The current phrasing—"The British Raj, never seriously threatened by the INA"—is non-neutral and ignores significant historical evidence. While the INA suffered a tactical military defeat in 1945, the strategic threat it posed to British rule is well-documented by primary sources. I propose modifying this to: "While the INA faced military defeat in the field, its subsequent influence on the loyalty of the British Indian Army and the 1946 Royal Indian Navy mutiny is cited by historians (such as R.C. Majumdar) and British officials (such as Clement Attlee) as a critical factor in the British decision to withdraw from India." Supporting Citations: Clement Attlee (1956): Interview with Justice P.B. Chakrabarty regarding the "minimal" influence of non-violence compared to the INA's impact on the military. General Claude Auchinleck (1946): Secret report stating that "the INA trials have created a situation in which the loyalty of Indian troops is no longer certain." The Transfer of Power 1942-47 (Vol VI): British Cabinet papers noting the "alarming" influence of the INA on the civilian population. Sayan Moi (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[]

The hoax you are narrating was created 30 years after the surrender of INA. It has no place here. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[]

@ZDRX, Care to elaborate? How can something backed by historical evidence and multiple recorded statements be so spontaneously dismissed as a hoax? The person you responded to provided substantial evidence to support their stance. Now the onus is on you to explain (properly) why you think all of this is a blatant "hoax."

If we wish to maintain the position of Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia that respects and hears out good-faith contributors, we also need to counter and debate their points, whenever required, with necessary care and detail. Hope you shall understand what I am getting at. Regards, Dissoxciate (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@Toddy1, @Fowler&fowler

I've stated this on many pages: it's a hoax. Listen to Attlee's address to the British nation on the night of January 30, 1948, especially, especially, "For a quarter of a century this one man has been the major factor in every consideration of the Indian problem." (Dominion of India#Death_of_Gandhi) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[]

For a previous discussion, please see: Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose/Archive_2#The_Clement_Attlee_remark Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Change the death of netaji as it does not have a reliable source it is working information he didnt die in Taipei ~2026-22675-78 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[]

If you read the citations, you will see that they quote from reliables sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Inspite of the fact that the title has no legal basis per se, by drawing a parallel to Mahatma as used for Mr. M K Gandhi, the same principle must be applied to Netaji Bose given that both are quite inseperable from their titles. Netaji is ubiquitous with Bose - case in point, the article on Netaji redirects here.

Hence, I put forth a proposal to add the honourific prefix Netaji to Netaji Bose.

TechyLox (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[]