sirobbost--

k T h -

coRPN

"Avc

pondencefacqrwitiqw-immeW, , 21/1/7g

- y

form

(Please see inside(vox q Arl)

Previous References Later ReferencesMO 'win* miVirnzl

I F.P6I

r -

2_ _

MI NI &TRY OF HOME AFFAIRST -Branch )

TOr,

L E NO .f.,5 1/ T

pUB J E C T

TINT* SUBHASIT CHANDRA /30SE: PROPOSAL OF THE g'13ASSYOF INDIA, TOKYO THAT THE ASHES OF THE NETAJI SUBHAfCHANDRA BOS.,: K:TT TM, CU:.:TODY OF CHUF PRIEST OFTHE RETTOJI TFMLEI TOKYO BE BROT:Gla BACK TO INDI A -CORR&SPONDENCE WITH THE MI DaSTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFPI TiSAND 1,13. - PAPERS REGARDING.

e4,e

77/7,4M,

pev,

014 e-

MINISTRY OF EXTERNALmmommr so m

TOP sEcilEr

AIRS

With reference to the conversation

of the undersigned with Shri R.L. Misra, Joint

Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, this afternoon,

it has been proposed by the Embassy of India, Tokyo,

that the ashes of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, at

present kept in the custody of the Chief Priest

of the Renkoji temple, Tokyo, be brought back to

India. In the past, the Government Indda were

not inclined to favour such an idea/to possible

adverse reactions from members of Netaji's family,

as well as certain sections of the public, who

refused to believe in his death in the plane -crash

in August, 1945.

?. The Embassy of India, Tokyo, have pointed

out the following:-

(a) That the temple authorities have thefeeling that the Indian Government is"indifferent" towards a national herowho fought for India's independence;

(b) that the Chief Priest of the RenXojitemple is an old man (around 90'years)and should he die, his successors arenot likely to show the same sympathyand understanding of our position asbefore;

(c) the Japanese Foreign Office have beentelling the Embassy from time to timethat it would be best if the ashes weretaken back to India; and

(d) that the Embassy is of the view that theashes should be taken back to India andsuitably enshrined.

3. In the light of the above, the Home ministry

may kindly examine the matter from the point of view

of the implications mentioned in paragraph'i above,.

14:1 and suitably advise.

(N.N.Joint Secittary(N&EA)

Ministry of Home Affairs (Shri R.L. Misra - J.S.)MEA UO. No. 2 51101 tizz dated II, , rt.G

MINISTRY OF ROME AFFAIRS( T -Branch )

0

Ref. mgA U.O. No,25/105/Na0dated 17,7.76.

Please examine,

Dir(IS)

M a l

TO? SECRET

VA't

Sd/- R.L. Misrs,Joint Secretary.17/7

Paper please, Urgently.

Sd/- S.C. Utah,Dir(IS).

T.,...1112A4c1M I N I M M P I N I E M M M I M P I R . 1 , 1 1 1 M P

in D -III.

US( 1)

put up,

T.Braneh

Sd/- S.K. Msgon,

US(I).

The papers on Netaji Ini y Commission are

Urgent. Papers be collected from D -III and

Sd/- S.K. MagonsUnder Seoretary(I).19/7

We have no paper in T.Branch on the subject.

2, Itita, Howeve- understood that the file ofrelating to laying down of the Netaji Commission's

report submitted by the Justice G.?). Khosla on the tableof the House WeS referred to M/Low in February, 1976 andhas not been received back.

3, A copy of the report since obtained from D -IIIis placed below.

- 3 -

0P SECRET

1A-v,:-Ptt

_---r

,/4V)

==" --

L

17/7 \r1

Rerort of 0ne4gan Commissionpnto thedisappearance of Netaji Subhas Chan ra Bose isplaced below for perusal. The findings of thecommission may be seen at flag 'A'. In (xvii),the Commission has stated that ln 20th Augut,1045Netaji's body was cremated and his ashes werecarried to l'olkyo-in the beginning of September,1945where they Were deposited in the Renkoji Temple.',4e have no other paners in IS Division about thebringing back of the ashes of Netaji. There may besome papers in this regard in Poll.III Section.They may kindly examine 44&kv-AL4.

Directo (IS)

(S. K. MagonrUnder Secretary (D -I)

2T77-76

4 1 12_ s}"d /

,{IL

Z),

aye,% --.9( /6-

7-5(p

' 2- 494

v k )

, , . (1. 0" )

trk. tA- ,

AO lot

INTLI_LIENCE BUREAU .(Linistyy of Home Affairs)

v

* * * *

j!-Je have examined the mattepte

have also soupht_the views of DD rE,1,0-.,Aof Khosla Commission submitted in June 1974 isplaced below. It would be recalled that earlieranother committee headed by Shah Nawaz Khan had,gone morq qr,less on the same grounds. Theirfindings are that Netaji died in an air crastTaiwan on 16.8.1945 and that his ashes are nowRenkoi Temple. Tokyo. Unfortunately these findin, . .,are not accepted by members of Subhas Dose's familyor of the rank and file of Forward Bloc which wasfounded by Netaji. They question the very assertiothat Netaji died in an air crash at Taiwan andconsequently the ashes in the Renkoji Temple arealso not recognised as of Netaji's. Even though theKhosla Commission described the various storiescirculating about Netaji as "hallucination helped

position very much remains the same. If the ashesare to be brought, they have to be enshrined vithdue honours either at DeLhi or in Calcutta and thiswould create further complications due to the samereasons namely that the members of the family and 'those of the Forward Bloc do not recognise theashes as that of Subhase Bose. Consequently, theashes have to remain in Japan till a more favourableopportunity comes up. Government of India wouldbe accused of foisting a fclse story upon the peo leof West Bengal and India, taking advantage of theemergency and this may well figure as an importan7plank of propaganda if and when the elections areannounced.

MHA (Shri R.L.isra)

DIE U.O.N0.25/DG/76-

(T.V.Joint Direct()

dated August 41976.

1411((-

I agree with the assessment of the Bureau. Thefamily of Netaji have not yet accepted the fact of hisdeath. If the ashes are brought back it will give themno satisfaction. Ihe public at Large would also notbe able to derive any satisfaction if the Forward Blockraises a controversy in this matter and this they arevery likely to do so. Wherever the ashes are kept'twill

_ be a centre of Forward Block controversy and perhaisagitation. Moreover it will give a fillip to theForward Block which is at present an insignificantforce.

....4/-

2 . We may reques t the Ministry of ExternalAffairs t o persuade tkz Japanese authorit iescont inue t o retain the ashes wi th them.

.

J 8

(S.C.VAISH)Director(IS)

20 .8.76

404-1 fik;JJ1

L._

'

/2(

z:c4 7i4

v{s>

8'4

co14 a

ALAAAA-4-ti4'4)(016

(;(/)

P4 ,-C10 R

-

fr-e) ' , 471

2'4

- 7

offot_:

Ara.4-ci;

7--/x

, 4 C N/Cr-pe

..7..cc /9/1. //. .))

/ M i e&-14

cocr isy1/. "%V

S i l L w t : C A A -

ef4/I V / 10 , )

47;&

7 -1t--;) ef--ev-"i' Ad4.- ,

7 4 1 -* Ate 2

A Art-A -

/0.

TOP SECRET

1

-

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,

The ques t i on o f br i ng i ng back t o In d ia f r o m t heRen k o j i Temple i n Tokyo t h e ashes o f Net a j i Subhas Chandr a Bosei s under co n s i d e r a t i o n .

2 . I n Ju l y 1976, we re c e ive d a re f e re n c e i n th i s reg ardfrom MEA. The Embassy of I nd i a , Tokyo had po in te d ou t :

(a) That t h e t em p l e au t ho r i t i es have t he fee l ing t a tthe I nd i an Government i s " ind i f fe ren t " t o wa r d sa na t ion a l her o who f o u g h t f o r Ind ia ' si ndependence:

(b) tha t t he Ch ie f Pr ies t o f t he Re nk o j i t e m p l e i s ano l d man ( a r ound 90 yea r s ) and shou l d he die, h i ssuccessors a r e no t l i ke ly t o show t he samesympathy and un d e r s ta n d i n g o f ou r po si t i on asbe f o re :

(c) the Japanese For e ign Of f i ce have been te l l ing theEmbassy f r om t i m e t o t i m e t ha t i t wou l d be be s ti f t h e ashes were t ak en back t o In d ia ; and

(d) t h a t t he Embassy i s o f t he view that the as hesshould be t a k en back t o I nd i a and su i t ab lyen sh r i ned .

The m at t er was cons i der ed i n cons u l ta t ion wi t h IB and af te rob ta in in g or der s o f HS, t he f o l l owi n g ad vic e was com m unicat ed t o

MEA

"The Min i st ry of Home Af fa i rs are o f the vi ew that i ft he ashes of Net a j i Subhash Chandra Bose are brough t backt o In d ia , i t wil l c r e a t e pr ob l em s as th e members o f hisf a m i l y and those o f t h e For war d Eloc have no t ac c e p t edt he f ac t of h is deat h and t h e Governm ent o f In d i a may beaccused of f o i s t i n g a f a l se sto r y upon th e pe o p l e o rWest Bengal and I nd i a . Th i s i s l i ke ly t o become ani m por t an t p l a n t o f propoganda o f t h e For w ar d Bl oc andgener a t e unnecessary cont rov er sy . The Mini s t ry o fExte r na l Af f a i r s ar e , there fo re , re q ue s te d t o adv i se theEmbassy o f I nd ia , To ky o , t o per s uade th e Jap aneseau thor i t i es t o co n t i nu e t o re ta in t he aahes w i th t h e m . "

3 . Our Ambassador i n Tokyo has now made a f resh re f ere nce t oMEA r egar d i ng t he qu es t i o n o f br in g i ng back t h e ashes o f Ne ta j i t oIn d ia f rom Tokyo. The son o f t he Chie f Pr ies t o f th e Re n k o j iTemple has met t he au t ho r i t i es o f t he Japanese Governm ent andr eq ues t ed t h a t t he ashes be t aken back t o Ind ia . The m a t te r hasbeen di scussed by our re p r esen ta t ive s i n Japan wi t h t he JapaneseGovernment an t t h e Japanese Government have advised tha t th e m a t te rshou l d be p l aced be f o r e t he Government s o that we are i n a pos i t iont o i n f o r m t he J apa ne se au th o r i t i e s and the t em p l e au th o r i t i e s th a tt he pr esen t Government of I n d i a has no t a l t e red i t s v i ew s f r omt hose of t h e pr ev i o us Government and t ha t i t i s p r em a t u r e t ore t u r n t he ashes t o In d ia . Acc or d in g l y, MEA have asked MHA t oob t a i n t he views o f t he pr es en t Governm ent on the quest i on o f there tu rn o f the ash es ;

4 . The co n s i d e r a t i o n s on t he bas is o f wh i ch we ad v i s e daga i n s t t he rb t u r n o f t he ashes t o I nd i a i n 1975 and i n ea r l i e ryear s a r e st i l l very much va l i d . The f am i l y o f Ne t a j i have no t yet

PTO

- 2-.

ac c e p t e d the fac t o f Neta j i ' s dea th desp i te t h e f i n d i n g s o f t heShah Nawaz Khan Com m i t t ee and th e Kho s l a Com m issi on. I f th e ashesare b r o u g h t ba ck , i t wi l l gi v e them no sa t i s f a c t io n . The pub l ic a tla rge wou l d a lso no t be ab l e t o de r i v e any sa t is f ac t io n i f t heFo r w a r d Blo c k ra i s e s a con t ro ver sy i n th is m a t te r . T h is t h ey are ver yl i ke ly t o do i n vi ew o f t h e demand made by Shr i Samar Guha i nPa r l iam en t fo r t he ap po i n t m en t o f an o th e r Com m ission t o inqu i re in tothe c i r c um st anc es un d er wh i ch Ne ta j i d i sapp ea red i n Au g u s t , 1945 .

5 . On the ba sis o f t he f ac ts m ent i o ned above we may re i t e ra tet o MEA th e st an d ta k e n by us i n 1976 re ga rd in g the re t u rn o f t h eash es of Ne ta j i t o In d ia .

6 . HS may a lso se e.

JS (IS

(N. K. Si n h a )Depu t y Sec re t ar y ( I S )

16 -1 1 - 77

I e n t i r e l y agree with the vie ws expressed above,Since a number of prceinent pe rsons cont inue t o dtsputethe of f i c i a l l y accepted vers ion of the death of Netaj i , i tna tu ra l ly follows that they would st rongly objec t t o theashes , present ly lodged a t the Re n ko j i Tem ple i n Japan , 6 -C-A-- - // -

a s the re ma in s o f Neta j i . I t i s obvious that i f ashes of a:renow ned leader o f the s tatus of Netaj i are t o b e broueitt o the country for t he f i r s t t ime, they wo u ld ha ve t o beaccorded appropria te honour . Ho we ve r , since some personswil l dispute that they are the remains o f Netaj i , i t wo u l dgive r ise t o unseemly cont roversy which i s best avoidedAlth o ugh i t mayja b i t embarra .ss ing fo r the Minis try o fExternal Affa irs t o continue t o press the Ja p a n e seauthol-i t ies that i t wo u l d b e pre -natu re t o t rens fe r theashes t o India, there se e m s t o be n o other al t erna t ivei n the s i tu a t ion . I f the son o f the pr ies t dem ands aheavier price for maintaining the ashes i n the temple ,a s sugges ted i n our Amb a ssa d o r 's l e t t e r t o the Minis tryof aterial Affai rs , the price wou ld b e worth payingi n order t o keep a l i d on the controversy in the country.Present ly the paymen t i s only 5000 /- a year, whi cheven enhanced wou ld not be a heavyfinancial l i a b i l i t y .

2 . / 9 therefore , suggest that we ma y inform theMinis try of External Affairs that our policy i n th is regardre main s unc ha nged and they may persuade the Ja p a ne seau thor i t i e s that the ashes b e re ta ined a t the lienloj i Te mp lef o r some more time.

MS\(M)

HI-

L Artf-k -A

( R. L . Misra )Jo int Secre tary

17. 11..1977

v-ck

,40\

_ _A

- 10 -

So lo ng as t he ashe s a r e kep t in J a pa n, th e re i s a ro o mfor a mis giving t ha t t he Govt . of Ind ia ha ve no t fu lly ac ce p t ed t hefind ings o f the Shah Naw az Khan Co mmit tee and t he K hos la Comm iss ionr ega r d ing t he a i r c r a s h a nd S hr i S u b ha s inC ha ndr a Ba s e ' s dea t h in t heco u r se of t he c r a s h . On the o ther hand, br in gi ng t he ash es whe n so memem be rs o f Shr i Bose ' s fa mily and fo l lo we rs o f t he Fo rward Bl o c kare no t r ec onc ile d to the gene ra l ly ac cep te d fac t s , wi l l c re at e somemea su re o f unp le asan tnes s . Sinc e we have p lac e d the qu es t ion o f afu r t her inqu i r y befor e t he C a b inet f or d i r ec t ions , i t w o u ld b e a p p r o p r ia t ei f we give a br ief not e to T iM before t he Ca binet meet ing , so t ha t HMco u ld r e fer t o t h is m a t te r a lso in t he c o u r se o f d is cu s s ions in t heCa binet .

J .S

Dck.k9

T.C.A. Sr i n i vasavarad an )20 .1 1 .1 9 7 7 .

4046xwc: vv.4' C, -cy

t k i r k e Ai " . 1 4 3

otAn eAhrwit vv.d.,17% U . i-o If() 0L.A,\A. Vic

kkAi t Nv`-'41:

- / 1 -

1103'1' I C

1ITTI3T133: OFHOME AF'1' AIRS

H.S. info rmed tha t the Cab inet Note submit tedb y the Minist ry re ardinG the death of Netaj i Subh ashChandra, Ease i s caning up for censiderat icn i n theCabinet today a t 6.00 p.m. H.S. desired a smallnote be prepared regard ine the quest ion of return ofhis ashes which i s a connected issue an d wh ic h couldbe ra ised by U.N. i n the Cabinet during the courseo f di. scu sic the Cabine t Note .

2 . According t o the version o f the KhoslaCo n e xis s ic n , Netaj i die d a t the OKU Plr-field i nTaipeb (Fo r mo sa) on 18 t h 194 5. 1he bo dyo f Shri Netaj i Bose was cremated two days la t e r an dhis ashes wexe carried to Tokyo i n the b. g inn ing o fJepter.ber , 1945 wher e they were deposi ted in the Fenko j iTe mple . The ashes ha ve been lying there eve rs ince.Tae ques t ion o f re turn of the ashes t o India has beenraised by Japanese authoei ties on several occasicns .Howeve r, i n view of the fact that the elembers o f Neta j ifami ly as well eel mernbers o f Fo r war d uloc, a partyfounded by Netaj i had not accepted the find ings ofthe Capriss ion , i t was no t considered pruden t t o bringthe ashes t o India.

The ques t ion was la s t ra ised i n Je ly, 19176and we had advised the Minis try o f -..e r teznal Affairst o pe r suade the Japanese authori t ies t o cont inue t ore ta in the ashes i n Japan .

1 Lt. The Minist ry o f --Itt3Islaa. Affa irs have againreferred the iesue t o th is r inist ry for our opinion.The son o f the Chief Priest of the Renkoj i Templeappears to be anx ious that ashes sh o u ld n o w be takenba c k t o India. Chr albassy is paying rz. 5000 /- yearfor t he main tenance of the asees i n the Temple andtheir impression i s that the ins is tence of the son ofthe Chief Priest for the return 0 ; the ashes may beonly to get the grant enhanced . I n any case, theexpenditure o f a few thousand rupees per annum is notvery mater ia l t o the issue. We have t o cons ider therepeecussions o f bei .n 4 .ng the ashes t o India. ;henthe ashes of Netaa are t o be broueht t e the countryfor the f i r s t time, considering Netaj i 's standing i nthe Independence struggle his la s t re main s would. havet o be accorded proper honour an d would ha ve t o belodged a t a sui table place pref:re .b ly in Calcut ta .I t is most l i ke ly tha t the members o f the family ofNetaj i me,eerdege.e4, a s wel l a s members o f the Fo r war dBlo c and some other leader 's like Prof. Sonar alba

level teLereistere4clejeeet t o the ashes being cons idered a s the la s tmortal remains o f Netaj i an d being accorded nat ionalhonour . I t i s also not easy to predic t what would bethe reac t ion of the Government e f !J es t '-%ngal andthe public op in ion i n tha t State. I n view o f th is ,the bringing back of the ashes could ra ise an unseemlycontroversy. On the other hand , s o long a s the ashesare kept in Japan, there would always be room formisgivines that Goveree.e.4nt o f India have not fu l lyaccepted the find ings of the Shah Nawae Commit t eeand the Khos la Cc :El ie - io n regarding the death of Netaj i

( from pre -page)

and th is quest ic ta may cont inue t o be re - opened aga in and

5. It is sugges ted tha t a s the Cabinet i s ccosider ing'whe the r a fresh enquiry into the disappearance of Netaj ii s called for t i t may also take a view regarding thereturn o f the ashes presently lodged in the Renko j iTemple a t Tokyo .

Copy t o Home Secretary.

s )Joint 3acretau (14)

21 .11 .1977

( R. L. Misra. )Joint Secretary

21 .11 .1977

gy-#eyiaog

I

This ma t te r wa s discusse d i n t he Cabine t e tThe co n se n sus was th a t t h e ash e s should cont in ue to remainin To kyo for t he t i me b e in g . Nlin is t r y o f ' E x t er na l A f fa i r sma y th e mselve s co n si d er whe t he r t h e am o u nt p a id t o t he t e m p leau t ho r i t i e s sho u ld be sui tab ly in cre ase d .

J .S .

( T.C.A. Sr inivasavar adan )

22 .1 1 .1 9 7 7 .

tit LA cte.utrA.A4)

4 /vv,rirrN

-1--1-t1 1N /

N.01

, Ifl i. 14 r 4 t,

1

/

! I

Cilr

-3-

mn 1111 r r i d sv i t - snd so m e

3 r r P r : /PS ' hp nr t i t i un n r r i l 9 d come

:

ductiment.;5 uJ 3. ,t i ururh i c r -c i nr in l -.er ho oks

(1 ) ZAD : 317) r.11.1D ^.r:D r. rT PY R.M .YASLI ' JAL

- r ) ( ? ) r!" 3 Fi 'Ef -- . y4 r i r l ! rkn I N ru^T I f iS

: r '; ' ( ' iff47 Li d i en fc r

I . 1 / . r 5 . Shr i_

. : : t-. . : -. nu i ns t ruct i c .ns '-)n d

:,..p Acirl i::.iur.7 1 ro v a rnm e nt . Adv oc s to - lsu,h r hnd n u inst ruc tions i n . t he said matter. ! en ce ,i

t t , iii,!. i 1.,i cn, / tjos hf .o r-d ex-por ta i n pr , rs on an d

3 . ! r w" ' r- 1 " :: y v.v.. t..1 .

.1. .,-, ,1 -1, . - i i n r i n h'1,i s wr i t rn t i t i c :n 1. .;

... . '. 1.. - - c 1 c.....1: f; C 1 1 r .1r, t I re tn i i

'3- '- ', - -1-: r.... ;1, - i id 1 1;-ly-r-1 7 n 3. r7.21 r ' - n L

1.11 t- 7 i Uh -

1;-ly-r-1 7r ) i r7.21 n

1 -I ; i n) . iso n ns cr p ino

c.r InO i . I n H..s pe t i t i on , the pe t i t i one r ,

rur '-,hpr uhrz Commissio t is i , Orn f i lY

h 3 H T11 Com m i ss i on P nd Justice Kh.o s le

r i Ut t . rovarrnt nt

- di s z- wi ;s7 r rncs o r

' j i cculd not cor.in t o

r in i ` .p nr 1 on fo r ... h r rnosons - m e

P t t r i j n ' n rnd Dcsordino t o th e p e t i t i o n *

f r y S ' ! h` r sh Chrm ci rs Posa 011E13 i n

V.

t I l or : 311 i n r. ormLsa. Liss a rah r icg te.d . one z- s. the

cr -possenrors 1.0 u wire su pp as Pd t o haVO*e.s in - t .: : ev e ) . -i%; t4"

i n g i n alnne hnv e li vbd : fbf ..1bNOAAVTLI I I-

r ,l p( r !,o rl nnn ir len t and the s up REIM!-

'fier

s/774,1!!7_9? -0

) N ip

Sccqm ristcH I

,

Ministry of Home Affairs6MuTIoN)

C )

Dy.No.2481/77-FFG

,4 1 -4 4 10 ' ;

' , 'Dated the 17th Uctober,1977

The subject matter of the PUu is the concernof Desk -III of I.S.&NIDivision who may be requested to takeover the PUu for taking further action in the matter.

oQx/AV\

DivisionDesk TIT

11 1 1 ?

We are not concerned in the matter similarproposal is already _under examination by FPG Sectionin their file No. 9/117-7-FPG, MG -Section may seeand kindly teke over these paners for necessaryaction. kre

_

FFG

(DwarkDesk nrficer

11.10.77

F.F.G. S.6UTIUN

T'e Netaji E;nquiry Commission Aeport given by'h ,Justice Khosla and all other allied matters relating to

D --6('-' Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and the auestionof bringing to _India the ashes of Netaji have been dealt with in I.S.J=ivn.A question on tifle subject i.e. Unstarred Question No.1597 was -

0answered on ?.5th August 1976 in the Lok Sabha regarding

)1,preservation of the ashes/remains of Netaji brought from, .Tokyo.That question was also ealiwith in I.S.& N.I.Divn.on their F.0.1/13012/49/76.D III...gain a motion tabled .

by Shri Sumar Guha on 3rd. August, 1977 on the same subjectwas also dealt with in the LS. & N.I.Divn. In the circumstance:

'it is not understood as to how I.S. Livision iJesk-III can saythat they are not concerned with the subject matter of theletter received from Shri L.N. Pandey, L.P. who has suggested -preservation of Netaji's ashes/remains in India. I.6.1)ivisi0nmay kincily see again ,-Ind deal with the matter. _

--?-5/t°/

I.S. DivisionDesk TIT

0..

Reference FFG Section's pote on pre page.

2.' As already mentioned the question raisod byShri Pandeya, ".P. in the P.TT.C. about thehinging of the ashes of Tretaji ard constructing'7711so1eum,a similar point raised 1)y the Delegationof ex-T.N.A. personnel which was met the IndianTigh Commistiaaer Pt Kaualalumpur. This WRS_

.consid7red in F.A4 Section's file 3/11/77_7FG andwe had furnished our comments at that time asrequested by the FFG Sectinn.

13. :ss re7-1ds the T-nstarred Question No. 1597referred to by the 77G Section, it may bementioned that the Question devolved on areporteObs suggestion contained in the Reportof the Khosla Commission on Netaji. Thesuggestion was denied on the basis of the contentsof the Khosla Commission Report.

4. In the circumstances, it will be appropriateif FtPG Section who have already dealt with thematter could handle the present reference fromthe :%?.. aleo. As earlier nllntioned our commentsin this regard have been furnished in the 77GSeetion'.s file above.

- -

011.

--(Dwarka Path)Dwarka Path31.10.7?

0 1 0 4 . 1 % L t , V V 1 S

- I

1

1 . 4

r _ .

- -)4L-4, - )

. - -

6 -, ' -

-1 1rTA ,

ri-L--r"

7

2,0

I .

I r .

.)1 .1 7 11,0 1

h

n._

'I " ' - , )

":

1 ,62.4L / 4 9 j l tiftaz-

1,6.44 44,4

khrer .

A 7 1 ;

l e t A r r A T h i l k

r-* F

w 1P-9

vpitiN

?"14,

Sir r i L.N.Pancleya M.Pp i n his leLter addressed t o

::ss ra ised the fo l lowin g two poin ts : -

(1 ) Ques t ion 'of br inging ' to Ind ia fr om Japan, t c^ ,e ash ° sof Netaj i Sub ha sh Chandr a Bose which the Go vt . ofJapan ac co rd in g t o M.P. i s w 111,ri.g t o par towith. .

(2 ) Ra is in gla Mem or ia l i n ho n o u r ' o f Netaj i Subhash1nhAnrirA After hr ingir i l his ashes t o India .

1. I n th i s connec t i on ) i t may be me nt ioned that the au e St lot)of bringingAst o Incl,ia the ashes of Netaji Subhas h Chandra Bosewas conO . deIred i n detai l whi le exa min in g the demands made b yth e Ex . . I . N. A, 119.4 of Th a ns i i t e g im e n t Personne l i n Malaya .ilhe Eix-7 .N.A. ' lAantl of Jhans i iegimen t Personne l i n 14 alaya ha d , .-4su b mi t t e d a memor_.-hdum t o the Inc t ian high ' o iss .on r i n r'Kaul _urnpur and the High Commissioner had referred h e matter z,t o th Government of India i n the Minist ry of Externa l af fa i r sand the I l in is t ry of Fa x t er na l ACfai rs i n turn ha d asked for ou r ico mments i n 12%ugust 1, 19 77 . One of th e dem ands wa s that titlear ran ge me n t s might De made for br inging the ashes of Net ,a i, , 4

1., ub ha s h Chandr a Bose t o Ind ia and that the ashes be ho u se dlin a befit t ing masoleum t o be erec ted i n Delhi. 1

I - This demand was exami.nl..d i n consulta t ion with I .S . .uivn.I.S. Divis io n (D es k - I I I ) sta ed that the Netaj i thrr,-- ,u i ryi s s ion had stated in i t s repor t that i t was * convinced

lbstyond a l l reasonable do ubt s that the wooden casket lodgedl in the aukoj i temple a t Tokyo conta ins Bose 's ashes - r id

ithe se ashes were placed i n the Box a t Ta ipei af t e r th ecremation of his dead body". The Gove rnm ent hase examined

he report and accepted the find ings of th e co mmiss io n i n toto. ,A s tand wa s , however ) t ake n in 1974 that a Na t io n a l , uonsensus ma-:#

e al lo wed t o emer ge in fa vo u r of bringing Netaj i lashes t oIn dia i n a sac r ed cer emony -tic' a f inal decis ion may be takenf ter asse ss ing react ions i n Parl i amen t and i n the country a targe .

1 ,-Su bseq u ee tly in answer t o a n Uns ta r r ed Ques t ion No.15 97 ,1.4,; the Lok Sabha on 25th August, 1976 regarding tha, pre se r lya t- tY

Of ashe s of Neta j i br o ugh t f r om Tokyo i t was mentined tha t4he Kho sla Commiss ion ead no t made any recommendation about

r inging the ash es of Uet_a ji fr om T okyo t o India no r had the 'Government t aken any dec is ion i n th is regard .1 ,

I t wou ld th u s be obse r ved that thG en n t r n ue r e * % r 1 - k a

eIvis ap pe a ra nc e of Netaj i has no t yet be en f i n a l l y s e t t l e d .oubt s were -in fact exp res sed abo ut th e au then t ic i ty of the

idenCe led be fore Khosla Co mm iss io n a t the t ime of , , ,a Mot ion ta b led by Shr i Samar Guha M.P. on 3rd . august , 1977. 1Disc ussion s on the Motion are l i ke ly t o con t inue i n thefo r th co min g se s s io n (co7 .mencing on 14 th Novemb er , 1977) o fPar l i amen t . I t would thus be pr emat u r e t o ta ke . a f in a l decis ionabout br inging ash e s of Neta j i fr o m Japan and hous ing the ashes 'al su i t ab le masnleilm_

L - - - - - - - - - .g *. A draf t ren iv tn th

M_D - _ _ n

P A '_ 1-t seek 71T:. _ _

p aced tusy_for cons iderat ion. Divis ion (D e skz _I I I ) may. 0 4 . 1 W A 1. 0 1 111 1 - 1 , C 1 0 ( . 1 6 M p L e a . anct i s

s ,b ject . ,.-s. l . u . J . / .,_ . p i r /b-D1117on th e1\to , Lt_t...cAea-W)

.7?

\

*fb,9

frc m prepage

T he draf t a s s l i e i t l y ame nd ed may be cons idered.

2 . I t i s regret ted that the f i l e s aske d fo r i n para6 on prepage eannot b e spared a t th is stage.

3 . FIFO Section may kindly see with reference t o theirnote on prepage .

