ALLEGED DEATH OF NETAJI AT TAIPEI – ASSESSMENTS OF SOME INQUIRIES AND STUDIES [8 Pages]
[First Released – 23/01/2012; Last Edited – 02/07/2013]
By Ajay Kumar Majhi
1. Introduction
In an Article entitled “ALLEGED DEATH OF NETAJI AT TAIPEI – A CONCOCTED STORY” by this author it has been definitively proved that the story of Netaji’s death at Taipei due to an air crash on 18/08/1945 is a concocted one. Evidences have been gleaned from eleven inquiries1-11, including three9-11 initiated by the Government of India, all of which except Mukherjee11 have endorsed the story to be true. The present discourse may be taken as an ADDENDUM to the previous one referred to here as the Main Article(MA for short).12 Critical assessments of the more important ones of the inquiries and studies conducted so far on the matter (viz. Ayer5, Shah Nawaz9, Khosla10, Mukherjee11, Sugata13, Gordon14, Bayly & Harper15, and Hayashida16) have been made here. It may be noted that only four, out of those ones from which evidences have been used in our MA, are covered here, as the fallacies of the other seven have already been exposed there directly.
It may please be noted that
(i) “GOI” and “GUK” are used as the acronyms of ”Govt of India” and “Govt. of UK” respectively,
(ii) Emphases on some text (by underlining/italicization) have been put by this author, and,
(iii)The short form of referring to an Inquiry/Study(e.g. Mukherjee) will mean also the corresponding Committee/Commission / Inquiry In-charge/Author / Report/Work, depending on the context.
2. Ayer(1951)5
Ayer was not a so called eye witness of the alleged accident, treatment, death etc. He was involved only with the handling of the ashes, allegedly of Netaji, in Tokyo in September 1945.17(i)
Two big lacunae in Ayer’s account have already been shown in our Main Article. Ayer failed to realise that the reasons put forth by Col. Tada for not showing him the alleged body of Netaji were utterly flimsy. Again, it is strange that Ayer failed to notice the blatant discrepancy in Habibur’s statements regarding the alleged cremation of Netaji [vide MA – Section 5.2; ANNEXURE(Section 1)].
Thirdly, according to the news aired by Tokyo Radio on 23/08/1945, Netaji died in a hospital in Japan where he was being treated[vide MA – Section 1]. As claimed by Ayer, it was he who had impressed the Japanese military authorities in Tokyo to announce the news, and he himself drafted it, and even finalised the same in the evening of 23/08. Ayer, in his book, is silent on this blatant flaw in the news that was broadcast – although, he along with his colleagues Habibur, Rama and Jaya were regularly in touch with the Nippon Times(the only English news paper in thenTokyo ) and radio during his long stay(till mid-November 1945) there.17(ii)
3. Shah Nawaz(1956)9 and Khosla(1970-1974)10
3.1 Introduction
As is well known, these inquiries were initiated by the GOI in 1956 and 1970 respectively on public demand. They were installed and their findings (that the story under study is true) were accepted by the then Governments run by the Indian National Congress led by Sri J L Nehru and Smt. Indira Gandhi respectively.
The Reports, however, were criticized on various grounds. A Dissentient Report was submitted by Mr. Suresh Chandra Bose, Netaji’s elder brother and a member of the Shah Nawaz Committee. Even a number of books were written on the issue.18 The main points of criticism are that the Inquiries
(1) were biased towards proving Netaji’s death, sometimes undertaking questionable procedures ,
(2) were based solely on oral testimonies without seeking for/paying heed to any document, and
(3) did not pay any importance to the innumerable glaring inconsistencies manifest in the following –
i) the news as was broadcast and subsequent findings on the matter
ii) the role of the Govt. of Japan(no official communiqué, no official function even for Netaji – the highly esteemed Head of a friendly State, no comprehensive inquiry), and
iii) the depositions – among different deponents on the same matter( aircraft, passengers, flight, accident,
treatment, death, cremation etc.), and among depositions of the same person in different inquiries including the
early ones by the British and allied authorities.
