time that his plane crashed and he died . Leaderless INA got disbanded ,the main reason for their defeat .

• Finally , if Subash was pro-Nazi , British rule would have ended in India during WW2 itself . With the Japanese so close to British India , INA could have easily collabarated w/ them and defeated the British . The fact that it didnt proves how much pro-Nazi or pro-Axis Subash really was .This is what I've read in my History Text Books .challenging this is challenging Indian History .We Indians know what exact events took place during our freedom struggle and need not know about it from Europeans .To end , please just don't write anything which comes in your mind . --IncMan 12:35, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you start with reading what the Indian Army says on its homepage about its history during WW2: http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist.htm - it says a lot about its heroic fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and as far as I can see nothing about Bose. Ulflarsen

• First of all ,Army of India was a part of British Army . Secondly , INA's main motive was to wage a war against Army of India and not against the Nazi's or Axis Powers . They had no enemity with the Axis . Instead the Axis powers had helped it .Thirdly , just bec INA didnt fight against the Axis or Japan rather , you cant call it a pro-Axis . Fourthly , INA was never a part of the Indian Army , so why should the site mention about it . INA was an independent organisation and banned in India during 1945 by the British Indian Govt.(i'm not sure about the year .)Fifhtly , Indian National Congress had objections regarding Army of India's (and not Indian Army bec the latter refers to post independence army ) involvement during WW2 . Acc. to you , in that case ,even they should be called traitors . --IncMan 13:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I dont think you get my point. That homepage is the official website of the current Indian Army, and thus reflects official Indian policy on the matter. It says nothing about Bose, but a lot of the more than 2 million Indians that fought with the Allied forces. If the Indian government today had any favourable view of Bose that should be reflected on those pages. It is not.

As I wrote earlier: "The central question is: Was the war irrelevant for India - or was it important who that in the end would win?. Bose and most of the article takes the first view, but for a balanced article to be written the opposite view also needs to be presented." The current article about Bose mostly takes the view that whoever won the war (the Axis or the Allies) it had no relevance for India. I believe that is wrong, not only wrong in the sense of a Europeans view of it, but wrong in the way that it would have costed tens of millions of Indian lives. I have tried to show this with comparing India under the British with China under the Japanese. This is very much what the discussion is about. If you or anyone can show that it would not matter much if the Japanese occupied India then Bose's collaboration with the Imperial Japanse Army would have been just fine for ordinary Indians, but I find that hard to prove. Ulflarsen

• As I had said , Indian National Army had nothing to do with the Govt. of India and the Indian Army . It was an INDEPENDENT organisation . Then , Why should the Indian Army mention about its operations .

The very fact that people of India call Subash as Netaji and that Subash's potrait is present in the Indian Parliament shows the favourable view pt. Indians have towards him . Even if there is a section of Indian Parliamentarians who have unfavourable views for Subash ,its only bec. he was against the ideology of Indian National Congress , India's present ruling party .( now called as Congress Party ) .

Regarding the question you raised - Subash ofcourse realised that India was better under the British than Japanese and he commanded INA not to collaborate with them .Many beleive that Subash died bec of the plane crash enroute Taiwan , possibily to discuss the matter w/ the Japanese there . Fighting was already on between the Army of India and Japan in Burma . But as soon as Japan reached Indian borders ,it lost the Battle of Midway forcing it to withdraw its troops from N.E. India to reinforce troops in Pacific . So the entire Japanese matter is of no significance .

Had Subash lived on for another year or so , had the japanese won the battle of midway and finally had the INA collaborated with the japanese under Subash's orders, the topic was worth discussing .--IncMan 14:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ulflarsen that the article should represent both views , but at the same time , Inida is thousands of kilometers away from Europe and Pacific rim . Indians didnt know what exactly was going on . For them the main priority was independence . When the axis made an offer to indian freedom fighters in their struggle , it was something which they couldnt have ignored. Put yrself in that scenario . Hence the Q. is of no relevance ,because Indians were not aware of the main intensions of the Nazis . Even the European Allies were suprised by the campaign carried out by Hitler initially (particularly Poland ,France and the Dutch) .Hence for Indians of 1940's the war was of no significance as they knew nothing about it. --IncMan 08:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

That most ordinary Indians did not know I can agree on, but the more important it was that their leaders acted responsibly. Here it seems that Bose and Gandhi parted. Even though not supporting the Allies fight Gandhi at least not seems to have openly aligned himself with the Axis the way Bose did. And regarding the question about the Axis "real nature", it seems that Bose started to realize that Nazi Germany used him. That makes it even stranger and worse, in my view, that he then went on to the work with the Japanese.

And then having worked with the Japanese he must have seen their way - like Aung San did. As far as I can see here on this page, no one has commented on him. He was not a european, he was dead against the British and wanted freedom for his people, and he created an army to fight the British, but then... He saw the character of the Japanese Imperialism and made the conclusion that his country would be better off beating the Japanese. How come no one comment on this? Is it because it does not "fit" into the picture? Or is my reasoning dead wrong?

Once again "IncMan" - I am not out to defend the British, they should have not been in India at all. But the page as it is mostly covers the fact that this was just not "another war" - but a war that made a difference, a HUGE one. And I am not out to deny people to treat Bose as a hero, but as we try to make an encyclopedia we need to show the relevant facts here, and the article seems to be lacking in that respect. Ulflarsen 19:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Let me make it clear , Bose was never ever a pro-nazi or pro-axis . All people are trying to do is speculate . The only reason for his association with the Japanese was getting the soldiers of the Army of India freed from Japanese captivity . Thats it . Britain had deployed Indian troops in Singapore to defend the state . When it was captured by Japan , approx. 90,000 Indian troops were taken as POWs whom Bose had freed under an agreement with Imperial Japan . However, INA was never a part of any Japanese operation , be it in Burma or in N.E. India itself .

I'm not here to discuss whether British rule in India was justified or not . I don't have much knowledge about Aung San and it is not required also w.r.t. this article . To be frank , INA had not achieved anything because even before it could get into some real action , Bose had died . What was really on in Bose's mind nobody knows ,Firstly because he wasn't carrying out his movement from India and was hence not in much contact with anyother prominent pro-freedom leader in India . Secondly , he never wanted outsiders to know about his plans even if they were freedom fighters . Bose's death came at the most unfortunate time . He was at the brink of executing his plans but it never happened . All what remains now is speculation . But to say that Bose worked with the Japanese is wrong . He knew that he needed men in his war, and there was no better way of accumalating such a large force. Once again, this doesn't mean that Bose had any favourable views towards the Japanese. He just saw interest of his campaign. Had Bose militarily or even morally supported the Japanese campaign, the speculation was worth discussing. There is no evidence that, Bose favoured the Axis.

The British and the French had appeased the Nazis initially. Were they acting responsibly. The British and the French wanted to use the Nazis as a force against Communalism. Even they had seen their own interest. They were very well aware of Nazis intentions years before their rise. If they wanted, Nazis would have never come to power in Germany. I can't see their mention on this talk page. --IncMan 21:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

An outsider's view

I stumbled across this page more-or-less accidentally. Moreover, I have no particular knowledge or expertise on Bose, and only an educated layperson's historical knowledge of India's independence movement generally. So I'm not arguing "the facts" here.

However, the article and the talk page were interesting to look through. And doing that, I feel strongly that Ulflarsen's agenda here is just plain nutty. The article certainly does not seem to have any valid NPOV dispute. Sure, maybe a some sentences could be improved, but overall it is reasonably NPOV.

Ulflarsen seems to pin his whole POV allegation on a wildly speculative theory about how historical events might have turned out differently, had certain things happened. Roughly: If the Axis had won the war, then Japan would have established imperial control of India, and would have treated Indians even worse than the British had. And continuing Ulflarsen's reasoning: therefore, Bose was wrong in his political decisions, working against India's interest, etc. (and the article should say so).

Equivalently, as an argument can be made that a consensus of historians would claim that Japanese imperial control was more oppressive than British control, not a word or an implication should exist suggesting Bose was right in his political decisions. The moment it does, the article loses NPOV. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As much as there is any truth or falsity to historical counterfactuals, Ulflarsen could well be right. Or maybe not. Maybe a victorious Japan that was nonetheless weakened by the war losses would have also granted Indian independence. Maybe the Indian independence movement would have defeated a new imperial power that lacked a local bureaucratic infrastructure. Maybe Japan would have been an imperial controller of India, but not quite as bad as Britian had been.

All of this might well make a good subject for a speculative novel. But it is not a matter of known (or knowable) facts. And the various sins and brutalities of Imperial Japan are not the subject of this article (but they certainly can be discussed in other more relevant articles).

I agree to the extent that a bald statement that 'Bose thought that collabaration with the Germans, and, subsequently, the Japanese, was preferable to continued British administration of India' is NPOV. Anything suggesting that this point of view was even slightly correct, or that Bose was not severely biased - or uninformed - in thinking so, would become seriously POV. I think the facts, in this case, speak for themselves, but any evaluation of Bose's thinking underlying his decision will descend into this sort of chaos. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be worth including in the Bose article some actual factual source that showed notable opinions that Bose made wrong decisions. For example, if contemporaries of Bose can be quoted expressing political disagreement to Bose's efforts (based on the alliances Bose formed, specifically), that would be worth mentioning. Or even if Bose can be quoted expressing opinions that seem to misunderstand the nature of Nazism or of Japan, OK, provide the quotes. But all that doesn't make the article POV, just improvable (assuming such quotes actually exist—I do not know whether they do). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:22, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I am a layperson too. Two questions though that I find puzzling and seems to contradict the article as it is today:

• What about more than 2 million Indians in the Indian Army fighting the Japanese? Bose, with his 85,000 men were actually fighting his countrymen. These figures, as I have shown above, is from the Indian Army's own official website.

Huh?! What about them? Apparently Bose disagreed (perhaps only tactically) with those 2 million Indians. Perhaps those 2M were drafted. I didn't see anything in this article that contradicted the above fact, but I also don't see how it is relevant to this article.

There was no draft for the Indian Army during the Second World War. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• What about the way Aung San, a strong advocate of Burmese liberation from the British changed his views on the Japanese, from collaborating with them in the same manner as Bose did, to change to fight them? Ulflarsen 21:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Um... so what?! Aung San's shifting alliance sounds worth including in the article on Aung San, but it's hard to see what it has to do with the one on Bose. A WP article isn't a special honor reserved for people we the editors agree with wholeheartedly. The article should tell us who Bose was and what he did, not spoon-feed us moral judgements about his moral qualities and judgemental savvy (neither pro- nor con-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I think a comparison of two nationalist leaders in similar circumstances is not as irrelevant as you suggest,as well as being value-neutral if written carefully. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

* Bose had never favoured Axis ideology, forget making a pro-nazi statement. Then how can you include one in the article? The fact remains that there is no evidence of Bose being pro-Axis. --IncMan 21:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

If that's a reference to my comment: I meant it in the hypothetical. If he had said something, quote it; but contra Ulflarsen, don't speculate on what Bose allegedly implicitly thought. I'm not saying Bose did favor Axis ideology (in fact, it seems extremely unlikely), just saying that any such mention must be factual, not speculative. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

And regarding bose's operation against his own countrymen : There were Germans who were fighting against the Nazis in WW2. --IncMan 22:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

About contributing to the "Poll on user Ulflarsen's views"

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, while I'm certainly not trying to discourage anybody from contributing in the way they prefer, did you notice my earlier post "A poll is not a good idea, and listing on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress isn't, either"? (I do appreciate that missing posts on this long talk page is becoming pretty much inevitable.) It's contrary to wikipedia policy to vote on content, for many good reasons.--Bishonen | talk 11:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is better to come to a consensus. Look at the discussion. User Ulflarsen's views are not necessarily supported by most people, and also his arguments have been refuted. Therefore, just appeasing a particular user's particular speculative views is not a good idea too. There is no harm if Ulflarsen sticks to facts, but the continuous promotion of speculation is really unfortunate. Why speculate in the first place? Many things could have happened if the world war 2 went the other way, but we don't know them. We can't be sure of a thing that has NOT happened. So, Ulflarsen's continuous speculation and guesses should not be a part of the article. I again ask Ulflarsen to stick to hard facts, and not speculate and judge from a so-called-neutral view, which is more like looking into a crystal ball and imagining how things could have happened. That's not the way to write an encyclopedia. Never should be. Thanks. --Ragib 11:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, are you replying to me..? I meant to address the issue of voting only, not of which views are to prevail. Consensus-building is pretty much the opposite of polling and voting. Consensus is indeed the ideal, thank you for pointing it out! --Bishonen | talk 13:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your comment that "a poll is not a good idea." I'm not sure I disagree either, mind you. I did see your comment when I read through this long discussion page, but it did not necessarily seem to represent consensus of the editors here (if nothing else, those who expressed a poll opinion presumably feel differently).