DS (

F-6'4

Vvv--44.41

a ex._4

(Dw ar ka Nath)De sk Off icer

17 -1 1-7 7 -

1 0 ')

ERkit_t

- -LLt iv*-1

ccv.k";_,,- -1_ c)

ve-4)56

I

0

LAA/J

-40;i4, Ouort,u 4 tAta 4ik m4

1/ve

4

I s I

11-

i t ) 11-(-

1-H1

11 1 1

31

t L

1 .

J.

1. -4 1 I t

(.1 lilaVA4T)-

\L

qt,A stty4 0--

11

v*Nix A

15(03(s\ 5/1

On November 21 , 19 7 7 the Cab ine t cons ide red ano t e sent by u s re ga rd in g the Motion i n the LokSabha by Sh ri samar Gu.ha for a fresh inqui ry in tothe disap pe aran ce of Neta j i Sub has Chandra Bo se .I n para S o f the no t e we had prop o se d that the dema ndfo r a fresh in q u i ry mad e i n the Mot ion by Shri qqlna rGuha may no t be ac c e p te d . The Min utes o f the Cabinethave s ince been received. The Ca b in e t ha ve ap pro ve dthe pr o po sa l that no fresh inquiry in to the disappearanceo f Ne taj i i s necessa ry.

Submi tted .

( nw a rka Nath )De sk 0 f f ice r

6.12.77

0C--;

*

eAfr.A-

(4 )

-

L

0,1 zs_cllcsi)

-4---,--

,62.6 r,V L -

,z -)?

7. It

sr-tvb. rri 0

P-

efi-tv'iv,tkr7r)-Aios--tk-t i r i At'L-&

6

4-QQAA/

\f) 1,;1_An "Dtu it..ct,tAAAAA-'

IVCI k.7..

giz

C\Ys

Ita-AA- tA".0, ) S 1--"C

PF

II

a cir.3)

AI

No)C

4ktk.

b it/

scAll)

)A C O, . . /

) ' 11 11 /

Ext rac t o f no fro m F.No . 8 / 9 /77-FFG.

I S Divison, Desk -III may kindly see JS(A) ' sno te da te d 29.12 .1977 on prep age and ret r, in &NAand no te from page 14 an te for record on their f i l e .

ltd .3.1 .78

ps(ii )

Ihereeter , th is f i le may be re turned t oI US(Pub)

US(pub)

sd/- SS KulshreshthaUS(pub)

3.1.1978

LW.

Pap ers a t flag RI may be removed i d addedt o the . -Branch file i n which a decision wasta ke n re ga rd in g Netaji 's ashes .

sd /- N.K. SinhaDS (IS)

4.1 .78

The pap ers a t Flag ' R' have been removed and keptin c o n c e rn e d f i l e NO. 2 1 / 5 3/76 -TO

2. US(Pub) may p lease se e w. r. t . to 'X ' above .

BSN4.1 .78

US(P ublic)

Top Secret

3

i i

6 . ) , 1

O U

-TES:Sit A1114 1)110'.stril esedi es ee so/ r l / iW

a, 1,i r

1 .

yot(944f Xxvi

L,0,1o

einsmeQns 6

' P : 1 7

Ministry of HeSe Affairs may kindly refer totheir letter No.21/51/76-T dated 28th November,. 1977

_ _ _ _ - .

regarding the ashes of vletaji Subhash Uhanara "osevknicn arekept in the Renkoji Temple in Tokyo. A -copy.of'this

I

10;1 mx

.t 0

was sent to our Ambassador in Japan. /Ile 0 ,

2. Enclosed with this is 3.c(6-y of letter fromour Ambassador in Tokyo (No.TOK/753/TS/69.II dated28.12.1977) informing us that the temple authoritieshave agreed to retain Netaji's ashes for some moretime, but the financial arrangement for keeping the

ashes will be negotiated by the Gaimusho, who haveundertaken to consult the temple authorities toascertain their preliminary reaction. 6.011o0Jue

10 Meanwhile, the Chief Priest has also'indicatedthat he would like some sort of recognition in theform of a letter or medal from the Government of Indiafor the trouble he has taken in retaining the ashesin his safe custody under diffecult circumstances.

4. The Ministry of dome Affairs may kindly seeAmbassador's suggestion at paragraph 3 of his letterand take suitable action.

Ministry of Home AffairsMin. of Ext. Affairs u.o

T s

(Miss) (N.N. Haralu)Director (EA)Te1.373413

(Shri J.C. Pandey, Jt.Secy.).N0. 1 s-ito5iNc o dated 24.2.78.

-. Ftals

1-1 12-

. . . I L

Let ter of JS(IS) at 8/c to MEA w i l l re c al l . MEA havenow informed us that the Renkoji Temple authori t ies i n Tokyo haveagreed to re t a in Net a j i ' s ashes for some lase time. The f i na nc i a larrangements are being re -negotiated with the help of theJapanese Foreign Off i c e .

-14 * T i Ir ,,,r"2. The this? Pr i es t of the Renkoji. Temple has indicated,, _ .

e th at h e would l ike some sort of a recogni t ion i n the form of a le t ter ,,or medal from the Government of India for the trouble he has taken in lre ta i n ing the ahhes in h i s safe custody under di f f icul t circumstances.;Our Ambassador I n Tokyo i s of the Opinion that i t may not be possible!to award a medal, but a le t t er could be wri tten expressing our

.,. grati tude, and acknowledging the ef fo r ts Of the Chief Pr i e s t . TheAmbassador has also ind idated that the Chief Pri est would expect the_le t te r to come from a Min is te r , and our Ambassador haseuggested

-. ,that i f th is i s not fe a s i b l e , the le t ter should- be from a. Orson not ,lower than a Secretary to Government.

,

3 . I t may be mentioned i n th is context that the templeau th or i t ies have not even issiJed a recei p t for the Custody of the

, ashes. Moreover, although we are making an annual payment to the ChiefPr ies t , there is no formalised agreement and the Japanese Foreign

I ho Of f i ce fe l t that af te r such a long lapse of time, the need for a

t formalised agreement did not re al ly appear to be necessary. ,

F

- 4 , I da not th ink there' Can be any' serious objection of meetthe Chief Pr i e s t ' s desi re for a le t ter of recognit ion. We may

- advA,009 MEA that sUch'a le t ter could be sent ei ther by the Ministerfo r External Affa i rs or by Foreign Secretary. '

i L o

efin 1 - ( IH.s

* * -NNAX

\

(N.K. SINHA)DEPUTY SECRETARY(15)

1-3-78

A J y

L.v.401A4:4L

04(zYNAA-s4

C-A

rs

L i

ng

Vi\Afv-vvti(f,

- 23 -

"-)

tw44

Pia

,,c10

(from prepage)

JS(I8) may please see the draft Placed in thefile before issue.

I I

A

( N. K. Sinha )DS(IS)17.3.1978

$0.1a 4 r r -",lr 'm ffeR1606.--" Otrw.*.4...iwg,

0

SECRET

Minis try of Home Affai rs -I.S . ivision

0

Subjec t :- Stthe duled Alan ho t ird discuss ion i n Lok. Sabha on Thursday the 8th December , 1977

i n connect ion with the di sappea rance o fNeta ji Subhash Ch a n d ra Bose. a

Shad: Samar Guha moved the fo l lowing motioni n the Lok' Sabha ' on the 3rd August , 1977 :-

"This House, having cons i r 'e r ee the Re p or t ,(1 9 74 ) of the Co mmiss io n of inquiry in tothe disappearance of Netaj i Sub ha sh Ch and raBose, la id on the Table of the House onthe 3rd September , 1974, urges t he Governmentto, set up a th ree -man Co mmission forconduct ing a fresh inquiry in to theR t l Y s t O r y o f disappearance of Netaj i Subhashkihandra Bose, with power to

(a) make addi tional invest igations . , .w-he renecessary, in to the ci rcumstances lead ingt o disappearance of Neta j i sinceAugust 18, 19 45 ;

C O record fresh oral evidence o f except ionalimpor tance ;

(c) scrut in ise the secre t offic ia l document si n possess ion o f the Government of India,which have no t been made avai lable 13)the earlier probing bodies;

(d) exa mine external docu men ts , con ne ctedwith Neta j i ' s disappearance, whichshould be obta ined from the properquarte rs and the Government s o fJapan, Ta iwa n , United Kingdom,U.S.A. , China and Russia; and

(e ) re -assess a l l do cument a r y and oralevidence adduced befo re the Shah NawazCommit t ee and the Khosla Comriss ion .

The discussion on the mo t io n was inconclusive.Shri Samar Guha was the principal speaker , whileshri Sasankasekha r sanyal spo ke briefly to ward s theend .

.)42 . A note on Go vernment s st and o n Shr i SamarGuha 's Idot ion was submi t t ed t o the Cabinet by us.The note was considered by the Ca b i re t onNovember 21 , 1977 and the Cabinet ap proved the

..2/-

proposal that no fresh inqui ry in to the di sappea ranceo f Netaj i i s necessary.

3 . The points ra ised .by Samar Guha i nhis speech i n the Lok Sabha o n Au gu st 3 , 1977ha ve be en dealt vi t t t in Annetcur e II r t o the Cab ine tNot e. . A co p y o f the Cabinet Note i s enclosed .

4 , I t has be e n l e a r n t that th e matter i scoming lip before the Lo k Sabha o n T)eceraber 8 , 19 77 t/

- i n the fo r m o f a two hour discussion . The at t achedCabinet - note may b e used a s a brief for thediscuss ion .

VS.A. t o H. M .S.A. t o M.S .( M)JS(IS)

( .K . Sinha)De pu ty Secre tary

5.12.77

_e7 :7 Z P : " .

'

e -

r . -!qr . .

(

Z.t 77.1 -

.

/

'4

ow \

\

MOST-rofr

r i t i

10.M4

MINISTRY OFHOME AFFAIFS

H. 3, in fo rned that th e Cab ine t No t e submit t edb y th e I l in is t ry re gard in g the dea th o f Netaj i Sub ha shCha ndr a Bose i s coming u p for considerat ion i n theCab in e t t o day a t 6,o0 p. m. H 3 1 des ired a smallno te b e prep a re d regard ing the quest ion of re turn o fhis ashes which i s a connected issue an d wh ic h couldbe ra i sed by H.M. i n th e Cab inet during the courseof dism;sions on the Cab in et No t e ' .

2 . Accord ing t o the vers ion of the KhoslaCom missio n, Netaj i died a t the ZIEHOKU Air -fie ld i nT a ip eh (F or mos a ) on 18 t h Au gu s t , 1 9 5 . The bo dyof Shri Neta j i Bose was cremated two da ys l a t e r an dhis ashes were car r ied t o T okyo i n the beginning o fseptemb er. 194 5 where they we re deposi ted i n the Fbnko j iT emp le, l e ashes have been lying thereM e que st ion of re t u r n of the ashes t o India has be e nra i sed b y Japanes e authori t ies on several occas ions '.However , i n view of th e fact tha t the mem be rs of Neta j i 'sfami ly as well a s member s of Fo rwar d Bloc , a partyfounded by Ne ta j i had not accepted the findings ofthe Cr-I/ mi s s i o n , i t was not cons idered prudent t o bringthe ash es t o Ind ia .

The qu es t io n was l a s t ra ised i n July, 1976and we had ad vise d th e Minis t ry of Externa l Affairst o pe rsu ad e the Ja p a ne se authori t ies t o cont inue t ore t a in th e ashes i n ja pa n .

4 . The Minis t ry of Zr te /na l Affa ir s ha ve againref erred the is sue t o th is Minist ry for our opinion.The son of the Chie f Priest of the Renkoj i Tem pleappe ars t o be anxio us that aspes sh ou ld n ow b e takenba ck t o Ind ia . Olr Fmba ssy is paying ES. 5"0 00 / - per yearfor the mai nte nan ce of the ashes i n the Te m ple andthei r impress ion i s tha t the insistence o f th e so n ofthe Chief Priest for th e return of the ashes may b eon ly t o ge t the gran t enhanced. In any case, theexp en d i tu re of a few th o u sa n d rupees per annum i s notvery mater ia l t o the is sue ' . 1/0 ha ve t o consider therepemussions of bringing the ashes t o India. 'henthe ashes of Netaj i are t o b e brought t o the coun t ryfor the f i r s t t ime , cons ider ing Neta j i is stand ing i nth e Ind e p e nd e nc e struggle,his l a s t remains would havet o b e acco r ded pro pe r h o no u r an d wo uld have t o b elo d ge d a t a sui t able pla c e / preferably, in Calcut ta ' .I t i s mos t l ikely that th e members of th e family o fNeta j i as we l l a s mem be r s of the Fo rwa rdBloc and some other leaders l ike Prof. Samar arhamay object t o th e ash e s be ing cons idered a s the l a s tmo r ta l re m ains of Netaj i and being accorded nat ionalhono ur. I t i s also no t easy t o predict what would b eth e reaction of the Gover nment o f West Be n gal andthe pu b lic opi n i on i n that Sta te . I n view of th isth e bringing ba ck of the ashes could raise an unseemlycont roversy . On the other hand, s o long a s the ashesare kept i n Jap an, the re would alwa ys b e room formis avin Es tha t Government o f India ha ve not f u l l yacceD ted the find ings of the Sh ah Nawaz Commi t t eeand 1.-,he Knosi a Commiss ion regarding the dea th o f Netaji

( from pre -p age )

and th is quest ion may cont inue t o b e re -op en ed again andagain .

5. I t i s suggested that a s the Cab ine t i s cons ideringwhether a fresh enquiry in to the di sappea rance o f Netaj ii s ca l l ed f o r , i t may also , t ake a,view regarding thereturn o f the ashes present ly lodged i n the Renkoj iTemple a t Tokyo .

kr

-ktiA/0-4-x

V (lLt 6r-/

, " A

-1a)\`1

... r

F,a

?

( Ft. L . Misra )Join t Secretary (IS)

21 .11.1977

w- r-S5s(

"-?IgAc,

"71'34llerrAAJ...i..1

4 r . ? -041wt.

OLX

La -

L. itesi

Pix,kAAA ?

C.44"-4_ L. 'I Covv, "

,"I I tr7 'T

- 0 0 -

(from prepage) '

1rio -2-"-

/(" 'X' onprepage

On a proposal from the Embassy of India, Tokyo,the Ministry of External Affairs vile their note at rage1/ante sought our advice in regard to the return of ashesof Netaji Subhash Chaffra Bose to India which are atpresent lel* in the Renkoji Temple, Tokyo. TheIntelligence Bureau, who were consulted in the matter videpage 3/n, ()Pined in their note at page 4/n that if theashes are brought back to India they have to be enshrinedwith due honour either at Delhi or in Calcutta and thiswould create further comrlication due to the same reasonsnamely that the members of the family and those of theForward Bloc do not recognise the ashes as that of SubhashChandra Bose. They have stressed that the ashes have toremain in Japan till a more favourable orportunit- comesup.

9 * On a motion in the Lok Sabha by Shri Samar Guha IMPfor a fresh ennuiry into the disappearance of NetaiSubhash Chandra Bose, a note vide pages 12-16/cor was sentto the Cabinet for rejecting the motion. The CabinetanprovedAthe proposal that no fresh inquiry into thedisappearance of Netali is necessary. Since the issueof return of ashes was also connected with the matter, HSdesired that a small note be prepared for HM regarding thequestion of return of ashes to be raised by him in theCabinet meeting of 21.11.15)77.- In this connection noteson pages-11-1')/ante may also Please be seen. The matterwas discussed in the Cabinet on ')1.11.1977 and theconsensus was that the ashes should continue to remain inTokyo for the time being.

3. Consequent on the decision of the Cabinet wecommunicated OUT advice to the Ministry of External Affairvide page R/cor. The Ministry of E.A. in turncommunicated our views to OUT Nmbassador in Jaran. Theyhave vide their note at rage 21/ante forwarded a cory ofletter fanour Ambassador in Tokyo which is at rage 11/colThe Ambassador has informed that the temrle authoritieshave agreed to retain Netaji's ashes for some more timebut the financial arrangements for keering the ashes willbe negotiated by the Gaimusho, Who have undertaken toconsult the temple authorities to ascertain theirpreliminary reaction. The Chief Priest also indicatedthat he would like some sort of recognition in the formof a letter or medal from the Government of India for thetrouble he has taken in retaining the ashes ighis safecustody under difficult circumstances. This duestion wasconsidered vide note on page 22/ante and HM's approvalobtained. A formal communication was sent to MEA viderage 12/car.

4. Since no action is "ending on theclose it. As regards DS(IS)'s querN4 thebeen closed in March itself, but we werefurther communication to 3.N0.(6) iVheacknowledgement or so, and in order avoidfile was kept in susrense.

Resubmitted please.

41 1 4 . / .7s , ,

file, we mayfile sholtild haveNexrecting aform of anre -stitching the

C C R R E S P O N'D E N C,Nos.1 0ne Repor t )

Pe ge .1 -33

STRY OF MME AriravsIT' BRANCH

Subject:- Proposal received by the Ministry of ExternalAffairs from the Embassy of India, Tokyo,for the return of the ashes of Netaji SubhasChandra.

I {

Will the Ministry of External Affairs kindlyrefer to their U.O. No.25/105/N00, dated the 17thaly, 1976, on the subject mentioned above? .

2. The Ministry of Home Affairs are of the view ,that if the ashes of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose arebrought back to India, it will create problems asthe members of his family and those of the WedForward Bloc have not accepted the fsct of his deathand the Government of India may be accused of foistinga false story upon the people of West Bengal and India.This is likely to become an important plank ofpropaganda of the Forward Bloc and generate unnecessarycontroversy. The Ministry of External Affairs are,therefore, requested to advise the Embassy of India,Tokyo, to persuade the Japanese euthorities to continueto retain the ashes with them.

( 11.L. MISRA )Joint Secretary

'Malian of External Affairs(Sh.N. N. :ha,Joint SecY., N

MITA U.O. No.21/51/76-T, dated e7A,9ugnst,1976

4

r-f- 1

I

3

(°°11-1

1-1 f/51)-)TOP SECRET/IMMTI/IATE

(Miss) N.V.. Haralu, /'-' ITiltrt st2uvig, qt f4* -k t 'Director LEA). . ....1,

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL 'AFFAIRS

. r_NEW DaH1-ii .

N0025/1O5/NGo i 94/ 9 th November, 1977.

Dear Shri Misra,

22,

I have been directed to send with this a copyof letter No. TOK/75 3/TS/69-II dated 7th September,197T., from our Ambassador in Tokyo.

2 . We shall be grateful on your comments onparagraph 4 of Ambassador's letter. Also penclosedwith this is a copy of letter No.25/105/NGO dated

t. 5th October, 1976 from Shri N.N. Jha, Joint Secretary(WIEA) to our Ambassador in Tokyo, as referred4-inaragraph 1 of the Ambassador's letter.

211)),

LNVShri R.L. Misra,Joint secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs,New Delhi.

)

1-p -vie_ Pret dew' - Perr--.1

Aris)174 --r

/4. i).77

' Yours sincerely,

110 ,(Miss) (N.N. Haralu)

414--a

TOP SECRET

Ambassador

EMBASSY OF INDIATOKYO

No.TOK/753/TS/69-II September 7, 1977.

Dear Rangi,

I should be grateful if y u could call for the papersresting with N.N. Jha's letter No. 25/105/NGO dated 5th October,1976, regarding the ashes of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose whichare kept in the Rankoji Temple in Tokyo. I regret that Iforgot to raise this question with you when I was in Delhi.

2. As you are aware, we have been Making manual payments ofapproximately Rs -5000/- to the Chief Priest of the temple inconsideration of the trouble taken by them to look after theashes. This year in early August when we were planning to paythe annual instalment, we were informed by the Gaimusho thatthe son of the Chief Priest had been to meet them and hadsuggested that he was anxious that the ashes should now betaken back to India. It is more than probable that he has beenbecome aware of the recent discussions in rur Parliament onthis issue. Subsequently, Shri A.N. Ram called on Mr. Ohara,Director, Southwest Asia Division in the Gaimusho and wasinformed that the temple authorities were rather concerned aboutthe future of the ashes since the Chief Priest was now advancedin age and had recently been keeping poor health. They alsomentioned that other groups in Japan were interested in tryingto gain custody of Netaji's ashes. There is no formalarrangement by which the ashes are maintained by the Renkojitemple and the son of the Chief Priest had informed theGaimusho that the temple authorities had not even issued areceipt for the custody of the ashes. Ohara indicated as hispersonal opinion that it might be premature to consider returnof the ashes to Netaji. He also said that although the templeauthorities had not mentioned this explicitly, it might be .possible that they were seeking some material compensation fortheir trouble. Ram explained the background and the reasonwhy we felt it would be inadvisable to consider taking theashes back to India now. He said that we worIld be wil7ing tobe guided by the Gaimusho on the question of giving some morecompensation subject to the approval of the Government of India.It appears that till then the (Jaimusho was not aware we weremaking an annual payment. He also said that after such a longlapse of time, the need for a formalised agreement did notreally appear to be necessary, but this also co -!ld be considered.

3. On the 18th of August, the temple arranged a memorialservice for the thirtieth anniversary of the death of ,Netaji.The Embassy and the Gaimusho were both represented. l'ollowingthe service, the Managing Director of the Netaji AcademyMrs. Kikuko Emori who was present, went out of her way toreaffirm that there was no doubt that Netaji was indeed deadand that the ashes should be transported back to India. She(said she had herself been to Taiwan and enquired into theposition. She was responsible for looking after INA cadetsduring the war.

TOP SECRET

4. Following a further discussion with the son ofthe Chief Priest, Ohara informed hardeep Puri on August2.A.th that the son was still insistent on returning the

ashes to India as tits was the right thing to do. Chara'sadvice to us is that we should place this matter before theGovernment, so that we are in a position to inform himand the temple authorities that the present Government ofIndia has not altered its views from those of the previousGovernment that it is "premature" to return the ashes toIndia. Thereafter we can consider the question ofadditional compensation.

5. I should be grateful for your confirmation that weshould reiterate our earlier position to the Gaimusho and

the temple authorities, and then consider the payment ofadditi-nal compensation. It may have to be quite substantial,as I believe the son of the Chief driest, who is the mostlikely to succeed him is likely to drive a hard bargain.And we have little room for manoeuvre. We should, I think,resist any formalised agreement as this could becomematerial in the controversy that is now going on. In anycase we have receipts from the temple for the money paidover the years. An early -reply will be appreciated.

With kindest regards,

Yours sinerely,

Sd/-

(E. Gonsalves)

Shri C.V. Ranganathan,Joint 6ecretary (NE),Ministry of External Affairs,New D elhi. -

TOP SECRET

N.N. Jha,Joint Secretary (MBA)

No .25, 105/NGO

Ministry of External Affairs

New Delhi -11

5th October, 1976

Please refer to your letter No.TOK/753 'AS/69/IIdated June 18, 1976 regarding Netaji Subhash ChandraBose's ashes kept at the Renkoji Temple in Tokyo.

2. We have examined the question of having theashes brought back to India in consultation with theMinistry of Home Affairs in view of the considerationsadvanced by you. I reproduce below the comments ofthe Ministry of Home Affairs:

"The Ministry of Home Affairs are of theview that if the ashes of Netaji SubhashChandra Bose are brought back to India,it will create problems as the members ofhis family and those of the Forward Blockhave not accepted the fact of his deathand the Governmert of India may be accusedof foisting a false story upon the peopleof West 13engal and India. this is l i k e l yto become an important plant of propagandaof the Forward Block and generateunnecessary controversy. The Ministry ofExternal Affairs are, therefore, requestedto advise the Embassy of India, Tokyo, topersuade the Japanese authorities tocontinue to retain the ashes with them."

3. In the circumstances, we feel that we have noalternative but to continue with the presentarrangement, namely, to make a token payment to theChief Priest of Renkoji Temple, Tokyo where theashes are kept.

4 . Arrangement is being made for the arnualpayment of ft 5000 to the Chief Priest.

Shri E. Gonsalves,Ambassador of India,Tokx2.

sdir_

(N.N. Jha)

M M

1031terfe CP1101111 g m

inforr ied that the eabinet : io ta oubcit tedb y the l i n i s t r y r e arding the dea th of NetaLi Subha.shChareera :De e i s casing up for ccnsidera t ion i n theCabine t today a t 6,00 p.m. des ired a smallnote be pre pzi red regardene the ques t ion o f zo t u m o fhi 3 ashes which i s a connected iseue and which couldbe ra ised i n the Cabine t dar ing the courseo f . scu eions on the uetb inet Note,

, 2 , Accord ine t o the version o f the 141051aOne ra ise icn Ne ta . j i died at the 211101KU Id . refie ld inTaipeh (Fo r mo sa) on 13 t h eagast , 10+5. ale bode,o f shre Netaj i Bose was crAMWWW two days la t e r e idh is ashes were carried t o Token i n the b. e innine o fJap te r she r 1945bOaere they were deposi ted in the Ibni :o j i_ . _ .wilalle ale aersne IlaVe peen lying tneze eversince ,21e ciaest ion o f re turn o f the ashes t e India has beenraised by Jepanese ee tbo i t i e s on severa l occasicns .Ho we ver , i n view o f the fact that the revisers of Netaj ifier i ly a s well as leembere o f Fo r war d a partyf t :unc lad by Netaj i had not accepted the fin ing s o fthe Cerr ies ion t i t was not con ,eieered prudent t o brinethe ashes t o

The quest ion was la s t re isod i n a lly, 17Xand ea had adeesad the : in istry o f Aton a l Affnirst o persuaee the Iapanese authorit iee to continue t oreta in t h ashes i n jepan ,

4 * The i l a s t r y o f Affa irs have aea inreferred the issue t o th is Vinist ry for our opin ion.

scn o f the Chief I nes t o f the i lenko j i liseapleSwears to be anxious that ashes should now be takenblot t o India. air Lta b a ssy i s paying Li , ,5000/- p''r yearfo r the maintenance of the ae;ees i n the Temple andthe i r impreesicn i s tha t the insistence o f tb a s a l ofthe Chie f Pries t for the return of the ashes may beonly to get the glent enhanced. I n any case s theexpm deters o f a few thousand rupees per ennui is notvery material t o the i s s u e . T.43 have to consider therepercuss ions o f br in jn g the ashes t o Veenthe ashes o f ' ,Total t are t o be bmujet t ) the countryfo r the f i r s t t in e , considering Netaji is standing i nthe Independence st ruggle his la s t re ma in s wo u ld h a vet o be accorded pr . to pe r h on o u r a n d wo u ld h a ve t o belodged a t a suitable place prof 'ra iny in Calcut ta ,I t i s r oe t l ike ly tha t the members o f the lamely o f

a s wen as !Dente i n o f the 'ForwardBloc and some other leaders like Prof, Sonar Oaharxty objec t t o the ashes Wing cons idered a s the lastaor ta l rema ins o f Noted, . end Wine. accorded na t ional'honour . I t i s also not OW t o predic t idaat wou le bethe reac tion o f the coveinvierrt o f °est Be nfia endthe public op inion i n that State. I n view o f th is ,the brinang back o f the ashes could raise an unsee re yecti t roversy, a l the other hind, so lon g a s the ashesa n kept in (Trepan * there Amid always be r a w for

agtvin s tha t eovernment o f India have not fu l ly; accepted the fi re ttnes o f t i le ahall Name.- ceure it tee

and the 1130e/a Cazziss ion regard ing the death of Netaj i

/11°

7-

(f r.= :yz:)...paap)

and this questicn sky coot inue to be r9.011116d again and

5. It i 3 3 u o c t o d tha t a s the C-abinat is canetleringitbether a fre313 onrlairy into the disa ppea ra nc e of I l l e taj iis cal led for, it zay a l3o take a vicw railtrilthil thereturn of tho ashes prcsontly lod d In the TaltonTem;a,e a t Ibkyo.

Copy to iiore 33crotary.

( )ti.3ra )Joint 93crat -try (13)

21 .11.1977

R. L. Lisra )Joint 3 oc re t 'try

1.1.11.1977

TOP SECRETD.O.No.21/51/76-T

New Delhi -110001,

the

Dear Miss Haralu

Nov. '77

Kindly refer to your D.O. No.25/105/NGO dated the 9th November, 1977 asking us toclarify the attitude of the present Governmentto the 2uestion of bringing to India the ashesof Netaji SUbhas Chandra nose which are atpresent lodged in the Renkoji Temple in Tokyo.The matter came up for discussion in the Cabineton November 21, 1977 in connection with thequestion of the demand for a fresh enquiry intothe disappearance of Netaji. The consensusIn the meeting was that the ashes should continueto remain in Tokyo for the time being. Ministryof External Affairs may t'7emselves considerwhetrer the amount paid to the templeauthorities should be suitably increased.

2. T am desired to request you to takefurther action in the light of the decision ofthe Cabinet referred to above.

Yours sincerely

"n.

L. Misra )

Miss N.N. Haralu,Director (EA),Ministry of External Affairs,NEW DELHI.

Ivo(17.t I

yolk

°I lf ic i ( )

oITFI V

egr>71 L5 94 o ,J,771

PS ))_ sr . . C? _

cvel,4*zt -

qdzr 49- ,..57( 4114 t1(

c-or (crispy zerrf fie4te ft ,a4. .w -)-,w ie/ey 9/9- (-1

r i --1.1/ei sr /T O

c ike *014/24,44/'11 tri ',77-?- cb- .1 ,et ,7:v s-t

%-.31"-Trei ce 7 )

a1-;-tifw el '4 I .1 47 ,---' 03"C .4 1

5 -447 -44 1

vk :5 4 4 t N e6 )

,04 .1,1

MEME13,ELOF PARLIAMENT Of 17

tem- 4 2 A I I I T A N NIn I I

qorfr1-

TT r ,_;',/tt-41-411 ;We i

'

*%---rfW e c;(

1/4/ YU-qLs 5(17Fr 3 -344- E -"a" 197w7r5 ?-f 31-477FT

- Lc f-7s, cft /

12-1-e)ko . #i IC JL.

ifrrffirio 411 --117-WT --f-,691 f i

e i

(IN111011141 PARU

(1.0k Salt*

;Ailx

VA.*

.11 f CV Ix

.-77

F-41 E2 .