It was also argued that the matters stated in the point 3(ii) above should not have been ignored just by citing the state of affairs prevailing after the surrender of Japan, and the contentions in the point 3(iii) could never be brushed aside ascribing them to loss of memory.
However, some fundamental flaws involved, arising out of the Point(2), above will be presented here.
3.2 Shah Nawaz(1956)9
The Shah Nawaz Committee, as it appears from the Report, was not aware of GOJI-1(1945)1,GOJI-2(1955)6, GOJI-3(1956)7 and GOFI(1956)8. The last two probes were conducted on the initiative of the GOI to serve Shah Nawaz , but the findings reached New Delhi when it was preparing(or after it had submitted) its Report.
The Committee discarded the proposition that Netaji was cremated in the false name of Okura as would be clear from the following19 –
(1)It had not paid any heed to the submissions and documents regarding Okura presented by Harin who believed Netaji was cremated in the name of Okura, but had highlighted only Harin’s final conclusion that Netaji had in deed died at Taipei on 18/08/1945.
(2)It had observed – “the cremation is more likely to have taken place sometime later (than 19/08/1945)”, whereas Okura was cremated specifically on 22/08.
(3)It relied on the evidence of Yoshimi that he issued the death certificate in the name of Chandra Bose, whereas Okura’s certificate was issued by Tsuruta.
It failed to comprehend that discarding the proposition Netaji was camouflaged as Okura implies that Okura’s body was used very cleverly as that of Netaji. Moreover, had it visited Taipei, it could have found like Mukherjee that there was no record regarding Chandra Bose, and consequently Yoshimi’s evidence was false.27
These findings would have been enough to prove that the whole story under study was a fabricated one.
3.3 Khosla10
The Khosla Commission(like Shah Nawaz), it seems, was also unaware of the same Reports. It was revealed much later(July 2012), however, that Khosla had received GOJI-3(1956)7, GOFI(1956)8, and some other documents from the GOI, but preferred to ignore them keeping the parties to the Commission in the dark.20
Anyway, Khosla specifically discarded the proposition that Okura’s name was used for Netaji. It examined the documents(death certificate and cremation permit of Okura) procured by Harin and also by another deponent Professor Samar Guha who visited Taipei in July 1973 along with the Commission, and the testimonies of Yoshimi to it and also to Shah Nawaz that the death certificate was issued in the name of Chandra Bose, and opined that Okura could not be Netaji. Khosla concluded – “It follows that the two documents have no evidentiary value at all, and neither of them proves or disproves anything”.21
The Commission visited Taipei in July 1973.22 It, therefore, could have easily found (like Mukherjee) that there was no record in the name of Chandra Bose, and consequently realised that Yoshimi lied both to it and Shah Nawaz. On the contrary it highly praised Yoshimi for his truthfulness, respectability, sense of duty etc.23
Khosla made the same mistakes as was done by Shah Nawaz regarding the same matters as told above.
4. Mukherjee11
4.1 Introduction
The High Court at Calcutta, in disposing off a Writ Petition on 30/04/1998, directed the Union of India to launch a vigorous inquiry on the disappearance of Netaji. The West Bengal Legislative Assembly took a unanimous resolution on 24/12/1998 to the same effect. Consequently, a one man Commission with Mr. Justice(Rtd.) Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, retired from the Supreme Court of India, as Chairman was instituted on 14/05/1999 by the GOI.24 The GOI was then run by an alliance led by the Bharatiya Janata Party as the largest partner, with Mr. Atal Behari Bajpeyi as the Prime Minister.
Mukherjee submitted its Report on 18 November 2005. Its main conclusion, that the story under study was a fabricated one to facilitate Netaji’s escape, was not accepted by the GOI, then run by an alliance with the Congress as the largest party, led by Dr. Manmohan Singh. No reason was shown for rejection. Even the discussion on the matter in the Parliament was stopped abruptly, stating only that the GOI preferred to rely on the findings of the previous two Inquiries .25
4.2 Approach
The Commission noted, as were pointed out by a number of deponents and their counsels, the glaring
inconsistencies in the testimonies manifest in the proceedings and reports of the earlier two Indian inquiries and the initial British (and allied) inquiries. The Commission, however, was not made aware of Figgess(1946)3 and Turner(1946)4 by any deponent although the full Reports were declassified in the late 1990’s.