I entirely agree that "voting on content" is a really bad idea. But I did not perceive the poll that way. Rather, I felt the poll looked like a way of making Ulflarsen quantitatively aware that he lacked support for the idea an article required inclusion of his historical counterfactual speculation. In any case, my longer comment on Ulflarsen's views is more illustrative of my take on things than is my one line "disagree". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:39, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Towards a compromise

Hi, I have been requested to help informally mediate this dispute, though due to a pressing scheduale, I may not be the only one, and while I'm scarcely familliar with the material, I'll try to devote to this as much time as I can. I am hopeful we can move this dispute along towards a compromise and a stable resolution. I am concerned that this article is being overly sympathetic to Bose, that it tends to editorialize — that said, I find the compeeting version and some of juxtapositions it makes also problematic. In both cases, most of all I'm concerned about speculative and counter-factual arguments that editors here seem to draw, largely from insufficiently attributed sources. As well, the grammatical and logical coherence and cohesiveness (I'm sure, in part, a product of the edit war) are certainly in need of improvement. Overall, far from an insurmountable feat so long as a clear inter-editorial collaborative direction and standards are consistently adhered to by all parties involved.

So, with this preamble behind us, I want to touch on a not an arbitrary (though far from an isolated) example: A characterization of Bose as a collaborator has been criticised by many commentators, who claim that what such critics fail to see is the fundamentally oppressive nature of the British rule in India. Now, the problem with this sentence (aside from the atrocious grammar) is that it adds very little to the reader's understanding of what this debate is about and what drives it.

I quite agree with you killing that sentence. I tried to soften a previous even more POV criticism of Bose by changing a couple words. But the whole thing is better w/o the sentence at all. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

With that in mind, I what to make clear that I am not, at present, interested in hearing the arguments of editors here about this, rather, I am interested in those arguments which can be propperly attributed. Commentators, journalists, politicians, and esp. those who professionally study this. How about we, therefore, adopt as a standard for each side to present pertinent (esp. historiographical) currents and arguments which relate to this debate and then we can go on from there towards a possible comrpomise, and to any other area of the dispute. The key, though, is one issue, one passage, one section at a time. I am certain that with hard work, this can and will be made explicable.

I am confident we can see this through if we proceed according to these clear steps, which do however demand far more extensive and intensive research on everyone's part. Finally, I insist that a collegial atmosphere be maintained at all times. I'll be back again tommorow to check in on the responses. For now, please direct these to me rather than to the other parties. We'll move on from there. Thanks.

P.S. I am deleting the Important people met by Bose list — it makes little sense and it is in bad form. If any of these meetings are noteworthy, they need to be depicted in the body. There is a reason why no single biographical article has such a section. I trust there are no objections. El_C 07:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Good. That's a silly heading to have. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I am against to any attempt to revert the article on Bose. He was a Patriot of first rate and a balanced and able person to lead India to Independence from British. One can never deny that his motives were as pure as dew. His writings and speches included in the article reveals his firm beleive in india's strength and his endeaviour to chanelise them at that perticular time to get a mass revolution with the end of british rule. The indian army under british should not be considered the same army which fought for britishers against their rivels, so I am surprised to know the fact that their website talks of pre independence heroism when they were fighting for queen under british commonders, not for there motherland India. The fact is that this loyalty of British Indian Army was more or less intact of any anti-british movement in india by congress or any other and this loyalty was the main log to support british rule in India. It revolted when they find there own friends of INA of Subhas being trailed in red fort. Why they revolted?

Because then they feel and find themselve in the wrong side, against there own men. So one should be very clear that the INA was fighting for Indpendence of their motherland against british indian army who were fighting to defend the queen's rule in India. What had happened if INA came victorious in is a speculation. If there are fact of Japanese atrocetese then there are enough resions to beleive in Subhas's deplomacy to protect India form any such eventuality. [Unsigned comment by 210.212.60.68 El_C 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)]

Well, I am afraid, Anonymous editor, that we will have to follow scholarly and otherwise notable consensus outside of Wikipedia. If you have sources that we could employ for these purposes, I encourage you to submitt these here. El_C 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"People met by Bose" how relevant or encyclopedic is that?

My question is what's the significance of this section? In his lifetime, Bose met thousands of people. What's the big deal if Bose met Lord Halifax or Indira Gandhi? As a member of Bengal legislative coucil, he met thousands of others too whom I can name here. But so what? There was a significance of his meeting with, say, Hitler or Mussolini, but other than mention of that fact in other sections, I don't see the merit of keeping this laughingly pathetic section here. Adding this here only makes the article less encyclopedic, and rather somewhat dubious. So, I call for removal of this section. Please add your opinion or arguments for/against that.

Finally, LordGulliverofGalben (talk · contribs), I deeply appreciate your efforts in making the article better, but before adding back sections like this (discussed and deleted before) please at least leave your arguments in the edit summary. --Ragib 06:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, "met by" is far too nebulous for a section. If some particular context or significance of a particular encounter or relationship can be provided, put that in the main text. But this conflates people Bose was closely allied with and people he once shook hands with. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:28, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Name spelling

I would just like to comment on the English transliteration of Bose's name. In Bengali language, Bose's name is written as Danta-sa—hrassha u—bhha—aa-kar—mudrdhanna-sha. For the benefit of non-Bengali speakers, the last character, murdhanna-shha is pronounced as in Shaw. So, the English transliteration should be Subhash rather than Shubhas. Thanks. --Ragib 00:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Changes: Open for debate

Because of the past skirmishes on this subject, I'm announcing ahead of time a few of the changes I would like to see made to this article, mainly to reinforce NPOV; If anyone has objections, it is suggested that they make them here first before changing the article, so we can avoid revert wars.

1. Bose advocated the 'practical' approach that the political instability in wartime Britain...

Whether or not this approach was practical is POV. Word to be deleted.

2. The INA may or may not have been 'a testament to Bose's organisational acumen'. There is apparently a good case to be made (even in the referenced 'Forgotten Army') that much of the organisation was already in place thanks to Rashbehari Bose.

3. The Provisional Azad Hind Govt was less a 'regular government' than a skeletal placeholder for what Netaji hoped to put in place. The wording should reflect that.

4. Delete the reference to Eamon de Valera. He spent the entire war congratulating everybody, and as such his telegram is not informative.

5. The Bengal Famine reference is fine; except that the wording implies that the refusal to accept help rather than other actions of the administration was the primary action that 'led to the death' of millions. Not supported by the consensus. See Amartya Sen, Famines and Purchasing Power.

6. The sentence, quoted here : "Many of the ideals of Bose have been adopted in independent India like the adoption of Rabindranath Tagore's "Jana Gana Mana", the national song of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind as independent India's National Anthem, the adoption of Hindi as India's national language, the tricolour of India's national flag (inspired partly from the flag of the Azad Hind Fauz)." Will be deleted in its entirety, as all of these except Hindi were primarily associated with the Congress and the national movement generally, and are not Azad Hind-specific.

7. This sentence: "Though his alliance with the Axis has been criticised by some commentators, most consider him a hero for his forceful stance against oppressive British imperialism." is completely unnecessary, and will be deleted. The opinions of "some commentators" and the ambiguous "most" can be discussed in a separate subsection from a discussion of his politics.

8. This paragraph:

In working with the Japanese he was however fighting his own countrymen, who defended India within the unpoliticised British Indian Army against the Japanese invasion. Also the most effective blackout of politically sensitive information by the British ensured that some 2.6 million Indian soldiers fought with the Allies, and thus vastly outnumbering the Indian National Army. The I.N.A. was composed of a few brigades of the previously surrendered (to the Japanese at Singapore) British Indian Army divisions and expatriates in South East Asia. Compared to that, most of the British Indian Army divisions were left intact and unpoliticised."

repeats information that is clearly implied by previous sections of this article or (in the case of the info blackout) contradicted by the discussion of his radio addresses. Will be deleted.

9. "It became eventually clear to Bose that ... was nowhere on the British roadmap." Should be either deleted or rewritten to demonstrate that it was his personal view, not imply that he was right about it.

10. Churchill-bashing, while one of my favourite sports, is not appropriate in this article. Also, the quotes are not correct. The first should read "I have not become the King's First Minister to..." and the second is incorrect as well. References will be deleted.

11. Reference to the heroism of the INA, as noted by an earlier editor, should be deleted or qualified or substantiated, lest the definition of the word be debased by overuse.

12. The entire section on re-evaluation is clearly NPOV and needs to be fixed. In particular, describing all critics of Bose as Western or Western-influenced is neither correct nor appropriate. A paragraph in that section is a repetition of an earlier paragraph, and will be deleted.

Sourcing for the sentence which states that Bose said he could see little difference between Brit imperialism and Axis fascism AFTER living in Nazi Germany. This is inaccurate, IIRC.

Hornplease 05:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody's objected, I'll make these cahnges tonight. Any objections on the talk page first, please. Hornplease 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The additions made just now don't seem to be Neutral. In fact they go out of their way to justify Bose, giving great detail to how he is being re-evaluated, explaining how he didn't agree with racist Nazi policies (but somehow managed to reconcile himself with supporting them). Would someone else like to look and give a second opinion. DJ Clayworth 05:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no *New* addition, at least not today. According to this diff, Kelly just reverted a vandalism/blanking. The issues you raise, however, are old, and have been debated deeply here in the talk page. See previous edits. Thanks --Ragib 05:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article speaks of Bose raising the INA "from ...workers in Malaysia and Singapoe". Malaysia did not exist at the time, the name was Malaya

Last edited at 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Jai Hind

It should be mentioned that Subhash coined the term "Jai Hind", the ubiqutous patriotic chant in India. Wonder what collaborator theorist think abt THAT. --ppm 19:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

categorization

User:Alren, would you please explain the cryptic comment "Already in sub-sub-sub cat."? What is wrong with this marked as Category:Indian History? Thanks --Ragib 29 June 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Ragib, I'm glad U asked. First of all there's nothing cryptic about it. Netaji is already in the sub cat Category:Indian freedom fighters, of sub cat Category:British rule in India of sub cat Category:European Rule in India of Category:Indian history. We cannot possibly list all the freedom fighters under main category. That's the main reason for Wikipedia having categories. I saw that somebody had commented "Alren, SC.Bose and the I.N.A. were the reason why India became independent. If you have difficulty in accepting this fact, why not consult the reading list. Ciao". As much as I respect and admire Netaji, I don't think that him, INA, Rash Behari Bose, Chitranjan Das were not the only reason of India's freedom. There should not be any regional bias . Me being from Gujarat, I can think Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the main reason for India's freedom or whatever, does not mean I should go ahead and put SVP at the root category. There a lot's of reasons for India's freedom from 1857 mutiny to Bhagat Singh to the Salt Satygraha to all the unknown martyrs of India's struggle for independnce. I have not touched Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru with this aspect. Gandhiji is more of a face of India. Nehru whether one likes it or not (myself included) was first prime minister and was another significant figure in India's history. That's why in my constant attempt to catagorize and re-catogrize articles so that the categories do not become overwhelming I constantly revert back SCB, INA, RB out if Category:Indian history. Thanks, Alren 29 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

ok, now it makes sense to me. Its difficult to go thru all levels of category tree to find out the root category .... --Ragib 29 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Hmm, this is getting ridiculous, will Alren (talk · contribs) and LordGulliverofGalben (talk · contribs) settle the matter here in the talk page than going on edit/revert/categorization war on the main page? Why don't both of you talk and settle the issue .. I find 8 reverts of the category in the last 15 days. --Ragib 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in the last month or so, Alren (talk · contribs) and LordGulliverofGalben (talk · contribs) have participated in repeated revert wars on the silly matter of categorization. I found 8 x 2 = 16 reverts between them. Would you *please* discuss the matter in the talk page and settle on something rather than reverting the article every few days? This is becoming a farce. Thanks. --Ragib 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Alren (talk · contribs) and LordGulliverofGalben (talk · contribs), you have NOT at all bothered to discuss it here, but continuously revert the categories, the most recent being today. Would you please go to arbitration over your disputes and leave this page in peace? Why is it so difficult for you two to discuss the matter here and fix your disagreement over categorization? Please follow wikipedia's policies rather than being so stubborn. Thanks. --Ragib 03:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ragib (talk · contribs). Where have you not see me discuss anything? In general whatever edits I have made in Wikipedia, have appropriate reasoning mentioned behind that, including this categorization issue of Subhash Chandra Bose, Indian National Army, Rash Behari Bose, Chittaranjan Das. If an issue was raised, (as you saw earlier) I'm willing to discuss. Unlike "Alren, SC.Bose and the I.N.A. were the reason why India became independent. If you have difficulty in accepting this fact, why not consult the reading list. Ciao", I've mentioned my reasoning behind the "revert wars" few paragraphs above. So kindly don't keep on pointing to me for not discussing. Alren 14:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I get your point, and you are right in making the categorization correct. I only wanted to stop the recent category-reverts between you and LordGulliverofGalben. I am not questioning your edits (which in my opinion are amply justified), my only concern was that this category issue kept recurring again and again in this page. Now that the category is cleared, we can ask LordGulliver to stop or be reported for vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 14:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Alren is right. The is no need for the article to come under the main History of India category. I have posted a message on Gulliver's page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

