With the Centre set to release a tranche of classified files on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on his 119th birth anniversary, TOI's Subhro Niyogi scans various documents that are already in the public domain to see if they can tell us anything about the patriot and the mystery that has lingered in public memory for over seven decades.
1.
Document | Death certificate of Okara Ichiro
The Shah Nawaz Committee said Netaji was secretly cremated in the name of Okara Ichiro. When Harin Shah, editor of INTUC journal Indian Worker, went to Japan and Formosa (Taiwan) to check the authenticity of the report on Netaji's death, he did find a death certificate by that name sent by Army Hospital to the Bureau of Health and Hygiene, dated August 21, 1945. But it referred to Ichiro as a Taiwan military officer. The cause of death mentioned was `suicide, poison, by sickness, killed or natural death'. The 'sickness' was dated August 17, 1945, a day before the alleged plane crash. The time of death was noted as 4pm on August 19. The doctor was Chhuluta Toyoji Chentze, Siskwan (Japanese University). In 1988, Dr Taneyoshi Yoshumi issued a death certificate dated August 18, 1988, in the name of Chandra Bose. On being cross-examined before the JMCI, he admitted the document was a photocopy. When asked under what circumstances he had issued the copy, he said he had no clear memory of that.
Inference: There are too many anomalies in the account. How could Netaji have been admitted to the Army Hospital a day before the crash and died on August 19, when he is supposed to have died on August 18? Also, the cause of death mentions various reasons apart from burn injuries.
Inference: There are too many anomalies in the account. How could Netaji have been admitted to the Army Hospital a day before the crash and died on August 19, when he is supposed to have died on August 18? Also, the cause of death mentions various reasons apart from burn injuries.
2.
Document | 'Unto Him A Witness', a book by Azad Hind government's broadcasting minister S A Ayer, who drafted the announcement of Netaji's death.
In pages 100 and 101, Ayar writes: “Then the question arose about announcing to the world the news of Netaji's plane crash. I pointed out that according to them (Japanese), Netaji's plane crashed on August 18 and he died on the same night. It was already the 22nd of the month, i.e., four full days had passed and not a word had been publicly announced either by the Japanese government or by the provisional government of free India about the calamity. I told them: “You have already lost four valuable days, and the more you delay the announcement of Netaji's death, the less chance there is of anybody believing the news. So the sooner you announce it the better. Then they wanted me to draft the announcement. I dictated a draft and asked them to show me the final draft before announcing it. Frankly speaking, I was not inclined to believe their story at that moment, my own reason being that they had been extremely unwise in not taking me to Taihoku and then as soon as I reached Tokyo, they told me they were cut off from Taihoku."
Inference: The man who drafted Netaji's death announcement did not believe that he had died.
Inference: The man who drafted Netaji's death announcement did not believe that he had died.
3.
Document | Starred question (Dy. No.008171) in Lok Sabha posed by Congress MP Karnendu Bhattacharya on March 30, 1999 and reply on April 20, 1999.
Bhattacharya asked three questions: Whether Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose still figures on the list of war criminals maintained by the British government; if so, whether India proposes to approach the British government to have it removed; and finally whether the government proposes to acquire and make public all the documents related to Netaji's death. Reply: Ministry of external affairs director (EW) B S Bishnoi said that the external affairs division and home and defence ministries say they do not have any documents on the death of Netaji.
Inference: The government does not have any document that conclusively points to Netaji's death.
Inference: The government does not have any document that conclusively points to Netaji's death.
4.
Document: Email from Taiwan minister to Netaji researcher Anuj Dhar on August 5, 2003.
Taiwan minister of tourism and communication Lin Ling-San wrote: “Unfortunately, after reviewing all handover records during the period from 14 August 1945 to 25 October 1945, there was no evidence that one plane ever crashed at Old Matsuyama airport (now Taipei domestic airport), carrying Mr Subhas Chandra Bose."
Inference: There are no aviation records on the alleged plane crash in Taiwan.
Inference: There are no aviation records on the alleged plane crash in Taiwan.
5.
Document | Justice Mukherjee Commission report, November 2005.
Page 51, para 4.6.3 of the report says: "The evidence of the witnesses (of the crash) bristles with material discrepancies and contradictions both inter se and between the statements made before the committee (Shah Nawaz Committee), the earlier commission (Khosla Commission) and other inquiring authorities of foreign governments. These discrepancies and contradictions prove that through their (witnesses') ocular versions, they were making out a story which had no basis whatsoever... Their evidence relating to the plane crash is so improbable that no reasonable person can act upon the same, far less draw a conclusive inference thereof.
In elaborating this contention, it was submitted that if the bomber plane had no seats and for that matter, no seat belts and all the passengers were squatting on the floor, and if as testified by SW4 (Habibur Rehman) the plane had nosedived from a fairly high altitude, possibly over 12,000-14,000 ft, all the passengers and luggage inside the plane would be hurled and then huddled together near the cockpit and in that event, even half of the passengers could not have survived or come out of the plane either unhurt or with some minor injuries. For the same reason, the story given out by some witnesses that as Netaji was seated adjacent to the fuel tank, gasoline flashed all over his body resulting in third-degree burns cannot be believed for the simple reason that Netaji couldn't be in his original position... following the nose-dive. "Not a scrap of paper -not to speak of any contemporary official document -was forthcoming to corroborate the oral versions of the plane crash though it was expected that in the official course of business, there would be records maintained by the authorities to prove the factum of the crash. "Shri Tarakeshwar Pal, the senior counsel appearing for the government of India, 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."
Inference: The judge found the plane crash story full of holes and, hence, concocted.
In elaborating this contention, it was submitted that if the bomber plane had no seats and for that matter, no seat belts and all the passengers were squatting on the floor, and if as testified by SW4 (Habibur Rehman) the plane had nosedived from a fairly high altitude, possibly over 12,000-14,000 ft, all the passengers and luggage inside the plane would be hurled and then huddled together near the cockpit and in that event, even half of the passengers could not have survived or come out of the plane either unhurt or with some minor injuries. For the same reason, the story given out by some witnesses that as Netaji was seated adjacent to the fuel tank, gasoline flashed all over his body resulting in third-degree burns cannot be believed for the simple reason that Netaji couldn't be in his original position... following the nose-dive. "Not a scrap of paper -not to speak of any contemporary official document -was forthcoming to corroborate the oral versions of the plane crash though it was expected that in the official course of business, there would be records maintained by the authorities to prove the factum of the crash. "Shri Tarakeshwar Pal, the senior counsel appearing for the government of India, 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."
Inference: The judge found the plane crash story full of holes and, hence, concocted.
6.
Document | Letter from Kalpana Sharma, director of Lok Sabha secretariat, to Calcutta high court advocate Rudrajyoti Bhattacharjee on November 25, 2011.
Lok Sabha secretariat had in 2011 published a book, titled 'Honouring National Leaders: Statues and Portraits in Parliament Complex', which attributed Netaji's death to an air crash on August 18, 1945.
Bhattacharjee sought an explanation on how the secretariat had arrived at the date of Netaji's death. Sharma replied: "The date of death of Netaji as stated in the publication should not have been mentioned without a suitable clarification. It is now being clarified by way of adding a footnote to the date of death of the dignitary stating the following: The date of death in an air crash as announced by Tokyo Radio, although there is no irrefutable proof of his death in the alleged air crash. The omission as above is inadvertent and unintentional and is deeply regretted."
Inference: The Indian government does not have any proof of the air crash in which Netaji allegedly died.
Bhattacharjee sought an explanation on how the secretariat had arrived at the date of Netaji's death. Sharma replied: "The date of death of Netaji as stated in the publication should not have been mentioned without a suitable clarification. It is now being clarified by way of adding a footnote to the date of death of the dignitary stating the following: The date of death in an air crash as announced by Tokyo Radio, although there is no irrefutable proof of his death in the alleged air crash. The omission as above is inadvertent and unintentional and is deeply regretted."
Inference: The Indian government does not have any proof of the air crash in which Netaji allegedly died.
7.
Document | File no. 254NGO, VOL-II (LW-KW) ministry of external affairs, east Asia division.
AK Damodaran, director, finance, writes on December 15, 1966: “Without in any way committing ourselves to the identity of the ashes, we could recompense the priest and the temple by some annual grant which would not be for the custody of these ashes but as a reward for their long-standing loyalty to India.“ V Doraiswamy, director, finance, writes on December 16, 1966: “But the ashes having not been pronounced genuine, one has to find justification for incurring the expenditure of their safe retention abroad... In any case, if the purpose of the expenditure is not to be disclosed — which, I presume, is the intention — it can only be made from discretionary grants of this ministry.“ P K Budhwar, deputy secretary, external affairs, writes on December 6, 1973: “While reviewing this question, it would be interesting to recall the contents of a letter written on November 23, 1953, by the priest of the Renkoji temple to the then Prime Minister of India. One portion in this letter is somewhat intriguing.
To quote the priest: 'I, a stranger to the late Netaji, was asked to keep the ashes by people who were strangers to me, including Indians of whom I have never heard since that time.' A remark of this nature could throw doubt on the authenticity of these ashes and it is therefore, for consideration whether we should continue making such payments in respect of an item whose authenticity also appears to be in some doubt."
Inference: Senior government officials did not know whose ashes were preserved at Renkoji Temple.
To quote the priest: 'I, a stranger to the late Netaji, was asked to keep the ashes by people who were strangers to me, including Indians of whom I have never heard since that time.' A remark of this nature could throw doubt on the authenticity of these ashes and it is therefore, for consideration whether we should continue making such payments in respect of an item whose authenticity also appears to be in some doubt."
Inference: Senior government officials did not know whose ashes were preserved at Renkoji Temple.
8.
Document | File no. G-12(398NGO) marked TOP SECRET
PP Shukla, joint secretary in government of India, in a note to principal secretary, PM's secretariat on April 1, 1998: “...a decision needs to be taken on whether the ashes are indeed those of Netaji and, if so, whether they can be brought back to India."
Inference: There is considerable doubt and confusion over the veracity of ashes.
Inference: There is considerable doubt and confusion over the veracity of ashes.
9.
Document | Reply of Sudhir Vyas, secretary, appellate authority under RTI, ministry of external affairs to Chandrachur Ghosh of Gurgaon on November 18, 2011.
Government has not been made aware of the existence of the ashes of Netaji in the custody of Shri Rama Murti or his family. Accordingly, the question of inspection by an official of the Embassy of India does not arise. For the same reason, government cannot comment on the ashes kept at Renkoji Temple, Tokyo.''
No comments:
Post a Comment