It observed that “Shri Tarekeswar Pal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government of India, fairly submitted that there were glaring discrepancies in the evidence adduced regarding the accident as also the date and time of death, news of death, death certificate and cremation of Netaji”.
The Commission, therefore, decided to look for relevant documents pertaining to the story as it thought – “- – – – – the Commission would not be justified in drawing a definite conclusion on the facts in issue solely relying on the ipse dixit of the eye witnesses”.26
4.3 Main Findings
The Commission analysed the documents collected by and the related narrations of Harin2, GOJI-37 and GOFI8(Report not given by the GOI, but procured by itself from the British Library, London), its own findings in the old crematorium in Taipei, some oral evidences including a few given to GOJI-26, Shah Nawaz9 and Khosla10, and arrived at the following assertions- –
(1)The death certificate in the name of Chandra Bose issued by Yoshimi as had been claimed by him several times has never existed (as there is no entry in the name of Chandra Bose in the cremation register). This, and the fact that a fabricated death certificate of Netaji was issued by him to one Japanese researcher in 1988, imply Yoshimi had lied all along.27
(2) There is no entry even in the full name of Netaji and regarding others alleged to have died.27
(3)The body of Okura, a Japanese male, was cremated projecting it to be that of Netaji.28
Based mainly on the above evidences and the objective of Netaji’s journey from Saigon(going to Russia via Diren in Manchuria), it concluded, inter alia, that the story of the air crash and death of Netaji was a fabricated one to facilitate his safe passage to some territory outside the reaches of the Anglo-American forces.28
Its assertion that Okura’s body could not be that of Netaji was based on the facts that there were glaring differences in personal details, the fully wrapped body was not allowed to be inspected, and Buddhist tradition was followed in his cremation and collection of bones.28 If it was proved, as12 has been done by the present author, that Tsuruta also lied all along [vide MA12 – Section 6.1], the logic of this assertion and also of the final conclusion would have been strengthened further.
5. Professor Sugata Bose[Harvard University, USA and Netaji Research Bureau, Kolkata, India]
5.1 Introduction
Sugata(happened to be the grandson of Netaji’s 2nd elder brother), in the Chapter 9(The Life Immortal) of his book “HIS MAJESTY’S OPPONENT” has very strongly endorsed the story under study to be true.13 He has relied on Harin 2, Figgess3, Turner4, Ayer5, Shah Nawaz9 and Khosla10.The lacunae and fallacies of all these works have already been exposed above[Sections 2 and 3] and in our Main Article12. Therefore, his references to the so called eye witnesses of one or more of the alleged happenings(air crash, and treatment, death and cremation etc. of Netaji) need not be specifically addressed. Still then, it would be prudent to expose Sugata’s very cunning use of the cited works, and absolutely unfounded and highly disgraceful criticism of Mukherjee.11
5.2 Cunningness
Sugata, in a desperate bid to prove Netaji’s death has suppressed facts, projected half truths and so on. The following examples will prove our point.
(1)He[p 306], to show his fairness, has mentioned that the body(allegedly of Netaji) was not shown to Ayer. He, however, has not described all the details of the journey from Saigon to Tokyo and the flaw in Ayer’s reliance on the excuses given by Tada.[vide MA12 – Section 5.2]
(2) He[p 313] has mentioned that Harin had interviewed many persons including one nurse Sister Tsan Pi Shah of the Military Hospital, who claimed to have nursed Netaji till his death.
But he has not mentioned that the nurse also said that no injection could be administered as Netaji was burnt severely. This is a direct contradiction of what the two doctors(viz. Yoshimi and Tsuruta) had told to the various inquires that several injections of different medicines were given.29
Most importantly, Sugata, while relying on Harin regarding the truth of the story under study, is totally silent
about the procured documents(e.g. death certificate in the name of Okura issued by Tsuruta, and not in the name
of Chandra Bose issued by Yoshimi as believed by him) and the related narration which, partly, have been
proved to be instrumental in pulling down the same story[vide MA12 – Sections 4.1, 6].