LordGulliverofGalben replies:

Thank you all for your messages. I consider it to be a matter of ignorance of one's national history that this topic should be raised in the first place. I am not writing this from any regional bias and any charges pertaining to that may be safely ignored. As Shyam Benegal's film expostulates, Subhash Bose and the INA are confined to the dustbin of history and are sadly destined to be forgotten. Yet during the pre-Independent era Gandhi, Nehru and Bose were the three pillars of the Indian freedom movement(if we leave out Jinnah). Jinnah preferred to deal with Nehru rather than Bose, as the latter would never have allowed Partition. Gandhi referred to Bose as his son and it is perhaps this historic conflict between them in 1939 that paved the way for the armed insurrection later. Alren and Nichalp, do you really believe in the officially widespread version of history that India won freedom due to the Quit India Movement of 1942, which ensured that most of the Congress leaders would be incarcerated and humbled. Much as I respect Sardar Patel (as perhaps the lone pragmatist in a coterie of yes-saying Congress leaders), Maulana Azad (for being the lone dissenting Muslim Congress leader), and Nehru -- it is their post-Independence achievements and not that of the Colonial era -- that I admire and respect. On the contrary, the revolt of the Royal Indian Navy in 1946, gave a strong signal to the British that their tool for dominion and conquest, the British Indian army and its sepoys could not be kept at arms length from political happenings for long. 'Better leave India before they start killing us' was how the British reacted in panic. For more, read Nirad C. Chaudhuri's Continent of Circe. The British respected Gandhi, did business with Nehru, but utterly hated Bose. The reason is obvious.

The reason for putting Bose in the History section is that much of what he said and did (like National Planning, Hindi as national language, and putting national needs above sectarian ones)form the basis of the principles of a sovereign, secular, democratic India, a vision more plausible in imagination than in reality, as the Gujarat riots in 2002 illustrated.

Indians are content to learn their history from Westerners who are always predisposed to cultivate and project a very negative image. Contrarily, they (Indians) perhaps learn more of American of British history courtesy the History Channel. Alren and Nichalp, why don't you check with some Sulekha.com articles if you are really interested in knowing something on India? It is perhaps the lack of historical awareness , a sense of historical continuity that prevents India from being a developed nation, like Japan, Turkey or even South Korea.

:LordGulliverofGalben: I have not stated any theories on India's history. History, unlike for example Geography is largely subjective. It is impossible to point out the exact cause in India's independence. While you may claim that NSCB is the main celebrant of India's independance, someone else might refute that. If you feel that he deserves more attention, by all means improve this article with other editors and get it up to Featured Status. Do the same for the INA. You've been here for almost a year, and I consider it a little rude of you to assume, and bluntly state that we are selling out India's history as the topic is on the category, NOT the role of SCB. You claim that Bose was the main reason for India's independance is highly biased, and certainally your personal viewpoint. He may be a major factor in the country's independence, I don't deny that, but there's no reason why he should be categorised under the main category:History of India, the crux of the issue here. That category, I firmly reiterate is for different periods of India's history, NOT for individuals. The individual category is sufficient. I agree that there were some individuals, but I'll see to them that they are removed. Let's have a vote on this shall we? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

LordGulliverofGalben (talk · contribs), I am not even going to discuss non-issues you brought up, viz. Turkey, South Korea being developed and India isn't or Gujarat riots. I do not want to sidetrack the issue here.

• Firstly, Nobody doubts the contribution of Bose or INA. But for you to think only because of them India became independent is just plain insulting to Bhagat Singh, Bardoli Satyagraha, Victims of Amritsar Massacre (and such incidents), Lala Lajpatrai, all the members in Category:Indian Freedom Fighters and all the unknown martyrs during this struggle and indeed shows ignorance of India's history. So, before acting as if you had been personally present at all the events in Indian History and advising others on where to gain knowledge of the same, kindly broaden your view then just see what Shyam Benegal produces or what Nirad C. Chaudhuri writes (no offence or opinion on either one of them). People reading and contributing to sulekha.com does not mean that what other learned and studied in their history classes from grade 1-12 in India is worthless/inaccurate.
• Secondly, I can see how much depth of history is being brought forward. As you quote Gandhi, Bose was my son, Patel was considered the hands of Gandhi and admire Patel just by acknowledging Patels's post independence contributions and not pre-independence.
• Thirdly, I'm agree that a lot of "... History of India section refers to several personalities, many of dubious repute and doubtful pedigree as well ...", I have no idea why Hannah Marshman, Caroline Augusta Foley Rhys Davids, Mountstuart Elphinstone, etc. are in this category. But instead of your constant rhetoric of bring Bose, et al. in to the Category:History of India, have you given thought of creating appropriate categories , a la, Category:Pre-Independence battles in India, Category:Cities of Ancient India, Category:Historical Indian empires, Category:European Rule in India, Category:British rule in India, Category:Colonial Indian companies, Category:Historical Indian regions, Category:Indian monarchs, Category:Ruling clans of India, Category:Mughal empire, etc.
• Lastly, irrespective (of your charge) "matter of ignorance of one's national history ", it is quite clear and I will reiterate the regional bias issue as you have constantly brought Subhash Chandra Bose, Indian National Army, Rash Behari Bose, Chittaranjan Das, Battle of Plassey, University of Calcutta, Alexander Duff, Hickey's Bengal Gazette or the Calcutta General Advertiser in the Category:History of India and not Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Kesari , Amritsar Massacre, University of Mumbai etc. It just purely smells of regionalism as if (History/People) of Bengal and Kolkatta (no bad feeling to either one of them) equals India.

P.S. - I strongly echo Nichalp (talk · contribs) " ..I consider it a little rude of you to assume, and bluntly state that we are selling out India's history as the topic is on the category.."" Alren (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

LordGulliverofGalben replies:

Alren and Nichalp, thank you for your responses. You have made several charges. Let me have a chance to answer them: First, you bring out the charge of regionalism against me. Some of the articles which I have contributed include: Anita Desai, Punjab University, Chandigarh, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, List of Indian playback singers, Kanupriya Agarwal, List of Heads of State who were later imprisoned, William Carey, Vilayat Khan, B. R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, List of Indian movie actors,Anglo-Indian, XLRI Jamshedpur, XIMB, List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004, Waldemar Haffkine, List of oldest universities in continuous operation, List of people who were cremated, Dharmic, Dharmic religion, Sociology, Hindustan Ambassador, Chyawanprash, School and university in literature, Contributions to liberal theory, University of Delhi, Language Movement Day, Church of North India, Albion Woodbury Small, Asterix and the Magic Carpet, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Jawaharlal Nehru University, The Doon School, ISC, The Times of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan among others.

Does this reflect a regionalist bias or a bias towards enrichment and understanding of human (not merely Indian) experience? For your information I had included Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R.Ambedkar in the previous Indian history section and I have no problems if Bhagat Singh, Sardar Patel etc. are included in the same. So before making a charge , please check it thoroughly.

But please make a uniform rule: either include all historical figures or include none.

Secondly, it would be a great idea to include other categories like Category:Pre-Independence battles in India, Category:Cities of Ancient India, Category:Historical Indian empires, Category:European Rule in India, Category:British rule in India, Category:Colonial Indian companies, Category:Historical Indian regions, Category:Indian monarchs, Category:Ruling clans of India, Category:Mughal empire---- as you(Alren) have suggested.

Last but not the least, I have taken the liberty of removing all other personalities from that list --- to conform to a same standard of having no personalities on that list. Surely Shabeg Singh doesn't deserve to be on the same list as Jawaharlal Nehru. And Alren, you had mentioned that you identified Mahatma Gandhi as the face of India. Sorry, with all respect to Gandhiji, I do not share or accept that view. Living in the West I assure you that it conveys a very negative image of an emaciated underfed India, constantly at odds with modernism. Here the image of India is that of a rising youthful one, able to successfully challenge the best in the world.

9:46 EST, July 19, 2005.LordGulliverofGalben

-To LordGulliver-:

It would have certainly helped if you had raised queries on the appropriateness of the category. I'd asked you not to add the category to the page and I had clearly explained the rationale behind it. Instead you rant about Subash Chandra Bose and his importance and accuse us of ignorance. We did not for once dispute or glorify his status; all we wanted was the appropriate category on his page. If you had instead cited your reasons for the inclusion of the category, things might have been sorted out in a more civil matter.

Categories, unlike pages cannot be added to a user's watchlist. It is impossible to ascertain when a new page is added to a category unless you check the page day in and day out. Some editors blindly put the category India or History of India to an article knowing fully well that someone will find a more appropriate category. I'm glad you have realised your mistake and hopefully this issue is now settled. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

-To LordGulliver-: (from Alren (talk · contribs) )

Firstly there's a difference between contributing to items of varied area of interest and consistently bring topics related to Kolkota and West Bengal under the main categories. That's what I call regionalism. It can be clearly seen from the examples I brought up and the other items to by you (which you list above).

The rules are uniform, but there are always exceptions. There's a difference between historical figures of India and Mahatma Gandhi as there's a difference between historical figures of South Africa/Nelson Mandela or h.f. of turkey/Kamal Attaturk, etc. (even though both of these examples are not included in the history of their resp. countries). As some other contributor aptly put in " ..if any person deserves to be in History of India, it's Gandhi..".

The categories I mentioned are (which U say should be included) were always created as sub (or deeper) categories of Category:History of India.

I agree that Shabeg Singh does not equate with Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi but the fact that it was under the category in question does imply it also. It might have been under this cat., for the sole reason, that there are no other appropriate sub-cats under History of India. So instead taking "the liberty of removing all other personalities from that list"" , it should have behooved you to either put then in appropriate sub-cat or create one or just leave it there, lest articles like Ajatashatru and Aspavarman are forever disconnected from India or it's history in this humongous encyclopedia.

"Sorry, with all respect to Gandhiji, I do not share or accept that view." - Ah! So the billion minus 1 people of India should change it and confirm to yours! Just because you do not like Gandhiji does not change the fact that History of recent India was charted through him. If you do not like Gandhi, that's fine, many people would not agree with some of the actions of Gandhiji, but accept it for a fact that he is indeed the face of India. "Living in the West I assure you that it conveys a very negative image of an emaciated underfed India, constantly at odds with modernism." Thanks for assuring me what the image of India is in the West, sure you would know better as I live in the West ( I dunno, the world or India ;-} ..). "Here the image of India is that of a rising youthful one, able to successfully challenge the best in the world." And which India do U think I came from? Just because U live in India, does not mean you have a complete understanding of India or it's history. I don't know about U, but I bet U that User:Tom Radulovich does have a much better knowledge of the history of India then me .

