ALLEGED DEATH OF NETAJI AT TAIPEI – THE VIEW OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT [5 Pages]

[First Released – 23/01/2012; Last Edited – 17/01/2013]

By Ajay Kumar Majhi

1. Introduction

The Volume-VI of “The Transfer of Power 1942-7” published in 1976 by the His Majesty’s Stationary Office, Government of UK(GUK for short) contains quite a good number of Documents revealing exceptionally grave concern of the GUK regarding Netaji in view of the news of his death on 18/08/1945 due to an air crash at Taihoku(now Taipei) in Formosa(now Taiwan).

However, there is no document in this and any other Volumes of the said publication( the Volume-XII, the last one, covers Documents dated up to 15/08/1947) mentioning either/both of the following –

(i)Proved veracity of Netaji’s death   (ii)Acceptance of the news as true.

Moreover, the Reports of two British Inquiries conducted by Col. Figgess and Capt. Turner in 1946, if studied in tandem, renders the story of Netaji’s death to be a concocted one[vide Page 2, Enclosure to ANNEXURE-I].

Still then, in the Index of Persons of the said publication, the biographic notes on him ends with – “killed in air-crash 1945”.

In view of what have been told above, the following gist of correspondence between the present author and various wings of the GUK would be interesting to study. [Note – Italics/Underline by this author].

2. Information Commissioner’s Office

Narrating the facts presented in the Section-1 above, the following question was posed before the Information Commissioner’s Office, GUK(by E-mail on 15/05/2009 and by fax on 21/05/2009) –

   “- – –   How and when did the GUK became convinced that Netaji died in air crash in 1945?

Kindly note that the GUK owes to the public at large, and an Indian like me in particular, to answer the question posed as it had reported(during 1976 – 80) in its publications that Netaji was ‘killed in air crash 1945’ “. 

The following reply was received by E-mail on 26/05/2009 from Anne Gordon, Advice Officer –

“I regret that I  am unable to assist you in this matter. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office does not hold the information that you seek” .

The reply also stated that the query posed was outside the scope of the ICO. It concluded with the very kind advice of contacting the Ministry of Defence, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

3. British High Commission in India

The author thought that the British High Commission in India would be the right agency who could get the reply from the appropriate authority. Therefore, the same query was raised before the British Deputy High Commission, Kolkata[BDHC for short] by a registered letter Dt. 23/07/2009, followed by a revised letter Dt. 05/08/2009. The Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was quoted to strengthen the plea. It reads as follows –

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontier”.

There was no reply, nor any acknowledgement, even after a Reminder was posted on 08/09/2009.

4. Cabinet Office

A copy of the letter that was sent to the BDHC was dispatched to the Cabinet Office, GUK with a covering letter Dt.27/11/2009 by E-mail on the same day, and also by post on 30/11/2009.

The following reply from Yasmine Edwards, FOI Team was received by E-mail on 21/12/2009 –

“ – – –I can confirm that we hold no recorded information falling within the scope of your request. I have also checked with colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and they have advised me that they also hold no relevant records within the scope of your request”.

5. Remarks

It appears that the GUK ( the two Departments named, to be specific)possesses neither any document proving Netaji’s death, nor any record accepting the news of his death to be true. Moreover, the two Departments are not in a position to comment on the reporting of  Netaji’s death in GUK publications.

The last correspondence (i.e. with the Cabinet Office) is annexed herewith verbatim(Annexures I & II).

ANNEXURE – I
(Author’s Letter to the Cabinet Office, GUK – 3 Pages)

The Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS
United Kingdom

Date: November 27, 2009

Sub. : Death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as Reported in some Govt. of UK Publications
▬ An Unassailable Plea for Supporting Information
(Particularly in the light of Art.19, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Dear Sirs,

Let me introduce myself as an Indian Bengalee of 68 years, retired in 2001 as a computer academic/professional, now looking after a senior secondary school in Kolkata (Calcutta),Indiaas its Chairman and Rector/Secretary. From around mid-2001 I have embarked on some serious studies in the history of Indian freedom struggle with special emphasis on the role of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

In a letter (dated23/07/09, revised version on05/08/09) to the British Deputy High Commissioner,Kolkata,India. I raised a very pertinent query arising out of the information regarding Netaji Bose disclosed in the declassified/published documents of the Govt. of U.K.

I am extremely sorry to say that, as yet, there is no reply (not even an acknowledgement of receipt) even after a reminder on08/09/09.

A copy of my said letter of05/08/09is enclosed herewith. I expect most humbly an appropriate response from your end. An early acknowledgement of receipt would be appreciated.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Ajay Kumar Majhi
Enclosure – as stated

 The Deputy High Commissioner
British Deputy High Commission, Kolkata
British High Commission – India
1A, Ho Chi Minh Sarani
Kolkata 700 071
Date: August 05, 2009

Sub. : Death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as Reported in some Govt. of UK Publications
▬ An Unassailable Plea for Supporting Information
(Particularly in the light of Art.19, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Dear Sir,

Let me introduce myself as an Indian Bengalee of 68 years engaged in some serious studies on Indian freedom struggle with special emphasis on the role of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose (Netaji).

I am compelled to raise a very pertinent query arising out of the information regarding Netaji, disclosed in the declassified / published documents of the Govt. of UK (GUK), as presented below. I may kindly be excused for inadvertent errors if any.