(3)(i)He[pp 313] has described Yoshimi’s statement to Turner in details(including his claim that he had issued the death certificate), stated the final conclusion of Figgess(that Netaji indeed died), but suppressed Tsuruta’s testimony to Figgess that he treated Netaji and issued the death certificate[vide MA12 – Section 2].
(ii)He is almost totally silent about the other testimonies of the two doctors and documents regarding death and cremation which proved the story to be absolutely false[vide MA12 – Sections 2, 3, 4].
(iii)He[p 317] has just casually mentioned that “the original death certificate signed by Dr. Yoshimi could not be found” (as if it has been lost or destroyed), and has not said that it was claimed to have been issued in the name of Chandra Bose, and Mukherjee11 has proved that it has never been in existence [ vide MA12 – Section 4.5].
(4) He[p 321] has advocated towards acceptance of the report of Shidei’s death to be true by citing his service record procured by Shah Nawaz from the Govt. of Japan, but has not told the related facts.
As per the findings of Mukherjee11, there is no record regarding Shidei in the cremation register of the Taipei crematorium of the relevant period[vide MA12-Section 4.5]. It is evident that either he was cremated somewhere but not in the only crematorium (having an electric furnace), without maintaining any formalities of obtaining death certificate etc. – which is quite unlikely for a person of the status of Lt. Gen. Shidei, or else, he did not die there at all. It is interesting to note here that Shidei’s death was announced by Tokyo Radio in the said broadcast itself whence Netaji’s death was announced[vide MA12– Section 1].
The cited service record of Shidei was actually a part of an “Application for Promotion of War-Dead”, Dt. 04/08/1947, by the concerned office, which tells that he died on 18/08/1945 “by war” at Taihoku Airfield, whereas there was no war there in the period, and strangely enough, death by “air crash” was not written.
5.3 Charge of Political Partisanship
Sugata[pp 318-319] has said – “The Khosla report, issued in 1974, fell victim to political partisanship in India. Indira Gandhi’s government, which had instituted the inquiry, lost the general election of 1977.The Janata party, after assuming power in New Delhi, set aside Khosla’s findings.”
The fact is that the Report was accepted by the then Government headed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. It could not be discussed, however, in the Parliament as EMERGENCY was declared and the Parliament was dissolved.
In 1977, the Janata Party, headed by Mr. Morarji Desai as the Prime Minister, assumed power. Mr. Desai, during a debate on the matter, made a singularly important statement on 28/08/1978 in the Parliament of India. Referring to the earlier two inquiries(Shah Nawaz9 and Khosla10) he said – “—————————-.Since then, reasonable doubts have been cast on the correctness of the conclusions reached in the two reports and various important contradictions in the testimony of witnesses have been noticed. Some further contemporary official documentary records have also become available. In the light of those doubts and contradictions and those records, Government find it difficult to accept that the earlier conclusions are decisive”.30
It is really regrettable that Sugata, has construed the very honest and fact based appraisal of a Prime Minister (who, by no means, was a follower of Netaji) as political partisanship. Moreover, Sugata has chosen to remain very soft to the extremely severe political partisanship being meted out to Netaji by the oldest and largest political party of India – on which a voluminous book can be written. The attitude shown by the GOI to Mukherjee on various issues is a case in point. [vide Sections 4.1, 5.5.4]
5.4 Criticism of Suresh Chandra Bose
Sugata[p 317] has written that Suresh(happened to be a younger brother of his grandfather) had put his signature on the draft report of Shah Nawaz, but later changed his mind and “wrote a rambling dissent”. The fact, not mentioned by Sugata, is that Suresh had clarified this matter in his Dissentient Report.18(iii). Moreover, Sugata has chosen to totally ignore the points raised by Suresh – facts and logic regarding his dissent, and the most shameful ones, viz., he was not allowed to stay in his temporary government residence in Delhi, was denied access to the documents possessed by the Committee, and had to produce his Report at his own cost.
5.5 Tirade Against Mukherjee 11
5.5.1 Introduction
This is the most disgraceful part of Sugata’s presentation on the alleged death of Netaji. It appears that Sugata
has not read the Report seriously, and has expressed only malice against Mukherjee as would be exposed below.
It is utterly sickening to note the highly derogatory tenor of the language used by Sugata regarding Justice (Retired) Monoj Kumar Mukherjee who served the Supreme Court of India with dignity and honour, and who was chosen(in 1999) to be the Chairman of the Commission by the then Chief Justice of India.
Moreover, Sugata is totally silent about the background of installing this Commission[vide Section 4.1].
5.5.2 Matter Regarding Gumnami Baba
Sugata[p 319] has written – “A retired Bengali judge named Monoj Mukherjee held court for nearly six years, providing a venue for increasingly fanciful stories about Netaji’s whereabouts since August 1945. The judge himself harbored(sic) a preconceived notion, as he confessed in 2010, that Bose was living as an ascetic in the north Indian town of Faizabad decades after 1945. In October 2002, he sent letters to members of the Bose family asking them to donate one millilitre of blood for a DNA match with “one Gumnami Baba” ———————” who was claimed to be Netaji by some persons.
The fact is that, Mukherjee examined all such hypotheses placed before him with due judicial prudence. The claim regarding Gumnami Baba was made by four persons through affidavits, and supported by many witnesses. Ultimately, after getting the handwriting checked by several experts who expressed divergent views, and DNAmatch done (by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata) between the stored teeth of the Baba and blood samples of Netaji’s family members which was negative, the claim was rejected.31
The personal view of Justice(Rtd.) Mr. M K Mukherjee expressed in 2010, i.e., after 5 years of submitting its Report can by no means be construed as a preconceived notion.
5.5.3 Matter Regarding Air Crash
Sugata[p 319] has written – “The Mukherjee commission(sic) made no distinction between the highly probable and the utterly impossible. In May 2006, after six long years, it submitted a report stating that the air crash on August 18, 1945, had not happened at all. The basis for this finding was a message from the government(sic) of Taiwan saying that it did not possess any records of the crash”. Then Sugata goes on explaining why the records were not there.
Firstly, Sugata has made a wrong statement regarding the date of submission of the Report. It was submitted on 08/11/2005 to the GOI which, in turn, placed it before the Parliament on 17/05/2006.26(i)
More importantly, Mukherjee’s main contentions in discarding the story in question were completely different[vide Section 4.3]. Even regarding Mukherjee’s findings on the alleged air crash, Sugata has made a totally false presentation as would be clear from its description in our MA12–ANNEXURE(Section 3) .
5.5.4 Very Long Time Taken
Sugata has obliquely mentioned twice about the long time taken by Mukherjee as quoted in the two Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 above. He has, however, failed to note that it had to spend a considerable amount of time and energy on the following32 –
(1)To get a office space (which took six months);
(2)To persuade, in vain, the GOI to make available certain files and to make arrangements for inspecting various documents in the foreign archives; the lowliness of the treatment meted out to Mukherjee by the GOI in this regard is simply unbelievable.
(3)To communicate with a number of individual experts and institutions across the world to get DNA tests done on the alleged ashes, and then to persuade, in vain, firstly the Renkoji priest and later the GOI to make him(the priest) agreeable for a preliminary test on the said ashes as was suggested by some experts.
(4)To persuade the GOI to grant permission to visit Russia.
Lastly and most importantly, Sugata has completely failed to appreciate the enormity and the complexity of the work done by Mukherjee with the highest degree of judicial acumen fortified with a researcher’s zeal.
5.5.5 Glorifying Khosla
In view of Sugata’s assessment of Mukherjee11 as described above, it is a pity that Sugata[p 318]has referred to Justice G D Khosla(Retired Chief Justice of Punjab High Court) as an “eminent jurist”. The following points, apart from what have been told in the Section 3.3 above, are worthy of noting in this context.
While he has written regarding Khosla – “With the passage of time, fewer direct witnesses were available, and the commission heard testimony from almost anyone with theories to propound.”, he has criticized Mukherjee severely on this count[vide Section 5.5.2]. Sugata has forgotten conveniently that Khosla had given two full Chapters(VI and VII) on this issue(dwelling on various stories on Netaji’s whereabouts), even after having 17 direct witnesses while Mukherjee could have only one.33
He has kept his eyes totally closed regarding the facts that Khosla’s Report is full of baseless derogatory remarks about Netaji.34(i)
Moreover, Khosla authored a book on Netaji, incorporating such remarks, using the materials from his official
Inquiry, and published it just after the submission of his Report. He had to withdraw the book tendering unqualified apology when challenged legally by a member of Netaji’s family.34(ii) Sugata is silent again.