Whether U like it or not I will shortly bring back Gandhi in the category in question (if you want a vote for the one, I can start one). Also the pages which were blindly de-cat might meet the same fate.

Thanks Alren (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting

LordGulliver wishes to have the category: category:History of India added to SCB. There is a sub category category: Indian freedom fighters under the History of India cat. meant for this. The HoI category is meant for time periods and individual locales' histories. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In favour of the above

Not in favour

• =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Alren (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• --Ragib 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• pamri 10:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Prevent a new edit war

Hi, this is with reference to my rv of multiple edits by Nirav.Maurya & 129.237.189.68 to that of 134.130.240.109. I have specified the reasons below.

It is an undeniable fact that Mahatma Gandhi supported Pattabhi and viewed his defeat as defeat of Gandhi's principles. Nirav's deletion of these phrases is unwarranted. At the same time, it is not proper to say that Gandhiji ensured Bose's resignation by bringing pressure on him. Here, Nirav's deletion may make sense; however, a better way to view it is "Bose understood that congress is not the ideal vehicle for his views, given the extent of Gandhiji's influence on the congress philosophy." Nirav's statements about Bose's sycophantic supporters do not cut much ice; It is a large body of All India Congress Committee that elected the congress president and a few sycophantic supporters either side cannot really sway the result. Also, Nirav should give some reference with respect to Vithalbhai Patel's estate happenings. 129.237.189.68 edited most of these, by simply deleting them; It doesn't solve the problem - since the article is incomplete without Bose's endeavours at the Haripura and Tripuri sessions of the Congress, which mark an important change in the path of his life. Hence, I reverted these edits to an edit before Nirav.Maurya's first edit. However, some of the points raised by Nirav, such as Bose preferring any means (violent or non-violent) as long as ends are justified, need to be incorporated in the article.

I take justifiable pride in India's freedom struggle and am a great fan of both the Mahatma and SCB (probably more in favor of the former). However, despite personal biases, our primary job on wikipedia must be to maintain a NPOV, so I've reverted the edits. Since some of Nirav's points need incorporation in the article (though probably not in the same tone and tenor), i request others to join me in editing this article further. ---Gurubrahma 07:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

About Soviet captivity conspirancy theory

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.

Slight Alteration

"was one of the two most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj (the other being Gandhi)." Whatever you think of him, Nehru has to be mentioned here. I have altered this sentence accordingly. Sikandarji 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Spellings

Should be Subhas and not Subhash. MarcAurel 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

The political views section seems rather POV to me. It seems devoted to taking down anti-Bose arguments rather than giving a general overview of his political views.

Opening Sentence

"was one of the two most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj (the other most prominent leader was Mahatma Gandhi)."

This sentence is completely tendentious, and I've had occasion to alter it before. I'm sorry to see that somebody has changed it back. I appreciate that Nehru was insufficiently violent and authoritarian in his beliefs to appeal to those who tend the immortal flame of Bose's memory, but the fact is that his role in the Indian Nationalist movement was actually more important than Bose's. He can't just be written out like this. Others might wish to push the claims of Vallabhai Patel, Lokmanya Tilak and Maulana Azad as being just as important as Bose as Nationalist leaders, but that at least is a matter for debate. This sentence should be changed either to:

"was one of the three most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj (the others being Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi)." or (perhaps better):

"was one of the most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj" Sikandarji 10:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you fully, and changed it as per the second option. I too had changed the opening previously, but it seems it has been removed. --Gurubrahma 10:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has changed that sentence again. I think the page ought to be reverted.Sikandarji 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it - someone has done it again. Clearly this one sentence means a lot to someone out there who is EXTREMELY Childish. Sign in and give your reasons if you want to make changes like this, otherwise they'll just be reverted. Sikandarji 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And again - as you can see User:130.132.248.61 (anonymous: what a surprise)! has now forced this pernicious non-NPOV on the page three times. I have reverted it twice but don't wish to invoke the three-revert rule. Can somebody else do it? Sikandarji 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I have reverted the change. It's really bad. The anon is adamant!!--Dwaipayanc 18:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Political Views

This section is partisan and extremely poorly written. Even Bose's most ardent supporters must realise that he remains an extremely controversial figure, through his association with the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. There is no word to describe his actions during World War II other than collaboration - the facts are not in doubt. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not the ends justified the means. Personally I do not think so, nor do I think that Bose's actions brought India's Independence one day closer, though unlike some I do not intend to force this view on the reading public. A couple of passages really caught my eye: firstly, the reference to "a small minority" of Indians who fought for the British during World War II. Over four million Indians, all volunteers, fought in the Indian Army against the Axis powers during World War II, and only 85,000 joined the INA, some under duress after seeing the appalling treatment the Japanese meted out to their prisoners. Which is the minority here? The former men were fighting to prevent the invasion of their homeland and. more generally, the triumph of evil. Has anyone ever stopped to think what would have happened had the Japanese succeeded in invading India with Bose's help? You only have to look at the horrors they perpetrated in Burma, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. It would have set the cause of Indian independence back fifty years, knocked Britain out of the War and quite possibly led to an overall Axis triumph. India would have acquired new, crueller masters, and the World been given up to the horrors of Nazism. The INA were Japanese stooges who would have been ruthlessly discarded had their masters got what they wanted. Given all this I find the cult of Bose quite incomprehensible, and the only explanation I can find for the continuing reverence in which he is held is Bengali chauvinism, well expressed by the lines below:

"He has been given belated recognition in India, and especially in West Bengal; Kolkata's civil airport and a university have been named after him. Unfortunately however, this recognition has been limited to West Bengal."

In fact I have never heard anyone refer to the airport as anything other than Dum Dum, and the University as Presidency College. However, the writer will be glad to hear that the Shiv Sena in Bombay have renamed Marine Drive "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Marg" (although, not surprisingly, nobody actually uses this cumbersome title). Bal Thackeray is, of course, another admirer of Hitler. Go figure...... Sikandarji 10:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

One or two factual corrections, Sikandarji ! Dum Dum airport has been christened Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, and just like all the other such christenings, people refer most of the time in the older name! How many people do you hear to say Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus?People still call , at least, in daily usage, Victoria Terminus, VT. Or, for that matter, your own example of Marine Drive being renamed "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Marg". However, in official use, the new official name is used. And another point that you have pointed out wrongly is the Netaji Subhas Open University, which is NOT the Presidency College, Kolkata.The two are absolutely different entities, and both are known in their individual names.The university is known as, and people call it, Netaji Subhas Open University.

Regarding your views on the article, I shall comment soon.I have not read the article thouroughly, so I do not think I should comment now.

I agree with you that most of the Bengalees revere Subhas Bose as a great hero, and they are so blinded by their hero-worship that pointing out the faults of Subhas often enrages one or two die-hard fan of Bose.On the other hand, we have people (both in Bengal, though small in number, and other states especially Western states of India) where certain groups of people simply loath at Bose.Both of these extremes are bad.Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should involve comments with proper resource.This article contains a reading list, but lacks proper referencing.We should pay attention to that.Anyway, your comments border on the extreme of anti-Bose , and I think soon you shall get some resourced replies.In the process, the article itself will gain ! Thanks! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out about the airport & university (it raises the question: why bother renaming things at all)? I accept that my views on Bose are unusually negative, although I have tried to give my reasons: that is why I haven't attempted to alter the page itself. I simply think that the bald facts of his political career and beliefs should be given, rather than a lengthy litany of excuses for his activities during the War which is what this section currently consists of. The reference to "a small minority" of Indians fighting the Japanese is both misleading and somewhat insulting. Allow the reader to make up his own mind about the man. Sikandarji 12:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the amount of people fighting for either side of the conflict, figure alone doesn't cover everything. The British colonial authorities had recruited Indians for decades to fight in their armed forces, and the military provided livelyhood to a vast sections of Indians. Bose's INA was set-up in the mist of open war in just a few months. Anyone attempting to organise recruitment for INA in the areas under British control would have met with immediate imprisonment. The British closed Forward Bloc offices around the country. Thus its not strange that the Indian forces fighting for the British were numerically superior to those of INA.

But if you rather ask, with whom did the Indian people sympathize with, the answer with get quite different. It is difficult to judge the exact popularity of Bose during the war, but that the Indenpendence movement as a whole (which in many ways sabotaged British war efforts) had an overwhelming popular support as opposed to those factions that maintain support for the Allied war effort (CPI, Royists) is hardly questioned today. --Soman 13:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, people overwhelmingly supported Gandhi and the Congress, led by Nehru, but it is too simplistic to say that their views chimed with Bose's. Had Linlithgow been less stupid in declaring war without consulting the Congress leadership, they would probably have agreed to support the war effort against the Axis powers, with the proviso that the British leave India as soon as it was over. Instead the Viceroy snubbed and insulted them, and they were compelled to espouse a policy of non-cooperation with the British. This is hardly the same thing as cooperating with the enemy, or assisting a foreign power to conquer India. The INA had very little impact domestically upon the Nationalist movement because few were aware of its existence, and (fortunately) its military contribution was small. The contribution of over 4 million Indian soldiers to defeating Fascism (never mind which flag they did it under) is of far greater value, and deserves more than a slighting reference to Bose being 'forced' to fight "a small section of his own countrymen who defended India with the British Army." Sikandarji 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In view of the last point I have changed the wording of the 'forced to fight' section. There's no way the British Indian Army can be described as a 'small section'. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Gandhi called Bose the 'Patriot of Patriots'". It would be enlightening to have a date for this quote, anyone? DJ Clayworth 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Found it. 1942. DJ Clayworth 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a very NPOV

I think this passage is a little suspect:

"Although Bose has been branded as a fascist in some quarters, it is mostly the result of malicious propaganda. Bose had clearly expressed his belief that democracy was the best option for India. His authoritarian control of the Indian National Army was based on political pragmatism and a post-colonial recovery doctrine rather than any anti-democratic belief."

is the author protesting too much here? I have written above about how the 'Political Views' section mainly seems to be an attempt to explain away Bose's embarrassing actions during the war. His alliance with Hitler and Tojo, his posturing in uniform, his militarism, his call to violence, and his stated belief that India would require a strict authoritarian regime led by him after the war, for the process of 'national rebuilding' (how often have we heard that excuse from budding dictators)? All this means that there are at least legitimate grounds for accusing him of Fascist tendencies, and such arguments cannot simply be dismissed as 'malicious propaganda'. P.G. Wodehouse was accused of being a Fascist sympathiser simply because he made radio broadcasts from a prison camp in Germany, so it is difficult to see how one can avoid at least questioning Bose's political beliefs: his democratic credentials are hardly watertight given the unsavoury company he kept, and that ought to be made clearer. I am not an admirer of Bose as you can tell, and would not wish to push my own POV (given above) on the main page. Nevertheless I think it is very far from being neutral to say that all suggestions that Bose had Fascist sympathies are 'malicious propaganda'.Sikandarji 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is pretty poor as well:

"In fact, the plan to liquidate Bose has few parallels, and appears to be a last desperate measure against a man who had thrown the British Empire into complete panic."

