Talk:Sugata Bose

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mention regarding alleged ashes of Netaji
It seems there is a deliberate attempt to remove the section by the above mentioned name. This section is sourced properly and is written neutrally. One of the editors that blanked the section mentioned that it was one among 1000 notes given in the book. How can that becomes a valid reason for removing the content? The number of total number of notes or pages of a book need not be considered here. The section is mentioned in the book and is sourced in the article. Likewise, the news report on the stand of the government is also sourced properly in the article. Please discuss, before attempting to make changes. Thank you. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

XrieJetInfo, thank you for your note here; I appreciate the opportunity to take things to the talk page. The problem with the inclusion of this section appears not to be the number of notes, but that it impugns that he subject has made a false claim (as in the original wording of the section) about Subhas Chandra Bose's remains. In his 2006 book, the author writes that Subhas Chandra Bose's ashes had been kept in Tokyo; in the 2011, some portion of those ashes were brought to India. The RTI filing only revealed that no government files existed -- not that any files exist to contradict the author's claim. It seems that you are using the absence of confirmation to propose that the subject has lied. I recognize that this is a controversial subject, and I don't see any reason why that controversy can't be mentioned on the page concerning the disappearance and death of Subhas Chandra Bose -- where the identical text already exists. But in alleging that the author has lied, relying only on absence of proof, you are advancing what appears to be a libelous claim. Please let me know your thoughts; happy to discuss here rather than submitting for review. Thanks! --B. Siegel (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Benjaminrobertsiegel, I have already removed the mention of "false claim" from the section. This is now a mention of what he said in his book about Netaji's ashes and its non-verifiability. You missed one part of it. Sugata claimed the ashes were brought to India with the knowledge of the prime minister's office. But the office has rejected it. Why do you think this information need not come here? Sugata is primarily known as a historian and author. So this deserves a mention here, because, I don't know whether you know it, Netaji's ashes is a high importance subject in Indian history and India-Japan relations. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User:XrieJetInfo thank you for your response. I am a historian myself, so I am certainly aware of the political and emotional importance of Netaji's ashes, as well as the controversy that surround them. I would not want to quell any discussion of that controversy, and agree with you that this controversy might well be included on the page concerning Netaji's disappearance. But Professor Bose is a historian of South Asia more generally. In His Majesty's Opponent, he dedicates several well-researched chapters to the subject of Netaji's death and the various theories expounded afterwards. He has expressed his belief that Netaji did die, but has not made this part of advocacy or public engagement. The PMO's office has not rejected Professor Bose's claim, they have merely stated that no information related to the question exists. The absence of positive proof may not be taken as negative proof. I believe that this controversy deserves a mention on the Disappearance page, and would not in any way advocate for its removal from that. But the consistent effort to reinsert this claim into Sugata Bose's biography, rather than playing it out on the Disappearance page, defames an academic who has not been accused, by any reputable source, of misrepresenting information. I request that you please confine this discussion to the Disappearance page, and welcome your thoughts. Thank you! --B. Siegel (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Siegel, thanks for the explanation. I am an independent researcher. I see it this way. Point (1) Sugata wrote in the book that the ashes were received in India with the knowledge of the Indian prime minister. Point (2) The prime minister's office was requested to give information on this, but they did not have anything to show it. Point (3) As per the government records, the ashes are still kept in Japan's Renkoji temple. There is no official view that some of the ashes were kept by an individual. Sugata is Netaji's grand nephew, and so his views cannot be discarded. Moreover Sugata is a historian who has authored Netaji's biography. All these facts make Sugata's mention of the ashes relevant on his page too. There is no mention of "false claim" or "controversy" in it. And this section is written neutrally. It does not accuse Sugata or the Indian prime minister or Rama Murti of anything bad. It folows Wikipedia's verifiability clauses too. This section becomes relevant in both articles (1) in the Disappearance page, because the ashes are important there (2) in Sugata's page, because of the above mentioned reasons. Would appreciate if you could explain why this section becomes defamatory. Thanks. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi XrieJetInfo. Thanks very much. I accept that the revised version is written in a more neutral manner, and thank you for that. (Particularly since, as a historian, who makes my living as such, I am attentive to the damage that allegations of unsubstantiated claim can do to one's reputation and livelihood.) I won't further object to the inclusion of this material, but I do think that it should be contextualized within the discussion of the book. As I flesh out the expansion of Bose's works over the next few days, alongside contributions to biography stubs of other Indian and South Asian historians, I will move that content to a sub-section on His Majesty's Opponent to put it in greater context about the book, its reception, and the longer trajectory of Sugata Bose's work. That book is seen as a major contribution to the field of which I am a member, as are Sugata Bose's earlier works, so they deserve further discussion here. Any further advancing of ideas about Netaji's death appear to be most relevant to the page related to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's death. Thanks for your engagement! --209.6.50.223 (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting the changes. Please add more content about the book and I shall also review the inclusion of this section in the most appropriate way. Thanks again. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance?