314 41*4

9it 1OT4 000 1

It/111- .24 1977

29-8-77 T q

TriffEr WM' mT

vr /1 I Iry 7ft

crtW WV; it 71;T col f 910 9M1zr

crT Inru 3-8-77 t t It , 3I iir1WTT wyrilf

4 ma giu6 cirg 44 villatorn *qv'

4t Tr? tir TT 9-vrvz Err i t Efin4 Tt'FfT

wit rftrizrm wa leprgni

14Tfra If4r7 rurm. mf Ricrt

law i r r r 3itIcattl Trm iRTFTREW -ortrrT

sercr,

MOM()O'rs

20, "PM TNrt 1tFit-110001

TOP SECRET

EMBASSY OF INDIATOKYO

No.TOK/753/TS/69-II December 28, 1977.

My dear Rangi,

Please refer to the correspondence resting withMiss N.N. Haralu's letter No.25/105/NGO dated November30, 1977 regarding the ashes of Iletaji Subhas ChandraBose.

We informally understard from the Gaimusho thatthe Temple authorities have agreed to retain Netaji'sashes for some more time. The Chief Priest of theTemple, who is getting old, has apparently expressed adesire that the ashes should be returned to -India assoon as possible. However, inview of the specialcircumstances mentioned by you, the Temple authoritieshave agreed to keep the ashes on our behalf for somemore time. The financial arrangements for keeping theashes will have to be negotiated with the Templeauthorities in due course. The Gaimusho have undertaken

,to corsult them to ascertain their preliminary reaction.

Apparently, the Chief ijriest has also indicatedthat he would like some sort of recognition in the formof a letter or a medal from the Government of 4'ndiafor the trouble he has taken in retaining the ashes'inhis safe custody under difficult circumstances. WhileI realise that it may not be possible to award him amedal, we could write him a letter expressing ourgratitude and acknowledging his efforts in keeping theashes at the Temple. He would probably expect theletter to come from a Minister. I do not know if thiswould be feasible. T suggest it should not be lowerthan a Secretary to Government. I should be gratefulfor your advice in the matter.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

(E. Gonsalves)

Shri C.V. Ranganathan,Joint Secretary (N&EA),Ministry of External Affairs,New Delhi

MI ISTRY OF IDI1E AFFAIRS(IS DIVISON )

Minist ry of 3x te rnal Affnir s

XOP PECRET

may kindly refer t o

the ir 11.0 , To, 25/ 105/NGO, da ted the '24th February, liD70

regarding t he reques t f rom t :le Chief Priest of the

Renko ji Temi)le in Tokyo for recognit ion i n th e fo rm

of a let ter o t nEdal from th e Government o f India for

th e tro ub le taken by th e Chief Priest i n re ta ining t he

ashes of Neta ii i n his safe custody un d e r difficu lt

cir cumstances .

2 . I have been directed t o say tha t Minist ry of Horne

Affairs agre e 4th our Ambassador i n Tokyo that i t i s

not feas ible to award a medal to the Chief Pries t . Biut

we have no obj ict ion to a le t te r being sent t o the

Chief P r ies t e i ther f rom the Minister for External

Affai rs or from the Fore ign Secre t a r y along t he lines

nd ica ted by the Chief Priest .

1-4'117rsinha)cre tpry(IS)

tr7 of xternal 4faire(14fi s N. N, pit recstry of Home Affa1 r s TJ.O.No. 21/51 /76-T dated

2 r4 vi*4

- -

aaaaaMINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(G21 -H AATERALAYA)0 6 *

20.:E_ZO3 Ta:S

Subject:- MOTION IN THE IOK SAHHA BY SHRI 3.1MATi GUHAFOR A FPM.7.1 INQUIRY INTO THE DISAPPEARANCEP F E .

1. In April, 1956, the Goliernment of India, inresponse to public demand, an--inted an Inquiry Committeeconsiszin of sarvashri shah Nawaz Khan, Saresh ChandraBose (eider brother of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) andS.N. Maitra,formerly Chief Commissioner of Andamanand Nicobar, to ascertain the circumstances concerningNetaji ls alleged death in an air-.cra'h To members ofthe Comrittec narreIY) Sarvas'Jri Shah Nawaz Khan andS.T,% Maira, came to the conclusion that Netaji met hisdeath in an air -crash at Taiholcu (For iosa) onthe iStla August, 1945 Shri slIrech Chandra Bosedisagreed with these findings and submitted a dissentingrsport. The majority report was accepted by theGovernment,

2, The controversy over the disappearance ofTletaji was, however 7 not resolved and demands continuedto be made for undertaking another incluiry into thematt32. Rumours about Netaji ts survival and hissubsequent appearance elsewhere cropped up repeatedly.In response to a demand for a fresh inquiry by a numberof Memoers of Parliament belonging to different politicalparties the Government decided to appoint a Commissionof igiquiry to g 0 into the entire matter in July, 1970.3hrTG,D, Kposla, retired Chief Justice of PunjabHigh Court, was appointed as a one man Commission to

nquire into all the facts and circumstances relatingto the disappearance of Nec,aji Subhas Chandra Bosein 1245 and the subserr,cnt developments connectedtherewith and make a report to the Central Government".The Commission visited Japan, Burma, Thailand, Singapore,Malaysia, South Vietnam and Formosa (Taiwan) andexamines: 224 witnesses including 100 no were examinedabroaJ. A large number of files and documents wereproduced and cited in evidence. The Commissionsubmitted its report on the 30th Juno, 1974. TheCommission arrived at the same conclusion that wasreachr-J by the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee in 1956that Tietaji died in an air -crash at 'h.lhcku onthe 12th August, 1945.

The Cabinet considered the report of the0

Cc'nmission on the 29th August, 1974. A copy of the

..2/-

note placed before the Cabinet is at Amnexure I. T heCabinet accepted the firing that Neta j i had died i na n air -crash o n the 18th Augus t , 19 4 3 a t Ti lnoku i nTaiwan. The report of the Corithiissi on alongwi th thememora ndum o f action taken thereon was laid on theTables of both the Houses o f Parl iament on3rd September , 1974 .

4 . Shri Samar Guha moved the following motion i nthe Lok Sabha o n the 3r0 Augu7 t , 1977:-

"Th:7-s House having co ns i dered the Report (1974)of the CoLlmission of inluiry into thedisappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose,laid on the Table of the House onthe 3rd September, 1974, urges the Governmentto set up a th ree-man Commi -si on m r conductinga fresh induiry into the mysi;ery of disappearanceof Netaji 6u-ehas Chandra Bose, Lith power to-

(a) make additional investigations, whe renecessary, into the circumstances leadingto disappearance o f Netaj iAugust 18, 1945;

(b ) reco rd fresh ora l evidence of exceptionalimpor tance ;

(c) scrutinise the secret offi ci al documentsi n possess ion o f the Go ve r nm e nt o f India ,which have not been made available to theearlier probing bodies;

(0) examine external documents, connected withNetaj l s disappearance , which sh o u ld beobLained from the proper quar ters and theGovernments of Japan, Taiwan, UnitedKingdom, U.S.11., China and aussia; and

re -assess all documentary and oral evidenceadduced before the shah Nawaz Committeeand the Khosla Commission'.

The discussion on the motion was inconclusive.F;hri samar Cuba was the principal speaker, whileShri Sssankasekbar Sanyal spoke briefly towards theend. The motion is likely to come up again in theensuing ession of the Lek ,.`310ha when the Home Ministerwill be expected to exp Laa n the Government's standon the Motion.

(e)

In his speech in the Lok Sab h a onAugus t 3 , 19 77 Shri Sa ma r Gilha ha s dealt a t lengthwith the mystery sorrounding the disappearance of

..3/-

4,0°'

-

Netaj i Subhas Chandra Bose wh i ch , accord ing t o h:Tmls t i l l re m a ins t o be sat is factori ly expla i f led , Thepoints ra i sed by him have be en fu l ly exar i i n c , i n theHome Minis try vis-a-vis the find ings o f the M'Ios laCommi ssio n in th e no t e at t a c h e d a s Anne xur e I I . I twill be se e n that 'prac tica lly a l l the points me nt io ne dby Shr i Samar Guha ha ve been ful ly lo o ked in to b y theKh o sl a Commiss ion and no fr e sh gro un d s re la t ing t o thesehave been advanced t o rev:ire fur ther inves t igat ion .The only new informa tion brou ght out b y hri Sa m a r Guhare la tes t o some documents inc luded i n The Transfero f Power 19 4 2-4 7! ' Volume VI publ i shed b y the Bri t ishGover nment re ce n tly: , T hese dor ir ien ts give a nimpress ion that for some moni,ns after the Japaneseannou nced the dea t h o f Net a ji Su b h as Cha nd r a Bos e i n a 1ai r crash on Augus t 18 , 1945 , the British Governmentwere s t i l l di scuss ing ways o f dealing t h 17.1r.3. Thedoc um ents re lied up o n are : C O a l e t -e r da ted231:1 te lgs.1,,_ 1 945 from Sir F . Mudie , Home Member o f t,heliceroyt s Exe cu t ive Connel l t o Sir E . Je nki . ns , Pr : ! . va t eSecreta ry toOliceroy, which exami n e s the various opt ions

Lthe be fore the Government fo r dealing with Netaj i Su b hAsChan dra Bose; ( i i ) Minut e s o f the me et in g o f the :Endo-Burma Commit tee o f the Brit ish Cab i rp t held o n

4'1_ 5 t 1-i Oc t o b e r , 19 4 5 i n which , whi le discussing thei -1-. .-"e7A"Tarrir,"--d f - Il id tan and Burmese collaborators with the

enemy, i t was genera lly ag r eed the oray c iv i l i anre n e gad e of Imp o r t an c e was Su b ha s Chand ra Bo se ,

6 . The news o f Netaji 's death i n an a i r crash o n theTaih oku ai r - f ie ld i n Taiwan o n 18t 1 ' Au gu s t , 1945 wasbroadcast by riemei News Agency fro m Tokyo onthe 23rd A7.5gust, 19 45 . Si r F . Mu die ' s l e t t e r t o the

Nk PS t o the Vi c e ro y, whic h enclosed a no t e preparedaf ter disc u s< io n amongs t British officers , wa s o f thesame I t IS reaso nable -to ass i r e that i n point o ft ime the news o f N-eta j i t s :dea th may not have beenknown i n Int:d.a a t the t im e o f despatch o f th is l e t t e r .As re gard s -the mi n ut e s of the Ind o - Bu r m a Comnit tee o fthe Br I t i5 t h Cabinet held on 25 .10 .19 4 5 the memora ndumda te d 21 . 10 ,4 5 fr om the Sec re t a ry o f Sta te for India(Lo r d ?e th ic ' : La wr ence ) for cons idera t ion b y the Indo-Burma Commit tee refers to Bose i n the fo l lowingwor(:.s:-

"Ap ar t f r om Subhas Bose , i f h e i s al ive, few o fth ese on the l i s t ar e a t present well kno w ni n India".

One ca nno t infer from this that the Br i tish Governmenthad information that Ne-uaj i Su bh as Chandr a Bose Was no tinvol Ifed i n the air cram and had escaped . I t i s hutnatural tha t the Brit ish Government did not readi lybe li eve th e Jap ane se re p o r t o f Net aj .V s dea th a smany people i n India inc luding Maha tma Ga nd hi did not

. . 4 j -

bel ieve i t a t f i r s t . The British Government suspectedl i tha t the news o f the deat h in an a i r c r a r_ th could bei a n alibi to en a b le Ne t a j i t o escape , t i l l invest igat ionscar ried cut by their own agrneies confirmed the

; Japanese vers ion to w a r d s the close o f th e year 1945.

7 . The issue o f No t aj i s death i s su rcha rged withemot io ns . We have already had two enquir ies o n thesubject . Ir respec t ive o f any conclusion that ma y b earr ived a t by a fr e sh inquiry, Shr i sanar Guha andothers o f his convic t ion will cont inue t o believe thatNetaj i di d no t die i n an air crash i n 1945. Even afresh inqui ry i s unl ike ly t o . , e t a t res t the cont roversyfor al l t ime s t o come, o r a t th is dis tance o f time, t o b e ,more i l luminating th a n the ear l i e r ones. ;The Ministryof H ome Affa ir s are , therefore , o f vi e w that no

,u sefUl purp ose wou ld be served b y ho ld ing another1 , I t i s , the refore , suggestc,1 that the demand

fo r a fresh inqui ry made i n th e Motion moved b yMari Samar GLI.-ia may not be accepted .

8 . ,Vp ro val o f the Cabinet i s sol ici ted for thepro p o sa l co n t a i n e d in para '7.

9 . The Home Min iste r has se en and approved th i snote.

HOME

1/ 1 2 0 1 4/ 9 / 7 7 -D . 1 1 1 (S E cP )

NEW DELHI

The 17 th ' November , 19 77 .

SRI NIV.1.3AvSECRETARY

aADA7)

SECRET

11,-4

NOTE FO THE_CABITET

Subjec t :- T'ne repor t o f the on e -man Commi ssi on o fInquiry into the disappearance o f Netaj iSulphas Chandra Bo se ,

4 .

I n .A_- r i l l 2_9563. the Government o f India , i n/respo ns e 0 publ ic de ma nd , appo in ted an.- Inquiry

Commit tee consist ing o f Sarvashri Sha h Nawaz Khan,t iu re sn Chandra Bo se- (e lder bruune r o f Neta j i Sub hasCha nd ra Bos e) and S.N . Maitra l former ly Chief .Commissioner o f Andaman and 'N icobar , t o ascerta in the .circumstances concerning Netaj i g alleged dea th i n a nair -crash . Two members o f the C 0 r in i , t te c., , name:1 y ,Sarvashri Sh ah NawaZ Kha n and ivi,.x t ra , came t o theconclusion that Neta j i met his dea th i n a n aircrasha t Taiho ku ( Io rmosa ) o n the 3.8tla Ingus 4. 1945 .Shri Su re sh Chan dra Bose disagreed with these f indLigsan d submit ted a dissent ient report , The major ityreport wa s accepted by the Govern ment. T he cont roversyover the disappearance o f Netaj i was , howeve r , notresolved and de m a nd s con t inued t o be ma de for un d e r taki n ganother inquiry in to the raat ter . Ru mou r s abou t Ne ta j i ' ssurvival and . his subseauent appea rance elsewhere cro p p e du p repeatedly. I n response t o a demand for a fresh inquiryb y a nu mb er o f Memb er s o f Parl iament belonj ing t o differentpo l l ' a l c a l .-p 1:;_es the Go ver nme nt decided t o tmpoint aCommiss ion o f Inquiry t o go in to the en t i re matter i n)

1 9 , Ethr i G. D, Khos la , reti red , Ch e f Just ice o fPu n ja b fils ,h Cour t , was appoin ted a s a one man Commissiont o "inquirs in to a l l t:he facts and ci rcumstance elat ingt o the d:i_s ap pea ra nr-le o f Netaj i Su l t ha s Chandra Bos e i n

. 1945 and the subsequen t de ve 7 o pme n t s connected therewithand make !Ls report t o the Centra l . Gove rnme nt", A copyo f not i f i cat ion No , 25 /1 .4 /70-Po l1 .II dated the 11 th July,

. 19 7 0 i s pi a ce d a t An:aexure I . T he Comb' s --,lion Isr ic,,calt h ed

rma ThJapan, Bu . ai land 5 S i n a P o r e 9 M a l a ye , S l a 7

V i e t n a Elan Pormosa (Taiwa0 and o n the wh ol e examin e d

90 4 wi,. ' ,_ ng 1 0,0 who we re exam ' n abro ad .A la rge rraFiber oT7 f i l e s -10 (19-aiment3 we r e prod u ce dand ci ted i n evidence . T he Commiss ion submi t t ed i t sreport o n the 30th June, 1974.

2,, T he mai n conclusions reached by thei n i t s Inquiry are, i n br ie f , a s fo llows:

3 . On the morning o f 16 ,P . .1 9 45 , NetajiSingapore -icco mpa ni. e3 by a fei,/ colleagues and othersand -I r r ive d a t Bangkok a t P M and spent thenight the re, At about 8.00 A.M. o n 17.8 .1 .945 9 I\COtaj iand party l e f t b y two planes and re a c h e d 3a /eon a t 11 .00

L.M. The Co mmi ss i o n exa min e d , among o n e r s , 8 witnesses

com mi s s ion

____

who ac c o mp an i e d i n his jo u rn e y u p t o Saigon.These included (2 ) Hachia who wa s dep uted b y theJapanese Governme nt Lc) ass is t I\T t a j i a s Minis te r o fthe provisional Go ver nment o f free India He remai nerqwith Netaj i t i l l Au gus t 17, 1945 , (2 ) Nigeshi , ano therof f i c i a l o f the Japanese Government who delivered the

I l e t t e r containing the te rms o f sur render t o Neta j if ia t Saramba n, ac c o mpan i e d hi m oin ore and remainediwith him t i l l 'the morn:Ia n& 0.f Augus t; 1 7 7- 1 94 5 1 an3_ _ _

(3 ) Ge n: who Was the Chief o f the Hiker! Kikan ,l i a i son age nc y o f the Japanese Go ve r nm e nt with theAzad Hind Government. He jo i rnd Netaj i a t Singaporeand went wi th him up to Saigon . T he others we reSarvashri S Iyer , Gulzara Singh and Abid ha s a nwho vere mem be rs i n Netaj i 's provis ional Governmentbesides Debnath Das and Col. Pri tam J lingh who we re closeconfidants o f Net a j i Th ere we re some d i f f i c u l t i e s i nmalLng anzpol- 'c ar rangemen ts for Notaj i and his partybc nd Sa l T-Cnly ln:ro sea ts wer e f ina l ly offeredt -o hi th J a-15-an eEe bomb er wh ic h ha d come from Ma ni laland wa s going t o Dai ren i n Manchur ia . After somediscussion, Netaj i decided t o avai l himself o f the twosea ts and l e f t Sa igon b y the bo mb er plane a t approximate ly5.00 P. M . o n 17 0 8.1 9 45 , alo ng Ikch his associate Hab i b u rRehman. T he plane arr ived a t Toura in a t 7,45 P.M.',and the party spent the night t .-Fer-r . -- Nnxt day, the bomberl e f t Touraln and arr ived a t .J..anai.2,.L. in i ' 0 1 ' !u o S a a i U U

At Taipei , the p i lo t at tended t o a snag i n on e o f theengines wh ic h h e declared had be e n corrected af t e r ashort while. T he passengers accordingly enpla i nod andthe p i l o t t o o l: off a t 2 3 5 P.M. Within a fe w seconds,on e o f the engines _Lew o u and the p ane crashed ne ar thefr inge ' holp_ ai rf ie ld T he body o f the planebro c; in to two p a r 's and caught f i r e . Tic ta j i ha d sus ta inedbarn in ju r i es o f the th i rd degree i n the ai rc rash . Hewa s rushed, along with other injured persons , t o theMil i ta ry Hospita l wh e re , despi te the ef for t s o f thedoctors t o revive him, h e su cc um be d t o the in juri es the

ph t n The Commis s ion exami n e d , among others,4 witnosses 1A;ho cl):JiTlec1 t o have travel led i n the i l l - fa t e dbo m be r plane with Neta j i o n 18.8 ,1945, including thenavigator o f the plane. The tes timony o f these 4 eye-witnesses wa s cor robora ted b y 1 1 other witnesses be fo re

,the C.._12,mmi io n . nmon bc ;Jae con -was -

Dr-, Yashind l ine -wa s ach ing a s the Ch ie f o f the Br anchp

Hospital a t the Taihoku Army Hospital; who cla imed t ohave been present when Neta j i died and t o have signe dhis e4ea the- ,c r1 fi ca t e ., T he Co mmissi on ha s concluded )that the nu m e r o u s s tor i es about the meet ings o fother persons with Neta j i a t var ious place and t imesaf t e r 1245 are complete ly fa lse and unacceptable .

-19-

4 . The Commis s ion ha s thus ar r ived a t the sameco n c lu s io n that wa- rea ched by the Sha h )Tawaz KhanCommit t ee i n 19 5 6 Yletaji. died i n a n air -c rash

Taihoku o n th e 18tn. ugust , 1945 . The Co mmissi onhas su mmar is ed i t s f in ing s i n Ch a pte r I X o f the report .

5 . In paras 3,19 t o 3.21 i n Ch ap te r I I I , the Co mmissi onhas re fe rr ed t o two fac tor s among the severa l causes-that contr ibuted t o delay i n the complet ion o f inqu iry.One relates t o the de lay i n the ap p o intme n t of aGover nment counsel t o co nd uc t the proceed ings and renderlega l ass i s t ance t o the Commiss n . The connected factsbriefly ar e tha t 7 re q ue s t to r the appo intment o f acoun sel t o assist tne Commission wa s received i nOc to be r , 1970. The app oin tme nt o f Sh r i Gop i MathDikshi t was f i rs t co ns i de re d and fina li sed and then i tt r anspi r ed that h e had app eared be for the Sh ah NawazKhan curni t t ee also , some other names we re thencons idered- bu t could no t be final ised beca use oneco un se l was not will ing to ac c o mp a ny t i e Co mmissi on t oJa pa n and ano th er co u nse l dec l ined t o accept theappoin tment af ter the ap po in tmen t or de r - w as is sued ' .Finally, the Min is t ry of Law suggested the name o fShri T ,R, Bhasin and he was ap p o in te d with effect fr omthe 28th Ma r ch, 1972.

6 , The se c o nd . ' "a c t o r me n t io ne d by the Commi ssi onre lates t o the de -ray i n ar ra ngemen ts fo r i t s v i s i t t oTaiwan, There was some delay i n processing th i smat ter be c a u se i t involved the question o f a n of f i c i a lco m m it t e e visi t ing a coun try wi th which we did not havean y diplomat ic rela tions.

7 . Bes ides the points not ed abo ve, there are no otheraspec t s o f the repor t which e ,:t11 for any c la r i f i c a t i onfr om thk?, Government ' s side . Th e re i s also no aspec t o fthe report calling fo r fo l low up act ion by theGove rnme nt . The find ings o f the Co m m iss io n may b e accepted.

8 . Soon after the Commission su b mi t te d i t s repor t t othe Gover nment , repeat ed demands ha ve be e n made i n thePq . r l ia m e nt by Sh r i Samar Gaha , M.P. 3 and some othersthat th e repor t shou ld be la id o n the table o f theHou se immed ia te ly. Cab ine t 's approval i s sough t forlaying the repor t o n th e table o f the House ( lu t ingth o cur rent se s s ion i t sel f with the fo l lowing reportabo ut the act ion ta ke n by Go ve rn me nt .

"G overnment ha ve exam ined the repor t submit t edby the Commiss ion o f Inquiry appoin ted i nJuly, 1970 t o en q ui re in to a l l the fac ts andcircumstanc es relating t o the disappearance

Netaj i Subha . s Chandra Bose i n 19 45develop me nt s i c° nne c t ed T hedec ided t o accept the findings o f theNeta ji Su b h as Chandra Bose died i n a n18th Au gus t , 19 4 5 a t TAIHOKU a i r f i e ld

and the subsequentGo ve rnmen t haveCor mais s ion tha taircrash o n theI n TAIWAN",

9 . Home Ministe r has seen and appr o ved t h i s note .

LT, No . 31/2 /74-Po1l (1) . . III)New Del h i -1 1O0 01

August 27 , 1 1 4 .

Cabinet Se c r eta i l_ a

(N .K. MUK )HOME SECRETARY

-11-

No. 25/11+1 7 0 -P ol l . I IGLNItti\uyi.i2,NI or' IA., Lt

MLNI0ThiNe w D elh i , the 11 t h July, 1970

iNuTii410.Ad lui

S.0 . 2375.- Wil-EL-th-i'lb the Shah Nawaz Khan Commit teeap p oin te d by the Gover nment of Ind ia i n April, 1950 1 t o inquirein to and t o report t o the Gover nment o f India on the circumstancesconc ern ing the depar tu re of Netaj i Subhas Chandr a Bose fromBa ngkok ab ou t the 16 th Augus t , 191+5 1 his reported death a sa resul t of an airc raft accident , and subsequent developmen tscon nec ted the rewi th , had come to the conc lus ion that Netaj iSubhas Cha nd r a Bose met his dea th i n an air crash;

WtHil--d -" b t he r e i s a widespread feeling amonghst thepubl ic that the pro b lem of find ing the truth abou t Netaj it s,deatta s t i l l remains;

WEIX-11-b- 45 th e re has been a pers is tent demand fo r a furtherinqu iry in to th9 matter ;

A.ND WtiHt b Tr1.6 Centra l Government i s of opinion that i ti s ne c e ssa ry t o appoint a Commis s ion of Inqui ry for the purposeof ma king an in qu iry in to a def inite ra t t e r o f public imp or tan c e ,name ly, the disappearance of Neta j i Sulphas Ch and ra Bos e i n 194 5;

NUN Tritti iii(1-,..67

i n exe rci se of the oowPrs confer red by Sect ion7

3 of the Com missio ns of In q u i ry Act, 1952 (60 o f 1952) , theCentra l Government he r eb y ap p o in t s a Commission o f Inqui rycons is t ing of Shr i G.1). Kho sla I Retired Ch ie f Justice of thePu nj ab High C ou/. t, as so l e me rober

2 . The Commission sha l l inq ui re in to a l the facts andci rc u msta n c e s rela ting t o the di sap p e 'an e o f Neta j i SubhasCha nd r a Bose i n 19 45 and the su b se q u e n t d ve lo p me nts connectedthe rewi th and make i t s report to the Ce n t . a .1 Govern men t.The Commission will be exp e ct e d t o comp le im i t s inquiry andmake i t s repor t by the 31s t Decemb er , 1970.

3 . The Centra l Gover nment i s of opinion that ha ving regard t othe nature of the in q u i ry t o be made and other ci rcumstanceso f the case , al l the pro vi s io n s of sub -sec t ion (2), sub -sec t ion(3), su b - sec t io n (4 ) and sub -sec t ion (5) of Section 5 o f theCo mm issions of In qu iry Act, 1952 (60 o f 19 52 ) shou ld b e madeapplicable to the sa id Commisd on and the Cent ra l Governme nthe re by directs under sub - s ec t ion (1) o f the said sect ion 5that al l the provi s ions afo re sa id shal l apply t o the saidco mmissi on .

T .C . A . 11\1E1 v

Join t Secreta ry

ZXRET

iv-aLinii IT

Points Raised by Shri Samar Gu hai n hi s speach i n t h Lok Sabhaon Augus t 3 , 19 77

1 . Revelat ions i n "Transfer o f Power 191+2-47Vo lum e -VI" published recent ly by the Bri ti shG over nne ht .

Shri Guha has re fe rred t o doc ume nt No. 57 which i s al e t t e r dated Augus t 23,1945 from Shri F . Mudie , the th e nHome Member o f th e Viceroy's Execut ive Counci l t o Sir E .Jenkins , Pr ivate Secre tary t o the Vice roy whi ch examinesvarious opt ions be fore the Gove rnment for dealing wi thSu b h a sh Ch a n d ra Bose. He has also referred t o documentNo. 16 8 wh ic h conta ins the minu te s o f the mee:--, ing o f th eIndia Bur ma Commit tee o f the British Cabine t held onOc tob e r 25, 1945 und e r the cha irmanship o f the Bri t ishPr ime Mini .T te r . Whi le discuss ing the t r ea tment o f Indian andBur me se collabora tors wi th the eneny, i t was genera lly agreedthat the on ly i c i l i an renegade of impor tance was SubhashCh a nd ra Bose. On the basis o f th e se do c ume nts , Shri Guhahas tr ied t o draw th e in ference tha t the Go ve rn me n t of Indiai n those days were inpossess ion o f information indica t ingthat Ne ta ji was not dead . However , Sh r i Guha s infer encei s no t logica l . I n the chaotic condit ions which we reprevail ing immediat e ly after the close o f Wo r ld War - I I , i twas no t possible fo r the then British Governme nt i n India t oacc ep tiWitho ut ver i f i ca t ion the eport s of th e Jepanese NewsAgency t o the ef f ec t that Subhash Chandra Bose had dieda s a resul t o f in ju ri es sustained i n a plane olat crashon Augus t , 18, 19)+5, a t Taihoku. Several invest iga tionswere carr ied out by various Mili tary and para-Ei l i taryOrganisations o f th e Bri t ish Gove rnment and i t wasonly to ward s th e close of 1945 that the Bri t ish Governmentca me t p th e conclusion tha t the r eport regarding thedea th o f Sub ha sh Chan dra Bose o n August 18 , 191+5 wa s correc tand the announcement of his dea th was not part o fa ph n t o cover up Bose 's escape to Russia, Thus, i ndo cu me nt No . 161, which i s a Memorandum datedCA -.10.45 by the Secretary o f Sta te for Ind ia fo rconsiderat ion by th e India Burma Commit tee o f theBri t i sh Cabinet , Lord Pe th ick La wr e nc e has refe rred t oSu b h a sh Ch a nd ra Bos e i n the fo llowing words ; -

"Apar t fr om Subhash Base i f he is_ al ive, few of t h eo n th e l i s t are a t pre let i t-V671- 177n3-1- n- Ind ia . " Thus, whenth e Cabinet Commit tee was being briefed the Gove rnmentwas clear ly awar e of reports regarding Bosets death bu tthe r epo r ts were not taken a s conc lus ive since the ver if i ca t ionby th e Bri t ish authori t i es was not yet comple te . Similar ly i ndo cu me nt No. 154 wh ic h i s a memorandum dated 20. 10.45 by the XSecretary o f State fo r consideration by the Cabinet Co mmittee ,the quest ion po se d i s regard ing action t o b e taken againstSub ha sh Chan dra Bos e "i f he were found a l ive". This ph ra senei ther proves no r disp roves th e Japanese Report o f Bo se ' sDeath on Au gu s t 18, 1945.

2 . Wave11 ' s Journal . _

On 2 4 1 191+5 Lo rd Wa-ce l l made the f -alowingentry i n his journal :-

" I wo nd er i f the Japanese ann oun cement of Su b hashCh a nd ra Bose s death i n a n air -crash i s true, I su ,specti t very much, i t i s jus t wh at wo uld b e gi Ve n out i f h ets%ant t o go underground. My f i r s t reac t ion when i t wast o t e l l .P . S . V. t o ask S.E .A, . C. t o make careful enquireiesin to the story a s F. .-; on a s th e y could . I f i t i s tr ue 1 i t w i l lb e a great r e l i e f . His disposa l wo ul d have presented a mo s td i f f i c u l t prob lem."Again on Se p te mb e r 21 7 ,19 45 Lo r d Wave II made the fo l lowingent ry i n his journal :-

"Accord ing t o the Japs a t Singapore , SEC. Bo se defini te lyi s dead but I shall b e scept ical t i l l ur the r conf irmat ion."