Or it might have been because they considered him to be a traitor who was a legitimate target because he had gone over to the Axis. Bose was now an enemy combatant, and this is quite sufficient to account for an assassination attempt. This, lest we forget, was in 1941, and while some people in Britain might have been panicking about the Germans, it was before Pearl Harbour and the Fall of Singapore, and Britain's position in Asia looked relatively secure. In any case Gandhi and Nehru (and in particular the Quit India Movement) represented a far greater threat to the British Empire than Bose ever did, and they were never assassinated even when the British had complete power over them in gaol: partly because it would have provoked uncontrollable outrage in India, and partly because for all their opposition to the Raj, they were not collaborating with the enemy. Sikandarji 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not know why the British ordered assasination, but what I do know is there is a respectable reference for all the claims in that line and the subsequenr sentences. See this. I have shortened that paragraph, and added the reference. Thank you for pointing out. I shall wotk on this article very slowly! It's comments bordering on MPoV, if not blatantly! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't question the fact that the British ordered his assassination (and in typically bungling fashion failed to carry it out). I do question the notion that he had already thrown the British Empire into a 'panic'. This seems in the highest degree unlikely given the state of the war at the time, and the fact that Congress leaders were far more dangerous to the British inside India than out (as Bose would belatedly discover). It would be interesting to see citations showing that he 'disapproved' of Nazi racial policies (my! Hitler must have been upset!) - but in this instance I think actions speak louder than words. He helped to set up a unit of the Waffen SS (!), and only left Germany because he disapproved of Hitler's assault on the U.S.S.R., the only other country with a regime approaching Nazi Germany's in its inhumanity: even then the Nazis gave him a lift to the other side of the world so relations can't have been all that frosty. Take this and his chumminess with the Japanese (not known for their respect for democracy at the time), add onto that his statements about the need for an authoritarian socialist regime (like Comrade Stalin's perhaps)? in India after the war - and I think you'll find they will outweigh any statements made before the war expressing his disapproval of Fascism and support for democracy: after all, who's to say they weren't based on political 'pragmatism' too? Sikandarji 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You say, "I do question the notion that he had already thrown the British Empire into a 'panic'. This seems in the highest degree unlikely given the state of the war at the time, and the fact that Congress leaders were far more dangerous to the British inside India than out (as Bose would belatedly discover)." The first sentence has the reference of BBC, where the historian tells exacly the same words. (the reference I added to the text)

The second question - has differing references, of course. Just yesterday I found out a reference here, where , with secondary reference, Clement Atlee is quoted to have said that the influence of Gandhi to quit India decision by the British was "m-i-n-i-m-a-l" !! This sounds quite interesting. Doesn't it? It contradicts the usual notion, as also the idea of your comment. However, some book reference is needed, as you may point out, rather than only web references. And I do not have the time to go through books now. I wish there were some learned person to help us out here!

I agree that from a neutral standing, it does not seem that Bose 'disapproved' of Nazi racial policy. Because, any pragmatic person could not really vehemently oppose the policies of his/her allies in a war! However, I do not have any reference in this regard. Again, I wish there were some learned man!! Without resolving this matters with solid reference, this article cannot go far.

Thanks and bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Caption

The German officer in the photo with Bose is NOT, and does not remotely resemble Erwin Rommel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorNeubius (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Article

How did more than half of the article disappear! The article on escape disappeared, him leading the Indian National Army, and much more have disappeared. May I know the reason why that happened. Dewan S. Ahsan 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I corrected a bit of grammar and slightly reorganized the opening section so that is flows chronologically. All the original information is intact. --Daydreamer302000 11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am afraid that much of this article suffers from "Indian English" grammar!124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Spellings

His name is correctly spelt "Subhas". Adminstrator, please change the spellings in the name of the page.

Pronunciation

Could somebody who speaks Bengali/Bangla please add a phonetic pronunciation of Subhas Chandra Bose's name? Particularly the last part - I've heard it mangled to everything between 'bows' and 'boozer'. Thanks! -- TinaSparkle 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry's Quote is not similar to Netaji's

Virginia's Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" in the sense that he would rather die than live in a society filled with ludicrous acts (by British)

Netaji's "Give me blood and I'll give you Freedom". The Blood here means sacrifice. He's saying that People must Sacrifice their nation for Freedom.--Milki 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"must sacrifice their nation for Freedom" ? I think it is more like sacrifice for their nation's freedom, Jeroje 06:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje

Political views status

At present, those comments in "Polical views" that indicate Bose was fascist have been referenced, primarily because of the fact a ready-made web reference was available! No book reference, mentioning the exact page number, have been added as of now.

Now, coming to the other aspect, that is the pragmatism of Bose's decision to ally with Axis power. I have not been able to find out good web-reference, except This. There are many books references. However, this point of view should be referenced ASAP. And also, that Congress' decision not to utilise the crucial momment of WW2 to pressurise British was not also of much benefit - as evidenced by the fact the British did not consult Congress before going to the war, and Congress resigned from the ministry as a lame protest - should be discussed. This discussion could point out the necessity of Bose's decision.

However, any discusssion/ comment have to be properly referenced, preferably from respectable sources like university pages, encyclopedias, or, best, accepted views of the historians. So it is a request to the wikipedians not to make own comments in the article, this is not a place of original research. Please, find out references and help make a really nice and balanced article. Thanks,--Dwaipayanc 09:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through this article Roy, Dr. R.C. 2004. Social, Economic and Political Philosophy of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

It reads like a poorly-referenced hagiography, I'm afraid. Without giving a proper page reference the author selectively quotes the passage I have given in note No.20 on the main page (which shows clearly that by 1944 Bose favoured an authoritarian system), and claims it proves precisely the opposite! Really very poor and not a reliable, neutral source at all. Sikandarji 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To User:ScBose - your views are clear enough from the name you've chosen, and I hope you won't take offence at the changes I've made (I've left most of your edits in place) but you must understand just how bad Bose's conduct looks: he allied himself with the Nazis, he set up a unit of the Waffen-SS, he then switched his allegiance to the Japanese despite their actions in South-East Asia, and by reviving the INA brought about a fratricidal war between its troops and the much larger numbers of British Indian troops fighting against the Japanese on the Assam frontier and in Burma. He took to wearing military uniform, he stated quite clearly that he no longer believed democracy to be suitable for India, he seems almost to have fetishized violence when there were alternative means of driving the British out of India which ultimately proved much more successful. Given all this, I think the article is as generous and neutral towards him as can reasonably be expected. His leanings towards Fascism are well-documented, and the list of other 'authoritarian' rulers in post-independence Asia (The Burmese Junta, Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir Mohammed, Suharto) does not make very encouraging reading: even if few can be characterised as out-and-out Fascists their regimes are or were pretty nasty, and if that's what Bose had in mind for India then, as Sen says, India was probably better off without him. Sikandarji 09:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and as for the INA and the RIN mutinies 'scaring' the British into leaving India: the INA was a broken and defeated force well before the end of 1945. The protests over the trial of its officers certainly came as a shock to the British, but they were already committed to leaving India by that stage anyway (and Congress knew this, or they would never have agreed to participate in Provincial Elections in 1945-6). The RIN Mutiny was a minor incident which had no effect on Wavell and Attlee's plans, and was actually condemned by Congress! The references you have provided are to a newspaper article and to another (entirely unreferenced) wikipedia entry, and that proves nothing. If you want more references I can go and dig through the 'Transfer of Power' collections, but almost all historians are agreed that the British left India because Congress had ensured that they no longer received sufficient cooperation from Indians to remain there, and that the political price had consequently become too high. I'm not quite sure why some Indians seem so insistent on claiming that the British were driven out by force, and talking up the more violent episodes and individuals (such as Bhagat Singh, who shot the wrong man) at the expense of Gandhi and the Congress. The fact is that with only 150,000 Englishmen in India, only 50,000 of whom were troops and 1,000 ICS, and with a much larger Indian army of between 120 and 150,000, the British presence in India was always based to some extent on cooperation, and on the use of agents such as the Princes, tribal leaders, Sufi pirs (in Sind), the Indian Army, and the lower bureacracy which was almost entirely staffed by Indians. Gandhi saw with brilliant clarity that if the cooperation the British depended on was withdrawn, they would eventually have to leave, and the hartals he organised which caused government clerks, railway and telegraph workers to stay away from work, worried the British far more than terrorist bombs. He also saw that If the British turned to mere violence to sustain their rule they would come badly unstuck, and might not be able to rely on Indian troops any more. That was exactly what happened at Amritsar, where the political fall-out from the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was so great, both in Britain and in India, that Dyer was sacked (he should, of course, have been tried and executed or jailed) but, more importantly, they realised that they would not simply be able to rely on brute force in the future, certainly not on that scale. With his activities in rural areas, Gandhi helped to turn the Congress from an organisation that represented mainly lawyers and other bhadralok, (and which for the first thirty years of its existence had concerned itself largely with matters of such burning import to the Indian population as simultaneous ICS exams in India) into a genuine mass-movement. The success of these tactics before the war can be measured in the reforms reluctantly wrung out of the British in these years - first Montagu-Chelmsford, then the Government of India Act 1935 which is still the basis of the modern Indian constitution (that is why already in 1944 Bose was able to refer to experience of Democracy in India, and then reject it). These were too little, too late for most of the Congress: but they were far more than the British had had any intention of giving up in 1919. This has turned into a bit of an essay, but I suggest a look at these books:

AMIN, S.: “Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern U.P., 1921 – 2” in Subaltern Studies III

BAYLY, C.A.: The Local Roots of Nationalist Politics. Allahabad 1880 – 1920 (Oxford University Press) 1975

BROWN, Judith M.: Gandhi – Prisoner of Hope (Yale University Press) 1989

Modern India. The Origins of an Asian Democracy 2nd Edition (OUP) 1994

MOORE, R.J.: “India in the 1940s” in The Oxford History of the British Empire Vol.V Historiography

PANDEY, Gyan: “Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant Movement in Awadh 1919-22” in Subaltern Studies I

SARKAR, S.: “The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non-cooperation, c.1905-22” in Subaltern Studies III

SEAL, Anil: “Imperialism and Nationalism in India” in Modern Asian Studies Vol.7 (3) 1973

OMISSI, David: The Sepoy and the Raj. The Indian Army, 1860 – 1940 (London: Macmillan) 1994

YANG, Anand A.: The Limited Raj. Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793 – 1920 (Delhi: OUP) 1989

All these will help to give a good account both of the foundations of British rule and the reasons for its demise. Sikandarji 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is always a reaction to the threat of working class insurrection and the breakdown of parliamentary democracy (as part of a more general breakdown of the “normal” functioning of the capitalist state and its agencies such as the army and the police, leading to a crisis in the economy). The paradigmatic cases are Italy in the twenties, Spain and Germany in the thirties, Chile in the seventies. Fascism draws its support in large measure from the petit bourgeoisie (including the property owning peasantry and small businessmen), which seeks a return to "order", as well as the bourgeoisie and seigneurial classes. It would be absurd to portray Bose as seeking a fascist solution to India – for there was no problem of the popular legitimacy of state institutions in a capitalist society such as might require a fascist “solution”. What Bose faced in India was a national liberation struggle and, like ALL national liberation fighters, he looked for external help and support.

So was Bose a “fascist” for turning to a “fascist” government for military help? No more than Attaturk was a “Stalinist” for turning to the USSR for military help or Taiwan was “Zionist” for turning to Israel for help – the demands of realpolitik do make what may seem unlikely bedfellows. Does the fact that the US has supported a long list of dubious military regimes make the USA a "fascist" regime?

Bose was confronted with a situation where a few imperialist powers were engaged in a worldwide struggle for supremacy to hold on to or acquire large parts of the world – a process which started well before the First World War. Like many third world “modernisers” Bose, the founder of the National Planning Agency in 1938, was obviously impressed by the supposed success of the five year plans in modernising the Soviet Union – to argue that this means he sought the same “fascist” solutions for economically backward India as economically advanced Western societies like Italy and Germany is absurd.

Furthermore, to argue that the man who was at the forefront of Indian protests against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, as well as against the Japanese actions in Nanking, had suddenly experienced a “conversion” on the road to Berlin and Tokyo stretches credulity. To argue that Bose was a “fascist” is a British imperialist argument – the wikipedia entry should make it clear that this is a very partial, one-sided argument and by no means a consensus view.

To User:Sikandarji Words like "Nazis" and "Waffen-SS" are there to frighten the children. To use arguments like Bose wearing military uniform to support the contention that he is a fascist lowers the debate several notches – there are many photographs of Churchill in naval uniform during world war 2, deGaulle was never out of uniform and Bose was the leader of an army and did undertake the long march to and back from Imphal – Gandhian dhoti and sandals might have been a trifle unsuitable. You yourself acknowledge the weakness of your own position that Bose was a fascist by trying to retract and by lumping him with other “authoritarian” rulers – why don’t you ask a woman breaking stones for a roadbuilding project in "democratic" Bihar whether she might not be better off in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore? The fact is you don’t know what the term “fascist” means but you are lazy enough to attribute it to Bose. Those of us with more respect for the victims of fascism tend to use the term with more discrimination and care.

