While reading books on Indian politics (not aware if this happens outside as well), frequently the citations for a particular claim is some interview with a person being talked about. In this case, one reading the book can trust the statement only if he personally gives his belief to the author's word. This is OK if the reader personally believes in the integrity of author but this becomes problematic in debate since we cannot ask other side to trust an author for his unverifiable account if author is not well-known or known for political bias, these are genuine misgivings and I feel the one using these books must be the one to mitigate such concerns
In this case, how should we present a statement/claim in a manner that acknowledges possible ambiguity and unverifiablilty or should one abstain from this practice and cite only authors recognized by both sides as reputable??
Some particular examples are:
- In the book "India after Gandhi", Ramchandra Guha cites some anonymous accounts.
- In the memoir "Accidental Prime-Minister", Sanjay Baru has exclusively put his opinions and done away with citations and references.
- The current book I am reading, Half - Lion: How P.V Narasimha Rao Transformed India also contains many citations in form of personal interviews conducted by the author