6. Professor Leonard Gordon[City University of New York, USA]
6.1 Introduction
Prof. Gordon, in his book “Brothers Against The Raj”has strongly advocated (pp 538-546, 604-612) that the story under scanner is true.14 He has relied on the initial British and allied inquiries, Ayer5, Shah Nawaz9 and Khosla10, the lacunae of which have already been exposed above[vide Sections 2, 3]. He, however, has put forward some additional points which are false or half truths at the best as depicted below.
6.2 British View of the Story
Gordon has written[p 546 and Note No. 186, p 742] – “There are some uncertainty expressed in Government of India documents in late August and September 1945. The Government of India was pretty much convinced of Bose’s death in the crash by early September ….”, citing “Documents 57, 81,109, 154 et al” in a publication by the British Government.35
The fact is that he has not specifically mentioned the Documents 161, 168 and 178 – the contents of which are highly inconvenient to him as described below.
The Document 168[pp 402-408 in the said Publication] depicts the proceedings of the meeting, Dt. 25/10/1945, of the Indiaand Burma Committee of the British Cabinet Chaired by the Prime Minister Mr. C Attlee. It contains, inter alia, the statement – “It was generally agreed that the only civilian renegade of importance was Subhas Chandra Bose”. [Note – Italics in original]
The Document 178[pp 425-426 in the said publication] is a Telegram, Dt. 30/10/1945, from the Secretary of State for India to the GOI containing, inter alia, the statement – “Clearly, the only civilian renegade there of first importance is Subhas Chandra Bose, if he is still alive”.
The fact that an inquiry was conducted by Turner4 on 19/10/1946 pushes forward the date(of the British uncertainty regarding Netaji’s death) by one year further. As per the correspondence between the present author and the GUK , it( Cabinet Office, and Commonwealth and Foreign Office), as on 21/12/2009, did not have any Document proving the veracity of the story under study and/or describes the acceptance of the story as true by the GUK. These two facts were, however, not known to Gordon while writing his book.
Anyway, contrary to what Gordon has said, the British Government was not sure of Netaji’s death at least till 30/10/1945, even according to the records available to him.
6.3 Relevant Documents in Taiwan
Gordon[p 543] has written – “Japanese records for that period of Taiwanese history seem to have been destroyed”. Moreover, according to his Notes 175 and 177[p 741], he had visited Taipei municipal office on 18/07/1979 and learnt that there were no records of the relevant period. He has also commented that Mr. Harin Sha, many years earlier, was more successful.
He has not stated that Harin procured the death certificate(and the cremation permit) of one Ichiro Okura signed by Dr. Tsuruta[vide MA12 – Section 4.1], while he(Gordon [p 541-542]) intended to search for the certificate of Chandra Bose signed by Dr. Yoshimi, “ filled in Japanese, was filed with the municipal office”.
Moreover, the Mukherjee Commission could procure the relevant pages of the cremation register of the period in as late as January 2005 and proved definitively that no person in the name of Chandra Bose or any other known name of Netaji (and others who were alleged to have died in the said crash) were cremated there. Consequently, there has never been any existence of the death certificate for Netaji implying pointedly that Dr. Yoshimi had lied[vide MA12 – Section 4.5]. This was, of course, not known to him while writing his book.
Nevertheless,he could have arrived at the same conclusion if he was sincere enough in his pursuit. Moreover, his statement regarding Harin’s work is absolutely wrong and misleading.