For 1 1/2 million Indians to fight for the British imperialist war machine is not as innocent an endeavour as you would have us believe. These were hired mercenaries of the British – collaborators paid to maintain a regime which dragged India into two world wars without the consent of people in India. The fact that the Indian prisoners proved so susceptible to Bose’s persuasion shows that their allegiance to the British crown was not as strong as you maintain, as do the actions of Indian sailors and workers, Muslim and Hindu, during the Bombay Mutiny. History is replete with the examples of imperial elites using native compradors to maintain imperial control – to challenge this is not considered dishonourable by most people unless they happen to be old colonels waxing their moustaches and nostalgically harking back to the good old days of imperial rule.

The truncated, neutered, compromised, "independence" granted to Congress and the Muslim League by the imperialists was a far cry from the vision of liberation which inspired so many freedom fighters and which Bose, with all his contradictions, sincerely sought to articulate.

Scbose 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Professor Sen is a British Imperialist, but perhaps he's suffering from a form of false consciousness [1] - Nirad Chaudhuri also refers to Boses's "pronounced fascist leanings" Thy Hand Great Anarch (London) 1987 p32. This is not a view confined to "British Imperialists", it is one that deserves more serious consideration. I think I made it pretty clear that whilst I find Bose's actions during the war reprehensible and counter-productive, I'm not entirely comfortable with him being described as a 'fascist' either, although you seem somehow to have twisted that into a personal attack. The article shows that there are numerous dissenting views on Boses's role during the war, and his evolving political beliefs. I added both the quotations in which he condemns Nazism and Japanese aggression in China and that in which he calls for an "authoritarian system" in post-independence India whilst rejecting democracy, so I'm sad to see that my attempts at even-handedness on the page itself appear to have gone unappreciated. Please, leave the preaching out of this. To describe the Waffen-SS as "there to frighten the children" but then claim the moral high ground as one of that virtuous and self-selecting group "Those of us with more respect for the victims of fascism" is stretching things a bit. If you think India and the world would have been better off had Bose, the INA and the Japanese won their struggle against the Indian Army you're entitled to your opinion. I maintain that it is insulting simply to describe the latter as "collaborators" and denigrate their contribution to defeating Fascism (and I do know what the term means). Whether Bihar in particular has ever been truly democratic is questionable, but I somehow doubt if even Bose could have turned it into Singapore. The fact is that he isn't tainted with the many disappointments and failures of Independence because he died at the right time. That's why he's still revered as some sort of Messiah figure. From my own study of his writings and career I see no reason to suppose that he would have been any more successful than any other Indian political leader in preventing Partition or alleviating India's poverty in the aftermath of Independence: an Independence which was taken, not granted. Sikandarji 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To User:Sikandarji- The only link you can provide is to some kind of informal after-dinner ramblings (completely unannotated) for American freshmen (who presumably know even less about Indian history than they do about their own). I don't know if the augustly titled Professor Sen is suffering from false consciousness, but inebriation had crossed my mind. Your reference to Nirad Chaudhuri proves the opposite of the point you are trying to make. Nirad Chaudhuri was a celebrated and refreshingly candid apologist for British imperialism - the wikipedia entry on his life states that "To his last day, he remained the quintessential Victorian English country gentleman, if not by ownership, then by knowledge, habit, refinement and taste. He lived by his genteel squirearchical standards till he breathed his last." [2]. Since we disagree about Bose and his relation to fascism I suggest you stick to that and not indulge yourself overly on attributing fictional motivations to me (such as my wanting the Japanese to win, seeing Bose as some kind of messiah etc.). I am touched by your veneration for the anti-fascist credentials of the British Empire and its sepoy cannon fodder, albeit somewhat incredulous that we are talking about the same institution which pioneered the use of concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War, as well as using chemical weapons, man-made famines and eugenicist doctrines of racial superiority as instruments of imperial policy. Scbose 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The most cursory glance at Chaudhuri's writings would show that he had no great love for the British in India, (he distinguishes carefully between British domestic political and literary culture and that of the Empire). However, it is usual for people simply to read the deliberately provocative dedication to The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian and fail to progress any further, and I am not surprised to find that Wikipedia repeats the lazy myth that he was an Imperialist or an apologist for Imperialism. I suggest you read his books, rather than relying on hearsay. At no stage have I claimed that the British Empire was free from sin (what polity is)? and the Bengal famine of 1943 is a particularly dark stain, although I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it was deliberate. All I am suggesting is that the British Empire was better than the regimes it was fighting during WWII, with which Bose saw fit to ally himself, and that is all which is at issue here. To describe all those who served in the Indian Amry at that time as "cannon-fodder" is infantilising (it was a volunteer army, after all) and does them a grave injustice. Sikandarji 19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Politcal Views section needs some real work. I would suggest just a brief neutral summary of the main article as well as the reference to the link. I may get around to doing this myself later.

The Second World War

I just wanted to add, that since I have started to work on this article, I have come to sympathise with Bose and his views a good deal more than I did to begin with (and this despite him being a Cambridge man......). I still think he was wrong, and misguided, in the choices he made, but I accept that much of that knowledge comes with hindsight, as we have come to understand better the horrors of both the Nazi and Japanese regimes in this period. I would be very interested to garner further opinions from Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans about British India's role in the Second World War. By 1945 2.5 million Indians were serving in the British Indian Army against the Axis, and overall during the war about 4 million volunteered. They played a crucial role in defeating the Axis in the Middle East, in North Africa (at El Alamein, for instance) and of course in the defeat of the Japanese and the INA at Kohima and Imphal, and the subsequent reconquest of Burma. This contribution has only recently come to be fully acknowledged in Britain, and is viewed with pride and gratitude. How is India's role seen in defeating the Axis seen in India and Pakistan today? All opinions welcome.

Sikandarji 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can say only one thing. They are hardly remembered among the common men. In fact, that many Indians fought in the allied power remains almost unmentioned in our text books, at least in school levels. I am not aware of other parts of the subcontinent, but in the part I live (West Bengal, India) I do not see any commemoration of the soldiers. May be one of the reasons is the traditionally low Bengali presence in the Indian armies. Would be intersting to hear the scenario in Punjab.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think even in other parts of India these soldier's contributions are not much acknowledged. Many of them (those who survive) express their anguish (there are well documented oral histories) at their subsequent neglect which they feel came out of the Congress government's need to distance themselves from people who "worked for the British" (ironic, as many of the Congress leaders were staunch protectors of British interests as long as such protection did not jeopardize their share and bid for power - Gandhi and Nehru's support for this "war effort" itself is an example. Congress traded these soldier's lives for its demands for sole proprietorship of the Republic). Britain "gratefully acknowledges" ?!!! which "Britain" actually? I witnessed a very popular UK TV live show, where, the contestant sarcastically ridicules the whole idea, saying he never heard from his relative who fought in the war, that any "f***" person originating from the subcontinent ever did any "fighting". The cost of the war effort, in material and human terms, contributed by Indian people, has never been fully acknowledged, probably because of the same reasons that a British leader expressed "deep sorrow" but not that "he was sorry" for the injustices of British slave trade - the legal fear of compensation.Dikgaj 00:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Am a bit late to add points here but here is the crux. Members of Bose's INA were recognized as freedom fighters by the Govt. of India and hence got the same benefits (pensions, land, travel etc.) as Congress freedom fighters. This was clearly not the case for the British Indian Army personnel. In Indian textbooks - Bose is revered as hero. Yes, Indians serving in the British Army did become icons in India. Field Marshall Maneckshaw is an example - but he become a hero in India when he served the Indian Army not the British Indian Army. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

JAPANESE ATTROCITIES IN THE ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS

This is something that has really been swept under the carpet, and must be given a line or two. Japanese behaviour in the Andamans brings forth very searching questions about the modus operandi of the I.N.A. - and to think Bose wanted the Japanese army in New Delhi! Let's face it, how could he call himself a potential liberator if this kind of thing was being done by his "friends" and under their very noses. I think this link: [3] will get quickly deleted, as the article seems profoundly biased and is probably well guarded by a gang of Bengal Tigers who have as much time for other points of view as Bose himself did.

---

It makes me laugh how Indian historians love to believe that the tiny isolated uprisings by the Indian armed forces in 1946, which resulted in almost no British casualties, chased the British out of India. I have even seen this portrayed as fact in Indian school books. The mutinies did not even have the support of Congress or the Muslim League, who even supported their suppression! They were nothing at all and the type of thing that the British had been actively dealing with for 200 years. There was a far bigger mutiny during WWI, Bose’s INA, consisting of former soldiers, was a kind of mutiny, and let's not even talk about the trouble in 1857 which was ten thousand times bigger, there was even a sizable military mutiny in the 1820's. The trouble in 1946 was a trifling affair. The new British Socialist government(quite rightly)had already made up its mind to get out, something India is loathed to give credit for, as kindly British acquiescence is something they just can't admit - despite a truck load of evidence. This is why they said Gandhi was not a decisive factor.

• I think I deleted that link not because I know or intend to preserve a bias, but rather because it's to a personal website and part of a POV bit in the article. --Improv 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the original contributor by the way - I think you'll find that numerous atrocities were committed by the Japanese in the Andamans (and everywhere else in South-East Asia): this is widely known and accepted. However, I agree the original link was to what looked like an unreliable and very POV site, hence this statement was essentially unreferenced. In itself though I don't think it is unacceptably POV - if the atrocities happened, they should be referred to here. If I can find a good reference I may reinstate the passage. Sikandarji 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Only thing that is laughable is your attitude and your pretense that you have even a pint of actual intellect while making blanket statements. --Blacksun 12:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have added the "netaji & Indian communists" subsection .i will add content to it later.Bharatveer 08:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Slight POV problem.

There are parts of this article which are probabbly unintentionally ever so slightly biased. I think it is a bit of a diservice and insult to the hundreds of thousands of men of all religions who served in the Indian Army between 1939 and 1945 in both Europe and Asia who fought against nations who were totalitarian and fundementally wrong in nature. In that case it might be neccessary to adjust the article to restore the actual effect of this curious figure in history.--Pudduh 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more than slightly biased. Someone above called it a "poorly-written hagiography". I wouldn't go that far, but terms like "freedom-fighter" and "martyr" have no place in an encyclopaedia.89.242.152.119 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I am a little puzzled by some of the claims in this article@

"In England, he exchanged ideas on the future of India with British Labour Party leaders and political thinkers like Lord Halifax, George Lansbury, Clement Attlee, Arthur Greenwood, Harold Laski, J.B.S. Haldane, Ivor Jennings, G.D.H. Cole, Gilbert Murray and Sir Stafford Cripps" followed by "It may be noted here that during his sojourn in England, only the Labour Party and Liberal politicians agreed to meet Bose when Bose tried to schedule appointments with them. Conservative Party officials refused to meet him or show him the minimum courtesy due to a politician coming from a colony"

I was under the impression that Lord Halifax was a Conservative and that the second Indian MP in the House of Commons during the 1880's and 1890's was also a Conservative. These facts seem to be at odds with the claim.

---

Why do unsubstantiated claims remain a part of this article? This is a direct quote from the article: "At a time, when no one in Germany dared criticize Hitler, Bose was openly critical of Hitler's treatment of Jews[citation needed], the destruction of democratic institutions in Germany[citation needed] and the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union[citation needed]." Well, citations are needed, and none have been provided. The assertions of "fact" should therefore be removed, especially since I am highly skeptical of their veracity in the first place given Bose's cheerful willingness to align himself with Hitler. Cbreitel 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I have a question about the attribution of the British decision to leave India to the INA trials. I'm not sure that I see the causality and the accompanying link did not clarify things either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.157.150 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I have to disagree that there is some degree of POV here. There is a significant level of POV in the article. Also many claims that are unsupported. For instance, the suggestion that the British withdrawal from Indian resulted from the INA trials; the claim that Bose thereby posthumously achieved his aim of independence, as if he was responsible for that; the suggestion that his death is questionable. There is no basis for any doubts regarding his death. And the suggestion that he wasn't a fascist, just because he was allied to fascists, was a militant and revolutionary, had radical social and economic beliefs, etc etc. Sounds like fascism to me.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

flag

the flag next to the place of birth is a british flag and not an indian flag.

official date of death

On Death of Subhas Chandra Bose and Mukherjee Commission, it says that the government rejected the commissions outcome, but I am not 100% clear on whether the official date of death is still 1945. This is important because copyright law is based on the official date of death. John Vandenberg 11:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The official date of death is 18 August 1945... The commission refuted this, but the government rejected the findings of the commission... - Sreejith Kumar 03:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Highly respected?

