Talk:Anuj Dhar

Unexplained removal of content
I see that a user has removed the majority of the content from this article without explaining the reasons. Please discuss the changes here first, and then make the changes. Thank you. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dhar is a well-known author on the subject of Bose's disappearance. His notability is not just limited to a single book or event. He has published several books (not just on the Bose mystery) and all of them were well reported too. Before removing the content, it is only fair to discuss the changes and reach consensus. Hope you will agree. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Has he been reviewed by any well-known South Asia related academic journals, such as Journal of Asian Studies, Modern Asian Studies? Has he been cited in books published academic presses such as Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge University Press?  Has he been reviewed even in respected newspapers such as The New York Times, Guardian, The Hindu?  Does he even have a Ph.D. in History from a major academic department in India, such as JNU or Delhi University?  The answer clearly is no.  Why then should we have so little space devoted major historians of India such as Christopher Bayly, Judith M. Brown, Thomas R. Metcalf, Eric Thomas Stokes, and so much to random amateur historian who is peddling well-worn conspiracy theories about Bose?  You think it is that easy to become a historian?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The removal WAS explained. the sources are not reliable WP:RS  or are not talking about the supposed subject of the article WP:COATRACK. The article is being used to expound wild theories based solely on the guys book WP:REDFLAG etc. Wikipedia is not here to pimp a guy and his fringe theories -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anuj Dhar is reviewed by The Guardian and The Hindu. Now what do you say? Dhar is also reviewed by CIA -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are not book reviews, just references or chat interviews. Here are examples of book reviews: Serving the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics under Hitler by Philip Ball – review (Guardian), Books: Reviews – A new approach to intervention (The Hindu),


 * Fowler and his usual western-approvals-required misunderstanding! Not whole of the article was unsourced. So i will bring back whatever was sourced to third parties. And this isn't the right way to deal with subjects which you think should be deleted; by blanking their articles and the take to AFD and call for empty-article-card. You have done this before also. On the issue, i think that the guy is notable enough to stay. He has made a lot of news and thats covered well. His books have been reviewed by various newspapers and that’s whats sufficient. Not everyone needs to run to America for attestation. But the guy and his books aren't much hyped or popular also. They have got their share of publicity and attention but not worth enough for stand-alone articles. I would suggest all books be merged to the biography article. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He has not been reviewed, here is a what a book review looks like: Unheard Voices.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think some of us are not fair here. First someone asked for reviews and when provided, they don't take it. As Dharmadhyaksha said, everything needs approval from New York Times? Why is it so? The author is well known for this subject. If there is an interview with him, why do you fail to understand that he is notable? You cannot expect every book released in India to be reviewed by The Hindu or The Guardian. The author is a known person and is acknowledged for his works. And one cannot simply say that the other one "does not know enough about the subject to make informed decision". That is a wrong practice. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not see any book reviews. What I saw were book summaries -simply regurgitations of what appeared in the book - no assessments, no commentaries, nada but "This is what the book says". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is one by The Pioneer. This is reviewed by NS Rajaram who himself is a historian. Now please don't tell me this is not a review or that the Pioneer is not a good source. The page clearly states it is a book review and Pioneer is the second oldest English newspaper in India. And you may please note that Anuj Dhar has written 4 original books, not including the translation. The article says two. I fail to understand why someone wants to edit out everything and include wrong information. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not really a review, it is an opinion piece (the writer barely talks about the book). Of course, the author could be unreviewed and yet notable if he is covered in reliable sources so perhaps that's what you should be looking for - articles that focus on him rather than on regurgitating material from his books. If he is truly notable, there must be a few articles that either praise him as a great researcher or label him a conspiracy theorist. BTW, it doesn't help when the deleted material contains statements like "fighting to bring out the truth". --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this baffles me now. When posted his interviews, some editors told me they are looking for reviews with assessments and commentaries. So I shared another item. It is categorised by the publishing company as a "book review". Can we insist that the reviewer should follow a specific format for the reviews? No, right? The basic point I am making is that all these suggest that the author is notable. This review praises him indeeed and the CIA review tones him down. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Xriejetinfo, I have no dog in this fight. The pioneer review reads as an opinion piece. While there is no specific format a review follows, one would expect to see some evaluation of the sources and evidence presented by the author. We're not discussing fiction but rather talking about history and an academic review of some sort would be good. However, like I said, that has little to do with his notability and less focus on the fact that his book is mentioned here and there and more focus on the writer himself would be a great help. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... am glad i at least have a certificate from you. Can i have my own article now? Indian reviewers are kinda lame; majority of them. That's how they review films also, write down the plot, write down their favourite song and action sequence, give some stars and that’s it. But whatever you guys are doing here goes against many things, basic common sense things. Did he write a book titled PQR? Yes, we have third party references to it. So we write in the article, "he wrote the book PQR". Whether the book is Booker winner or some oldies in Cambridge liked it; doesnt matter. As long the article is in article space, free for editing, it will be edited. Your best chance to not get it edited is to get it deleted. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it can certainly be edited, but per WP:VERIFY the added nonsense can just as easily deleted. It is better to get consensus first on what can go in. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See! You have it in you. You can be better than what you initially get doing. Now next step of cleansing would to be shed that garb which makes you think that everything will go through you. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Woops! Me wrong you beyond repair. Just like always, keep your personal hatred of various subjects to those subject articles only. This is the third time i am noticing of how you are bringing irrelevant stuff to other articles. Let your agendas and opinions on Bose be on Bose's page. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick to content and sources and stay away from commenting on contributors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dharmadikshya, I have done nothing against WP policy; you on the other hand have. I have merely provided the context, of the commonly-held academic consensual view.  You cannot state Dhar's claims in isolation, without the context.  It will give the impression that his is the majority view.  You have removed immaculately sourced content.  I won't revert your revert, but I expect you to self-revert.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fowler, I don't think a wealth of detail on Bose's death is necessary here since the article is on Dhar rather than on his death. If there are sources that say that theories that he did not die in the air crash are conspiracy theories, then a claim along those lines is probably all that is necessary. If not, then a simple statement that the generally accepted view is that he died in the air crash but that there are persistent attempts to show that he did not (again with a source) - or something along those lines would work. --regentspark (comment) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, RP. The quotes that I had included have the sources for both conspiracy theories and generally accepted views. I am really strapped for time. It was quicker for me to simply paste the sources from the Bose article here. Perhaps someone can use a few of those sources for the statement you refer to, which sounds quite reasonable to me. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fowler's intentions are clear. He cited on a related page that Bose is a loser and third-rate military commander who had an untrained army. He also said derogatory things about Mangal Pandey that he was nonexistent. This is not a place to curse national heroes. Nobody wants you to bring in your own research into this. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Typical! Wait for some time and he will start talking about 1971's abolishing of privy purse. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * is that the Indian version of Godwin's law? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Its typically what Fowler talks about. He has some pet topics and their templated long references. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD, Dharmadikshya is gossiping in small print about me, because in a previous encounter, I reduced the pages of India's ex-royals&mdash;whose wide-eyed sidekicks, grovelling fans, and posse of cub reporters, call them "His/Her Royal Highness,"&mdash; down to their prosaic unremarkable ordinariness. These leeches from India's past have neither title nor privilege. They do have a lot of money though, which their ancestors squeezed over centuries out of their dirt poor subjects. Since there were so many of the pretenders to (the almost 600) long abolished thrones, I had to create ready made references, which user:Abecedare is now working on in his subpage, User:Abecedare/Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of India. The quotes at the bottom and references are mine, which after reducing the ex-royal articles to their bare-boned notability, I was slapping at the page bottom, to discourage the grovelers from crawling all over the page again. One such example is Priyadarshini Raje Scindia. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * XrieJetInfo, You must have mistaken this for a chatroom. This page is for discussing sources and content of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Reddoom: I have enough experience to understand what Wiki is. You removed the artcile No Secrets (2013 book), blanked its contents and redirected it to another article repeatedly. I asked you to discuss it on the Talk page, but you didn't oblige. And you talk about chatrooms? -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I converted it to a redirect because "The book is a shortened version of Dhar's controversial book India's Biggest Cover-up " . Lacking WP:GNG significant coverage, and as a reprint of a book (that probably also fails the WP:GNG), it is perfectly acceptable to convert to a redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Reddoom: It must have been a factual error. Also that mentioned was unsourced in the article. The new book is not an abridged version of the previous book, but is essentially a new book. The article can stay. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article must first be shown to meet WP:GNG before we can consider whether or not "The article can stay". I will change the redirect to be to the author rather than the other book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is restored after reworking on it. Sources are cited. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * see below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

One does not need to be a historian to write a research oriented book, especially when the issue dates to present. Anuj is a journalist, not historian. I found the first reports by Anuj on Subhash Chandra Bose appeared in Hindustan Times, which is quite widely read as, if not more, than the Hindu, referred in the following discussion. Also Anuj's reports have been discussed in in Times of India, the most widely circulated English daily of India newspaper, as well as other newspapers. I do not know why he is being compared with Judith Brown or Metcalf, instead of journalists. It is also difficult to understand how Judith Brown are termed as the "major historians of India".Biswa roop (talk)
 * it does not sound like you are familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I suggest you read WP:REDFLAG, WP:VALID , WP:FRINGE . We present content and claims in the context of the mainstream academic consensus and looney fringe conspiracy theories as looney fringe conspiracy theories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your policy is racist and bigoted, then. There is a stark difference between the truth, and manipulation of words to make a statement sound like the truth. Your policies seem to drive at the fact, that only Western Institutions or institutions recognised by Western Institutions are the only credible ones. So your policy takes away the power and right of an individual to express themselves. And here I thought Wikipedia was supposed to give a voice to the individual, not pamper to political narratives. I realise I have made a huge mistake in making a account on this website. Vivek.Ghosh (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not even like you quoted all possible sources, of course I am sure policies made that impossible. And, the fact, that Anuj Dhar has not received support despite working on this issue for more than 20 years is not mentioned in the article.( in the words of Anuj Dhar himself). Therefore, the result of the policies you referred to are simply there to suppress the individual and their voice. He is not a conspiracy theorist because he never placed any theories as the absolute truth before readers. He presented possibilities which would require both national and international cooperation for the truth to emerge. Since this is a sensitive issue, he wants our government to release the truth to the public because he does not know for sure what fate befell Subhash Chandra Bose. And this is a very important issue for Indians. We don't have answers for more than a century, and here you insult the only man who worked for that. Your policy is no help to humanity. N
 * No inclusive policies available in that regard, is there ? Yet you are simply misrepresenting the truth, in the name of information. I had a terrible experience, as both a reader and editor on Wikipedia and I highly doubt I will even give this my time of day. Vivek.Ghosh (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge India's Biggest Cover-up and No Secrets (2013 book)
Once the primary sourced content and the sources parroting the primary source are removed from India's Biggest Cover-up and No Secrets (2013 book) you are left with little that can merit a stand-alone article. The third party sourced content of the books can easily be incorporated into this article (and considering how little that is, it may already be covered). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support such a merge. Note that large sections of the India's Biggest Cover-up are copyright violations, or at least plagiarized, from the cited sources. Example, compare article text:

"In 1990s a number of Indian scholars visiting Russia had returned to claim that there were records about Bose in accessible intelligence and security-related archives. RL Narayan, the then joint secretary and a future ambassador, doubted the official Russian response to an Indian approach made a little earlier that they did not have records on Bose. He advised in an official note still classified as 'secret' that a démarche be issued to seek facts from the KGB archives. The diplomat's recommendation was struck down after Mukherjee saw the note and scrawled at the end that the then Foreign Secretary Salman Haidar should discuss the issue with the JS (EE) urgently. But no démarche was ever issued, as was recommended by Narayan. The book accuses that on the contrary, he started taking a hardline against the Asiatic Society scholars who were raising a demand for an access to the secret Soviet records"
 * to Dhar's quote in source text (this Rediff article)

"Dhar says, 'In 1990s a number of Indian scholars visiting Russia returned to claim that there were records about Bose in accessible intelligence and security-related archives.' ... 'RL Narayan, then a joint secretary and a future ambassador, doubted the official Russian response to an Indian approach made a little earlier that they did not have records on Bose. 'He advised in an official note still classified as 'secret' that a démarche be issued to seek facts from the KGB archives. Dhar says the diplomat's recommendation was struck down after Pranab Mukherjee 'saw this note and scrawled at the end that FS (then Foreign Secretary Salman Haidar) should discuss the issue with the JS (EE) 'urgently''.... No démarche was ever issued, as was recommended by Narayan. On the contrary, he started taking a hardline against the Asiatic Society scholars who were raising a demand for an access to the secret Soviet records."
 * Note how the attribution "Dhar says" (bolded above) have been removed in copying the text onto wikipedia, which makes it even worse. Similar problems with copyvio/plagiarism/regurgitating Dhar's quotes in wikipedia's voice are also found in other parts of that article. So the merger must undertaken with care.
 * Also, as I have discussed with Xrie on my talk page, these articles should be more focused on discussing what has been written about the author and book, rather than just parroting the allegations made in these works; especially since the latter turns these articles into coatracks for some fringe theories that as far as I can tell have no credibility amongst historians. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the current version of the article, I am not really sure what we will need to add from those subpages. So the task of merger may be as easy as redirecting those pages. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * that was my thought. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all three pages Mission Netaji, India's Biggest Cover-up and No Secrets (2013 book) should be redirected to Anuj Dhar. I have already included mention of Mission Netaji, which seems to be nothing but a web site missionnetaji.org, in the Anuj Dhar article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At this time, I would not object to including the Mission into the merge. I have seen nothing that indicates the Mission is anything other than Dhar's one-man show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any difference of opinion in merging the article Anuj Dhar with the articles about his books. But Mission Netaji has a separate existence as it is a non profit trust based in Delhi. Dhar's association with the trust is that he is the founder trustee. It is a "Trust" and not something owned or run by Dhar. Check this, this, and this too before reaching a conclusion. To cite something else, Arvind Kejriwal appearing in media does not mean that he is the only office bearer of Aam Aadmi Party. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That piece of information is already included in the Anuj Dhar article; the others are market professionals, business consultants, fundraisers, as the rediff.com article makes clear. It is "run" by Dhar and the others, as too the rediff.com article states. It is a one man show with a small supporting cast. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * if one is being kind, that is the way it appears. if one is being cynical, it looks like Dahr has created this little "NGO" as a method to bilk others into supporting him while he gallivants along on his personal conspiracy theory quest using the backing of a "Mission" to create faux credibility. If one were cynical.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be off-topic, but we are talking about 18 August 1945. That is ten days after the atomic bomb was dropped in Nagasaki, three days after Japan surrendered (on 15 August 1945), two days after Bose was pointedly told by the Japanese Imperial General Head Quarters that he had to surrender to the allies like everyone else in the Japanese army or its surrogate armies.  Nevertheless, leaving his own army in the lurch, he managed to convince Field Marshall Teraki, to disregard the surrender terms, and arrange a "private" (off the record) army flight to Darien in Manchuria.  The plane stopped in Japanese-occupied Toihuku (now Taipei) for refueling. There were problems already with the aircraft.  The chief pilot off-loaded some 500 kg of cargo.  They were especially concerned about the left-engine.  The plane took off.  A few minutes later the entire engine fell out, with the plane crashing in a fireball.  One man (a ball of fire) was seen staggering out.  That was Bose.  His assistant, Habibur Rahman, who was unhurt came to his rescue, smothered the flames; the Japanese arranged for a military ambulance.  In the hospital, Bose went into a coma, and died in the presence of Habibur Rahman his loyal assistant.  Rahman testified in all the commissions that Bose the dead as a doornail.  Yet, 60 years after the event, amateur, untrained, pseudo-historians are reviving old conspiracy theories.  I mean, seriously, given those conditions of chaos in Japanese-occupied Taiwan, what are the chances that 60 years later the government of independent Taiwan would have a record of that flight.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the key here is not to get caught up in whether a conspiracy exists or not. Looking at the material dispassionately, what we have is an organization that is, at best, marginally notable and is promoting a cause. The organization is promoted by one individual, Dhar, who has received some press and written a few books. Both Dhar as well as the organization espouse the same cause and their notability lies in that espousal. Therefore, we should have only one article on both (because the material explaining the cause is identical). Imo, Dhar is more notable than Mission Netaji, therefore that's where all the material (Dhar, MN, books, Bhagwanji) should go. Anything about the death of Bose that is not directly relevant to Dhar should be in the Death of Bose article. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my bottom line on what we should do. Merge Dhar's books as well as Mission Netaji into Dhar. Merge Bhagwanji into Death of Bose. Two articles with all the relevant material in one place. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would want to look closer at the Bhagwanji article and sources (both currently used and those that have not been included) to see if there are substantial reliable sources talking specifically about him, or if it is all in context of "he is receiving coverage because conspiracy theorists think he is Bose". I have concerns that adding Bhagwanji to Death of Bose may be giving UNDUE weight to a fringe theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, it is undue. That is why I added the Joyce Chapman Lebra and Bayly and Harper refs.  They have the scholarly account of Bose's death, which is essentially what I stated upstairs (in my off-topic remarks).  When I have some time, I'll clean that up.  Bhagwanji, really better known, "Gumnami Baba," too is only one in a long line of Bose avatars. Before him, there were other holy men, especially in the northeastern Naga Hills.  So, Bhagwanji, deserves only a passing mention in death of SCB article, along with the other holy men.  These men of myth are all described in Lebra's penultimate chapter.  I agree with RP.  There should be only two articles Anuj Dhar and Death of Subhas Chandra Bose.  I'm also going to clean up the Subhas Chandra Bose article.  I have all the modern sources now and have just read the Bose in Nazi Germany book.  Complicated man.  Not all good, but not all bad either.  Very driven, very independent, and a great salesman of ideas (and I don't mean that all in a pejorative sense).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're all on the same page here. Bhagwanji gets a couple of lines and a redirect on the death of scb page. Dhar gets his books and a few lines on mission netaji. Everything clean and in its right place. --regentspark (comment) 17:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, "Gumnami Baba" is not a name as such. It means "man with no name". This name was used by people who suspected he was Bose, because of his obscure identity. "Bhagwanji" is what his disciples used to call him. And, there were some other sanyasis too whom many believed was Bose, like Shoulmari Baba. But none gained so much importance as Bhagwanji. It was Lalita Bose, Subhas's niece that secured a high court order to inventory Bhagwanji's belongings because she said, if proven to be Bose, she has a claim to them. There has not been any court order or government commission to probe the identities of other such people including Shoulmari Baba. You may refer this. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by the way, this is not a chat forum. the talk pages are to discuss the article content, sources and how best to represent the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything and everything you don't like is a chat? By such silly statements, you are attempting to make this a chat forum. I was bringing in a point to Fowler's discussion about various Bose avatars. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, it is now two weeks after we reached consensus here. I am now redirecting those pages. Bhagwanji --> Death_of_Subhas_Chandra_Bose and the others to Anuj Dhar. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Shaulmari sadhu gets a mention in the header. The same way, we should present the Bhagwanji story too. It had more credibility than the Shoulmari story. The Allahabad high court had ordered a probe. No major content (with properly sourced information) from the Bhagwanji article is carried over here. It needs a rewrite. I shall contribute. -- Xrie (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A question for watchers
Has any serious scholarly publication reviewed any of Dhar's works? (Don't point me to newspaper reviews). What's the academic qualifications of this man? I have read one of his books and much of the stuff reads like pseudo-history penned by an amateur historian who has an extreme distaste for Congress. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

About "claims"
I don't think Justice Mukharji Commission had rejected the linkage between Netaji & Gumnaami Baba. It is clearly mentioned in the commission's report that "in absence of any clinching evidence that Gumnaami Baba was Netaji, the question whether he (Netaji) died in Faizabad on September 16, 1985, as testified by some of the witnesses, need not be answered."

Even in 2010, a video of Justice Manoj Kumar Mukharji gone viral, where he was saying that "he was 100% sure that Gumnaami Baba was Netaji."

Mukharji Commission never rejected the linkage between Netaji & Gumnaami Baba. Gajanan Naragude (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide relevant sources to back your claims. Please mind that those sources should comply with WP:RS. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"In fine, in absence of any clinching evidence to prove that Bhagwanji/Gumnaami Baba was Netaji the question whether he(Netaji) died in Faizabad on September 1985, as testified by some of the witnesses, need not to be answered." - The Report of Justice Mukharjee Commission of Inquiry, Chapter 4, point no. 4.15.12, page no. 122 Gajanan Naragude (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The report is a primary source. The content in the article is cited to a secondary source and that's more reliable. (Primary sources need to be interpreted and should be used with caution.)--RegentsPark (comment) 15:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)