7. Professors Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper[University of Cambridge, UK]
Prof. Bayly and Prof. Harper, in their book “Forgotten Wars” have written[p 21] – “ British and Indian Commissions later established convincingly that Bose had died in Taiwan”, without citing any reference.15
The present author, in a E-mail Dt. 31/08/2007, wrote to Bayly, inter alia, that his statement regarding Indian Commissions were not correct, raised some points against the story of death, and also wanted to know the references regarding the mentioned British Commissions. In his reply by E-mail Dt. 06/09/2007, Bayly and Harper stated, inter alia, – “As far as Netaji’s death is concerned, we merely adopt the common view among professional historians and do not really want to enter into the polemics around alternative scenarios. As two of the persons who are closest to Netaji, both as family and as historians, Professor Sugata Bose and Mrs Krishna Bose, firmly declare, what is important about him are the deeds of his lifetime, not the manner of his death”.
Several subsequent communications requesting correction of his cited statement failed to get any response.
8. Lieutenant Tatsuo Hayashida[A Contemporary Japanese Soldier]
Lt. Hayashida, an officer of the Taiwanese Military HQ, was in the team to carry the alleged ashes and treasures (jewellery etc. allegedly recovered from the airport) of Netaji from Taipei to Tokyo in early September 1945. In his book “Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose” [Chapter 13 entitled “The Tragedy”, pp108-124], he has described the alleged last journey, accident, death etc. of Netaji.16
He has not cited any reference in support of his story. In the Preface, however, he has said[p xiv] that he gathered the details regarding the accident from an survivor, and regarding treatment and death(of Netaji) from
the Director of the hospital and the interpreter who was present beside Netaji.
His story crashes in view of the evidences and logic presented in our Main Article12 even without any specific rejoinder.
9. Concluding Remarks
Errors, if any, are inadvertent and may please be excused and brought to the notice of the author. This author,
nevertheless, would like to claim most humbly that he has been able to expose the most important defects in some inquiries(both personal and official) and studies (by highly reputed academics and contemporary personalities) on the alleged death of Netaji.
It appears really astonishing and regrettable that all the official investigations on the matter, except Mukherjee11, have not cared for any document regarding various aspects of the alleged incident. In particular, it would have been very easy to look for the relevant records(pertaining to the alleged accident, treatment, death etc.) in the initial inquiries undertaken during roughly the first year after the alleged incidents by the concerned governments and their allied agencies. The present author, however, has covered only three such probes(GOJI-11, Figgess3, and Turner4) as full reports for the others are not available with or accessible to him.
Sugata13 has said in his book[pp 319-320] that there are persons who do not believe the story under scanner due to sentimental reasons or some kind of interest involved. Similarly, Gordon14, in his book[pp 610-612], has elaborated on the issue denoting the said belief(airing various stories of Netaji’s whereabouts and appearances in particular) as “the expression of cultural needs” of the Bengalis beleaguered in various ways after independence. These analyses may be true at least to some extent. It is, of course, painfully true that there are persons, including academics of very high repute, who maintain dogmatic belief in the story and the zeal to establish it by any means whatsoever. It would be interesting to know the reasons behind.
Acknowledgement – The author wishes to put on record his indebtedness to his wife Runu for her all round support, to Netaji Bhavana Manch, Kolkata for making some documents available, to Ms. Anusree Sen, Mr. Satayajit Chatterjee and Dr.Subrata Roy for their assistance in computer related matters, and to quite a good number of friends for their moral encouragement.
References
1.GOJI-1(1945):: Investigation on the cause of death and other matters of the Late Subhas Chandra Bose
: Mukherjee11 – Exibit No. 227
2. Harin(1956):: (i)Shah Harin(1956): Verdict From Formosa – THE GALLANT END OF NETAJI Subhas
Chandra Bose(Atma Ram & Sons, Delhi) [An account of an inquiry conducted in 1946]
(ii) A gist of his deposition to Shah Nawaz9: Mukherjee11 – Sec 4.6.11-4.6.13(pp 59-62)
3. Figgess J G (1946):: Mss Eur C785, British Library(India Office Records), London
4. Turner A R (1946):: W.O 208/3812, Public Record Office, London
5. Ayer (1951):: (i) Ayer S A(1951) – UNTO HIM A WITNESS(Thacker, Bombay) [A Memoir, 1943-45]
(ii) Report on the Death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose : Harin2 – Annexure II(pp 123-129)