1. Documents in “The Transfer of Power 1942-1947”, Vols. I-XII, HMSO, London (1970-1983)

[Compiled from the documents of India Office Records & India Office Library, declassified in 1967, reducing the closed period from 50 to 30 years]

1.1 In the Vol. VI (covering the period 01/08/1945 to 22/03/1946), published in 1976, of the referred books, there are quite a good number of Documents (Nos. 15, 47, 57, 85,109, 146, 154, 161, 168, 178 – pertaining to the period from 11/08/1945 to 30/10/1945) which reveal the exceptionally grave political concern of the then GUK, even at the highest level, regarding Netaji.
1.2 (a)The Doc. No. 109 (pp 262 – 263) is an extract of a military intelligence note dt.14/09/1945. It contains a study of various aspects and ramifications of “the Japanese report of Bose’s death”. This obviously refers to the Japanese news (first aired on23/08/1945by the Tokyo Radio quoting Domei News Agency) of Netaji’s death in an air-crash on18/08/1945atTaipei.

       (b) The Doc. No. 161 (pp 388 – 389) is a memorandum dt. 24/10/1945  by the Secretary of State for India and Burma (SSIB), GUK to the Cabinet regarding dealings with Netaji and his men. The SSIB used a clause “If he is alive” while referring to Netaji.

       (c) The Doc. No. 168 (pp 402 – 408) contains the minutes of the meeting of the India and Burma Committee (IBC) of the British Cabinet, held on 25/10/1945 in London, Chaired by Mr. C. Atlee, the Prime Minister. This inter alia embodies – “It was generally agreed the only civilian renegade of importance was Subhas Chandra Bose”.

       (d) ) The Doc. No. 178 (pp 425 –426) is a telegram dt. 30/10/1945 from the SSIB to the British Govt. Of India, which inter alia says – “Clearly the only civilian renegade there is of first importance is Subhas Bose, if he is still alive.”
1.3  After 30/10/1945, there are no direct references to him any further in Vol. VI through Vol. XII (period ending on 15/08/1947- Independence Day of India). However, there are indirect references – the last one being Doc. No 238 (pp 434 –435), dt. 01/01/1947, in Vol. IX published in 1980.

1.4 The most important points to be noted in this regard are –

       (a) There is not a single document till 15/08/1947 (the last day covered in Vol. XII) mentioning either/both of the following–

                   i) Proved veracity of the Japanese news
ii) Acceptance of the Japanese news as true.
(b) The clause “if he is alive” used by the SSIB was rejected by the IBC, but was again used
by the SSIB – plausibly as his personal view [Cited in my Arts. 1.2 (b) to 1.2 (d)].
(c) No reference (including indirect ones after 30/10/1945, till the last one on 01/01/1947) uses “Late” before Netaji’s name.

Note(17/01/2013):  In the Section 1.2(c), the words “It was generally agreed”  was in Italics.

1.5 These documents, therefore, imply that the GUK, although apparently became free of direct political concern about Netaji after 30/10/1945 (due to reasons undisclosed so far), was more or less convinced of Netaji being alive at least till 01/01/1947.

        Still then, in the Index of Persons,Vol. VI, the biographic notes on him (pp 1244 – 1245) ends with –“killed in air-crash 1945”.Obviously, this was incorporated during the compilation and editing of the Vol. VI (1976). It is there in all subsequent Volumes containing reference(s) to him.

2. GUK documents declassified in the late 1990’s
2.1 As per the investigation by Lt. Col. J G Figgess (Report dt. 25/07/1946), Dr. Tsuruta Toyoshi treated Netaji who died some time between 1900 hrs and 2000 hrs on 18/08/1945. Dr. Tsuruta issued the death certificate (cause of death – “heart failure from multiple burns and shock”).
[Ref. – Mss Eur C785, British Library (India Office Records), London]
2.2 As per the investigation by Capt. A R Turner (Report dt. 19/10/1946), Dr. Yoshimi Taneyoshi treated Netaji who died at about 2300 hrs on 18/08/1945. Dr. Yoshimi issued the death certificate (cause of death – “extensive burning and shock“).
[Ref. – W.O. 208/3812, Public Record Office, London]
2.3 The glaring discrepancies (particularly regarding death certificate and time of death) between these two findings on the eleventh and fourteenth months of the reported incident render both of them unacceptable. The most logical follow up approach would have been to search for the records related to the air crash, and Netaji’s treatment, death, cremation etc. Neither of the findings had referred to any such records.
2.4 Anyway, to the best of my knowledge & belief, till now there is no declassified GUK document embodying the acceptance of (a) either / both of the findings and or (b) the Japanese news as true on any other ground.

3. The Query
In view of the discourse presented above, please permit me to raise the following query –
How and when did GUK become convinced that Netaji had died in an air crash in 1945?

Kindly note that the GUK owes to the people at large, and to an Indian like me in particular, to answer the query as it had assertively reported Netaji’s death in its publications (first in 1976) whereas, as it appears, in the public domain, there are

      a) documents, contained in the same book wherein death is assertively reported, implying quite the contrary [Cited in my Art. 1] and

b) dubious documents, declassified about twenty years after death was assertively reported, rather than supporting ones [Cited in my Art. 2].

Before conclusion I would like to quote the Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights –
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers”.
Please do the needful as the representative of the GUK in India.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

ANNEXURE – II
(Reply from the Cabinet Office, GUK – 1 Page)

Reply Forward

foiteam@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
12/21/09

Dear Mr Majhi,

Thank you for your email.

The Freedom of Information Act provides the requestor with an access right to recorded information held by the public authorities. A “valid” request under the FOI Act is one that asks to see recorded information held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue, or process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or calculations, etc.

I can confirm that we hold no recorded information falling within the scope of your request.

I have also checked with colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and they have advised me that they also hold no relevant records within the scope of your request.

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

Kind regards,

Yasmine Edwards