Read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and then try to justify the inclusion of this phrase. JMcC 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed this to a more neutral statement (leader in the Indian independence movement).

A comment on his status as an Axis/Nazi collaborator could be included in the opening paragraph.

Dn9ahx (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Please see the discussion: About displaying flags. Thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just going to paste what I wrote in the noticeboard page

I am not sure that war time occupation of European countries by Nazi Germany falls in the same category as a country and its administration during the colonial era. Aside from the fact that India today is historically and politically different from British India. I dont have a problem with the flag not being shown, but do have a problem with the pages on Bose and INA becoming a battleground for PoV pushing Colonialists and nationalists. Facts are facts and that's the way it should be on an encyclopaedia. I have nearly single handedly build the entire Content on the Indian National Army (see {{Azad Hind Fauj}}), and am bored and tired of colonial as well as nationalist half-truths and pseudo-intellectuals pushing to have their long-disproved and now-downright-ridiculed theories in these pages. Do pardon me if I seem a bit overactive in these pages. I assure you it is in the best intentions and interests. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This has reference to you message on my talk page: [4]. I respect your views though all the people may not agree with the same. Moreover, I don't believe in making Wikipedia an emotional battleground: facts may be perceived in different ways by different people. And, you please feel free to do (with the flags) as you wish as I don't have any inclination to engage in discussion on matters which leads us no where except wasting valuable time which may be used more productively. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Assassination attempts

"In fact, the plan to liquidate Bose has few parallels..." Nice, but sounds more like personal opinion than fact (and would require a negative proof). As such, it belongs in quotation marks or left out altogether. 88.217.76.192 (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Orissa Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Orissa or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

A major portion of this article is not seen now. Is it due to vandalism? If yes, someone please restore it. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:INA Parade.jpg

The image File:INA Parade.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

There is a need for cultural awakening again in India recalling the ideals of Netaji to establish a ex-Soviet kind of state and abolish the poverty, dysfunctional polity that India is!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.37.194 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes by user 59.92.144.209

The changes by user 59.92.144.209 at 12:39, 15 March 2009, [5] needs review, I think the content is not suitable under [WP:NOTDIRECTORY]. The content can be restructured as a section with proper formating and retained in this page or moved to a suitable page. nihar (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the quote, as it exists on Swami Sahajanand Saraswati page also. Swami Sahajanand Saraswati link has been added to 'See Also'nihar (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an error either in this piece or in the linked piece about Chennai Central prison. The prison piece says that Bose was a prisoner in Chennai in the early days of Indian independence. This piece about Bose says he died in 1945. India did not become independent until 1947, so both statements can't be right. Which one is wrong?

Lead section too long

The lead section of this article is too long. It needs to be summarised in fewer words and the actual contents moved to the sections. Unspokentruth (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That was wrong information

Regards everybody. I have removed the sentence that Subhash Chandra's B'day is National Holiday. In fact, it is not even a Restricted Holiday. -Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing a Quisling

No wonder this article is locked. If we can not change the body of the article, how about some links to Bose's own words on how democracy is bad for India, and all the great things the Germans are doing for Europe? Or a link to opposing views, such as many other articles on controversial figures have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

vandalism by congress people

Some ip's are constantly vandalizing article. Likely congress party people trying to downplay Netaji. Constant watch required or we can semiprotect it for a while. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

need a confirmation on dates

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Subhas_Chandra_Bose&diff=354644685&oldid=353968709 an ip user changed a date, can anyone cite the correct date? or confirm which date is correct?Profitoftruth85 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pgg804 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Editorializing and Bias - Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia

The article says "Bose never liked the Nazis but when he failed to contact the Russians for help in Afghanistan he approached the Germans and Italians for help. His comment was that if he had to shake hands with the devil for India's independence he would do that" . This is editorializing and hearsay. Can wikipedia backup its claim regarding the statement it says he made about shaking hands and that he never liked the Nazis. Its not even in quotation marks so it should not be in the article. He obviously liked the Nazis better than the British who were extremely racist as well, because he allied himself with Germany to fight the British. And obviously Germans were not racist towards Indians since they trained them and welcomed them into the German Waffen SS (not mentioned in this article). Other evidence Bose liked Germans better than Britons is that he married a German (actually an Austrian) in 1937 - Emilie Schenkl. His only daughter, Anita Bose Pfaff, is a German professor. Click on Schenkl's name where spouse is listed in this article for her biography. This also demonstrates so called "Nazis" liked Indians enough to marry one.

The article says he may have allied himself with the Nazis for pragmatic reasons. Thats probably a true statement. All countries behave pragmatically much more than for the idealistic reasons claimed. Great Britain and the USA aligned themselves with Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century - not many people say Churchill and Roosevelt were Communist sympathizers. Its claimed Britain and the USA fought for freedom even though they aided Stalin and other communist mass murderers.

What this article illustrates is how British racism is overlooked and ignored while German racism is highlighted and forced into peoples minds. The fact is much of the world was racist in those days. In many ways British racism was far worse than German racism. Britain and America operated the trans-atlantic slave trade and had slavery for hundreds of years. Britain colonized the darker peoples of a very large part of the world (India, Africa, Asia, the middle east after WW I, etc.) and their attitudes towards these peoples were overtly racist. They owned these colonies for hundreds of years. Germany on the other hand had overseas colonies for about 40 years. German interest was mostly in Europe and WW II started when Germany demanded the land back that was stolen from Germany and Austria (with millions of Germans living on this land) and the land was used to create the new countries Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1919.

I also doubt Ghandi disliked the Germans. Why should he? The British occupied his country, treated Indians as an inferior race, used Indian wealth to enrich England and smashed Indian heads when the Indians resisted. Ghandi said "the difference between Hitler and Churchill is only of a degree". The only problem with Ghandi's statement is it doesn't reveal which leader he considered a degree worse than the other.

This is not a Soapbox. You are entitled to your opinions - and I concur with some of them - but how does this add to the article? TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is not a soapbox, then do not use it to promote your inaccurate description of slavery, the start of WWII and the British Empire in general. Stick to the fragrant Bose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate instead of posting nonsensical ramblingsTheBlueKnight (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Legendary" figure - Edit war

I agree "Legendary" is a peacock term. Let's look at the article of someone like Winston Churchill - in the opening paragraph he is twice called a "statesman" which itself can be construed as a peacock term. S.C. Bose is legendary in India - that is a fact but if it is against Wikipedia policy then please don't push such a word. If a person reads the entire article, am sure his legend will shine through :) I suggest you guys stop the revert war. :) TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BlueKnight. "was one of the major leaders in the " seems appropriate. I have created a section for his popularity in modern India and placed your Orissa gov quote there. This section could also be expanded later and opposing views can also be discussed.

Actually, I don't care much about the quote - I just wanted to put in "legendary" without violating Wikipedia policy, satisfying both sides and ending the revert war. I am fine with it as it stands now. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - 'a legendary leader, like the legendary General Vlasov' How's that?.

Now it's even more "peacocky" than before. I agree completely with TheBlueKnight. For those who disagree, please go through the wikipedia Manual of Style. Gremaldin (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Popularity in India

We should not be asking a reader to judge the popularity of a historical figure based on the subjective views of provincial politicians of the present day. We should be explaining why he became so popular, and possibly the British response in the main text. Rsloch (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All views are subjective - facts on the other hand are not. The statement in question is not issued by a politician but by a government. If there is an official British response either affirming or negating this statement, then feel free to add it in. TheBlueKnight (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This statement does not constitute fact but rather opinion. The source of that opinion is doubtful. Thus the quote should not be included. Bose's legacy is worth more. Rsloch (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine - have it your way. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Death or lack of

I'm thinking of splitting 'Death' section in two forming a 'Death' (plane crash) and 'Disputes regarding his death' (the rest) as per the Raoul Wallenberg article. Also finding another word for 'alleged'. Thoughts? Rsloch (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"is believed to have died", perhaps? I don't see the point of 2 sections. Do you think it is currently difficult to read and/or grasp? TheBlueKnight (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Haphazard editing and Protection

Too many changes are made to this page and too often. This article has often been significantly smaller that it had been beforehand or afterwards. Images that have appeared in the October 3, 2007 version, for example, [6] have been removed. Sections have also been deleted, and in their place a large section has been introduced with a large block of text that has been copied from somewhere, with even a reference at the beginning of a paragraph to a picture that doesn't exist in the article. In fact, changes are done to this article at such a fast rate, that are of a broad nature, many of them by ip users, and the registered uses without caring for consensus or doing reversion, that it is hard to find which change was made when. In fact, with all these changes occurring at a fast rate, the discussion page is surprisingly sparse. The remedy for this article isn't clear, it definitely needs some clean-up now, and revision of many edits. But one thing that should be done is to semi-protecting it now. Last time he was identified in Gomoh railway station in Jharkhand, now the railway station name is Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Railway Station.

This article has been nominated for semi-protection. 72.225.203.17 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Truly worth recommending for a semi protection. Thanks! -- SreejithInfo (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In this article, in the section "Escape from British India to Germany", it is mentioned that "Bose spent three years in Germany(1941-1943), during which he married Emilie Schenkl. Again, in the section "Personal life", it is mentioned that "Bose married Emilie Schenkl in 1937". Which one is correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.10.9 (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Ridiculous

"In 1941, when the British learned that Bose had sought the support of the Axis Powers, they ordered their agents to intercept and assassinate Bose before he reached Germany. A recently declassified intelligence document refers to a top-secret instruction to the Special Operations Executive (SOE) of British intelligence department to murder Bose. In fact, the plan to liquidate Bose has few known parallels, and appears to be a last desperate measure against a man who had thrown the British Empire into a panic.[2]"

What? They were concerned about Bose aiding the enemy, at a time when Britain was fighting for her life. This makes it sound like it was Bose's independence activities that were the main concern. Someone has put a great deal of POV nonsense into this acticle, then locked it.

The discussion of "Netaji's" (hardly an objective way to refer to Bose, either) impact on the Indian independence movement is highly subjective. Not source is cited for the assertion in "Bose's Legacy" that the INA was not a puppet army of Japan or that the entire Indian nation was "aroused" by learning of Bose's struggle. The history of Britain's decision to give India independence is incorrect: it was not revolts in 1945 (which I don't believe happened) that triggered the decision, the Labour Party had decided on that course back in the '30s. A "substantial portion" of the British Indian Army did not revolt in 1945, and this article gives no evidence to support its view. Wretched.

I agree, There is not much on his Nazi collaboration. This page looks more like the Indian congress Party poster Earlyriser10 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency in "Escaping" section

"From Moscow, he reached Rome, and from there he traveled to Germany.[4][5][7] Once in Russia the NKVD transported Bose to Moscow where he hoped that Russia's traditional enmity to British rule in India would result in support for his plans for a popular rising in India. However, Bose found the Soviets' response disappointing and was rapidly passed over to the German Ambassador in Moscow, Count von der Schulenburg. He had Bose flown on to Berlin in a special courier aircraft..."

The first line has him go from Moscow to Rome to Germany, and the rest of the paragraph has him go directly from Moscow to Germany. Which is it ? StuRat (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

Tamil:சுபாஸ் சந்திர போஸ்

Somusiva07 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see any reason to add another language to his name--there is no indication in the article that he was from Tamil Nadu, lived there, spoke it, or is particularly important for their history. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If on the other hand, it was a request to add the valid link to ta:சுபாஸ் சந்திர போஸ், note that interwiki links are normally added by bots. Dru of Id (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Already present. Dru of Id (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

As there is no documental/leagal proof of Subhas Chandra Bose's wife and daughter , kindly delete the names of Emilie Schenkl Children Anita Bose Pfaff from his family information. 120.59.46.63 (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a big edit and people might get a bit annoyed if I just removed all traces of them. They have their own articles too, so there's no reason why there shouldn't be links. If a lot of users have the same demand as you, then this edit can be done. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll mark the section as unsourced; if no one adds a source in a week or so, remind me on my talk page and I'll remove the whole section. WP:V does not require that we get consensus to remove unsourced info; rather, others would have to get consensus to keep it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A total blackout!