6. GOJI-2(1955):: Investigation on the death of Chandra Bose : Mukherjee11 – Exhibit No. 227B
7. GOJI-3(1956):: Mukherjee11– Annexure D/7(pp 287- 288).
8. GOFI(1956):: Mukherjee11 – Annexure D/5(pp 281-285)
9. Shah Nawaz (1956):: Shah Nawaz Khan and S N Moitra(1956) – Netaji Inquiry Committee Report; GOI.
10. Khosla(1970-1974):: G D Khosla(1974) – Report of the One Man Commission of Inquiry; GOI
11. Mukherjee (1999-2005):: M K Mukherjee(2005) – Report of the Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry; Parlimentary Proceedings(2006), New Delhi
12. Majhi A K(2012):: Alleged Death of Netaji At Taipei – A Concocted Story
:www.visionnetaji.org/AllegedDeath/
13. Bose Sugata(2011)::HIS MAJESTY’S OPPONENT (Allen Lane – Penguin, New Delhi)
14. Gordon L(1990; Rupa Paperback – 1997) – BROTHERS AGAINST THE RAJ ( Rupa & Co., New Delhi)
15. Bayly C and Harper T(2007) – Forgotten Wars(Allen Lane – Penguin, London)
16. Hayashida T(Original in Japanese – 1964; English translation Edited by Chatterjee B – 1970)
– NETAJI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE ( Allied Publishers, Bombay)
17. Ayer5(i) – (i) pp 107-108, 116 (ii) pp 100,104; 117, 121
18. (i)Bose Suresh Chandra(1956) – Dissentient Report( Author, Kodalia near Calcutta)
(ii)Guha S(1978, 3rd. Ed.-1983) – Netaji: Dead or Alive?(Book Syndicate, Calcutta)
(iii)Chakraborty R (Ed.)(1997) – The Mystery Of The DISAPPEARANCE OF NETAJI, Vols. I and II
(Lokmat Prakashani, Calcutta) [This contains the full Reports of Shah Nawaz and Khosla, and the
Dissentient Report of Suresh, host of other relevant documents etc. ]
19. (i) Majhi12 – Sec 4.1-4.3(pp2-3)
(ii)Shah Nawaz9 – Sec III.9(p 34), IV.3(p 40); Sec IV.2(pp 39-40); Sec III.5(p 30)
20. Dhar Anuj(2012):: India’s Biggest Cover Up(Vitasta, New Delhi) – pp122-124
21. Khosla10 – Sec 4.93-4.99(pp 41-43)
22. Khosla10 – Sec 8.9-8.10(p 114)
23. Khosla10 – Sec 4.64(pp 34-35)
24. Mukherjee11 – Sec 1.3-1.5(pp 3-6)
25. (i)Any Newspaper of India( e.g. The Statesman, Kolkata) of 18/05/2006
(ii)The Statesman, Kolkata of 08/08/2006, and of 14/08/2006
26. Mukherjee11 – Sec 4.6.3-4.6.10(pp 51-59)
27. Mukherjee11 – Sec 4.7-4.8(pp 72-75) and Annexure referred to therein
28. Mukherjee11 – Sec 4.12.14-4.12.18(pp 95-107)
29. (i)Harin2 – pp 63 (ii)GOJIR-11 (iii)Figgess3 (iv)Shah Nawaz10 – Sec. III.3-III.59(pp 29-30)
30. Lok Sabha Debate, Sixth Series, Vol. XVIII, Part II, 28 August 1978; Also in Mukhrrjee11 – p 14
31. Mukherjee11 – Sec 4.15-4.15.12(pp 114-122)
32. Mukherjee11 – Sec 2.1-2.8.11(pp 7-31) and Annexure referred to therein; p 263
33. Mukherjee11 – Sec 4.5-4.6.5(pp 45-55)
34. Dhar21 – (i) pp 104-107; (ii) pp 103,127
35. Mansergh N(Ed.) (1976) – THE TRANSFER OF POWER 1942-7, Vol. VI ( HMSO – GUK, London)
[ The author may be contacted at – Ph: +91 9433356873(R); +91 33 24727029(M)
e-mail: akmajhi@rediffmail.com ]