On th e basis of th e abo ve reactions noted by Lord 'Waver ' , i nhis journa l a r t Gulia has t r ied to draw the infe rence tha t th eBri ti sh Go ve rnmen t did not believe i n th e Japahese reporto f the dea th o f Shri Bo se . Jus t i ce Khosla la has gone in to thisaspec t o f the matter i n para 4.1211- o f his re po r t . Justice Kh o sl ahas men tion ed that i n subsequent ent ri es i n his journal, Lor dwavel l t ook Bose's death a s pro ve d and repeated ly referred t ohim a s a de ad 1:3er son.

3. Mountbat t en 's Diary.

Shri Guha has referred i n his sp e e c h t oe er ta in excerptsfr om Yiountba t ten 's Diary which were placed before the Khosla

C D rim iss ion .4._tele_gr am dated 1.7 .19_)±5 fr orn He adqua r t er s 3r i t i sT r sop s i n China t o 6:a[03 i s a s follows -

s ta t es whe n Bo se was prepar ing t o leave Bur ma .wi th his family by plane Chinese inte rcepted Japanesemess age order ing Bos e t o separa te from his family

and rema in i n Bu rr ra . s suppos it ion i s that though Bose'sfamily were .in the plaae that cra shed Bos e wa s no t the re andhe subsequent ly escaped in to Thailand. DMI has no evidenceotha- than the in tercept but i s s t i l l convinced that he i scorrect. (DMI he re appears t o b e the Chinese ikiI )" .

Again, the Weekl- Inte ll igence Revi ew_ for the week end ingNovember ' 2 , a *S--.7a s-ea-t Ir6-n----On nose . Th e R e vi e w comments tha tt h-e sto ry- - (about n Bose s death) ca nn ot b e taken a s f inal unt i lth e photographs said t o ha ve been taken on the spo t and theactual rema ins of Bose ha ve be en exa mined . . Th e ,r e vi e w alsoco mm e nt s that th e story co nveys the general impress ion that i tLs t r ue but the possib i l i ty thot i t i s f i c t i t ious cannot '-b e over looked .fo r 3 rea sons (a ) a l l records a t -Bangkok and :S i g n wer ::, dest royed by the Japs, With the except ion of af i l e containing f. )ar signals 'co nn ected with the incident .( a poss ib le -p lant ) (b ) th e Japanese General Isoda wa s annxious t oiaforo the Indian Community of Bose 's depar ture , poss ib ly i nor der t o 1:.r epare then fo r the news o f his death (c) the factthat one sox ca sta ted that Bose died i n Japan whils t others

e" sa id i n Formos a (but the comment i s made that the Japs nay haveregarded t o anot her repor t in the Mo u n ta ba t t e n pa per whi ch readsa s fo l lows: -

"I t appe ars the whole th ings are suspicious. I t hasbeen sa id that only two seats werb i n

the plane . I t i s natura l tha t any important person l ikeBose sho uld ha ve been al lo we d t o m e i n a :1 specia l plane .The descr ip t ion of the funera l , i s more suspicious .The secre t s igna ls found sa y tha t Bose died tha t verynight a t Tath.oku and th e de a d body was f lo w n t o Tr )kyo.The news tha t was broadcast by the Do u a i ne ws agency sa idBose di e d i n Japan. Agai n Habi bur Rahman says that Bosedied a t Tokyo and hi s bo d y was cre mat e d there . Suchcont radic t ions are susp ic ious . I t car b e said tha t Bo sedefin itely l e f t Saigon . Per ha ps the ai r -crash was coo kedup a t Ta iho . ks . Poss ib ly after tha t Bose escaped so me whe re .

I t i s n o dou bt t rue that a t the t ime wh eno f Subhas h Chandr a Bose was re p o rte d i n Au gu s te lement of sc ep t ism i n Go ve r nm ent a nd mili taryMo u nt b at t e n pa p e rs , ho we ver , do not conta in an -sSu b ha sh Chandr a no t die on August 18 ,cirtcumsntnancess ,,veht t:ion_UJs,y . .i n the Moun tbat ten pa pe rs i s def in it e ly t o theBose died- a t Taihoku on Augus t 18 , 191t5 . There. _i n the Mo un t bat te n pap ers t o Telegram 21 9 o f 21

that

It

the do _a th1 914-5 there wa s anc i r c le s . The

f inding that1945 i n th eal-.7 ; t s ishe findsingeffect tha t

i s a re ferencef r om

I, Maim t o 814-Gb-61, i n which i t i s s t a t ed that we are sa t i s f i ed thatBose has been es t ab l i shed bey ond a l l re-asonab112,

\," doub t and wo uld ha ve preferred not t o reopen enquiry."Th ere i s an o th e r report ' n the Mo un tb at te . p er t s whi chfeTa tr 's t o---t t moverpen s o Chrandra Bsse. Thisreport states tha t the .p lane carrying S.C. Bose cra shed a t

` 1)-1-0.) hrs . on Augus t 18, 1945 a t Taiho ku . Su b hash Chandra Bosewas injured se r iously i n the crash. , He was remo ved t o hospita lIFwhere he died a t 2400 hr s . , on the night of ' ikugus t 18/19, 1945 .Th is report i s ba ded on informati )n furnished by Lt. Ge n . Isodaof the Hikar i Kika n which w as the l ia ison organisat ion be twee nthe Gover nme nt of Jap an and the provisional Go ve r nm e nt ofSulphas Cha nd r a Bsse .

Li-. Telegr am f rom 1,1.c. . i . r thur to Mountbat ten .

shri Guha has referred t o a te le gram sent by Gen. McArth u r to Lord Mou ntbat ten at Singapore i n wh i c h Mc. Arthur hasstated "Bos e has again escaped". From this hr i Gunn has t r ied

..draw the in fe re n c e tha t the crash s tory i s fa l se . Thisma tter has been discss sed i n pare 4.125' sf the Khosla Cotss i ss ionRepor t . Just ice Khosila has . stated tha t eve n i f th is sta tementwas made, i t obviously mea nt tha t the Allied Mil ita ry Aughorit ies.had no t been ab le t o ca p t u r e 3o se al ive and tha t the observat ionsca nn ot be t ake n t o mean that the re ,w as any in fTmation o f Bos e ' sesc ap e t o a Pl ac e of safety.

5'. Reac t ion of Mahatma Gandhi t s the news Of ;13, et s t j ea th

Shri Guha ha s refe rred t o the fo l lowing statersnts -al leged ly made by M. aha tril a Gandh i:-.

(i ) Su bh as Chan dra Bose ban l th r o w n dust i n the eyeso f th e Bri t ish a d a s aped from India ;

( i i ) .e n i f I am shown th e ashes o f Bo se , I wil l notbelieve that Bose i s de a d ;

( i i i ) I believed that Su bh as Bose i s s t i l l alive and i shiding. I ad mire his courage and pat riot ism;

(iv) Wh at e ve r you may t e l l me t o the contrary, I s t i l lbelieve i n my heart of hearts that Netaj i i sa l ive .

Justice Khosla ha s referred t o th e statements allegedly made by 'Ma ha tm a Gan dhi i n pa ra 4.119 an d p ar a of his report . Just iceKh o s la has s tated tha t if Maha tma Gandhi did 3a y thesethings th e y could on ly have been pro mpt ed by his deep respec tfor Bose and a desire t o se e him a l ive . When any one ne arand : l ea r t o us or anyone great i s reported t s ha ve died, we arereluctant t o reconc .i le °Ix . ' se lve s t o the loss and s o we d o notbelieve i n hiss death. Ma ha t ma Gandhi 's express ions amo uht 't o nothing mo re than su c h th inking or a symboli c tr ibute t s Bose.. , . ,

. ..' Moreover , Prof. Guha himself ' s tated before the Kh os la C omm iss ion' that af te r Col . Ha b ib u r Ra hma n met Gandhij i and gave him a n: accoun t of the air -crash Gandhij i said "s f t e r me e tin g'Col . Habibur Rahman, I would ask my co nt ryme n t o bel ieve. wha t Habibur l ' e hman sa id". Therefore , acco rd ing t o 1.-r of .

Guha himself, Gandhij i bel ieved Hab ibur Rehman' s s tory.

6 . T. o f Sh. r i Alfred li laug. a Ca n n a d ia n corre sponderjr .

According t o Shri Guha, Mr. . f i l f r ed . Waug met SardarBaldev bingh, Pandit Neh ru and a l so SubisiL-- s Chandra Bos eand showed a photograph o f Netaj i taken a t Dalat nearSaigon af t e r ugus t 18, 19 4 5 . The fac t s regard ing Mr.Wang 's photograph ha ve be e n dealt wi th by JusticeKhosla i n p era 7.8 of h is repor t . Jus tice Khos la ha scomple te ly disbelieved . the alleged encounter of Mr . Waug wi thNeta j i . This has been done on th e bas is o f the fact that Mr.Waug was commission ed by a pa pe r t o write a story aboutBose , but the story wa s never pub lished and there i snothing t o show tha t Wau g's en c o u n te r with Bose afterth e date of the alleged crash was eve r given pub l ic ty und erWaug 's signature i n any Ame ric an newspaper .

7 . Me ss qge r ece ive d by Gandh isLiZ_Pend it Ns hr u fr o r Bose fromTOnnrhrr lo eu i s t i m ny 0 ' c77 - 7.-- Yr -

Shr i . GUS:12 hss asserted that the Bri t ish Intell igence repor tethat Gandhij i and Lehr u re ce iv s il some kind ..sf secre tco mmu n ic a t io n fr om Netsj i f r OM Ma nch u r ia . Reference has also .been made t o th e tes t imony o f Shri Stayam L'al Jain (wi tnes s No. 2 1

4 befo re the Khssle Commi ss io n) wh -D stated that i n the end of

kDe c e mb e r 1 9 )+5 he wa s s ummoned by Mr. Nehr u and as ked t o mak,ecopies of a l e t t e r which stated that Sulp has Ch an dra Bose arr iveda t Ma n c h u r ia on august 23, 1945, Shri 6`01,. Ja in furthert e s t i f i e d that h e t ook down on dictat ion fr o m Mr. Ne hru a l e t t e rto Mr. Clemen t .At t le e l Pri me Minis ter of England, s ta t ing that

Russ ians had al lo wed Bose to enter Russiaclear betrayal o f fai th by the Russ ians .Shr i Shyam La i Ja in i s a t pages 12 9 9 -1 4 0 0the transA41bf oral t e s t imo n y before th eShr i Ja in 's t e s t i mon y was o Aously not cova lue by Jus t ice Kho s la i n th e ab se n c e o fdo c u men t s .

and tha t th i s vas aThe t'(: i imo n y o fo f Volume No., I V o fKhosla Cornmi. ssli on.

ns i C ered o f probat iveany support ing

8 , Rt-t po r t o f Ros e' s_p:r.-esence i n Russia( .

Sh ri Guha has re fe r r ed t o a l e t t e r writ ten b y the .pres ident of the Nor th-Wes t Frontier Studen t Congress i n whichhe stated tha t Bose was i n TT. shri Guha has als i l t r i ed t ocorre late Sut has Cha nd ra Bose with one Ghilazi Mala ng, Shr i Guhaha s also st a ted tha t the Rus s ian Ambac a.dor i n Kab u l informedthe Gove rnor o f the Afghan Province o n Klaost i n De c e mb e r ,1 9 4 5that Bose 1,'a s i n Moscow. shri Guh!-, ha s also sta ted that theRu ss ia n Vice COL.,iA+. Gener a l i n Tehran disc losed i n Ma r ch 4 6that Bose was i n Russia where he was secre t ly organis i rg a____group of Ru ss ia n s t o NOrk on the same l ines a s tlaer.jaa l

'Minis t ry of I tc torna l Affa ir s during the course o f col lec t ingdo c um e nt s f rom fore ign po we rs fo r the Khosi.;_-, Co .r .m is sion ha dadd r es s ee i ou: illinbassy i n Moscow t o reques t the 1-).-(s5ia .n. 'Government fo r docum ents tha t may be available with the m 'whi ch

( have a be ar in g on the Inqui ry , Ou r Mission sent a negat ivereply about a va27 11.n.';',-,i J. - t, y of d oct une nts i n Ru...si an i n th is regard .They also quo ted a n en t ry made agains t the name o f Notal ii n the Gr ea t Sovie t En cycl op ae di a t o the effec t tha t Netail

t died dur ing an air -crash i n 1945. , I n para .8.8 of h i s reportJust ice Khc41.a has ref erred t o an al leged ar t i c l e which wa s

,Pub l ished i n Pr a vd a i n th e So vie t Union and af t e r a lu l l . ' ..i d i scussion he has di sc o un t e d th e con t4nt ions o f Prof. Guha1 ab o u t Bose be in g in Russia.

Z;Govern-me nt t oreport thee s a 4 fa c t s

theashe s o f

9 . 0r t 9 P,Lth i tEta ci t o P

Shri Guha has s t a t ed that certain port ions o f iyo' t srepor t t o Pandit Nehru were suppr esso d When the report wa splaced i n Par li amen t , Th e po r t on allegedly suppre s sed re ferst o disclosures by Col. Tada regarding a secret Japanese plea t osend Bose t o Russ ia , Co l . Tad,:, and Isoda ar e su p p o se d t o havebe en th e architec ts o f th is '3, C:**'2t plan, T he evidence o f

Tada has been e labo ra t e ly discussed by Just ice Kha si a i nparagraphs 4.70 t o 4,73 o f his report , I t would appear tha twhen Iyer was in formed ab o u t Ess e ' s dea th on Au gu st 20 ,1 94 5b y Col. T a da , he was di s inc l ined t o believe Ta d a l s storybec au se Tada was not ver y coUrTunicatIvO0 At the same t Ime,Iyer did not re jec t T ada ' s story. Ho we ver , ul t imate ly Iyerac ce p te d th e crash sto ry b e c a u se a t Tokyo he rece ived Netaj i ' sashes a t th e Imp e r ia l eapanes e Headquar ters and helped t ocarry them t o the Renkoj i Temple a ri(1 also treated the ashes withthe re ve re nc e due t o his leader. I t was again Iyer who wasasked t o draf t th e annou ncement o f Bose 's death which was t o b ebro a dc a s t on Augus t 23 11945 7 and h e did so. I n 1951 when Iyerwent t o j apan t o enquire in to the properties belonging t o INAI n India and abr o ad , he was aske d b y th e ZSu bh as Chandra Bos eand au then t i c information re ga rd in g th e go ld and jewol ie rycar r ied by him on his las t k,lown plam f l igh t . I n his repor t ,Shri Iye r discu sse d the story o f the fa t a l air -crash i nconsiderable detai l and we nt on t o say i n conclus ion I wo u ldrepea t that I ha ve no t the faintest do u b t i n my mind that theashes that a re en sh rine d i n th e Ren ko j i T emple i n T okyo

ar e o f Netaj i ` s ".

10. Nehr u ' s be l i efs abou t Bose 's Joath .

Shri Gu ha has raferred t o a l e t t e r wri tten i n 1962 by Pan -U tNe hr u t o Shri Surosh Ch a n d ra Bo se , elder brother of 1,Te t a j i i n wh. hPandit Neh ru s t a t ed :-

"You have aske d me t o se nd yo u proo f of Neta j i Subhas Chandr aBose 's death. I cannot se nd yo u any prec ise and direct proof".

Shri Guha has aga in referred t o a reply by Pandit Neh ru t o a l e t t e ro f Bose i n wh ic h he said : -

"'agree wi t h you that so me th in g should be done t o finalisethe quest ion o f Neta ji ' s death".

On th e bas is o f the ab o ve s ta tements Pro fesso r Guhahas t r ied t o come t o the conclus ion that Pandit Nehru himself wa s nota t a l l convince :1 that .Netaj i was dead . Just ice Khosla has discussed thi. -a s ect of the mat te r ver y extensively i n pares 4.116, )-!.117 and 4.118of hi s repor t . Jus tice Khosla has come t o the conclus ion tha t i f

Mr . Nehr u l s rep l i es are read i n fu l l , th e in tel p retat ion soughtt o b e placed up o n them i s a gro ss t r aves ty of wha t he said .

Mr. Nehru had th roughou t taken the stand that he bel ieved i n Bose 'sdeath . Just ice Kh o s l a has fur ther s ta ted that Mr . Nehr u ' s deals ' mt o appoint the Sh ah Nawaz Co mmit te e t o inquire in to Bose 's deathcannot be in t er p r e te d. a s ar. is in g from a do u b t entertained by himregard ing the t ru th of the crash s tory. 6 uch a dec i s ion /of t enme a ns n o mor e than that the Government i n power has no thing t o concealThe Government 's good fa i th and i t s truly democra t i c nature areproved a l l the more convincin ,gly by what may prove t o be aredundant inqu iry.

11. FLilure of the Go vern me n t t o procu re docurents called-fo r by t!7i e KE os l a C unmiss lo .

A4 Shri Guha ha s s tated that although a l i s t of 3 8 docurents was$ submit ted t o the Governmnt of India, on ly 5 documents we r e

produced , and the GOT ernm nt sta ted that the r . . . . -ma ining documentski we re ei ther l o s t or destroyed. Reference h a s a l so be e n made t o _rf i l e 12 / 2 2 6 / 5 6 / PM fr o m the PM's office wh ic h wa s repor ted ly dest roy

b y burning. I n th is context , pares 8,4 and 8.5 of th e,Kho sla Commiss ion Report may b e referred t o Just ice Kh os la o hascategorica lly stated that thsre i s no evidence of any at te nn ot byth e Government t o withhold evidence or place imp ed imen ts in the w ay oftbs . Commiss io n . I n do c ume nt s ca lle -1 for have loca n supplied . Just ice

1Khosla has further s t -.- ted tha t a s and wh e n he r . ceive:.1 in formationregard ing f i l e s and do c ume nt s wh i c h co ul d t hro w l igh t on th e subjectmat te r of th e inquiry, he sent a requis i t ion t o the Go ver nment .The requi s i t ion was invariably.complied wi th and a l l f i l e s anddocuments asked fo r were made available, except one file which wassa id t o have been destroyed i n the ord inary course of routineaccord ing t o wh ic h old and unw a nt e d f i l e s a r e destroyed . Theposi t ion wi th regard t o th is par t icular fi le was specifical lyexplained by the fo rmer PM S a t . Ind i ra. G a ndhi i n a l e t t e r wri t tent p Professor Guha on Janua ry 1 , 197 )+-

12. Via i t t o T a iwan. . ..?.--- ,.Shri Gulaa has rsferred t o the v i s i t o f the Kho sla Commission t i l

Ta iwa n and stated that i t was on ly a s a resu l t of Shri Guha 's personal, ba t t l e fo r s ix mo nt hs that Mrs. Gandhi agreed t o the *visi t . He hasfur ther s tated that the Khos la Commiss ion was inst ructed by theGo ve rnmen t o f India no t t o have any kind of Communi cat ion ei ther withth e Government of Tai wan or wi th any non -of f ic ia l organisat ion . t . hr iGuha. ' s conclusion i s that th is re s t r i c t ion impos ed on th e Khos la , Comm-iss ion rE n: le re l i t s v i s i t t o T a iwa n in fr uc t io us . The cir cumstances ..,

,a --

und er whic h the vis i t t o T a iwan was arrange-ri---ar r i - e- t-i n which tile Commiss ion was t o func t ion i n Ta iw an hasexp la in e d by Just ice Khasi a i n pe ra 3,21 and -,3) . r as

8.41 to 8. 47 of his report . Justice Knos -1,7, has statetha t i n al l i t s inquiry outs ide India involving contac tswith . fore ign Government agencies 7, the Commiss ion hasfu n c t io n e d wi th th o assi - tance o f Indian Miss ionslocated abr o ad . Taking in to co ns 4de ra t to r i " th e factthat we have no Mission in Tai wan 2 s t e la assistancewas no t poss ible when the commission vis i ted Taiwan.I n view o f this and i n view o f the fact that we ha veno dip lo ma t ic . re la t ions with Taiwan, i t wa s suggestedtha t the Gor missiOn may make ind ep c n dPnt inquirieswithout enlis t ing th e fo rmal coopera t ion o f any of f i c i a lo r no n -o ff i c ia l body in Ta iwan , and make i t s owlar r angement s on ,a private basis . T he Commi ssionde c id e d t o acco p t th is sugges t ion . Just ice Khoslahas ca tegorica lly s a t tha t he wa s no t cons t ra inedby any di .ce c tive o r inhib it ion . Just ico Kho sla hasalso conc117ded that any cr i t i S r i b y Shri C,ialla o r anyoneelse re ga rd in g the Commiss ion. s ma nner o f functioningi n T a iwan i s iho1Iy unfou nd e3 an d 'a p p ea r s t o have beenmo t iva Le d by the irt:Lot tha t despite h e vi s i t t o T a iwa n. ,no co gen t ald re liable evidence : ab o u the subjec tmat te r of the inquiry co u ld be di scove rer ' t ae re .

13. ,/.11,Qm(1 rirti ltzy 17 Mayor o f Tai_peb :7,n 1?4,-(3curos orwerl,k3 tw e ( : ,1 n F

Shr i Guha has st i:sted that Pandit Nehru ha d writ tena l e t t e r t o Chian g-Kai -Shek i n 1946 request ing hi mt o co nd uc t an in d er y 2 and that a n inquiry wa s conductedby the Mayor o f Taipei who came t o th e conclusion thatthere was no pr oo f o f any plane crash . Just ice Khos lahas re fe r r ed t o th is asp e c t o f the.matter i n para 8.9o f his report . He has s t a t ed that the Mayor o f Taipe iwho ar r ived i n Taipei some t ime aft er Au gu s t 18,1945and who i s sa id t o ha ve made some sort o f inquiry in tothe matter was dead when the Cot-mission vis1te :3 Ta iwa n .Jus t ice rasol - a 1 'a r ther sta ted that ;:'1ayor t sreport . i f avai lab leq would ha ve be en I n a i i s s i b l ein evi (lence l fo r i t t uir1 be nothing more than theopinion o f on

14 . Viin(9.1,ir rFict t ion' a t T., iho ku r a o 7 1 " ,

Sh r i G.-dila has re fe r red to a sta tement by theMa tere o lo gic o l Off icer a t the T a lhoku Ai rpo r t t o t l eeffect tha t du ring th is t ime, i n the month o f Augus t ,the wind blows from Nor th t o south. Sinc e the a i rs t r ip i s f rom Nor th t o so ut h and s ince a Plane al waystakes off ata ins t the wind curren t , the p.1 6Lne woul(9have gone fr om So u t h t o No r t h , I f - there had beenany acc ide nt a t a l l , the accident co -cici ha ve beena t the Nor th end o f th e .a i r s t r i p . But each andeve ry witne ss sa id tha t the air -crash took placea t the Sou th end o f the airpor t near the JapaneseTemp le . I ha ve not found an y di sc :1= to n i n the Khos laCommis s ion Re p or t regarding the wind direct ion a tTai ho ku i n Aug,ust 9 However , i t wou ld hardly .be

logica l t o disbelieve the en t i re crash s tory o n thebasis o f a genera l sta tement regarding thc direct icno f the wind al, a part icular t ine i n a par t tualar mon th .Fven when a n ea ster i7 y wind i s expec ted , i t i s notimpossible for a wester ly wind t o bl o w, Similar ly,when a north wind i s expec ted, i t i s not impossib le fora southernly wind t o blow, Persons who wer e presenti n the plane wh i c h crashed have t e s t i f i ed befo re theKhos la Cor . 2 : i i s s ton about the crash and i t would behighly l i l oe l c a l t o disbelieve the en t i re tes t imony o fa l l these witnesses merely o n the basis o f a genera lsta tement ab ou t the di rect ion i n wh i c h the wind generallyblows arou nd a part icular t ime i n a part icular month o fthe yea r a t a part i cu la r place.

15 . Tcr, 4, , , olporz:_ tha t cra sh occ i i r :cd i n 1944 .

Shri Cuba has referred t o the tes t imony o f a s tuden twho sa id tha t the crash t o ok place a t that exac t placei n 19 44 and not i n I 4 5 S h i Guha ha: himselfadmit ted that Just ice Kh os la did not aceept thetes timony and oiszissed i t a s a figmen t o f theEve n i f we agree that a crash t o o k place i n 1944, i tcannot lead t o an inf trence that another efash didnot take place i n 1945 . I n para 6.32 of h is reportJust ice Kh o s la has refer red t o similar evidence whichwa s sought t o b e add uc ed by 'D r . S,N. Sinha , Dr . SA nh a t sevidence has be en discussed a t grea t length by JusticeKh o s la who came t o t ha conclusion that i, r. Sin:na hasat tempted t o prac t i se fr aud up o n the Commission .Jus t i ce Klacs: a, :as further sta ted that i) r . sinha hasacquired th e t rave l l e rs proverb ial propens ity and

adiness t o t e l l l i e s .

16 . F ppr - y TP xf,orrit.1 ne d Service s____D!,2 2 ": elLce en t

Shri Guha has referred i n his sp e ec h t o the te s t imonyo f Shr i B.C . Chakrabor ty o f the CSDTC. T he CSDIC was aglobal organisa tion o f which Col. Ste ve n 3o n was theloca l co m m a nd e r , shri EX. Chakraborty was a member o fthe Indian Police Force and was de p u te d t o the WarDspar tment o f the Government o f India dur ing WorldWar I I and wa s at t ached t o the CS D IC . An inqui ry wasconducted b y a te am o f offi cers o f the csrac in to thecircumstances under which Netail i s sup posed t o havedied, Shri B C Chakraborty, who ap p e are d a s a witnessbefo re the Kh o s ia Co mmi ss i o n , wa s the pe r son who car r iedout a major part o f the inquiry and prepared thet i n a l repor t . Shri Chakrabor tv sta ted i n his tes t imonybefore the Co mmissi on tha t CS,DiC report came t o theconclusion that the tes timony o f Col. Ha b ib u r Rahman wasunt rue and cons t i tu t ad an at tempt t o provide acamouflage for h e securi ty and protec t ion o f Netaj i .Fr om paPas 5 4 5 t o 5 05 8 o f the Kh os la Commiss ion Repor ti t would appear that while Shri Chakrabo r ty wa st e s t i fyi n g be fo re the Khosla Commission , the CSDIC repor t

400%4

was not be fo r e the Khos la C OM Miss ion and th i s ledSh r i Chakr abo r t y t o make absolu te ly -A.: s e of a t ement swi t hou t fear o f co n t rad ic t l o n . Bu t the. 0 SDL3

\report was su b eq ue n ul y made available t o the Commi ssionand di sp ro ve d i n every ma te r i a l par t icula rly th e ora lres t imony which Shri Chakr abo r t y ga ve before theCo mm ission . Jus t ice IC:h sla has co n c l u d e d thatShri Chakrabo rty's s t a t e m e nt ap pe ar s t o have beenmade i n the hope that th e f i l e wou ld no t be fo r thcoming.

17 , Pazsencrer l i s t o f the D7.,L-ap99.

Sh r i Guha has sta ted tha t Just ice Kh o sl a hasrelied on th e evid en ce of 4 witnesses who cla ime d t oha ve t r avel led in- the same plane a s Ne t a i . Ho we ve r,since there i s no doc um enta ry e ,-Ide nce t o prove thatthese witne sses ac tua l ly trave lled i n the plane wi thNe taj :." their tes t imony i s no t re l i ab le . This aspecto f th e ma tter has been specif ically dealt with b y Just iceKho sla in paras 4.40 & 4.8 5 t o 4.89 o f the repor t .Justice Khos la has ment ioned that the papers i n the planemust ha ve pe r i sh e d i n the f i re , because the frontpor t ion o f the pla n e where they wou ld normally be carr iedwas comp lete ly dest royed . Jus tice Khosla has fur thersta ted tha t any fl ight paper s a t the a rmy headquar te r si n Dat ar o r Saigon must have be e n los t o r des t royedbe au s e th e y were no t re q u ire d by any authori ty. The rei s also no evid e nc e that there was a t any t ime, i n ezistenceany fl ight pa p ers re la t ing t o the f l ight of the Bomberwhich l e f t Sa igo n with Ice ta i l and Habibur Rahman o nAugust 1 7 1 194 5. i t i s on ly conjecture that su c h papersmu s t have been prepared .

18. Contradic t_La a_in _the tes t jzony oLdi ffe_z_edat,_wi - nes . oes ,

Shr i Guha has stated tha t the te s t imony o f a l l thewi tnesse s i s full o f discrepancies and contradic t ions.He has ci ted ceveral ins tances. He has re fe r - le d t o thetype of p lane, the place from whic h the plane ca me ,th e arr ival a t To u rain e , the place where Notai i stayeda t Tou raino . the actual cau se o f the crash, e t c .Just ice Kho s la was ful ly aware o f certain discrepanciesi n the tes t imonies o f dif ferent witnesses a s wil l ap p e a rfrom par 4.50 ( l i l ) . The matter was argu e d st renuouslybefore the Khosla Commission. Just ice Khosla has discussedthese ar gum e nt s in paras 4.60 t o 4065 and come t o theconclusion that the dis re p a n c ie s t o which his at tent ionha d been drawn do not fa lsify the story o f the crash .The se discrepancies ar e due t o the passage o f t ime andth e memory of wi tnesses becoming somewhat Vagueregard ing matt ers of detai l .

T3 1-

19. Test imony o f Shr i Jagdish Kod ecl .a.

Shr i GUlla has -11ege l that Shri Jagdish Kodesia ,who was a t one t ime Pfes ident o f the Delhi Congre ss ,t e s t i f i e d before the Kho sla Co mmi ss i o n - t h a t i n 1961when h e went t o Dala t, a place 74ear Saigon, the Bishopo f Dala t to ld him that o n the day of the reported pla n ecrash and also o n the da y o n which the dea th was annou nced,Neta ji was wi th the 2,i shop o f Dalat. I do not thinkany not ice need be taken o f the tes t imony o fShri Kodesia . Chap te r 1 I o f the report o f the KhoslaCommission , running in to no fe we r than 4 3 paragraphs ,

s cus se s i n el a bo r a , t e de ta i l the t e s t j one o f manywitnesses ( th e i r num ber i s legion) who cla ime d t o ha vemet o r ta lked t o Base a t va r iou5. . t imes and placesaf t e r Augus t 1 8 , 1945 . J -ust ioe Kho sla has not fo u n dany substance i n any one o f these s t o r i e s .