Why does the fate of Netaji's ashes needed to be discussed in the article of his biographer?—indopug (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned in the section above this. There was a conflict and the reasons are mentioned there. Please refer. Thanks -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to simplify it - Sugata made a claim in the book that a part of the ashes were kept by an individual. This was a new disclosure. The fact that Sugata is the grand nephew of Netaji adds weightage to that claim. Netaji's alleged ashes are of great importance in India-Japan relations too. This would not have been important, but given the fact that Netaji's death in Taihoku was dismissed by the Justice Mukherjee commission. The commission also stated that the ashes kept in Japan are not Netaji's. So the new disclosure by Sugata becomes even more important. There is no new fact mentioned in the biography other than this startling disclosure. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much point in including this. Bose says something in his book, the government says that they have no information available, seems like the whole thing is meaningless to me. What is the relevance of Bose's ashes being distributed in two places, being carried to India for no known end, and the government saying it has on information on this? Seems utterly meaningless to me even if included in an article on Subhas Chandra Bose. I note that the consensus above seems to be inclined toward excluding it and am removing it. Easily restored if the consensus changes. --regentspark (comment) 09:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @: I don't know whether you are aware of the controversy about Bose's ashes. There are many stories about the ashes. Official government view is that it is kept at Renkoji temple, Japan. Historian Purabi Roy said that Bose's daughter wanted to bring the ashes to India and immerse in Ganges. And Sugata has said several things about the ashes. In his book in 2010, he said the ashes was brought here with the knowledge of Indian prime minister. But no information exists which suggests that the Indian prime minister consented anything like that. The Mukherjee Commission observed that the ashes belonged to someone else and not Bose. And in 2013, Sugata claimed that Subhas' daughter will not carry ashes. Considering the stories around the ashes, Sugata's (who is Subhas' grand nephew) claim (baseless rather) is important. Consider that Sugata is a renowned author, historian, and professor. -- Xrie (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reception of His Majesty's Opponent
I'm concerned that the discussion of the reception of Bose's recent books is being edited on partial lines in the wake of the subject being named as a Lok Sabha candidate. User Fowler and Fowler notes, correctly, that scholarly reviews take precedent over popular ones in justifying his deletion of positive accolades for the book and replacing it with points from a critique in the American Historical Review. Yet the reviews he has deleted, glossed as trade reviews, were authored by professional historians at Cambridge and Jawaharlal Nehru University, as well as a now-retired Calcutta University historian. I am not sure as to why a book which has received broad positive accolades from scholars should be cast in such a damning way here; eager for others' input. Cheers! Humanshu (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A scholarly source on Wikipedia is one that is peer-reviewed (before publication), reviewed in scholarly journals after publication or published by scholarly publishers, not one authored by academics, especially in popular newspapers. Wikipedia is very clear about the primacy of scholarly sources regardless of the topic or context.  The same problem recently showed up on Wendy Doniger's trade book, The Hindus: An Alternative History.  (See: The Hindus: An Alternative History).   It has nothing to do with elections.  I for one don't even know what TMC is.  I assumed Bose is an American citizen.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)