Why is there a total blackout of the information that emerged after the demise of the Soviet Union that Subash Bose had been a prisoner of the Soviet Union? That he had died in their hands. Siberia as the place of imprisonment was mentioned. That Nehru was aware of this fact, but did not want to bring him back to India, for what would then happen to his claim to Indian prime ministership is quite understandable. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources that verify those claims, they can definitely be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Cornelius383, what are you trying to do in recent edits (like this one? With no edit summary, I can not understand purpose of your edits. Could you explain?--Tito Dutta ✉ 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry User:Tito Dutta you're right. My intention was to insert only the piece of The Tribune of India's article with the horrible way with which Emile received the shocking news of her husband's death. I accidentally added the entire piece. I have now made ​​the necessary adjustments. I apologize for the error. Thank you for your warning!--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Addings on "Early life" and "Personal life" sections

I added some information related with Subhas's family. I inserted the following informations with quotings (in this article many crucial information are still without quotations): 1)On the section "Personal life": the Subhas's wife Emilie Schenkl and on his daughter, Anita Bose Pfaff with relative citations. 2)On the section "Early life" I inserted links: a)with the article on Subhas's brother Sarat Chandra Bose (aka Sarat Chandra "Basu") and b)with the Subhas's nephew Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, the indian phylosopher and Ananda Marga founder. I cited the book Dharmavedananda, Ácárya (1999). Travel with the Mystic Master. Singapore: Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 981-04-0864-1.. All information inserted were properly quoted (in two sections where many crucial informations were, and are still, without any quote). The informations of point (2) were deleted two times from User:Qwyrxian and a third time from User:Titodutta. I ask me why.. This means that we can delete the addings with citations and leave all the other information that are no quoted? I don't understand the logic that supports all this.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

some points were mentioned when you posted this in our talk pages... you have not mentioned those here and repeated the question.. anyway.. WP:RS, and WP:MoS--Tito Dutta ✉ 18:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Titodutta but I don't understand why did you delete for example the link with Bose's brother Sarat Chandra Bose?--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

there was not rs, was written like advert.. --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see the scribd link for some reason. Titodutta, are you saying that the underlying book itself does not meet WP:RS? I do have to say that the publishign company concerns me, since it appears to be the publishing arm of a religious movement, which would generally not be considered reliable for historical/familial info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not RS. the subject is the religious organization head from where the book was published. The author is neither a scholar nor a well known figure! Also some more minor issues like sing honorific etc.. --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

But all the section (and a large part of the article) is without quotations.. Why we have to delete the only part with quotations.. this seems to me irrational!--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

can a problem be solved by mentioning another problem?--Tito Dutta ✉ 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes sometimes it's possible: a problem can be formed by some subproblems (this is complexity...). But I ask you: why you don't delete anything that is not quoted and you delete the only things quoted on the section? This is my point..--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We can try to write the section in a better form if you think so.. but I believe that we cannot delete the links with the articles of Netaji's relatives..--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

here is not any sub-problem. the attempt is to ignore a problem by mentioning second problem..

if you want i may try to find some rs.. gov docs.. scholar books etc! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok Titodutta.. you can try that's good. Belive me I don't have a particular interest to support at all costs my point of view. But, sorry if I ask you again (you are a "senior editor" and maybe you can explain me better than others..), why we have to delete the links with the WP-articles of Netaji's relatives? Can you exactly answer at this question 'couse I don't understand. Maybe there is a reason that I don't know?. Thank you--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

not only in this article, you have added the same links in Sarat Chandra Bose etc article.. please delete those! You can use "Brothers against the Raj : a biography of Indian nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose" of Leonard A. Gordon, that's a good source or use Sisir Bose's biography of Subhas Bose, that book was highly appreciated.

I can not find any book where it is told Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was nephew of Subhas Bose see search result.. self published, unreliable sources can not be used here--Tito Dutta ✉ 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues

As I see it, the article has the following issues:

1. The intro needs to be expanded, so that it adequately summarizes Subhas Chandra Bose's life.
2. The article needs additional citations.
3. The "Ideology and philosophy" section in particular needs special attention.
4. The neutrality issue needs to be fixed.
5. The article needs to be copy-edited, and the MOS issues need to be fixed. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 05:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Netaji rahasya sondhane

recently i have read one bengali book "Netaji rahasya sondhane" i.e "On search the mystery of Netaji" by Narayan Sanyal. Narayan Sanyal is a very famous writer in bengal and his book should be included in this article on Netaji as people who want to know about sudden disappearance of Netaji may find this book by Narayan Sanyal very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.9.85 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Netaji Lives on

About this revert, the citation failed to support the information there and it was written like advertisement with the website link in article body. The revert has been re-reverted! It is requested not to add it back without reaching a consensus here! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Artistic depiction of Bose needs to culled and write just few lines stating that Bose was depicted In numerous films and books, similarly under the section Disappearance and alleged death there is a sub section called Books on the mystery, it looks like an advertisement of the book “ India’s biggest cover up” . Although the whole page needs a lot of clean up but I thought lets clean small things first. --sarvajna (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This page does indeed need a lot better copy-writing. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

Clement Atlee's remark

Did not clement Attlee said effects of Netaji and INA were most important factors leading to india's independece? Who removed this from introduction system?Ovsek (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Most likely I did because they are WP:UNDUE. The current lead reflects the consensus of scholarly opinion on Bose. Incidentally, he is also dead, and not aged 116, living in Manchuria, preparing for this final march on Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Attlee's comment surely isn't undue enough to not exist in the complete article. I would agree to remove it from lead but keep it somewhere in the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You would have to source it first. There were four citations for that statement and not one of them supported the thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, the myth of Netaji—a disturbed man in a mid-life crisis (which Gandhi, Nehru, were quick to realize), with a secret wife and child in Germany that he didn't have the courage to tell any one about, with no military experience, and physically out of shape, politically all over the place, until 1938 espousing radical socialist views, but thereafter courting the Nazis, Fascists, and Imperial Japan, rounding up the defeated British Indian Army POWs, whose other option was File:Japanese shooting blindfolded Sikh prisoners.jpg, then presuming to fight the British who were stretched thin fighting a global war, and then getting walloped once the British army was replenished—lives on in India, especially in Bengal. In India it does, partly as a result of the resurgent Hindu right's effort to diminish Gandhi. In Bengal it does, because Bengalis are desperate to make out they contributed something to the independence struggle, which they didn't after CR Das in 1927. That is the plain blunt truth. The Attlee remark, which I just checked is not about Bose, but about the INA trials and the public protests after the sentencing of Shahnawaz Khan, Sehgal and others. It is based on a reminiscence by BK Chakravarti, former Governor of West Bengal, whom Attlee visited in the late 50s in Calcutta. It is not directly attributable to Attlee, not something Attlee wrote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

PS I mean, seriously, think about it: soldiers go to military academies, train their entire lives, fight in wars, rise in the ranks based on their performance, before they become generals in any legitimate army in the world. What were "Netaji" 's credentials? What army today would hire a 45 year old out of shape man with no military experience to lead it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And if you think it is just me, here is Chris Bayly:

There are still some in India today who believe that Bose remained alive and in Soviet custody, a once and future king of Indian independence. The legend of `Netaii' 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. It sustained the morale of many across India and Southeast Asia who deplored the return of British power or felt alienated from the political settlement finally achieved by Gandhi and Nehru.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that content must be kept in this article any where as well as British Government forbade BBC from broadcasting news of INA I am not going to argue that Netaji still lives, and other personal attacks on him made by an user, what he did despite many faults that invasion's impact was a success when news of INA spread all over India.

“In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter-”mi-ni-mal”.” - See more at: http://www.deeshaa.org/netajis-ghost-the-freedom-struggle-by-n-s-rajaram/#sthash.23F8X4sa.dpuf

There are many more sources. No comment about Nehru a power monger, unrealistic thug. Netaji had basic training in Military. During WW1 he took military training in India as a student. @Fowler&fowler please instead of making stupid accusitions say "I am British so I am not willing to show respect to this man" it is nice. Charles De Gaulle exiled French leader made Free French Movement to free his country Netaji made INA to free India, what is wrong?

You prefer De Gaulle because he fought against Germans your enemy, Enemy's enemy is my enemy, ironically here you also follow the same strategy Netaji followed thus indicating that strategy is right.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/2250/netajis-ghost-the-freedom-struggle/

http://www.subhaschandrabose.org/bio.php Read a single book from here. I am much experienced about Wikipedia's anti-Indian freedom movement attitude with secretly dishonouring revolutionaries(mainly Netaji)as main aim and with Wikipedia's policy as excuse from British users and by Pakistani users to "prove" Pakistan was not part of India before 1947 and to ignore the fact that Pakistan resulted after 1947 partition. Thank you. I conclude.Ovsek (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Blog posts don't count. I know the source better than you do. It was 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). Like I said, the story is apocryphal, there is nothing to attest it, Attlee was long gone and Majumdar was in the last few years of his life. If it was such a bombshell story, why did Mr. Chakravari wait 20 years to tell it? It is an now an urban legend promoted by bloggers who have nothing better to do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have gone off on a rant here. But thank you for the useful references. Majumdar being 90 should not be discounted because turning 90 doesn't imply diminished judgment. And questioning Chakravarti's motivations is conjecture on your part. Your opinions on Subhas Chandra Bose, Bengalis and bloggers aren't constructive; put them on your blog maybe. You should know better considering you're a senior editor. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

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. Attlee may have mentioned the British Army mutiny in 1945 (of some soldiers among the reinforcements brought in during WW2, who didn't want to stay on in India after the war), the INA trials, the naval mutiny in 1946, as reasons for hurrying decolonization after the war, and Mr. Chakravarti, no historian, either unwittingly misinterpreted what Attlee said, or deliberately finessed it to bolster his, and Bengal's, vanities about Netaji. Here's Attlee's remarks after Gandhi's death. Gandhi was not only the leading genius of the final 25-year long phase of India's nationalist movement, but one of the great men of the age. To suggest, that his contribution amounted to "not much," and then place it in the mouth of Clement Attlee, is both an insult to Gandhi and Attlee and to their admirers around the world. No reliable secondary source has paid any attention to Chakravarti. That is where the buck stops. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fowler, your ranting about Bose is not required on this talk page, most of your statements are hypothetical (It is hardly likely that Attlee....Attlee may have mentioned....Mr. Chakravarti, no historian, either unwittingly misinterpreted). If we can use a source then let us use it, personal knowledge is a good thing but not of much use here. -sarvajna (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The source being cited are pages 609-610 of R.C. Majumdar's History of the Freedom Movement in India, Volume III. It is to support the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose and his leadership of the INA did make a recognized contribution to India gaining independence. First, is the objection that the said text is not on those pages? If it is, then why can't it be cited as a source? Second, even if R.C. Majumdar did write it in his memoirs, which I assume is a separate book, why can that not be a source? It is not a work of fiction. Is it Wikipedia policy to bar autobiographies from being used as citable sources? Can the rest of R.C. Majumdar's works be cited? As to peer-review, Sugata Bose's book, cited as the source for Subhas Bose's date of death, isn't peer reviewed either. What is the difference between the two? There is no attempt here to discredit anyone else for their contributions.162.206.113.216 (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

Not just Sugata Bose's book, but Bayly and Harper, Bandopadhyay, Metcalf and Metcalf, Wolpert, Low, in fact the fist 10 footnotes attest to the fact that Bose died at the end of the war. We don't need Sugata Bose. What year was your vaunted source, History of the Freedom Movement, published? It's last edition before Majumdar's death was published in 1971. Chakravarti's letter was not written until in 1976. Your math is not adding up. This is my last response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It would've helped if your comments were more articulate than frustrated. I get that Attlee's comments cannot be mentioned as factual because it has not been corroborated independently by other historians. It has been given credence to one historian, who, despite his standing, is in the minority, and admits so directly in the same text. In that light, it is not a consensus view. However, it should be okay to state that "R.C. Majumdar credits Subhas Chandra Bose with India becoming independent at the time that it did", or to that effect. Your derogatory comments were more informative about yourself than helping me gain insight into what rationale applies here. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep Apparently blogs DO count, per Wikipedia policy. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep