Talk:The Spy Chronicles

A fact from The Spy Chronicles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 March 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that despite being a co-author of The Spy Chronicles, Asad Durrani was not allowed to attend the launch of the book?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Spy Chronicles.

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Akhand Bharat

Should this addition (edit) be restored on the page? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan who removed it and why ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, I removed it. But now I am unsure about whether to put it back or not. The edit had two quotes... one where Durrani says "Akhand Bharat isn't a fantasy that nowadays some are thinking" and one where Dulat calls the idea of Akhand Bharat in the book a "crazy, impractical idea". (In the edit summary when I removed it I had written "removing quotes taken from book also used in sources, not sure if such quotes are allowed though" but then this reason doesn't really apply since such quotes are ok.) So now I want to put it back, but am unsure if it adds any value to the article or not. I personally don't think the statements themselves mean anything other than the fact that both of them are saying opposite things, which is a constant theme in the book, a metaphor for the relations between India and Pakistan as Aditya Sinha says quoted in the article. Don't give this too much thought but a quick opinion will be helpful in relation to adding it back or not. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does reliable media cover this ? which ? (some links to review so as to decide will be good)--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These two secondary sources are present already present in the article and would have been to justify it's inclusion other than the book itself (even though it is primary, but just to reaffirm it)

"In The Spy Chronicles’ chapter on the matter, General Durrani sheds doubt on the practicality of the 1947 division of India and Pakistan, arguing that partition “led to many problems” with the countries “forever fighting” while “Akhand Bharat isn’t a fantasy that nowadays some are thinking.” What the general is implying here is that the partition of India and Pakistan may not have been the best option for Pakistan’s interests, while the division itself may not be permanent. As Dulat responds to Durrani in the book, a similar idea is often proposed by extreme right hardliners in India." SOURCE: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTROVERSY AROUND SPY CHRONICLES (May 31, 2018 by Shazar Shafqat) South Asian Voices, (hosted by the The Stimson Center)

Keeping in line with the book’s theme of either side fueling the counter narrative for consumption across the LoC it is Dulat who says that “Akhand Bharat is a crazy, impractical idea.” - TheNewsOnSunday.pk

There aren't really any Indian sources which seem to discuss this particular aspect of the book. Most of the notable reviews aren't interested in this aspect of the book as far as I could find. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it should be kept in the article, something along the lines Shafqat's article. When I completed reading this book, I was swept over by a strong sense of bonhomie that someday the separated brothers may unite (into a secular India that it was prior to partition). So this can be considered a major theme of the book and hence deserves a mention. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Hmm ok. I will add it back. So instead of just putting what I had originally removed, I will paraphrase these lines in Shafqat's article in a better way and include that too.... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]