2 O. iq to the plane cra ,-h ts17 the Jr,p anP,

S h Guha has referred t o the fact that Cenra lI s amaye 5 Chie f o f the Japanese Fo rm o sa n army told theSh ah Nr,,,w-a z . 'o mmi t te e tha t he had asked Ge ne ra l Ande,h is second i n command to ho ld a n inqui ry into the planecrash , Even then no inquiry wa s mac e . From th i s ,Sh: .1 Guha has drawn the inference that there was noplane crash. In pa -v,-, s 4.86 (P.r 1 9 0 o f his report Just iceKhosla has sta ted tha t the absence o f a n inquiry by theJapanese ca n no t lead t o the inference that the crashs tory I s fa se , I n the chaot ic condit ions prevail inga t tha t time, when the Japanese wer e hui -ryIng t o ge tout o f Yor mosa when th e Ame r ic an fo rces we r e exp-ctedt o arrive a t any moment and oc cu py the i s land, no inquirycould have be e n he ld o r even contemplated .

2 l . 1.-3y J . apan ese no

Shri Guha has referred t o a n inqu :: . r y co nd uc te dsome years a l t e r the crash b y a Japanese non-of f 7cialagen o .y, Shri Guha has stated that a co py o f the reportwas published i n "Bea c on ' c ros s Asia" . I t was sta tedi n the repor t tha t a nu mb er o f leading aeronauticalexperts fr o m Japan iNith fu l l , kno wle d go and expe rie nceo f flying and maintenance o f combat planes con duc teda n inqui ry and did not bel ieve the crash s tory.I have not be en able t o locate the publicationreferred t o b y Shri Guha no r do I fin d- an y mentiono f i t i n the Kh o sla Co r ma is sio n Ro. :por t . Ho we ve r, i nvie w o f the observa t ions o f Justice Khosla regardingthe al r l ege d Inquiry repor t , o f the Mayor o f Taipei ,even i f the repor t i n Beacon Cross .Plsia I s made -avai lable , i t wil l not be cons ide red t o he anythingbut an opinion and ca n n o t have an y probat ive value.

,

22 , So le- t :!Yo dclath o f -porsons i n t i l e - )1_-ne.

Shri Guha has sca t ed that i t i s str .-.Ingo that the -r.ewas a se lect ive survival and .so le c t iN 'e dea th and a l lth o se per so ns who had to die had died and a l l thosewho h ad t o survive survi ve . This has again beendiscu sse d by J i / s t ice Khos la i n para - ) and i npa ra 4 )83 o f his repor t , He has sta ted that the factsdo not si ,. .ppor t the su b r i i s s i o n that al i passe ngc-rr sdest ined fo r Ma chu r t a died and the only survivorswere persons who r c not t o go t o Ma n ch u ria .

23, of ho n ou rs t o 2.

ShH Guha has re fe r red to the fact that nomil i ta ry honours were ac co rd ed t o Hose a t his f u m r a l .He was he ld i n high es t eem by the Ja p a ne se and i t i sinconcetvable that the Ja pa ne se would have allowedhis dead body t o be cr a ma t ed without the usual mili tary .ho no urs , rE,''ora th is Shr i Guha has tr ied t o draw thein fe rence tha t Bose did, not d i e a t a l l , This hasagain been disc usse d by ; :us t ice Khosla i n para o fhis repor t . He has the p0 -w ar and postsur render cond i t ions preva i l ing i n t e r r i t o r y occupiedb y the Amer ica ns and co mp le te demora l isa t ion o f theJapanese war mac h i n e . Afte r Au gu st 15 , the emph as iswas no t a t al l on the obse rva t ion of protocol andproprie ties bu t on pr omptnes s i n car rying out wh a teve rtasks could be pe r fo r me d be fo re the al l ied forcesClamped down a total ban o n a l l Ja pa n ese movements .

24 , C:c-3. r9n.tion o f Net , a l l and doa -1:LaCkei c J o

Shri Guha has re fe r red t o the cremat ion permitand a death cert ificate i n respect o f one Oka raT he argume nt i s that th is cremation permi t and deathcer ti f ica te are al l e ge d t o be i n respect o f Ketaj i ,' bu t s in ce the details i n the permi t an ce rt if fi c a t edo no t co rrespo nd t o Not ..;,11.1 Net aj i co u l d not po s e t b lyhave dicd. just ice Kho sla has referr e .4 t o th i saspect o f th e matter in paras t o 4.29 o f hisreport and ha s come t o the conc lus ion tha t those twodocuments ha ve no evident ia ry va lue a t a l l and ne i t he r ? 'o f them pr oves o r di sproves anything, T he argume ntaivanc.s.ed by Shri Guha i s i n the nature o f afor wha t does no t re late t o a n event ca nn ot b e used : t odisp ro ve j t , I t i s t an t amou nt t o ra i s ing a ph an t o mand th e n des troying i t ,

25) phc,, t o !?,Ta01-,s s body and the te s t imo h Y

Shri Guha has referr ed t o the photographs whichwere takc.?n a t the t i me of the crash and afte rwards ,He has tr ied t o make much o f the fact that there i s no

photograph sho wing the face of Netaj i . Th is aspect o fthe matter has again been discussed i n para 4.84 o fJust ice Kh o s la ' s r e ori ; . He has -L1-.f.iadoc: that somepho tographs wo re probab ly taken and thc. ,- e we re prod u ce db y Col. Rahman bu t since Col. Rahman has not be en examin eda s a_ wit ness and the re i s no evidence t o prove the

.1 er ru1 ne n e4 s o f the pho tographs, he wo uld not re ly o n them.He trea ted the pho tographs a s document hich had not beenproved . This does no t mean that he declared thedo cument s t o be fa lse an d , therefore , contradic toryo f the s to ry o f the crash. Since i t was not known whotook the t o whom they we re han ded overand through which agency they received publ ic i ty theycould not b e used i n evidence . I n an y event , there wasno poin t i n taking a pho t o gr an ' ' . o f Bo s0 s face becausehe had susza:T d such ex tenJ Ire burns that his fa c ewas unrecognisable t ho ugh i n th e fo r m o f his bo d yre s emblance re mai neC t o make i d e n t 1 f i ca t ion poss i ale,

26.

Finally Shri Guha has referred t o th e watc h wh i c hNeta j i was wear ing a t the crash . Shri Guha has al legedtha t the wa tc h which was pro d u c e d befo re the Commissioni s rec tangular i n shape wh e re a s Netall never wor e arec tangular watch . Shr i Guha has also refer red t o th efact tha t the wa tc h showed the t ime a s 2-35, Th isagain has been discussed b y Just ice Khosla i n paras

t o pare 4,106 o f his repor t . The fac t which emerge2Fes that th e we, t eh was handed over b y Col. :Rahman t o

Fandit who i n turn handed i t over t o Shri AmiaBo se . s Ami a Bo se who was quest dnCd a t ,gr e a thlength b y the Com! ss ion was inclined t o believe thes t o r y at t r . ibuted c Ha b ib u r Rahman and Co accept t 'nefact that the wa t ch . did i n fact be lo n g t o Su b hasBose. The father o f S -,, ra t Ch an dra, Bose also did no tdoubt the s tory, Regard ing the t iming shown o n thewatch , justice Khos , la ha s sta ted that h e personallytested 0,nd found the hands o f the watch cou ld b e easi lymanipuaated . Consequent ly , the t iming show n o n thewatch cannot load t o an y in ference about the t imewhe n the crash took place , ,

4i

ir tr ima

REPORT

OF THE

ONE-MAN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

INTO

THE DISAPPEARANCE

OF

NETAJI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE

NEW DELHI

June 30, 1974

riar#4410

REPORT

OF THE

ONE-MAN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

INTO

THE DISAPPEARANCE

OF

8 M of HA/74 -1

NETAJI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE

NEW DELHI

June 30, 1974

TABLE OP CO

CliAPTEIt PAoss

I. Notification 1-2

2. Introductory

3, Evidence a;:d Proof $

4. Air Crash Story 16--49

5. Examination of Certain Hyr,othost; 01-64

6. Evidence of Certain Witnesses 41 - 4 5

7. Some Theories and Hypotiatses ,&-11t

8. Some Miscellaiims Matte I12--12.1

9. Findings I23-11.5

Appendice, to TV 126---134

ONE

NOTIFICATION

1.1 The order of the Government of India ap-pointing this Commission is contained in the Notifica-tion cited below :

No. 25/14170 -Poll. II

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 11th July, 1970

NOTIFICATION

S.O. the Shah Nawaz KhanCommittee appointed by the Government ofTridia in

[April, 1956, to inquire into and to report to the Gov-- India on the circumstances concerning

the departure of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose fromBangkok about the 16th August, 1945, his reported

1 death as a result of an aircraft accident, and subse-quent developments connected therewith, had come

t to, the conclusion that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bosemet his death in an air crash ;

AND WHEREAS there is a widespread feelingamongst the public that the problem of finding thetruth about Netaji's death still remains:

AND WHEREAS there has been a persistentdemand for a further inquiry into the matter;

AND WHEREAS the Central Government is ofopinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commissionof Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry intoa definite matter of public importance, namely, thedisappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in1945 ;

, NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powersc3nferred by Section 3 of the Commissions of InquiryAct, 1957 (60 of 1952), the Central Governmenthereby appoints a Commission of Inquiry consistingof Skr_i G. Retired Chief Justice of the

( ..un jab Court, as sole member.

2. The Commission shall inquire into all the facts0 circumstances relating to the disappearance of

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1945 and the subse-quent developments connected therewith and make itsreport to the Central Government. The Commission

will be expected to complete its inquiry and makeits report by the 31st December, 1970.

3. The Central Government is of opinion that,having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be madeand other cirmumstances of the case, all the provi-sions of sub -section (2), sub -section (3 ), sub -sec-tion (4) and sub -section (5) of Section 5 of the Com-missions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952) shouldbe made applicable to the said Commission and theCentral Government hereby directs under sub -sec-tion (1) of the said section 5 that all the provisionsaforesaid shall apply to the said Commission.

T. C. A. SRINIVASAVARDAN,Joint Secretary.

To the above Notification may be added the follow-ing note prepared in the Ministry of Home Affairs,briefly stating the circumstances which led to the ap-pointment of the present Commission :

"In April, 1956, in response to the public de-mand, Government of India appointed aninquiry Committee to ascertain the circum-stances concerning Netaji's departure fromBangkok on August 15, 1945 and his allegeddeath in an air crash. The Committee con-sisted of the following:

(1) Shri Shah Nawaz Khan, M. P.. ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister of Railway andTransport;

(2) Shri Suresh Chandra Bose, elder brother ofNetaji Subhas Chandra Bose; and

(3) Shri S. N. Maitra, ICS, formerly Chief Com-missioner, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,

The Committee examined a number of witnessesin Delhi, Calcutta, Bangkok, Saigon, Touraneand Tokyo. They also examined books andarticles about Netaji Subhas Chandra Boseand studied relevant classified records per-taining to the matter.

2. After fully considering he evidence availabletwo of the members (S/S Shah NawazKhan and S. N. Maitra) came to the con-clusion that while taking off from Taihoku

2

(Formosa) in the afternoon of 18th August,1945, the Japanese military plane carryingNetaji and his companion (one Col. HabiburRehaman) developed some trouble and burstinto flames. Suffering from severe burns,Netaji was carried into the Taihoku Hospital,where, after some hours, he passed away.The third member of the Committee, ShriSuresh Chandra Bose, submitted a dissentientreport, stating that there had been no planecrash involving Netaji's death. The majo-rity report was accepted by the Government.

3. Since then there have been repeated demandsfor undertaking another inquiry into thematter. Rumours about Netaji's survivaland whereabouts etc have cropped up re-

peatedly. Several Members of Parliamentalso strongly pressed the demand for a freshinquiry. The matter was considered byGovernment and it has been decided toappoint one-man Committion of Inquiry,consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court orthe High Court, to make a further inquiryinto the circumstances relating to the allegeddeath of Netaji Subhas Chanrda Bose."

1.2 The inquiry could not be completed within theperiod specified in the original Notification, and theterm of the Commission was extended from time totime. On the completion of the inquiry, this reportis being submitted for the information and considera- 41,Lion of the Government.

4

TWO

INTRODUCTORY

2.1 The story of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's lifetoo well known to need a detailed and lengthyrepetition in a report which must be confined to thesubject Tatter of the inquiry as set out in the Notifica-tion cited in the previous chapter. The facts may bestudied in a number of books and pamphlets, some ofwhich are named in Appendix IV to this report. How-ever, for the better understanding of the argumentupon which are based the findings and the final con-clusions of this Commission, it is necessary to statesome of the more significant events of Bose's life.

2.2 Subhas Chandra Bose was born of Bengaliparents at Cuttack, in Orissa, on January 23, 1897.He was sent to the Baptist Missionary School at anearly age; and at the age of 16, he entered thePresidency College, Calcutta, to read Philosophy.Three years later, he was expelled for takingpart in an assault on an English Lecturer whohad been,/rude to a student, but he was later re-admitted to the University, and was allowed tocontinue his studies. In 1919, he was awardedthe B. A. degree with First Class Honours in

I Philosophy. He then proceeded to Cambridge tostudy at the University, and to sit for the IndianCivil Service competitive examination. This he did inthe autumn of 1920, and was placed fourth in orderof merit among the successful candidates. He, how-ever, decided to resign from the Indian Civil Serviceand to devote himself to political work in India. He,accordingly, returned to India in July 1921, and firstof all, went to pay his respects to Mahatma Gandhi.Bose did not agree with Gandhiji's creed of non-vio-lence. He considered the peaceful means advocatedby Gandhiji totally ineffective for obtaining freedomfrom British bondage. He began working with C. R.Das on the Forward which was a nationalist news-paper. Towards the end of 1921, he attendedGandhiji's secret conference on the non -cooperationmovement, and took a prominent part in the agita-

;ion against the Prince of Wales, who was then visit-cn g India. He assumed the leadership of the Congress

volunteers in this agitation The civil disobediencemovement began on 1-12-1921, and within a few days,

.,Bose was arrested for taking part in it. He was

3

sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. C. R. Das wasalso sentenced at the same time, and Das and Bosewere confined in the same jail. It was after his release,in September 1922, that Bose made his first politicalspeech, but his public activity was not confined to mak-ing speeches, and he undertook relief work in theflooded region of Northern Bengal.

2.3 In April, 1924, Bose was elected Chief Execu-tive Officer, Calcutta, when C. R. Das was electedMayor. In this post, he acquired a great deal of ex-perience in administrative and executive matters. Buthe felt somewhat deprived of contact with the public,and complained of being tied up in office files. Albeit,his post of Chief Executive Officer was not unimport-ant. It had not only a high status, but carried thehandsome salary of Rs. 4,000 a month together withmany perquisites, such as a free residential house anda motor -car. Bose, however, was not content to workin office; his public declarations brought him underthe mischief of the Emergency Ordinance and inOctober, 1924, he was apprehended and detainedwithout trial. Three months later, he was removed toFort Mandalay in Burma. While in detention there, hemeditated, read and grew mentally to maturity. OnMay 16, 1927, Bose was conditionally released fromdetention, on grounds of ill health. The condition im-posed was that he should go to Switzerland for treat-ment without setting foot in India. Bose refused tocomply with this condition, but the order of releasewas not withdrawn. In November, 1927, Bose waselected Chairman of the Bengal Provincial CongressCommittee, and a little later, he was elected GeneralSecretary of Congress along with Jawaharlal Nehru.In the following summer (1928), Bose became amember of the All Parties Committee which advocat-ed dominion status for India. Neither Bose nor Nehruwas, however, `satisfied with this somewhat luke-warnand moderate demand, and they formed the IndianIndependence League, aimed at working for thecomplete independence of India. At the Congress as-sembly, Bose commanded the parade of Congressvolunteers, and made a great impression upon every-one by the disciplined character of the volunteers andhis complete dominion over them.

4

2.4 In 1930, the full-scale civil disobedience move-ment, launched by Mahatma Gandhi, began. Withina short time, Bose was arrested and sentenced to oneyear's imprisonment. In Prison, as in his detention onthe previous occasion, he read, wrote, meditated andprayed. In the course of a scuffle between prisonersand warders, he received injuries. Thereupon, hebegan a hunger strike. The authorities released him onSeptember 25, 1930, and Bose found himself Mayor ofCalcutta because the old Mayor had not been able totake the oath of office within the requisite period ofsix months. In the year following, Bose was electedChairman of the All India Trade Union Congress. Hewas arrested for disobeying government orders whenhe visited a disturbed area in Bengal, and was im-prisoned for 7 days. On January 26 of the same year,he was re -arrested for leading a demonstration onwhat had been named India's Independence Day. Hewas released in March, but in January 1932 he wasre -arrested, along with a number of other Congress-men. A few weeks later, he was released on groundsof ill -health. He was suffering badly, and went toVienna where he spent a little more than a fortnightin a sanatorium. In Vienna, Bose met VithalbhaiPatel who was also an invalid and had gone there formedical treatment. Bose and Patel conversed and dis-cussed the political situation in India, and they issueda statement. Bose was opposed to Gandhiji's peacefulpolicies, and is alleged to have said : "Gandhi is anold, useless piece of furniture. He has done good ser-vice in his time, but is an obstacle now." Before hisdeath in October 1933, Patel made Bose the trustee ofhis ideas and of a considerable sum of money intendedfor propagation, abroad, of knowledge about India.In the following year, Bose made an extensive tour ofEuropean countries, visiting Germany, Rome, Prague,Warsaw, Istanbul, Belgrade and Bucharest. He spon-sored the formation of a Students' Association tohelp Indians in Europe. Bose continued to make poli-tical contacts, and met Dr. Benes several times. Hemet the Irish leader, De Valera, Romain Rolland,Hitler, Ribbentrop and others. He published hisbook The Indian Struggle, but the book was bannedin India by the British Government.

2.5 At the end of 1934, Bose flew home to see hisfather who was dying, but arr ived too late to see himalive. The following year, he returned to Europe inaccordance with the terms of his release which did notpermit his stay in India except for special reasons andupon specific permission having been accorded. He,however, tired of remaining in exile, and inMarch 1936 he declared that, despite the orders ofthe Government, he was returning to India. He landedat Bombay on April 8, 1936 and was immediately

arrested and interned in his brother's house near Dar-jeeling. He was released nearly a year later on ,March 17, 1937. He agreed to accept nominationas Congress President in 1938. He paid anothervisit to Europe in 1937 and met Attlee, Earnest Bevinand Stafford Cripps. He had now established himselfas a person of national significance, and in Europe,he was sometimes ranked with Gandhi and Nehru.

2.6 In 1938, the 51st Session of the Congress washeld at .Haripur. Bose had been elected President,anu 1this was his political coronation. In a car , drawn by51 bullocks and fervently acclaimed by the public, hepassed through 51 gates of honour which led to thepanda! where the session was to be held. In the follow- -11C.ing year, Bose sought re-election as Congress President " 4

and stood against Gandhiji's nominee. His conflictwith Gandhiji was now openly declared. Bose wonby a small margin, but Gandhiji's feeling about Bose'sconduct made it impossible for him to continue in office.Gandhiji had openly declared his displeasure and hisunhappiness, saying that Bose's election was for him(Gandhiji) a personal defeat. He even hinted at re-tirement. Bose corresponded with Gandhiji, but thetwo could not come to any terms. Bose's colleaguesin the Congress Committee, made it impossible for himto work, and feeling that he had been unjustly dealtwith, he resigned. He founded the ForwardBloc, with the aim of consolidating all left-winggroups, so that thus united, they could effectivelyoppose the tendencies in the Congress towards toomuch constitutionalism, on the one hand, and dictator-ship, on the other. His complaint was that though ihe had been elected President of the National Congres.i.1" ia second time by a democratic process, tho'Se who dis-agreed with him had intrigued against him. So nowhe condemned the Congress as a pernicious dictator-ship not dissimilar to Hitler's regime in Germany. InJuly 1939, to protest against a particular Congressmove, he called for country -wide demonstration. Butso open a challenge could not be tolerated, and he wispromptly suspended from Congress office for threeyears. The next Congress Session took place at Ram-garh in March, 1940. There also was held the Anti-compromise Conference which called for an imMediateall India struggle for independence. Bose attendedthis Conference. and lent his weight to its delibera-tions. On July 2, 1940, he was arrested for organis-ing a popular demonstration in Calcutta, and sen-tenced to a term of imprisonment.

i .2.7 The war in the West had by now increased in

intensity and scope, and was going against the Allies.Bose wanted to be free and to do something whichshould strike a blow against the British rule in India.He had recourse to a subterfuge by going on hunger

!

strike and saying that he would starve himself to death.His political status and his immense popularity with thepeople were factors which the British Government couldnot disregard, and it was feared that his death, or aserious impairment of his health might have dire con-sequences. So, the Government released him on De-cember 5, 1940, and allowed him to go home; but hewas told that he would be under house arrest. Boserecuperated from his indisposition quietly, and thenwent" into retreat, declining to s e e or receive anyoneexcept a few intimate friends. These friends noticedthat Bose had grown a beard. On the evening ofJanuary 16, 1941, a car drew up near Bose's house,and Bose, disguised as a Muslim religious teacher,named Maulvi Ziauddin, slipped out. Accompaniedby his nephew, Sisir Kumar, he drove some miles toa village, and thence moving by night, he reachedGomoh, 210 miles from Calcutta. At this place, hetook the train for Peshawar, leaving his nephew behind.At Peshawar, he was met by one Bhagat Ram, andtwo days later, both men, disguised as Pathans, leftfor Kabul. After four days' travel through periloustribal country, they reached Kabul, and took shelter ina lorry -drivers' inn. At Kabul, Bose tried to contactthe Russian Embassy, but failed to gain access to it.He then sent Bhagat Ram to the Italian Legation. Thisproved more rewarding, and Bose was welcomed andpromised a passport which would enable him to travelout of Afghanistan. But weeks were to pass while theformalities were being completed, and as the prolongedstay of the two men in the lorry -drivers' inn was caus-ing suspicion among the inmates, they went to staywith Uttam Chand Malhotra. Finally, on March 18,1941, Bose left for the Russian frontier with an ItalianPassport in the name of Orlando Massotta, accompa-nied by couriers specially sent from Europe to fetchhim.

2.8 Travelling in this manner, Bose reached Ger-many and was there received by ribbentrop. He pro-posed to do anti-British propaganda from a secret ra-dio in Germany, and asked for an Axis declaration onIndian independence. The Italians made an evasivereply and the Germans told him that such a declarationwas premature. Feeling piqued and disappointed,Bose refused to broadcast, but he made approaches tothe Indian prisoners of war to get their reaction to hisproposal for organising an army to fight the Allies.His efforts, however, were not successful though manyof the prisoners paid him the respect and homage dueto a distinguished Indian leader. This was little morethan lip -service, but, at least conveyed a measure ofsympathy and agreement with Bose's aims. The Ger-man Government placed an office and funds at hisdisposal. Bose engaged 25 Indian assistants and setup the office of the Indian Independence League. His81\lof HA -74-2

5

presence gradually became known in Berlin, and theIndian acclaimed him at the parties he attended. Itwas at this time that he came to be knowns asNetaji, and the greeting Jai Hind was used for thefirst time.

2.9 The war in the East was now well advanced,and the Japanese proposed a tripartite declaration onIndia. They invited Bose to visit Japan, where hecould rally Indian and Asian support for the Japaneseeffort. But, once again, Italy and Germany repelledthe suggestion; Germany again saying that the idea wasnot acceptable as the time for such a political manoeu-vre was not ripe. Bose was disappointed and felt thathe had nothing further to expect from Germany andItaly. His hopes now rested on Japan and the effortin the Far East. He thought that with Japanese colla-boration, he would be able to rally the support ofthree million Indians residing in South -East Asia. Hewrote a strong message to the Bangkok Conference,which was read there. At the same time he began tomake plans to go to Japan. Finally on February 8,1943, he and Abid Hussain left Kiel in a German U-boat. The boat swept out to the Atlantic, and passinground the Cape of Good Hope, arrived south of Mada-gascar. There, at a pre -arranged place, Bose and AbidHussain were met by a Japanese submarine, to whichthey were transferred in a rubber dinghy. The sub-marine took them to Sabang on the North tip of Suma-tra, and from there, the two men were flown to Tokyoalong who was then Head of theJapanese -Indian liaison group, So, on June 13, 1943,Bose and party arrived in Tokyo.

2.10 After the fall of Singapore, the Indian prisonersof war were placed by the Japanese under the chargeof Capt. Mohan Singh and the Indian National Armywas organised. Mohan Singh, however, soon realisedthat the Japanese had no wish to treat him as an equalally and give him liberty of action in conducting theaffairs of the I.N.A. or of the Indian in South -EastAsia. He felt that the Japanese wanted to use theI.N.A. only as a Fifth Column and for purposes ofespionage. There were other differences, and MohanSingh, who had assumed the rank of a General of theI.N.A. felt extremely dissatisfied and unhappy. Hethreatened to disband the I.N.A. Rash Behari Bosewho was in general charge of the civilian independencemovement in South -East Asia wanted to prove to theJapanese the importance of the movement which thecivilian Indians in Asia had started. He did not seeeye to eye with Genl. Mohan Singh. A break betweenMohan Singh and the Japanese seemed inevitable andMohan Singh finally told the Japanese that if theytried to replace the British in India, India would fightthem.

6

2.11 Regarding Malaya he stated that the way theJapanese were crushing the Malayans and completelyJapanising them had aroused his suspicion about theirsincerity and good faith. Mohan Singh ordered allI.N.A. troops to collect their arms, disband and revertback to the Indian prisoners of war status. The I.N.A.thus stood dissolved. On this Mohan Singh was dis-missed by the Japanese military authorities, and placedunder arrest. It was at this juncture that Bose arrivedin Tokyo.

2.12 In Tokyo, Bose was received by the JapanesePremier, Tajo, who said in the Diet: "Japan is firmlyresolved to extend all means in order to help to expeland eliminate from India the Anglo-Saxon influenceswhich are the enemy of the Indian people, and enableIndia to achieve full independence in the true senseof the term." A few days later , Bose held a pressconference and made two radio broadcasts, calling uponIndians to gather under his banner. He then went toSingapore, accepted the Presidentship of the IndianIndependence League and called for the allegiance ofthe Indian National Army, which had been reorganisedby the efforts of Rash Behari Bose. On July 9, 1943,in pouring rain, Bose addressed a meeting of 60,000people, and said: "There is no nationalist leader inIndia who can claim to possess the many-sided expe-rience that I have been able to acquire." He thenbegan his campaign, and toured extensively, visitingRangoon, Bangkok, Saigon, meeting and exhortingIndians and working long hours late into the night.In August, he assumed personal command of theI.N.A., and a few days later, announced this fact.

2.13 Field Marshal Count Terauchi was in overallcharge of the Japanese forces in South -East Asia, andhe was not in agreement with Bose's plan to wage waragainst the British. He was of the view that the warin South -East Asia was purely a Japanese affair, whileBose, on the other hand, argued that Indians mustmake the maximum contribution of blood in their fightfor freedom. After some insistence, Terauchi finallyagreed to employ one regiment of the I.N.A. as atrial measure. Bose spoke to the I.N.A. about theirshortcomings. He pointed out that desertion and pil-fering among them were rife. There was some dis-loyal talk, and Bose said that the chicken-hearted couldleave the army, and he would not dissuade them fromtheir design. He picked a group of men and formedthe 1st Division, which was called Subhas' Regiment.This was placed under Capt. Shah Nawaz Khan andthe men were subjected to hard training. A few otherregiments were also formed, and a regiment of nursesand women soldiers, called the Rani of Jhansi Regi-ment, also came into existence. On October 21, 1943,

Bose inagurated the Provisional Government of FreeIndia and appointed a Council of Ministers to adviseand assist him. He styled himself the Head of theState, Prime Minister and Minister for War and For-eign Affairs. Bose took a solemn oath to serve hiscountry and continue the sacred war of freedom tillthe last breath of his life. The next day, the Provi-sional Government declared war on British and Ame-rica. A number of countries quickly accorded recog-nition to the Provisional Government. Bose, consi-dering himself the Head of an independent govern-ment, even though the government was a provisionalone and f i inet inn ina in exile, felt that as an ally andfriend of the Japanese, he should have a more signi-'fi r -ant vn i r e in the ntanninr, and execution of the wareffort in the East. Terauchi, however, was not agree-able to Bose's demand, and Bose, therefore, spoke toTojo and complained of Terauchi's attitude. He askedTajo to agree that as the Japanese marched into India,the occupied regions would be placed under his(Bose's) control. Four days later , on November 5.Bose addressed a conference in the Diet building. Hisspeech was an immediate success, and Tojo announcedthat Japan would hand over the Andaman & NicobarIslands to the Provisional Government of Free India.The Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Sugiyama, agreed thatin the 1944 offensive, the I.N.A. would rank as anAllied army under Japanese operational command andnot as something subordinate to the Japanese militaryforces. On November 18, Bose left Tokyo and tra-velled to Singapore, passing through Nanking, Shan-ghai, Manila and Saigon. He addressed meetings andwas taken round academies, cadet colleges, war fac-tories, etc. From Shanghai, he broadcast an appearto Chiang Kai Sheik. The tour was a personal successfor Bose and when he met Terauchi, the latter agreedthat Bose's headquarters would be able to take partin the planning and the execution of the war effortthere.

2.14 In December 1943, the second I.N.A. Divi-sion was formed, but all was not going well with the"N.A. In November, there had been a serious mu-tiny in Singapore. The desertion rate was increasing,and funds were not easily available though Bose hadcalled upon the Indian business community in Burmaand the other South -East Asian countries to contributeliberally for the fight against the British. Mohan Singh.who had some influence with the army personnel, waso\not amenable to Bose's suggestions, and Bose felt tha t 4there would be unanticipated difficulties to surmount.Even the concession relating to the Andaman Islandswas not implemented in the manner he had hoped. , .Bose installed Loganadhan as Chief Commissioner,but the Japanese Admiral told him that for cogent

strategic reasons, there could be no complete hand-over during the war. He added that if the Commis-sioner (Loganadhan) was prepared to cooperate,some department of civil administration could betransferred to his control. This was scarcely whatBose had wished or hoped for. He realised that he hadnot been accorded the equal status of an ally.

2.15 Burma, at this time, was under Japaneseoccupation, and the Allies were expected to launcha campaign for its recovery. So, early in 1944, theJapanese decided to open a second front in Burmain order to forestall the British army's advance fromz.4

it India towards the East. Japan's intention was topush forward into India and eliminate the entire Bri-

-4 tish influence on the Eastern front. The I.N.A. wasasked to help and take part in this venture. Bosestoutly resisted the suggestion that small groups of1.N.A. personnel should be attached to the advancingJapanese units. He insisted that the I.N.A. shouldform the advance gnard, and "the first drop of bloodto be shed on 'Indian soil should be that of a memberof the 1.N.A." This was, however, the proposal ofia visionary, of a_ zealous but impractical patriot. Hehad only 3,000 trained soldiers ready, and the strengthof the Japanese forces in Burma was 230,000. TheJapanese, who were anxious to secure a decisive vic-tory by deploying their most competent men, did notrelish the prospect of a small band of I.N.A. men,drawn from the inglorious rout of a defeated army,

-1 leading the first thrust in a critical manoeuvre. How-ever Bose, basing his hopes on an anti-British revoltin India, obtained the approval of the Japanese autho-rities to permit one I.N.A. regiment to take part inthe Imphal campaign, which was aimed at pushingthe British Forces to the West of Imphal. Rut, helacked the provisions, supplies and medicines necessary);for conducting the campaign. The Japanese gavettlittle assistance. The I.N.A. men fought gallantly,and they made a rapid but brief advance. They shedtheir blood on Indian soil, but the campaign was afailure, and Bose realised that his first attempt toliberate India had not succeeded. He also realisedthat despite the outward respect and honour with whichthe Japanese treated him, he was looked upon as apuppet, a tool which could be discarded and ignored,when deemed no longer useful. Shah Nawaz Khan,who commanded the first brigade of hand-picked men

1, A- and took part in the Imphal campaign, complainedbitterly about the unhelpful attitude and the almostcallous indifference of the Japanese. They providedthe I.N.A. with inferior transport, insufficient ammuni-tion little or no equipment for communication, poormedical supplies and surgical instruments. There wasshortage of boots and clothing and of foodstuffs. How-ever sympathetic the authorities at Tokyo might be,

7

Bose received no cooperation or friendship from theJapanese in the actual field of war. In September1944, he ordered the retreat of his army from the ba-ttle front. He thought then that this would be only acase of reculer pour inieux muter. But his subsequentcampaign also ended in failure. The Allied forcespushed back the Japanese army, and the 1.N.A. wascompelled to retreat. Even then, Bose did not giveup hope and thought that "he could re -organise hisdisintegrated forces and resume the fight to uphold thehonour of India." Alas, in April 1945, the Japanesedecided to leave Burma and Bose had to abandon hislast hope.

2.16 We may pass over the events of the succeed-ing months as they have no relevance to this narrative.On August 11, 1945, when Bose was at Saramban, hereceived information that Russia had declared war onJapan. The next day he received another messageintimating Japan's decision to surrender to the Alliedforces. He went to Singapore on August 13, and dis-cussed his future plans with his civil and military offi-cers for three days. On the morning of August 16,he flew to Bangkok and had further consultation withJapanese representatives, Gen. Isoda, Hachia, theJapanese Minister accredited to the Provisional Gov-ernment of Free India, and Kagawa. On the morningof August 17, Bose, accompanied by 6 members of hisstaff and some Japanese officers, travelled to Saigonin two bomber planes, provided by the Japanese.Planes had to be changed here and Bose wished hisentire party to accompany him on his journey beyondSaigon, and when the Army officers at the airport ex-pressed their inability to accede to this request he in-sisted that the matter be referred to Field Marshal Ter-auchi. The party waited while messengers were sentto obtain instructions from Terauchi, who was at Dalatabout a hundred miles away. Eventually, most ofBose's party had to stay behind, as the sole availableJapanese bomber which was carrying Japanese armyofficers beyond Saigon, could accommodate only Boseand one other person. Bose selected Habibur Rehmanto accompany him on what has been describedas his last journey. The plane landed atTaipei in Formosa for refuelling on August 18. Whathappened subsequently is a matter of dispute, and itwas at this stage that Bose can be said to have dis-appeared.

2.17 News of Bose's death in an air crash or inconsequence of injuries received in an air -crash onAugust 18, 1945 was broadcast on the radio fromTokyo by the Domai Agency a few days later, andwas then published in several newspapers. The newswas read by Indians with sorrow and a sense of deepbereavement. The post-war turmoil in the country

with the political and economic problems that camewith it, was agitating the Indian mind, and Bose'sreported death was looked upon as just one moretragic event in an era which had left vast areas inEurope and Asia devastated, homes, institutions andfactories razed to the ground, 6 million Jews extermi-nated, Hiroshima and Nagasaki all but annihilated,Hiker's aggressive militarism and Japan's pride innever having suffered defeat brought low.

2.18 In India, there was feverish activity to achieveindependence as quickly as possible. Then, therecame the British Government's decision to try theINA officers on the charge of treason. During wartime there had been a diligent censorship of news andat that time, the Indian people knew hardly anythingabout the INA and of what part Bose had played onthe Eastern front of the war. But when they heard ofthe proposal to t ry by a court martial, persons whohad fought the Allied forces to liberate India, a waveof intense nationalist feeling and indignation wentsurging through the country. The facts of the trialand what happened afterwards are a matter of knownand undisputed history and scarcely germane to thepresent inquiry. What is relevant to the subjectmatter of the present investigation is that after therelease of the three accused persons, Shah NawazKhan. Sehgal and Dhillon, the men and officers of theINA were acclaimed as patriots and national heroes.Subhas Chandra Bose was elevated to the status ofa unique incomparable leader, the greatest patriot andfreedom -fighter and, above all, a martyr.

2.19 It was not, however, long before doubts beganto be expressed about the truth of the crash story andabout Bose's death on August 18, 1945. Manyapocryphal accounts of his escape and his subsequentactivities were narrated. As early as 1946, SardarPatel, Home Member, was asked if any ban had beenplaced on the movements of Netaji Subhas ChandraBose. In 1952, there was a question in Parliamentasking if the Government of India intended to makean investigation into the truth of the report aboutBose's death. The demand for an inquiry into thewhole matter thecame more vociferous, and in thisdemand Shah Nawaz Khan, who had been a trustedlieutenant of Bose, and the members of the Bosefamily joined. At a public meeting held in Calcutta,the need for such inquiry was vehemently protested.In April, 1956, the Government of India appointed acommittee consisting of Maj. Gen. (INA) Shah NawazKhan as Chairman, and Shri Suresh Chandra Bose,elder brother of Netaji, and Shri S. N. Maitra, ICS,as members, "to inquire into and to report to theGovernment of India the circumstances concerning the

departure of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose from Bangkok'about the 16th August, 1945, his alleged death as aresult of an aircraft accident and subsequent develop - 1ments connected therewith."

2.20 This Committee examined in all 67 witnessesin India and at places in East Asia, and submitted amajority report to the Government., on July 16,_1956 Shia Suresh Chandra Bose did not subscribeto the conclusions arrived at by his colleagues, andwrote a dissenting report which he submitted to theGovernment on October 9, 11956. 'This dissenting re-port was placed on the table of the Rajya Sabha onlDecember 12, 1956. It was also published by theauthor in the form of a book which has been placedbefore the Commission.

2.21 The findings of the two members who signedthe majority report were that the plane in whichBose, Habibur Rehman and a number of Japanesemilitary officers travelled from Saigon to Taihokucrashed within a few moments of its taking off fromthe Taihoku airfield for its intended flight to Dairenin Manchuria, on the afternoon of August 18, 1945.As the plane hit the ground, it caught fire. Bose sus-tained serious burn injuries, to which he succumbedin a hospital in Taihoku the same night. His bodywas cremated and the ashes were flown to Tokyo earlyin September and deposited in the Rankoji Temple.Shri Suresh. Chandra Bose disagreed with these find-ings and expressed the opinion that the evidence onwhich they were based was not trustworthy and wa s 'tname to De rejected.

, 2.22 The Government of India accepted the maj-ority report and gave expression to its conviction thatBose had been proved to have died in Taipei inFormosa or Taiwan on the night of August 18, 1945.But the controversy regarding Bose's disappearance,or more accurately non-appearance, was not resolved.

rDissatisfaction about the procedure adopted by the. Committee and the correctness of its findings was fre-i quently expressed in public. Even the bona fides of

Shri Shah Nawaz Khan and Shri Maitra were ques-tioned. It was said, inter alia that neither of the twomembers who had signed the majority report had anyjudicial experience or possessed the ability to conducta probe of such complexity and importance. Ttu.Committee was criticised for not paying a visit td.4

( ' Taiwan to inspect the site of the alleged crash., Rumours of Bose having been seen alive once again' became rife. Some of them found their way into news-

papers and magazine articles. The first one to gain\, a greater than usual currency was that Swami Sharda-I nand of the Shaulmari Ashram near Sylhet was no

1.4

9

other than Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, who for verygood reasons, had chosen to conceal his identity andremain incognito till such moment, as in the fullnessof time, his purpose dictated a public manifestation.

2.23 The Chief propagator and publicist of thisstory was Uttam Chand Malhotra, who had givenshelter to Bose in his home in Kabul in 1941, whenthe later was making arrangements to escape to Ger-many. Malhotra advertised an account of his visitto the Shaulmari Ashram in July, 1962. The account

. was published in Navbharat Times and the Daily Milap.14; Questions were asked in Parliament, letters were add-

ressed to the Shaulmari Baba, as Swami Shardanand4 came to be called. There were other reports of Bose

having been seen in other places in other guises. Dr.Satyanarain Sinha, who at one time, was a Memberof Parliament, paid a visit to Taiwan in 1964 and,on his return, wrote or inspired an article publishedin the Annuli Bazar Patrika, in which he stated hisreasons for coming to the conclusion that Bose's planehad not crashed on the Taipei airfield as declared byS/Shri Shah Nawaz Khan and Maitra. He also pub-lished a book, Netaji Mystery, in September 1966.Members of the All India Forward Block politicalgroup took up the matter with the authorities. Apetition signed by more than, 350 Members ofParliament was presented to, the President of India,in which a demand for a properly conducted judicialinquiry into the matter was made. A similar demandwas placed before the Prime Minister. Finally, onDecember 5, 1969, eighteen Members of Parliamentmet the Minister for Home Affairs and pressed uponhim the urgent need for appointing an inquiry commis-

sion. The Minister promised to place the matter be-fore the Cabinet. Shortly after this, the Cabinet tooka decision to appoint a commission under the Com-missions of Inquiry Act. In pursuance of this deci-sion, the present Commission was appointed by meansof a notification dated July 11, 1970. (See ChapterOne).

2.24 It will have been observed that Netaji SubhasChandra Bose has, in these pages, been referred tosimply as Bose. This has been done not in the inter-ests of brevity or convenience, not to conform to theforensic practice of dispensing with titles and honori-fic prefixes when speaking of persons whose namesfigure in judicial proceedings, but because Netaji oc-'cupies such an eminent and incomparable position inIndia's history that he needs no honorifics to emphasiseor enhance his intrinsic greatness. Just as titles andtrappings of dignity have, in the course of time, beendissociated from the names of Ceasar, Ashoka, Akbar,Nehru and Gandhi, it is enough to SaY- 'Bose', andyet remain completely respectful and conscious of hispolitical greatness and splendour. Nehru in his writ-ings, refers to Mahatma Gandhi as Gandhi. Mostwriters speak of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as Nehru.These names conjure up a whole complex of ideas,associations and historical events in which the personsso named played their respective roles. The additionof a prefix or a suffix does not add to their importanceor augment their glory. So, without meaning anydisrespect or irreverence, the writer of this reportwill, throughout, refer to Netaji Subhas Chandra Boseas Bose unless there is a possibility of ambiguity ormisunderstanding.

THREE

EVIDENCE AND PROOF

3.1 Shortly after the appointment of the Commis-sion was notified, the Secretary to the Commission issu-ed a notice, which was published in all the lead-ing newspapers of India, inviting all persons, acquaint-ed with the subject matter of the inquiry, to furnishto the Commission statements relating to facts andcircumstances having a bearing on the disappearanceof Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and the subsequentdevelopments connected therewith. The advertise-ment announced that statements supported by affi-davits would be received by the Commission, and wit-nesses should indicate their willingness to appear andtestify in person.

3.2 Even before the publication of this notice inthe newspapers, letters began to be received at theoffice of the Commission, and individuals came tointerview me. They offered to give assistance in theform of oral evidence, books, newspaper -cuttings andother publications which had come to their knowledge.I was informed that a National Committee to assistthe work of the Commission had been formed, andthat this committee would call witnesses, examine themand give such other assistance as might be necessary.It was decided to hold the inquiry in public and notin camera. The first public sitting of the Commissionwas fixed for October 16, 1970. On that date, theexamination of witnesses began. Thereafter, therewere sittings at Delhi and several other places inIndia at which a large number of witnesses testified.The Commission also paid a visit to Japan and somecountries in South -East Asia where further evidencewas recorded. I had pointed out to the Governmentthe advisability of paying a visit to Taipei, in Taiwanin order to inspect the site of the alleged aircrash. Ihad also made a request that the Government shouldmake arrangements for this visit. The Governmentat first, expressed its inability to accede to my request,on the ground that the Government of India had nodiplomatic relations with the Government of Taiwan,and therefore, no official visit could be arrangedthrough official channels. Later, however, on the in-

10

sistence of Shri Samar Guha and other persons, theGovernment agreed to permit the Commission to pro-ceed to Taiwan for the inspection of the spot and forexamining such witnesses as might be available andwhose evidence would be relevant to the subjectmatter of the inquiry.

3.3 After the conclusion of the evidence, counseladdressed their arguments to the Commission.

3.4 In all, 224 witnesses were examined by theCommission and a large number of documents, letters,newspaper reports, books and memoranda were re-ceived and read. A complete list of the witnessesexamined along with the dates on which and theplaces at which they were examined will be foundin Appendix 1, at the end of this Report.

3.5 At the very first public hearing of the Commis-sion, the question of representation by Counsel hadto be considered. As mentioned above, a NationalCommittee for assisting the Commission had beenformed. But this was not the only interest whichdemanded to be heard. A Comthittee known asNetaji Swagat Committee, represented by Shri Uttam ,) , - ' 4Chand Malhotra, also wanted to represent its case. 1.44Other committees and even some witnesses, e.g. ShriShah Nawaz Khan, claimed the right to have a counselto represent them and to press their case before theCommission. A request was made by Shri AmiyaNath Bose, who appeared on behalf of the NationalCommittee, that a senior and a junior Counsel re-presenting the interests of his Committee be appointedby the Government at public expense. Shri AmiyaNath Bose, however, claimed that the Counsel so ap-pointed should be a man of his or the National Com-mittee's choice. Shri Balraj Trikha, Advocate statedthat he had been engaged to act as junior to ShriAmiya Nth Bose, but later the same day, he statedthat he was appearing on behalf of the Netaji SwagatCommittee. At a subsequent stage in the proceed- A.ings, the family of Subhas Chandra Bose wished to be 4represented by counsel at the hearings of the Commis-sion. This request was granted during the life timeof Shri Suresh Chandra Bose. as it was felt that Shri

11

Bose was deeply interested in the proceedings asNetaji's sole surviving brother and also because, asa member of the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee, hehad dissented from the majority view. After thedeath of Shri Suresh Chandra Bose, a writ petition wasfiled in the Calcutta High Court praying for a direc-tion to the Commission that counsel for Shri Bose'sfamily should be allowed to appear in the proceedingsbefore the Commission. This demand was not op-posed by Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Com-mission before the Calcutta High Court, and a direc-tion to this effect was accordingly issued by the High

sCourt. A number of other prayers made in the writpetition need not be mentioned here as they have norelevance to the matter of representation through

4 Counsel.

3.6 I made it quite clear, at the very outset, thatthis was not a case between two or more opposingparties, each claiming to prove its specific case or esta-blish an individual right in contradiction to the others.The Commission had been appointed with a view todiscover and establish the truth regarding Netaji'sdisappearance, and not to pronounce judgementin favour of one of the contending parties,to the detriment of others. I also made it clearthat the Government had no case to press beforethe Commission; and although the report ofthe Shah Nawaz Khan Committee had been origi-nally accepted by the Government, the matter havingnow been reopened, the Government did not wishto plead that the findings contained in that report werecorrect, far less binding upon this Commission. 1,therefore, repelled the suggestion that Governmentshould be asked to appoint a Government lawyer torepresent the Government's case before the Commis-sion, as contemplated by Rule 5(c) of the CentralCommission of Inquiry (Procedure) Rules, 1960. Atthe same time. I was anxious that there should be ex-pert legal assistance available for the Commission'swork throughout the proceedings, as it is not possiblefor the person conducting an inquiry of this nature toact as the investigating officer who discovers the evi-dence, the solicitor who shifts the material so discover-ed, the lawyer who adduces the oral and documentaryevidence, and finally, as the Judge who appraises it andpronounces judgement upon it. I, therefore, made arequest to the Government, at the very outset, to ap-point a Counsel for the Commission who should bean entirely impartial person. He would search for theevidence and would act both as solicitor and lawyerin as much as it would be his duty to screen the evi-dence and then adduce it before the Commission. Un-fortunately, this request was not acceded to at an earlystage of the inquiry and it was not till May 29, 1972

that Mr. T. R. Bhasin, wno was appointed Counselfor the Commission, was able to appear and conductthe examination of witnesses, and the submission ofdocuments.

3.7 That being the state of the matter I deemedit advisable at the very beginning to permit the Natio-nal Committee to appear before me throug.h counselof their own choice. I also permitted Shri Balrai Trikhato appear on behalf of the Netaji Swagat Committee,and finally, a counsel also appeared for Shri Bose'sfamily, though since the interests of the National Com-mittee and of the Bose family were not in conflict, thesame counsel viz: Shri A. P. Chakraborty and ShriN. Dutt Majumdar appeared and represented both in-terests. Finally, Mr. T. R. Bhasin, acting as the Coun-sel for Commission, selected the evidence and pro-duced it before the Commission.

3.8 I may mention here that at the very first hearingat which Mr. Bhasin appeared, I ruled that althoughhe, as Counsel for the Commission, would be shiftingthe evidence and examining it, any person aggrievedby his selection could appeal to me and I v% ould final-ly decide whether a certain witness or a certain pieceof documentary or other evidence should or should notbe produced at the hearing. All parties accepted thisorder as just and proper, and I am glad to say thatMr. Bhasin discharged his duties so fairly and compe-tently that there were no complaints of any kind byanyone regarding his selection and production of evi-dence, though his discussion of the evidence and theinferences he sought to draw and to place before theCommission in the course of his arguments were as-sailed as pro -Government and as a piece of specialpleading to support the majority report of the Com-mittee presided over by Shri Shah Nawaz Khan. This,let me say at once, was a wholly unjust charge. Anyone surveying the evidence adduced in a proceedingmust inevitably present, what seems to him, the casemade out by the evidence and interpret the availablematerial accordingly. Not to offer any evaluation ofthe evidence or not to draw conclusions from it wouldbe to fail in a duty which rests squarely on the shoul-ders of every advocate or counsel. I have no hesitationin saying that Mr. Bhasin's summing up was fair andimpartial, consistently with his duty to assist me inarriving at correct findings.

3.9 Thus, while Shri A. P. Chakraborty, Advocatewas present almost throughout the proceedings, remain-ing absent only toward the last stages when an unfor-tunate cardiac ailment confined him to bed, Shri Trikha,Shri Majumdar and Shri Amiya Nath Bose offeredtheir assistance on behalf of one party or another at

12

several public sittings of the Commission, Shri T. R.Bhasin with his junior Shri Wad appeared from May29, 1972 onwards. A complete statement of appea-rances by all counsel will be found in Appendix 11.

3.10 The very name Netaji was enough to arousethe emotions of many persons, and the appointment ofthis Commission had evoked a great deal of very activeand enthusiastic interest in a large number of persons.Requests were made by many persons for permissionto appear before the Commission to give evidence orto produce documents in their possession. Therdemandswere sometimes very vociferous. Even when the evi-dence of a witness appeared to me irrelevant or inad-missible, the witness urgently demanded a hearing. Up-on three occasions in Calcutta, I was subjected to agherao because the witnesses demanded a hearing. Iwas asked to accept the evidence of a large numberof books and newspaper reports. Counsel appearingon behalf of various interests repeatedly urged a libe-ral construction of the rules of evidence, and arguedthat in an inquiry of this nature nothing that had anyrelevance to its subject matter should be excluded. Inthe circumstances, it became somewhat difficult to acttoo strictly within the compass of the Indian EvidenceAct, and fairly early in the proceedings, 1 had todecide to admit evidence somewhat liberally, reservingfor. a later date my decision as to whether I would actupon such evidence. I explained the position to coun-sel appearing before me and to witnesses who wantedto be heard. I did this because in the absence of aCounsel acting on behalf of the Commission and assis-ting the inquiry impartially and objectively, my taskassumed the form of a roving inquiry in the course ofwhich a piece of inadmissible evidence might well leadto the discovery of some other piece of evidence whichwould be both relevant and admissible I accordingly,ruled that although my ultimate findings would bebased strictly in accordance with the provisions of theIndian Evidence Act upon relevant and admissibleevidence,, I would not hesitate to admit evidencewhich appeared relevant and which might lead to thediscovery or the proof of facts having a bearing uponthe subject matter of my inquiry. I was obliged to dothis for another reason, namely the desire to satisfy thepublic with regard to the fairness and the comprehen-siveness of my inquiry. It has been clear from thevery beginning that in this case, more than in anyother, it is necessary not only to do justice but to ap-pear to do justice. The demand of the public had arisenas much from a desire to know the truth as fromemotional and political motives. The emotionsengendered by the personality of Netaji and the rolehe had played throughout his career, clouded the

reason of his protagonists, and many persons whohad not even seen his face or personally known any-thing about him insisted on giving evidence. The ex-treme case, perhaps, was that of two individuals claim-ing to be skilled in the science of palmistry and astro-logy, who travelled all the way from Madras to Delhiin order to assert the certainty of Netaji's survival asrevealed to them by a study of the lines on his hand.These lines, by the by, were not seen by them in theflesh but on a print said to be of Netaji's hand. I hadto decline the request of these two witnesses to testifybefore me.

3.11 In coming to the conclusions, which will beset out in a subsequent Chapter of this report, I havestrictly followed the rules of Evidence.

3.12 In the peculiar circumstances of the case Ihave deemed it necessary to discuss all the evidenceproduced before me in order to indicate the ratio ofmy findings and to give due appraisal of the varioustypes of evidence produced. Counsel appearing beforethe Commission cited a number of rulings to suggestthat a Commission of this type is not bound by thestrict rules of evidence and, therefore, much that wouldbe inadmissible evidence in the course of a judicialtrial, may be admitted and considered in the presentproceedings. The question, however, is not whetherevidence strictly inadmissible should be admitted hutin what manner this evidence should be used. I have,in coming to my conclusion, followed the legal whichis also the commonsense definition of proof, given inSection 3 of the Indian Evidence Act namely

A"a fact is said to be proved when after consider-

ing the matters before it, the court eitherbelieves it to exist, or considers its existence

so probable that a prudent man ought, underthe circumstances of the particular case, toact upon the supposition that it exists."

I have drawn pointed attention to this matter becausethe Counsel arguing the case on behalf of the NationalCommittee for Netaji Swagat Samiti and for the Bosefamily, have relied, to a very large extent, uponwholly inadmissible evidence which was either hearsayor beliefs and opinions expressed by various indivi-duals. An attempt has also been made to argue thecase as if we were not employing a judicial process,but a process sometimes applied in science, accord-ing to which we assume a hypothesis or propound atheory and then make a search for facts and circum-stances consistent with such hypothesis or theory. Thisinductive method may be useful when discoveringgeneral principles in science. This is how Newton

\t,

13

sought to prove the theory of Gravity. In judicial pro-ceedings we are not concerned with general laws ortheories. We are concerned primarily and ultimatelywith whether certain facts in a specified matter exist ornot. To take an example, we cannot, in the presentenquiry, assume that Netaji is alive because being azealous patriot, determined to carry on the strugglefor liberating India from British bondage and endowedwith immense reserves of courage and resourcefulness,he would, without a doubt overcome all impediments,escape the vigilance of the Allied Forces and makehis way to a place of safety, there to remain in hidingi i 7 1 1 1 . 1. 1 t 1, , f 1 1 1 i , l A r n e 1 , 1 0 1 1 1 , 1 P 1 . 1 0 ; A CVT A l v a . % I I , T V U . ) 1 1 1 . / , L k / 1 , 3 1 4 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 , C l i . , 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 , 3 , 1 1 , 1

.4 can we assume that Netaji is dead because he has not, appeared in person for a long time, and then look for-4 facts to support either hypothesis. We are concerned

with what facts are proved by the evidence which hasbeen produced, e.g. the death or survival of Bose andthe circumstances in which he disappeared. In this con-text, the courage and resourcefulness of Netaji will becorroborative material if on other primary evidencehe is proved to have survived. In the same way, hisnon-appearance for many years is no more than onecircumstance, a piece of evidence, and not a hypo-thesis which may be assumed to prove his death. Takeanother example. We cannot argue that because, Bosehad, at the age of 17, run away from home, to visitsome religious place and seek religious guidance, andhad again, eluding the vigilance of his guards in Jan-uary 1941, clandestinely left his residence in Calcuttaand made his way incognito to Kabul and then toGermany, and finally because in the spting of 1943,he had undertaken a perilous journey in a submarinefrom Germany to Sumatra in secret, he must, inAugust, 1945, have escaped without anyone knowingthe manner of his escape. This would be importingthe conception of n2odus operandi which is sometimesinvoked in the investigation of crimes manifestingspecial and peculiar_ features associated with othercrimes of a similar nature, known or suspected tohave been committed by a particular individual. Themodus operandi theory will certainly not apply toBose's case. We must, on the basis of all available evi-dence, determine what exactly happened and what arethe proved facts. To venture into the realm of conjec-ture or imagination will be neither proper not reward-ing.

-(4 3.13 In the circumstances, I have adopted the courseof following the judicial method of determining facts,although in admitting evidence I have been extrtmelyliberal and have shown the greatest indulgence topeople and parties anxious to produce material beforethe Commission. My conclusions are based only on

8M of HA/74---3

evidence which is admissible, which is not hearsay, andwhich does not constitute opinions, beliefs or emo-tional convictions.

3.14 This type of evidence was heard only becauseit might have led to the discovery of primary or ad-missible evidence. When it did not, it was treated asof no significance as non est. Ishall, in the following chapters, give details of thevarious categories of evidence produced in the courseof the inquiry and in a separate chapter discuss themerits and the probative value of each piece of evi-dence.

3.15 It is necessary to state here the circumstanceswhich have occasioned a seemingly inordinate delayin submitting this report. The delay, as it will presentlybe seen, was not due to any (tardiness) in dealing withthe enquiry or to events over which I could exerciseany control. My appointment as One -Member Com-mission of Inquiry was notified on July 11, 1970. Iwas at that time, pre -occupied with another assign-ment, as Chairman of the Committee to enquire intoand report on the working of the National Academiesand the Indian Council of Cultural Relations. Somepart of the work, entrusted to this Committee, had beenperformed, but a great deal still remained to be done.I have also been acting as a Member of the ExecutiveCouncil of the Banaras Hindu University, and this in-volvement has made a regular and periodic demandon my time, necessitating my going to Varanasi for 2or 3 days each month. I brought these facts to thenotice of the Government when I was informed of theproposal to entrust this inquiry to rne. I was told thatthe government wished me to undertake the work ofthe Commission and that I could adjust my other as-signments to fit in with the sittings of the Commission.1, accordingly, began arranging my programme of workconsistently with the convenience and availability ofother members of the Committee dealing with theNational Akademies so that that enquiry should bebrought to its Conclusion with the least possible delayand with the least detriment to the progress of the pre-sent inquiry. It was, however, inevitable that somedelay should result roir in divided attention to thetwo assignments each of which was in the nature of afull time occupation.

3.16 My work as the Chairman of the Committeeon the National Akademies necessitated my holdingpublic sessions and touring to various places in India,because the reactions of the State Governments andthe cultural bodies in the various States had to begathered before a meaningful report on the workingof the Akademies could be submitted to the Govern-

14

ment. During the period August 14, 1970, to July 31,1972, when the report on the working of the NationalAkademies was submitted to the Government, as manyas 28 meetings of that Committee were held at Delhito interview witnesses and visit cultural institutions inthe Capital. In addition to these, 18 visits to variousplaces in 16 different States were undertaken. Eachof these visits extended over a number of days varyingfrom one day to six days. These visits, entailing some-times long journeys, proved very time consuming. Final-ly, I had to prepare the draft of the report which ex-tends over 220 printed pages. This draft had to be dis-cussed at meetings of the Committee and then finalisedbefore it could be submitted to the Government.

3.17 While I was dealing with these two mattersviz. the Netaji Inquiry Commission and the Reviewinto the working of the National Akademies, I was, onNovember 12, 1971, appointed Chairman of a Com-mittee to enquire into and report on the working ofthe Film and Television Institute at Poona. This assign-ment necessitated the holding of a number of meet-ings at Delhi, Bombay, Poona, Madras and Calcuttato hear the views of prominent film producers, distri-butors, actors etc. The report in that case was sub-mitted to the Government on June 29, 1972. Andfinally, I was entrusted with the task of advising thegovernment on certain matters connected with the in-tegration of the film and television wings of the Filmand Television Institute of India. 'I'his work was to beperformed by an Expert Group of which there were 9members including myself, acting as Chairman. Thestudy which we were asked to undertake necessitatedvisits to Poona & Bombay and the holding of severalmeetings at Delhi.

3.18 The above mentioned multiple assignmentswhich I was asked to undertake delayed the progressof the Netaji Inquiry Commission. There were, how-ever, several Inquiry other factors which also contribu-ted to this delay.

3.19 One such factor was the failure of the govern-ment to appoint a Counsel to conduct the proceedingsimpartially and objectively, and thus provide essentiallegal assistance to the Commission. From the verybeginning it was clear to me that there should be acompetent and experienced Council for the Commis-sion who could make a pre -study of' all available andrelevant evidence, and then select, only those witnesses,documents, and other material as would be helpful indiscovering the truth. This would not only have mademy task easier and given the appearance of justicebeing clone, but would also have avoided unnecessary

delays and waste of time in hearing irrelevant and in-admissible evidence. Without such Counsel, I shouldhave to act as an investigator in looking for evidenceas a kind of solicitor in shifting and screening it, asCounsel in examining witnesses so selected and finallyas judge in assessing the worih of the evidence ten-dered and adjudicating upon it, a quadruple functionwhich would not only hamper the smooth progress Ofthe inquiry but also give rise to a measure of dissatis-faction. Also if I did not exclude useless evidence, andagreed to examine every one who volunteered to makea statement or was sponsored by one of the severalassociations and individuals claiming the right to makean appearance and take part in the proceedings, Imight have been obliged to continue the enquiry end-lessly.

3.20 So, on October 10, 1970, I addressed a letterto the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs re-questing him to obtain the orders of the governmentfor the appointment of a senior and a junior counselfor the Commission. In this letter I set out the reasonsfor making this requisition and said, inter alia :

"The appointment of this Commission has evokeda great deal of public interest and I maysay, enthusiasm. A large number of personshave been coming to hear the examinationof witnesses at the public sessions and thereare clear indications that this Inquiry is gene-rating a considerable measure of emotion onthe part of many individuals. There alreadyexists a vast amount of literature on the sub-ject, many books and articles have beenpublished during the last 25 years, varioustheories have been propounded and someof the theories have, at least, the appear-ance of plausibility. A large number of wit-nesses claim to have personal knowledge offacts which are germane to the Inquiry, andthe conclusion can be reached only after un-ravelling a number of complicated and dis-puted facts. I realise that unless the examina-tion of the witnesses is done through Coun-sel, it is impossible to brine all the materialfacts before the Commission. Also when aCounsel is appointed, the question of cross-examination by other parties or individualscan be satisfactorily dealt with".

But many months were to elapse before a decision onthis urgent and important matter was taken, and theappointment of Mr. T. R. Bhasin, Senior Counsel andMr. S.B. Wad, as his junior, was not Made till7-1-1972. In the meantime the proceedings could not

11F41-

be held in abeyance, and so the task of collecting evi-dence, selecting the witnesses and examining them hadto be performed by me. This was inevitably a slowprocess; at any rate, slower than it would have beenwith the assistance of a Counsel.

3.21 Another cause of delay was the Commission'sbelated visit to Taiwan. I had written to the Govern-ment at the very beginning and pointed out thedesirability of a visit to Taipeh which was alleged tobe the scene of the air crash which resulted in Bose'sdeath. The Shah Nawaz Khan Committee had not

dorl"' been able to go to Taiwan and a great deal of criticismagainst the findings of that Committee was based onits failure or refusal to visit Taiwan. I felt itnecessary to advise the government to make facilitiesavailable for the Commission's visit to Taiwan so thatthe same criticism should not be repeated. Thegovernment, however, expressed its reluctance tosponsor the visit, on the ground that India had nodiplomatic relations with Taiwan and a Commission ofthis nature could not officially visit Taiwan withoutgiving rise to diplomatic misunderstandings. Mr.Samar Guha, however, declined to accept this positionand continued to agitate the matter and press for avisit to Taiwan. At the beginning of 1973, thegovernment saw its way to allowing the Commissionto visit Taiwan. The visit, accordingly, took placein July 1973, which was the earliest possible in viewof the arrangements which had to be made for travel-ling and for living accommodation and for callingwitnesses in Taiwan who had to be informed of theCommission's visit. The Commission spent about 8days at Taipeh recording the evidence of witnesses,inspecting the airfield where the crash was alleged tohave taken place and visiting the crematorium whereBose's dead body was alleged to have been cremated.The evidence having been thus concluded, July 30.1973 was fixed for arguments of Counsel.

3.22 Further delay was, however, to occur owingto the unfortunate indisposition of two advocatesappearing in the proceedings. Shri Chakraborty, who

15

was Counsel for the National Committee suffered aheart attack and was confined to bed for severalmonths. Shri T. R. Bhasin, Counsel for the Commis-sion also suffered a heart attack on return fromTaiwan, and his medical advisers ordered him to stayin bed for some weeks. So, it was only on 10-9-1973that arguments in the case could commence.

3.23 In accordance with the general practice ofconducting proceedings before Commissions of Inquiryand in view of the fact that the recording of theevidence had taken place over a long period andShri Bhasin had been appointed only towards the endof the proceedings, the entire evidence was read outat the public sessions. This took a considerable time.The arguments of Counsel extended over severalmonths. A certain amount of latitude had to be per-mitted both in the matter of recording the evidenceand in the matter of adducing arguments by Counselbecause of the peculiar nature of these proceedings.It has already been stated that the case had arouseddeep emotions, political and patriotic, and there wereconstant requests by individuals to appear and giveevidence. Often the evidence sought to be tenderedwas neither admissible nor very helpful. Manyrequests were rejected but when requests came throughCounsel and were pressed with vehemence I had oftento concede the demands because I felt that, in this case,more than in any other it was not only important todo justice but also to appear to do justice. Thisproved a fruitful source of delay.

3.24 Therefore, we see that the circumstances whichhave prolonged this inquiry were matters over whichI had no control. My divided attention by reasonof other time-consuming assignments, the government'sfailure to appoint a Counsel for the Commission assoon as the inquiry started, the delay in processing thevisit to Taiwan, the unfortunate illness of two of themost important Counsel assisting and conducting theproceeding and the peculiar nature of the inquiry withits political, emotional, and patriotic overtones wereresponsible for the delay in concluding the Inquiry.

FOUR

AIR CRASH STORY

4.1 In the preceding chapter a brief reference hasbeen made to the story of Bose's death at Taipeiafter an air crash and to the numerous other versionsof what happened to him after the war on the easternfront had come to an end and the Japanese forceshad surrendered. These stories wil now be examinedand the evidence bearing on them discussed.

4.2 The version which claims our foremost atten-tion is naturally the story of his death, consequentupon an air crash on the Taihoku airfield on August18, 1945. This story was the first, in point of time,to gain currency after its announcement on the radiofrom Tokyo on August 23, and to receive wideacceptance. Also it constitutes a positive assertionsupported by a number of witnesses who do notappear to have any motive or reason for committingperjury and who, therefore, may be said to constituteindependent testimony. The story briefly is asfollows:

At the beginning of August 1945, it was abundantlyclear that the Japanese could not win the war, andthe Allies were determined to clinch the issue andinflict an immediate and total defeat on their foes.The dropping of two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima andNagasaki compelled the Japanese to surrender, andresign themselves to an ignominious defeat. Amessage was sent to Bose informing him of the pro-posed terms of surrender. Bose had to decide,quickly what should be his future course of action,Should he surrender to the Allies alongwith theJapanese? Should he, as the Head of an IndependentState, distinct from the Japanese, offer to surrenderseparately and on separate terms? Should he continueto fight the Allies on the Indian front and go onstriving to free India from British domination? Or,sjmuld he escape to a place of safety beyond the

'control of the Allies and make further plans for what-ever seemed feasible? After discussing the matterwith his colleagues and ministers of the ProvisionalGovernment of Free India and the Japanese militaryauthorities, he choose the last alternative. He, accor-dingly, asked the Japanese to make arrangement forhis escape to Russian territory because he "believed

that Indian aspirations evoked a sympathetic responsefrom the Russians. Bose had already attempted tocontact the Russians through the Japanese diplomaticchannels, but the Japanese had not made a favourableresponse to his request. However, now, when theRussians had made a formal declaration of waragainst the Japanese, to send BOSE: to Russia wouldnot cause them any embarrassment vis-a-vis the Allies.Also, the war having ended, the Japanese were notgoing to fight any more, and Bose had become a dis-pensable ally. They welcomed the opportunity to berelieved of what must, in the altered circumstances,have been looked upon as a liability. No cut anddried plan of conveying Bose out of the area underAllied control could be prepared, because theAmericans had laid a strict embargo on all flights bythe Japanese, and in the chaotic conditions prevailingafter the defeat and humiliation suffered by theJapanese, it was impossible to prescribe an exactschedule of the Journey. Bose had, therefore, to holdhimself in readiness to fly immediately wheneveraccommodation on a plane flying to or toward Russianterritory became available.

_ ASo, Bose after receiving intimation of the Japanese

decision to surrender to the Allies, travelled toSingapore where he arrived on August 15. The nextday he flew to Bangkok where he stayed overnightand conferred with the members of his Cabinet. Onthe morning of August 17, Bose and his party weretaken in two planes to Saigon. At Saigon, difficultywas experienced in continuing the flight beyond. Thetwo planes in which the journey to Saigon was per-formed had gone back, and it was anticipated that abomber plane in which some military personnel wereto travel to Manchuria would be leaving Saigon in theafternoon. This plane had come from Manila withand almost full load of passengers and baggage. Bosewas informed that it would be impossible to accommo-date his entire party, and he could at most, beprovided with one seat for himself in this plane. Bosewas greatly upset by this news, and sent an appealto Field Marshal Terauchi, who was in overall com-mand of military operation in South -East Asia and

16

17

was camping at Dalat about 100 miles from Saigon.Terauchi, however, was not very helpful. After agreat deal of argument, a second seat was offered toBose. Bose hurriedly consulted his colleagues andthey prevailed upon him to accept the offer. Hechoose Habibur Rahman to accompany him. Theplane left Saigon at 5 P . M . carrying Bose, HabiburRahman and 8 or 9 Japanese military officers whowere to go to Manchuria. The aircraft left Saigon at5P.m. and arived at Tourain at 7.45 P.M. It wasnot considered safe to travel beyond Tourain the sameday, and the party spent the night there. The next

Intt orning, the plane left Tourain and flew to Taihoku"Ifin Formosa. The flight from Tourain took 7 hours,vo. and there was a brief halt for refuelling at Taihoku

where the party took a snack lunch. The pilot hadobserved a snag in one of the engines and this wasattended to. Also, some of the baggage was off-loaded because the pilot felt that the plane could notcomfortably carry so much load at the take -off stage.The plane took off from the Taihoteu air feild at 2.30P . M . but almost immediately crashed on the air-field and burst into flames. The pilot and Geol.Shedei, who were inside the plane, died at once. Theremaining crew and passengers were able to leave thewreckage alive but several of them sustained burninjuries. Bose and the co-pilot were, in particular,very badly burnt. The injured were taken to themilitary hospital, a few kilometers away, and attended

.,to. Bose succumbed to his injuries in the course oft the following night. The injuries sustained by the

i co-pilot also proved fatal. Habibur Rahman, too, had'received some injuries, but they were not serious.Bose was cremated a day or two later, and the asheswere collected and sent in a box to Tokyo. At Tokyothey were taken to the Renkoji Temple and handedover to the priest in charge. There, they have re-mained until the present clay.

4.3 This version of Bose's end rests on the testi-mony of a large number of witnesses, Indian as wellas Japanese. Several witnesses have described Bose'sjourney upto Saigon, and they have stated the pur-pose and ratio of this journey. Four witnesses, allJapanese ex -military officers, claim to have beenBose's co -passengers in the ill fated plane and to havesuffered injuries in the crash of the aircraft onTaihoku airfield. Other witnesses saw Bose being

(Ataken to the hospital and given treatment. One doc-tor who attended to his injuries and gave him bloodtransfusion, another who examined him and signedhis death certificate narrated their story in Japan.Other witnesses testified to the factum of Bose'scremation, the transport of his ashes to Tokyo andtheir being deposited in the Renkoji Temple. The

total number of witnesses who support this story ex-ceeds 30, of whom about a moiety have given evi-dence of Bose's plan of escape as evolved in thecourse of his discussion during the days precedinghis disappearance:

4.4 The news of Bose's death was broadcast bythe Demei News Agency from Tokyo on the 23rdAugust, 1945. It was later published in severalnewspapers all over the world.

4.5 An essential ingredient of this story is thereason which prompted Bose to undertake the jour-ney which ended at Taihoku, in other words thepurpose and the ratio of this journey. We have seenthat the endeavour to liberate India from Britishdominion had proved abortive. The Indian NationalArmy had suffered a complete defeat in Burma, andthe retreat from the battle front had soon taken theform of a rout. Bose withdrew to the comparativesafety of Saramban to brood over the catastropheand to try to devise some means of salvaging what-ever could be salvaged. There, he received a mes-sage informing him of Japan's imminent capitulationand the terms on which the Japanese army hadagreed to surrender to the Allied forces. Bose hadto think quickly, and formulate plans for the imme-diate future of the INA and his own course of ac-tion. His one obsession of fighting the British tyran-ny and freeing India had never left him, and nowweighed upon him more heavily than before. Therewas also, in addition, the threat to his own personalsafety, for he ' could scarcely hope for amnesty orleniency if he fell into the hands of Anglo-Americanmilitary authorities. Several alternatives presentedthemselves before him. He could toe the line withthe Japanese, and as helper, collaborator and therecipient of Japanese assistance, both moral andmaterial, accept the same surrender terms and sub-mit himself and the forces he had commanded tothe demand of the victors. In doing this, he wouldimpose upon himself the inferior status of a subsi-diary ally of Japan, something he had strenuouslyresisted from the moment he assumed charge of thereconstituted INA, and bent his total energy to thewar in Burma. He could not relish such ignominy.A voluntary surrender would not guarantee his life,for the British could try him as a traitor for wagingwar against them and pass sentence of death uponhim, He could refuse to surrender and continuewhat he clearly saw was a losing fight by rallying hisforces and opening another front. But such a ven-ture, if undertaken immediately, was likely to endin disaster. He had not hesitated to face mortaldanger on the battle -field, and to die in a venture

18

which promised success, was for him an act of gloryand supreme patriotism. But to undertake a suicidaladventure which would destroy him and the men inhis charge would have been nothing short of folly.His undying patriotism and his undiminished confi-dence in the resources of his physical and mentalpowers dictated caution and a period of waiting. Hehad contemplated the possibility of obtaining Russiansympathy and aid in striving for the fulfilment of hisdreams. But Russia had aligned itself with the Allies.and had now declared war against Japan. Anyovertures he made to Russia could not be made with-out consultation with Japan, for he was in dutybound to act in collaboration with his friend and hel-per. The rules of war also dictated such consulta-tion, and most important of all, he would needJapanese assistance in communicating with theRussian authorities. There was yet a third alterna-tive. He could abandon the fight for the time beingand surrender to the Allies separately, in his ownright as the Head of the Provisional Government ofFree India. But for this, too, he must consult theJapanese authorities or, at any rate, notify them andbe guided by their advice. Whatever course headopted, it was imperative that he should discuss hisplan with the Japanese headquarters or the Japanesepolitical authorities. The commander of the Japaneseforces in South -East Asia was Field Marshal CountTerauchi, who was at Dalat, not far from Saigon.Terauchi might have received advice from Tokyoabout Bose's future conduct, or he might beable to obtain instructions from Tokyo. Butif Terauchi was unable to help him, Bosemight have to go to Tokyo in order to finalise hisplan. In any event, it was essential that Bose takeimmediate steps to arrive at a decision after discus-sing the whole matter at Dalat or at Tokyo. He hadyet made up his mind about what exactly he wantedto do or what was best in the circumstances. Eventhe two alternatives he was considering (after reject-ing the easy but ignominous course of a subservientsurrender along with the Japanese) were not quiteclearly defined and his plans were vague and amor-phous, as of necessity they had to be, in the chaoticconditions prevailing after the Japanese had capitulat-ed.

4.6. Fortunately, we are not compelled to invokethe aid of conjecture or speculation in discovering thetrue purpose and ratio of what may be described asBose's last journey. We have, on this point, theevidence of no less than 17 witnesses, eight of whomaccompanied Bose on the penultimate lap of thisjourney. We shall first consider the evidence of thelast mentioned eight witnesses, They are : (1) Hachia

(Witness No. 51) who was dept ted by theJapanese Government to assist Bose as Minister ofthe Provisional Government of Free India. He hadjoined Bose in December, 1944 and remained with 4

him till August 17, 1945. (2) Nigeshi (WitnessNo. 50) another official of the Japanese Governmentwho had received Bose when he arrived from Ger-many and had remained with him most of the time.It was he who delivered a letter containing the termsof surrender to Bose at Saramban "a few days beforeAugust 15" and accompanied him to Singapore whereBose remained till August 15, 1945. He accom-panied Bose and .remained with him till the morniw,of August 17. (3) Gen. Isoda (Witness No. 68 c

who was Chief of the Hikari Kikan, which was the''agency acting as liaison between the Japanese Gov - 4ernment and the Azad Hind Government. He join-ed Bose at Singapore and went with him up toSaigon. (4) S. A. Iyer (Witness No. 29) who wasoriginally in Thailand as Reuter's special correspon-dent and who joined the INA in June, 1942. Bosehad appointed him Minister for Publicity and Pro-paganda, and had subsequently given him the addi-tional charge of the National Bank of Azad Hindand its fund -collecting committee. (5) Deb Nath *Das (Witness No. 3) who had for many years work-ed in Japan to explain India's independence move-ment to the Japanese. He was the General Secretary .of the Indian Independence League, and had been inBangkok when Bose arrived there first in June, 1943.He was an admirer and a close collaborator of Bosethroughout. (6) Col. Pritam Singh (Witness No.155) an officer in the British Indian Army who h a 4 , 4taken part in the war against Japan. He had beei 4-taken prisoner and had then joined the INA. Hewas placed in the Intelligence Branch of the INA andwas one of Bose's trusted lieutenants. He was in-charge of Army operations, and advised Bose as thearmy representative, though he was not in Bose'scabinet. (7) Gulzara Singh (Witness No. 153),another officer of the British Indian Army, who wentto Malaya with his regiment in April 1939, and afterthe fall of Singapore, was taken prisoner by theJapanese. He too joined the INA and was taken byBose, as a member of his Cabinet. (8) Abid Hasan(Witness No. 157) who had made Bose's acquan-tance in Germany, had accompanied him on the longand perilous journey by submarine to South -East Asia,and had remained with him. He too, was a Ministesin Bose's provisional Government, and was a men ,ber of his personal staff.

In addition to these 8 persons, Habibur Rahaman).-also accompanied Bose on his last journey startingfrom Bangkok.

19

4.7. It will be seen that all the 8 witnesses namedabove were natural witnesses. They had a reasonfor being with Bose at the end of the war and dur-ing the brief period Of his last journey. Bose hadbeen consulting most of them, particularly Hachiaand Gen. Isoda among the Japanese, and the remain-ing 5 Indian witnesses because they were either onhis personal staff or were members of his Cabinet.It is clear that all 5 of them were completely devotedto Bose and had the greatest admiration for his ta-lents, his dedication to duty and his organising abili-ties. It may be said that they blindly submitted to

orders without question. At the same time, itnust be remembered that a period of more than 25years has elapsed between the events in which they

4participated and their narrative of these events beforethe Commission. Human memory is liable to be-come foggy and misty, after the lapse of so manyyears, and the recollection of old events is seenagainst the light of subsequent happenings and, to agreat extent, is modified by wishful thinking. Never-theless, the evidence of these witnesses clearly showsthat Bose had made up his mind to find a means ofproceeding to Russia, if he could obtain the consentand the assistance of the Japanese in this venture. Hehad, on a previous occasion, tried to approach theRussian authorities through the Japanese, but theJapanese had not proved very helpful for reasonswhich are easy to understand. For, although atthat time Russia had not specifically declared waragainst the Japanese, Russia was aligned with the

?Allies against the Axis forces. Russia had fought,.AGermany and beaten back the Nazi armies from its

territory on the Western front. Bose had hoped thatthe Russians with their old anti-British history, wouldbe willing to help him or, at any rate, give him asy-lum for some time. He, therefore, asked the Japa-nese to convey him to some place where he wouldfinalise his plans to go to Russia or to do whateverelse appeared feasible. Hachia had stated that atBangkok, Bose told him that he would like to go toJapan, Gen. Isoda was present at this conversation.When questioned, Hachia said: "May be, his ideawas to go to Manchuria, but he said he would like togo to Japan." He went on to say that Bose requestedGen. Isoda to make transport arrangements. Heaccompanied Bose's party from Bangkok to Saigon.Nigeshi's evidence is that he delivered a letter con-joining the terms of surrender to Bose at Saramban

sand accompanied him to Singapore on August 15,1945. The party consisting of the 8 witnesses namedabove, Col. Flabibur Rahman and few others tra-velled from Bangkok to Salton in two bomber planes.He was not able to say what Base's plans were, butit was never said at an , time that Bose was °in_

directly to Russia or to Manchuriafi from where hewould make his way to Russia,. He does, however,say that Bose intended to see Field MarshalTerauchi, and the interview was to be arranged byGeneral Isoda. Therefore, this witness, too, speaksof Bose's resolve to consult the Japanese authoritiesbefore he finalised his plan.

4.8. General Isoda, as has been stated already,was the Chief of the Supreme Liaison Organisation,Hikari Kikan, and as such, was the liaison betweenthe Japanese Government and the Provisional Gov-ernment of Free India. He was ,at Bangkok whenBose arrived from Rangoon. He remained thereduring Bose's brief visit to Singapore, and accom-panied him up to Saigon. At Saigon, Bose was in-formed that a plane was going to Tokyo, via Dairen,where General Shidei had been posted. Only oneseat was available in this plane. It was necessary toobtain Terauchi's authority if Bose insisted on tak-ing any member of his staff with him. Isoda, there-fore, undertook to go to Dalat and obtain Terauchi'sorders in the matter. Isoda could not meet Terauchiat Dalat, but a Staff Officer told him that Bose wouldbe allowed to take only two members of his Cabinetalong with him. On his returning to Saigon, StaffOfficer Tada told him that only two persons in allwould be allowed to board the plane. General Isodaspeaks of Bose's plan to go to Russia. When ques-tioned about the purpose of the flight, he said : "Thepurpose of his flight was to go to the Soviet Union,and with the aid of the Soviet Union, he was to con-tinue his independent movement. That was the aimof his mission. After retching Dairen, if time allow-ed he had intended to go to Tokyo to express hisgratitude for the Japanese help and also to collectsome supplies from Tokyo. I thought no such timewould be available to him for going to Tokyo. Themain purpose of Mr. Bose was to go to the SovietUnion and his desire to go to Tokyo was only secon-dary." This point was further emphasized by Isodawhen he spoke of his intervention to secure moreseats for Bose's party on the plane. The flight hadbeen primarily arranged for General Shidei who hadto reach Dairen immediately, before the Americanarmy authorities arrived in Saigon to enforce a cate-gorical ban on all Japanese aircraft movement. Isodaargued with Bose asking him not to reject the offerof two seats and thus miss the opportunity of escap-ing from Saigon. "So, I suggested to Mr. Bose thathe should accept that arrangement for going to SovietRussia." When Bose was given an assurance thatarrangements would be made to send the remainingmembers of his party, later, to join him, he agreed.

4.9. Iyer's evidence highlights the fact that Boseheld long discussions about his future course ofaction with his Ministers at Saramban, Singapore andagain at Saigon. Russia had loomed large on Bose'szental horizon as his avenue of escape, his refugeand his possible hope for the resumption of hislabours to free India from British bondage. But thedeclaration of war by Russia was a fresh developmentwhich had to be taken into account, necessitating, asit did, a reconsideration of the provisional plan. Aseries of meetings was held at Singapore daily, fromthe evening of August 12 till the midnight of August15, At first it was contemplated that Bose and hisMinisters should stay on at Singapore and allow them-selves "to be taken prisoners by the British, who wereexpected at any time." Mr. Saka arrived from Bang-kok and the discussions then took a different turn. Itwas finally decided that they must all leave Singapore."The final decision was to get out of Malaya andSingapore definitely, to some Russian territory cer-tainly, to Russia itself if possible. Netaji describedthis decision in his own words as 'an adventure intothe unknown'."

4.10. On the morning of August 16, the wholeparty flew from Singapore to Bangkok, where Boseand his Cabinet spent the night. On the morningof August 17, the party, augmented by some Japanesemilitary personnel, left Bangkok in two bomber planesand flew to Saigon where they arrived before noon.At the Saigon airport, hurried consultations tookplace. As a result of these, General isoda flew toDalat to consult Field Marshal Terauchi. Bose andhis party, in the meantime, drove into the town toawait developments. Soon' a messenger came ahdsaid that a plane was ready to take off; only one seatin it was available and Bose should reach the aero-drome immediately to avail of it. The messengerdid not know the destination of the plane and Bosedeclined to leave till he was enlighted on this point.Iyer went on to say: "Half an hour later, GeneralIsoda. Hachia and a senior Staff Officer arrived at theBungalow and went into a conference with Netaji inone of the rooms. Col. Habibur Rahman was askedto join this conference. Some time later, Netaji andCol. Habib came out, leaving the Japanese behind.Maj. Abid Hasan, Deb Nath Das and myself follow-ed Netaji and Col. Habib into Nataji's room. Col.Gulzara Singh and Col. Pritam Singh were urgentlysummoned. Netaji said : 'Tell them not to botherabout that dress. I have no time to lose. We haveto take important decisions and that, too, withouta moment's delay.' They joined us and the room wasbolted from inside, and Netaji stood in the middle,and we stood around him. He looked at each one's

20

eyes and said : 'Look here. There is plane readyto take off in the next few minutes, and we have todecide something important right now. The Japanesesay that there is only one seat to spare, and what wehave got to decide in a few seconds is whethershould go even if I ave to go alone. ' All of us feltit was a terr ible deckion to take .... ..we said : 'Sir,please for Heaven's sake, insist on the Japanese giv-ing you one more seat and if you still cannot get it thenyou had better take the one seat and go. Also pleaseinsist that the Japanese should provide us with trans-port as soon as possible to take wherever you might

an; rt '

4.11. Iyer went on to say that they believed thatthe plane was bound for Manchuria, but Bose did notspecifically mention the fact. The plane finally took 71'off, carrying inter alia, Bose and Habibur Rahman.Two days later , Iyer was informed that a plane wasleaving for Japan on the 20th, and one member ofthe party could be accommodated in it. Actually, allthe remaining members were given seats in two planesand were flown to Hanoi from where they were tofly to Japan.

4.12. It appears from Iyer's evidence that, atSaigon, the Japanese made a change in Bose's pro-gramme not only with regard to the persons who wereto go with him, reducing the number to one (Habi-bur Rahman), but also with regard to his ultimatedestination.

4.13. This change of plan is specifically mentionedby Deb Nath Das, though his evidence is somewhatcontradictory and muddled, either because ht s*memory is deceiving him or because he was over-come by emotion as, at one stage of his deposition,he frankly confessed. His story is a little differentin detail from the story given by the other witnesses,though the differences are inessential and do notamount to, contradictions. He spoke of three alter-nate plans which had been discussed and preparedeven before the end of the war. One plan was totake Bose ..by plane and drop him somewhere inIndia, where he could join the national movementand carry on the fight against the British along withthe Indian freedom fighters. The second plan wasthat Bose should go to Yunan, the headquarters ofMao Tse Tung who would help him to carry on hiscampaign against the British. The third plan wa \that Bose should go to Russia directly. Das wall')some what confused about the procedural mechaniof these plans, but he stated that Bose had asked_him to prepare the first plan, and when he met himat Bangkok, he was asked if the plan was ready.Das replied that it was. But the subsequent conductneither of Das nor of Bose indicates that Bose ever

,

4

gave any thought to the idea of going to India andinternally taking part in the freedom struggle, be-cause immediately after asking him if the plan wasready, he asked Das to collect his baggage and giptready to leave with him immediately. He gave noindication of where he would be going, nor did Dasquestion him about the matter. To explain thischanged conduct, Das said that Bose might have in-tended to fly to a place of safety, remain undergroundfor sometime and then make an entry into India. Butin view of the fact that Bose had been discussingthe matter about his future plans repeatedly withhis Ministers, it is scarcely possible that he shouldhave observed such secrecy, amounting almost todeception, just before he was leaving Bangkok.About the Russian collaboration, Das said thatseveral weeks before the end of the war, "when wenegotiated with the Russian Embassy in Tokyo,with Jacob Malik through the (Japanese) ForeignMinister, Shigemetsu, we received a letter from theJapaneses military authority in Tokyo, stating that

I t would not be feasible on the part of Japan tosend Netaji to Russia." But the surrender of theJapanese introduced a fresh factor into the entirescheme of Indo-Japanese relations. The Japanesewere no longer masters of themselves, nor could theyhandle any difficult or complex arrangements forcarrying Bose and his party to a place of his choice.They agreed to let him surreptitiously escape to Dai-ren where Gen. Shidei was being sent and whenceBose could make his way to Russia. This would notinvolve the Japanese in any infringement of interna-tional law, nor cause them any diplomatic embarrass-ment. But according to Das, there was a suddenchange of plan at Saigon. His statement before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee was that Bose was tobe taken to Tokyo. Bose felt very unhappy andsaid ."I don't know why they are changing the planand specially they are telling me that I should goalone". When he appeared before me, however, Dassaid that Bose may have mentioned the matter ofchange of plans but he did not say that he was be-ing taken to Tokyo. It is possible that this slightchange is actuated by Das's desire to assert that thedestination of Base's plane was not Tokyo.

4.14 Pritam Singh stated that he dined with Boseon the evening of August 13 or 14, after the Japa-nese had surrendered. Bose consulted him aboutfuture strategy and if the INA too should surrender."My suggestion" says Pritam Singh "was that therewere already thousands of men behind the bars. Wewould just add to their number. Then I suggestedto him that we had better open a second front. Thenhe told me that contact had already been establish-ed with Russia, and we would try to move toward

8 M of HA/74-4

21

that direction:" Pritam Singh, when questioned fur-ther on this point, stated that he overheard some talkabout Bose going to Tokyo to discuss the matter ofa separate surrender, but he was not sure who talkedand what exactly was decided. His impression wasthat Bose and his party were going to Russia.

4.15 Gulzara Singh was somewhat vague about thematter. When, at Bangkok, Bose asked him "Chalega(will you go)", the witness replied in the affirmative,without enquiring where Bose was going and whatwas to be his mode of travel. At Saigon he heardthat Bose's ultimate destination was Russia.

4.16 Abid Hasan's evidence is that he was atBangkok on August 16. Bose, who had returnedfrom Singapore, called him and told him to get readyto accompany him to Tokyo. At Tokyo, Bose wouldformulate his further plans. The party flew to Saigon,and from there, only Bose and Habibur Rahmanwere accommodated in the plane that went further.Abid Hasan's statement on this point is not whollyreliable. His memory failed him in several details,but he did say that the plane in which Bose leftSaigon had to touch Taipeh for refuelling. There is,therefore, no categorical contradiction of the evidencegiven by the other witnesses on this point.

4.17 We next have a group of witnesses who didnot travel beyond Bangkok and who were concernedin formulating Bose's plans before that stage. Themost important of these are Lt. Gen. Mono Takakura(Witness No. 71); Watanabe (Witness No. 54), A. M.Sahay (Witness No. 164) and Ishar Singh (WitnessNo. 140). Their testimony is supported by theevidence of M. S. Doshi (Witness No. 35), Maj. Gen.Alagappan (Witness No. 75) of the INA, Dr. VasavaMenon (Witness No. 79), Samsul Zaman (WitnessNo. 10) and Sen Gupta (Witness No. 28).

4.18 The evidence of Lt. Gen. Mono Takakura isthat after the end of the war, there was danger ofBose being arrested by the Americans if he wen t toTokyo. So, it was decided to send him to Man-churia where Gen. Shidei was being posted. Thewitness said : "Two months before the surrender ofJapan, I went to Bangkok where I met Gen. Terauchiand Chandra Bose, and Lt. Gen. Isoda. As a resultof this conversation, Mr. Chandra Base agreed tocooperate with the Japanese forces in the SouthernArea. There was a decision among Japanese mili-tary circles that it will be better for Mr. ChandraBose to go to some area where he could have free-dom of action than coming to Japan because hemight have been arrested, had he come to Japan. So,it would be better for him to go to such a place, forinstance, Soviet -Manchuria border . . . . . .Lt . Gen.

22

Shidei was on tr ansfer to Kwantung army . . . . . . thatis why Mr. Chandra Bose went with him .. . . . . TheHeadquarters at Tokyo accepted the plan of Netajifor his going to Russia via Dairen and the Head-quarters selected Lt. Gen. Shidei to accompanyNetaji." Takakura is an entirely disinterested wit-ness, and there is no reason why reliance should notbe placed on his testimony.

4.19 Watanabe made a similar statement. Hejoined the Hikari Kikan, and when the war ended,he was at Bangkok. He said that he conveyed amessage to Bose that Japan would be unable to con-tinue to provide aid to him. On this, Bose expresseda desire to fly to the Soviet Union. He was to flyfrom Bangkok to Saigon and then to Japan viaFormosa. The witness went on to say that Gen. Isodaand Hachia were present when this scheme was for-mulated. Watanabe had made the same statementbefore the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee.

4.20 Ishar Singh was President of the Indian Inde-pendence League, Thailand Branch. He was Adviserto the Azad Hind Government, and was appointedMinister of State by Bose. His evidence is thatwhen the Japanese surrendered, Bose went to Bang-kok and discussed his future plans of going to Russiaand seeking Russian help. Before leaving Bangkok,Bose told the witness that he did not want to betaken prisoner by the Americans, and would like togo to Russia to keep alive the Indian Independencemovement. "He said he would try to go to Man-churia. This decision was arrived at when we advisedagainst his surrender, because we said that, with hissurrender, the independence movement would die."

4.21 Maj. Gen. Alagappan of the I.N.A. was atSingapore till Bose left on 16th August, 1945. Hewas the Chief Administrator of the Indian indepen-dence movement and of the I.N.A. in Burma. He saysthat they came to the conclusion that only Russiacould give asylum to Netaji. He, therefore, workedout a chart of the land route from Hanoi to Herbanin Manchuria. He does not know in detail what thefinal plans of Bose were, but the witness thought thatBose would attempt to make his way to Manchuriaand then to Russia.

4.22 Dr. S. Vasava Mellon joined the I.N.A. as amedical officer. He was present at Bangkok whenBose left for his last journey, and went to the aero-drome. His evidence is that from Bose's conversa-tion he gathered that he was going to the ManchurianBorder.

4.23 Samsul Zaman and M. S. Doshi are witnesseswho met Bose for the last time in April, 1945. Both

of them say that the matter of Bose's future planshad been considered as early as April, and it wasdecided that in the event of a Japanese defeat, Bosewould make his way to Russia. Samsul Zaman says-rt at the original plan of sending Bose to India hadto be abandoned as it was likely to prove too perilousand unrewarding.

4.24 Sen Gupta gives a somewhat unbelievablestory of Bose giving him a letter, the contents ofwhich envisaged a faked aircrash, but the letter wasnot produced 'and, according to the witness, wasconfiscated by the Allied forces when his house wasraided after the end of the war. He also claims tohave received from Bose a gold chain intended forhis wife. This chain was sold when Sen Gupta wasin financial difficulties. We may disregard the evi-dence of this witness, although he, too, says thatthat Bose had planned to go to Russia through theManchurian border. He even said that necessaryarrangements for Bose's journey to Russia had beenmade.

4.25 A. M. Sahay's evidence is that the Japanesehad proved unhelpful in establishing contact with theRussians because they did not like the idea of Bosecoming into contact with any third party. Bose,however, had to contact the Russians through theJapanese because, without Japanese assistance, hecould not hope to travel to Manchuria. Sahay wentto Hanoi on 31st July, 1945 and stayed there. He,therefore, cannot say anything about Bose's lastminute plans, but so far as his evidence goes, itcorroborates the testimorty witnoses withreard to the fact that pc.i_se'Lplan o go to Russiavia Manchuria-.

4.26 This is the most important, the most naturaland the most reliable evidence relating to the purposeof Bose's journey from Bangkok to Saigon and on-ward. The witnesses are almost unanimous in sayingthat Bose's plan was to escape to Russia where hehoped to rally support for his cause of liberating hiscountry from the British rule. Wisdom, tactics,strategy and the desire for self-preservation, all dic-tated this move, and the Japanese were prevailed uponto provide him the means of at least setting out onwhat he called his adventure into the unknown.

4.27 We thus find that Bose's intention and pur-pose are completely consistent with the story of hisarrival at Taihoku. Indeed on no other hypothesiscan his taking a seat in Shedei's plane flying fromSaigon toward Manchuria be explained.

23

(ii)

4.28 Let us revert now to the course of Bose'sjourney beyond Saigon. We have already seen thathe and Habibur Rahman boarded a Japanese bomberat the Saigon airport and took off for their destina-tion. This happened at 5 P.M. on 17-8-1945. Thesubsequent events are deposed to by a number ofwitnesses, of whom four actually claimed to havetravelled with Bose on the plane. The story narratedby these witnesses, in brief, is that the bomber arrivedat Tourane at 7.45 P.M. It was too late to proceed fur-ther that day and so the crew and the passengers,.-

..41 spent the night at Tourane. Early the followingmorning, the same crew and passengers took off from

4 Tourane at 7 A.M. They arrived at the Taihokuairport, in north Formosa, at about 2 P.M. Here theplane was attended to by flight engineers, and a lightlunch was taken by the passengers. It was reportedthat there was something wrong with one of theengines, but the snag was attended to and the pilotdeclared his satisfaction with the flight worthiness ofthe plane. The passengers, accordingly, emplaved andthe pilot took off at 2.35 P.M. Within a few mo-ments, however, an explosion was heard and theplane crashed within the precincts of the airfield. Thebody of the plane broke into two and it caught fire.The pilot and General Shidei died instantaneously, theremaining s.rew and passengers received serious andlight injuries and were able to come out of the plane.The second _pilot, Aoyagi, had been badly injuredand he died in the hospital the same ,night. Bose'sinjuries wer-e alSO'S-erious and he was seen to be al-most completely on fire. The fire was extinguishedby Habibur Rahman and others, and he alongwiththe other injured persons was hurried to the militaryhospital which is at a distance of about 4 kilometresfrom the airport. Bose was treated for his injuries,and although he recovered his senses intermittentlyand was given a number of injections and also bloodtransfusion, he succumbed to the burn injuries aftera few hours. Subsequently, his body was crematedand the ashes were sent to japan where they wereplaced in a receptacle which was lodged in the Ron-koji temple.

4.29 The most important witnesses of this storyare the four persons who claim to have travelled inthe ,bomber plane. They are Lt. Col. Sakai (WitnessNo. 47), S. Nanogaki (Witness No. 53), an army officerWho was also posted to Manchuria and had to gothere with General Shidei, Taro Kono (Witness No.63), who was a Staff Officer attached to the 7th AirDivision, and acted as navigator of the bomber fromSaigon onward, and finally, Takahashi (Witness No.

65), who was a Staff Officer attached to the 15thArmy.

4.30 Since the evidence of these witnesses was cri-ticised on the ground that their testimony was discre-pant, it is necessary to quote from their statements afew passages. The evidence of Lt. Col. Sakai is thatthere were 8 passengers and the crew in the plane.He mentioned that, in addition to Bose and HabiburRahman, Kono, Takahashi, Arai and Gen. Shideitravelled on the plane. He said that the crew andpassengers stayed at Taipei for about one or twohours. Lt. Col. Nonogaki was sitting facing him,Takahashi and Arai were behind him. Bose andRahman were ahead of him, but from where he sat,he could not see them. Describing the crash, thewitnesses stated :

"The plane started, using almost the full lengthof the runway and took off, and at 30-40meters above the ground, the plane leanedtowards the ground. Although I am not anexpert in navigation, we looked outside tosee what had happened. At that time Isaw the ground was coming up, and so Ithought forced landing may be inevitableunder such circumstances. Then the rearwheel of the plane struck hard on theground and I saw it moving towards theleft side . . . . . . There was no explosion. Assoon as I saw the rear wheel breaking away,as I was seeing from the aeroplane cockpitwindow, I hit the ceiling of the cockpit andbecame unconscious.

"0 : Did you recover consciousness while youwere still in the plane? Witness : I feltvery hot and recovered my senses.

: Did you jump out of the plane? Witness:I found myself lying on the ground. Mysleeves were burning and I rolled myselfto put the fire out. My memories for theperiod before I was treated medically arevery broken .. . . . . I was the first, amongour group, except perhaps Mr. ChandraBose to be put on the operation table. Thedoctor checked me and found my injurieswere not so serious. So I was treated inthe last. When I was put to bed in thenext room, I was told by a young womanwho was attending on me, that there wasMr. Bose lying in the bed opposite to mybed . . . . . . I learnt later, after I was takento Hokuto Army Hospital, that Mr. Bosehad died."

2,1

Lt. Col. Sakari did not appear as a witness beforethe Shah Nawaz Khan Committee because when theCommittee visited Japan, the witness had gone toTaiwan and was not available.

4.31 The next witness is S. Nonogaki (WitnessNo. 53). According to him, the plane carr ied Gen.Shidei, Kono, Takizawa Sakai, Arai, Takahashi, Boseand his Indian aide, the pilot and three others, andhimself, a total of. -13 , --The story of the crash is

"Immediately after we took off, the propeller onthe left engine was torn off, and then theengine broke and the plane crashed into abomb crater. I believe it was over the endof the runway. The plane crashed near theend and not beyond the runway.

: Can you remember how high the plane hadrisen before it fell? Witness : I feel it wasabout 20 meters from the ground."

The witness went on to say that he received injuries.He saw Bose wrapped in flames and "his aide wastrying to put out the fire. Chandra Bose was stand-ing. The aide was not in such a serious state. Gen.Shidei did not come out. I saw the pilot comingout, but I did not see Major Takizawa and the threemembers of the crew coming out . . . . . . The injuredwere taken to the hospital. It took about 20-30minutes by car . I also went to the hospital."

4.32 Regarding Bose, the witness said that he wasmore or less naked because his clothes were burnt andhe had been completely bandaged. He went on tosay that he was in the same room as Bose. Thedoctor who attended to them was Dr. Yoshimi, andBose, who was very severely injured, was the first toreceive treatment. Later the same night, the witnesslearnt that Bose had died at 11 p.m. He also learntthat Gen. Shidei had died instantaneously in the plane.The witness' injuries became worse and he was takento the hospital at Fukuoka where he stayed for threeweeks.

4.33 The third witness is Taro Kono (No, 63).This witness acted as the navigator of the plane fromSaigon onward. According to him, there were 13persons in the_p_lane, i.e. Aoya-gi, i aZ.- --zawa, Takahashi, Nonogaki, Arai, Sakai and engineer,two radio officers, Bose, Habibur Rahman and him-self. The story of the crash is narrated by him in thefollowing terms:

"After we took off and the altitude was about20-30 meters from the ground. the leftpropeller was blown off and the left engine

was torn off and the plane leaned towardsthe right and nose-dived. The plane hitfrom the right wing against the dike withinthe compound of the airport. After that Isaw many baggages flying against me fromthe rear and Lt. Gen. Shidei was sitting bymy side, and behind Lt. Gen. Shidei therewas a fuel tank which was broken and hitagainst the head of Gen. Shidei and I foundhim dead. Pilot Takizawa had his face hitagainst the steering handle and he was in-jured in the face and he also died. To theleft in front of me, there was Pilot Aoyagi.He had his both legs stuck in the brokenpart of the plane and he was unable tomove. Behind me, there were Mr. Bose 4and Mr. Rahman, but because the tank wasbroken and came in the way, I could notsee them. Between myself and Pilot Aoyagithere was a non-commissioned Engineer,but I do not remember what happened tohim. Afterwards I tried to pull out Aoyagi,but I could not do it. He was caught inthe broken part of the plane. I think it wasabout 2-3 minutes while I was looking aboutpersons in this way when the plane caughtfire. The fire started from the left engine,which was torn off, and the fire came to-wards me. So, I thought I had to get outimmediately. I broke the window above andI got out from there. I got out and tstood on the left wing of the planejust above the broken engine. When - 4I jumped down from that part of the wing,I was showered with gasoline from the bro-ken engine and I caught fire. I rolled onthe grass nearby to put out the fire, and Iput out the fire in that way. After that Iwas sitting quietly on the ground for a littlewhile. Then Col. Nonogaki came to me.The plane was broken in three parts gene-rally and we saw Mr. Bose coming out ofthe fire from a tittle bit behind from themiddle of the plane. He was completelywrapped in flames and he stood erect withboth hands stiff, like a guardian God inBuddhist shrines. Perhaps his shirt wasburning. Then I saw that his aide came andtried to put out the fire and tried to remove*,his shirt. I saw only to that extent. Their<the airport crew came to us by car, andMr. Bose was taken by the first car and Iwas taken in another car. Both the vehiclesin which we went were trucks. The vehiclein which I was taken was a car which is

25

used to start the propeller of the planes.After that I was hospitalised at the ArmyHospital in Taipei. So what I have seenabout Mr. Chandra Bose was to that pointthat he was put in the car. That was thelast I saw of him. I was taken to the samehospital where all other injured weretaken.

The witness went on to say that very night hewas removed to the Hokuto Army Hospital wherealso were taken Nonogaki, Aoyagi, Rahman, Sakaiand "perhaps Takahashi too." He said that Aoyagi

' 44 died in the hospital.

4.34 Since he was the navigator of the plane, hewas questioned about the condition of the engines.This is what he said :

"The condition of the engines was normal bothat Saigon and at Tourain. Before the de-parture from Taipei, there was a slight en-gine trouble. The engines were checked atTaipei. When we were testing the engines,when it exceeded 2000 rotations, there werevibrations in the left engine. We stoppedthe engine and checked it, but we could notfind any defects. Then we started the engineagain, but we did not see any vibrations atall, but I do not know why. I am going totell you what I have heard from Major Iiwho is a friend of mine .. .. ..I thought oftelling the story because it has relevanceto that question. I was told later by MajorTi that three months before the aircrash, thesame plane when it began to land at Saigon,the plane overran the runway and fell in theditch at the airport and the propellers werebroken. At that time all the propellers werebent, but there was no replacement of pro-pellers at Saigon and the propellers wererepaired and not replaced. Then the sameplane was given to us. The vibrations wefelt in Taipei might have been caused bysome cracks in the propellers."

4.35 Regarding Bose's end, the witnesses said thathe beard that Bose had died at about 7 o'clock onthe evening on the 18th of August. He was then inthe same hospital where Bose was being treated.

4,36 The last witness in this category is 'faeahas,bi(No. 65). According to him, there were 14 persons

le- on the plane including Bose, Shidei, Nonogaki, 4member', of the crew, the witnen, ,iiitt HabiburRahman. He said that the plane left Taipei at about

1.30 p.m. and when the plane Crashed. he lost hissenses. His leg was fractured but he was able to seeBose coming out of the plane with his clothes all onfire. The incident was described by the witness in

Mr. Takahashi : Immediately after wc. took off,the plane crashed.

Q : Can you remember how high the plane wasat that time ?

Mr. Takahashi; I cannot exactly remember howhigh we were. I think we saw big trees towards theright. I presume it was about 30 meters high.

Q : Can you tell us when the plane crashed ?

Mr. Takahashi : I was sitting in the rear portion etthe plane surrounded by the baggage. There was noseat then. I heard noise.

Mr. Takahashi : I heard a sound like crashing then1 think the plane leaned towards the left and crashedon the ground.

O : What happened then?

Mr. Takahashi : The plane caught fire. The planewas broken. The doors were opened. I lost conscious-ness and when I regained my consciousness I wassitting in the baggage inside the plane, when I got upthe plane was burning. I had my left leg fractured,and I crawled out of the plane. A little after I hadcrawled out, I saw Mr. Bose coming cut from theother dcor. I do not exactly remember whether it wasthe broken portion of the plane. He came out walkingwith his clothes on fire. I could not speak his lang-uage. I showed him by rolling myself on the groundhow to put out the fire. Mr. Bose followed me andhimself rolled on the ground. I and his aide tried toput out the fire. We extinguished the fire. Then I lostmy consciousness a second time. I regained my con-sciousness rather immediately. I saw Mr. Bose was be-ing taken to a car and I was taken into another carand we went to the Taipeh ,hospital where I saw Mr.Bose in the next room. Mr. Sakai, Nonogaki and myselfhad minor injuries and were in the same room and inthe next room Mr. Bose was lying.

The witness heard from Nonogaki that Mr. Bosehad died the same night.

4.37 The evidence of these four witnesses findsample corroboration in another group of witnesses, 11

thiall)er. Of these, the most important is Dr.Yoshimi (Witness No. 72), who was acting as the

Chief of the Branch Hosptial of the Taihoku ArmyHospital. It was to this Branch Hospital that the i l l -

jured persons, including Bose, were taken. His story isthat he received a telephone call from the airportabout the aircrash, and he waited to receive the in-jured persons. Two of the persons who arrived wereforeigners and he was told that they were Indiannationals. He was further told that one of them wasBose and the other was his aide. Regarding Bose's in-jury, the witness said : "The injuries were burns allover the body. Mr. Chandra Bose suffered generalburns all over the body, and his aide had slight injurieson his head, on his face and on his right hand. Theother 5 persons mostly suffered burns and bruises." Hewent on to say that Bose was conscious when he wasbrought to the hospital. "when he was brought in thehospital, he was naked. He was brought on thestretcher. He was naked but was covered with ablanket." The witness treated Bose who remainedconscious for 7 or 8 hours. The treatment he gavehim consisted of giving an injection of ringer solutionand blood transfusions. The blood transfusion wasoperated by a surgeon from the Army Headquartersand not by Dr . Yoshimi. Dr. Yoshimi was presentwhen Bose died, later the same night, and he prepareda death certificate which he signed. The witness wasshown a photograph of Bose, which is printed insuresh Chandra Bose's Dissenting Report and he con-firmed that this was the same person whom he hadtreated on the 18th of August, 1945.

4.38 Another important witness of corroboration isLt. Genl. Fujiwara (No. 45). His evidence is to theeffect that he was in the hospital at Fukuoka to whichNonogaki (Witness No. 63) and Takahashi (witnessNo. 65) were brought for further treatment on20-8-1945. From these two persons he heard thestory of the crash. They remained under treatment forbruises and injuries which the witness himself saw andwhich they said they had suffered in the crash of theplane in which they and Bose had been travelling andwhich had crashed. Gen. Fujiwara saw the two eye-witnesses of the crash, shortly after the accident andheard their story. He also saw injuries on their per-sons, and so his corroborative testimony has consider-able probative value. Gen. Fujiwara travelled fromTokyo to Delhi to tender evidence in the Red Forttrial of the INA officers. Habibur Rahman travelledwith him on this occasion, and the witness saw thatHabibur Rahman had burn injury marks. He heardfrom him that he (Habibur Rahman) had sustainedthese injuries in the aircrash in which Bose sustainedfatal injuries. The following extract from the witnesses'-'tatement is relevant:

"0 : I would like to know that the substance otyour evidence is that in the hospital you heard the

26

story of the aircrash and this story was not contra-dicted by anyone at any stage afterwards.

Witness : Yes.

Q : And you have met three of the eye -witnesses,

i.e. Nonogaki, Takahashi and Habibur Rahman?

Witness : Yes.

Q : And none of these three witnesses ever con-tradicted the story of the aircrash or did they contra-dict it?

A : None of them contradicted it. About the air-crash, the Imperial Headquarters of the Japanese army IPannounced this air accident."

-AOtk

4.39 Another important witness who corroboratesthe story of the four eye -witnesses of the crash is Dr.Yoshio Ishii (Witness No. 69). He was the Lieute-nant Surgeon in the Taipei Army Hospital inAugust, 1945. His story is that at 3 P. M. onAugust 18, he heard cries of some patients in theward, about 20 metres from his place. He saw that anurse was giving blood transfusion to Mr. Bose butshe was finding difficulty in doing so because shecould not find the vein. He is a children's Surgeonand accustomed to delicate and careful handling ofpatients. He was able to locate the vein in Bose'sarm and helped the nurse to guide the needle intoit. The blood transfusion, however, did not lead toany improvement in Bose's condition which was very 4,serious. In fact, the doctor thought that Bose woulddie very soon. The next morning he saw a coffin-4 .being carried out and he was told that it containedBose's body.

4.40 In his own words, the story is as follows :

"When I went to the ward, a nurse was givingblood transfusion to Mr. Bose but she wasfinding it difficult to get the needle to gointo his vein.

Q : How did you know it was Mr. Bose ?

A : The nurse asked me to give the blood trans-fusion to the patient. Since I had to firstascertain the name of the patient beforetreating him, I asked the name of thepatient and the nurse told me that that.7.vo,gentieman was tiis E x c e l l e n c y M r . B o s e .

: Did you never meet Mr. Bose before ?

Witness : I knew him by name only. Buthad never met him before.

4

27

Q : Were you able to see his face ?

A : The patient was bandaged when I wasabout to give the injection.

Q : What part was visible ?

A : I could see his eyes, some part of the noseand mouth."

He went on to say that about 100 c.c. of bloodwas transfused into Bose's body but no appreciableimprovement could be observed. He found that Bose's

*load was very thick. "So I thought he was going todie very soon. I then saluted him and left the room."

4.41 The next witness of corroboration is Lt. Col.Shibuya (Witness No. 70). He was posted at theArmy Headquarters at Taipei. He received a tele-phone call from the Airport Battalion Headquartersthat a plane carrying some Indian had crashed at theairport. He went to the airport and saw the wreckagelying beyond the concrete runway. Then he went tothe hospital and saw a bandaged person who, he wastold, was Bose. He spoke to Base's aide, who wasan Indian, whose name he could not remember, butthere can be no doubt that the witness meant HabiburRahman. There were some Japanese officers alsolying injured in the hospital and Dr. Yoshimi wasthere attending to them. Next day, the witness heardthat Bose had died. He heard later that Bose's bodyhad been cremated but he could not remember whe-

' her he attended the cremation. The witness was.!on f r ont ed with his previous statement made beforethe Shah Nawaz Khan Committee, when he had saidthat Bose was dead when he reached the hospital.This may be due to lapse of memory on his Part be-cause he does not claim to have spoken to Bose andsaid that he saw him lying in bed all bandaged up. Thewitness also met Mr. Sakai (Witness No. 47) andsaw his injuries.

4.42 Another witness of corroboration is KojiTakamiya (Witness No. 52). This witness was amember of the Japanese Military Police at Taipei.He was at Gendarmery Headquarters, 2 Km from theairport where he heard that Chandra Bose had beeninjured and Shidei had been killed in an aircrash.He was told that about 10 persons had been injured

4n the accident which took place at about 2 p.m. on$. the 17th or 18th of August, 1945. He received this

message from Nonogaki and immediately went to theHospital. There he saw Bose lying in bed, and the

4 -next day he heard that Bose had died. He knewNonogaki very well and Nonogaki told him that hehimself had been injured in the crash.

4.43 Another witness is Tadashi Ando (WitnessNo. 46), a military staff officer of the press at Taipei.He said that he heard of the aircrash on August18, 1945 when he was in his camp about 4 Km fromTaipei. He went to the spot and heard of Shidersdeath in the crash. He saw the wreckage of theplane and learnt that Bose had been taken to thehospital in an injured condition. The next day heheard that Bose had died.

4.44 Another witness is Keilichi_Salcai-- (WitnessNo. 67), a Commander of the Air Force Battalionat Taipei, whose office was about 4 Km from theairport. He says that on being informed about theaircrash, he went to the airport, where he reached -about 3 P.M. He saw the plane burning about 10or 20 meters from the runway. The injured persons,by then, had been moved to the hospital and the mili-tary police was guarding the wreckage. He was toldby the Chief of the Aerodrome Unit that Bose hadbeen injured in the crash. He saw some ornamentsand jewellery, e.g. necklaces, chains, rings, bank -notesetc. lying on the airfield and these were collected bythe members of the military police. The plane wasa heavy bomber. The witness did not go to thehospital.

4.45 The next witness is General Isoda (WitnessNo. 68). He accompanied Bose up to Saigon, al-though he was in a different plane. He has descri-bed the story of the journey from Bangkok to Saigon,which has already been related above. He saw Bosetake off from the Saigon airport in a Japanese bomberalong with General Shidei, Habibur Rahman, etc. Heheard later that Bose had died. It may be pointedout here that there are a number of discrepancies,about minor details, between the statement which hemade before this Commission and what he said beforethe Shah Nawaz Khan Committee.

4.46 Another witness is Shigetaka Suriure (Wit-ness No. 66). He was the Staff Intelligence Officerposted at Taipei. He says that he received advanceinformation of the arrival of the bomber in whichBose was travelling on 18-8-1945. He was in hisoffice near the airport and went to the airport andwas present when the plane arrived. He heard ofthe aircrash but did not see it nor did he go to thehospital afterwards to see the injured persons. Theimportance of the evidence of this witness is that hehad advance information of Bose's arrival at Taipei,and he deposes that the aircrash took place the sameafternoon.

4.47 Another witness is Lai Min Yee (WitnessNo. 203) . This witness was working in the trans-port section of the Japanese army at Taipei. His

28

story is that he heard of the plane crash in which anIndian leader was involved. He went to the airportand saw that the Japanese soldiers had cordoned offthe site and did not permit anyone to go near. Thishappened three days after the surrender by Japanwhich took place on 15-8-1945. According to him theplane started and hit a high wall of the temporaryrailway track and smashed before it crossed the Kee-lung river.

4,48 The last witness in this category is ChangChuen (Witness No. 207), who was working in theJapanese Army Headquarters in the Guards Section atTaipei. His story is that on the 20th August, 1945,he was ordered to go to the hospital and stand guardon Bose's coffin on which was written the name ofChandra Bose. He also saw some injured personsthere. On the following day, i.e. 21st August, 1945a truck came and carried the body to the crematorium.His story about the coffin is given in the followingwords:

"The coffin went in a Japanese military truckand we went with it to Hsinsgheng NorthRoad Crematorium. The crematorium isstill in existence. When the coffin was takenout of the truck, the keeper of the crema-torium came and said the coffin was toobig to enter the furnace. So, we opened thebox, which was filled with calcium oxide.-Fhe Japanese ordered to pull the dead bodyfrom the coffin and it was wrapped in acloth and a Japanese army blanket. Whenthe dead body was taken out of the coffin,the Keeper of the Crematorium immediatelyprepared two big planks which could enterthe furnace for cremating. When the twokeepers of the Crematorium lifted the deadbody, it was too heavy for them to take.They asked for help and I and my colleagueassisted them in taking the dead body up tothe mouth of the furnace and pushing itin. After we saw that the door of the fur-nace was closed, the Keeper brought somedisinfecting fluid to wash our hands andthen we left the crematorium."

Questioned further, the witness stated that the personwho was cremated was a very important person, andthat is why a standing guard was posted to honourthe body.

4.49 This then is the story of the crash and Bose'sdeath as the result of the injuries sustained in thecrash, deposed to by four eye -witnesses and eleven

other persons who corroborate them. There is noreason at all why these witnesses should have cons-pired to concost a totally false story and deposed to iton oath. Witnesses do tell lies on oath, but thereis always an understandable motive which promptsthem to commit perjury. It may be enmity againstan individual who can be held responsible for a crimeand made to suffer thereby, it may be deep interestin a person who has suffered and whose cause the wit-ness is willing to espouse or It may be monetaryconsideration, for witnesses can be bought. None ofthese considerations, however, obtain in the presentcase. Also the story, the witnesses relate is a naturaone. B-Ose had planned to escape, but the plan failedbecause of the malfunctioning of one of the aircraftengines. This defect has been ascribed by TaroKono (Witness No. 63) to an accident whichhad occurred three months previously when thepropellers of the plane were damaged. The propellerscould not be replaced and were perforce repaired.The damage must have been more serious and morefundamental than was believed at the time, and mani-fested itself on the fateful day of August 18, whenthe aircraft crashed and was completely destroyed.

4.50 The truth of this story was challenged ,onvarious grounds, and it was argued that the evidenceadduced in support of it is completely untrustworthy,and indeed, the story was fabricated in order to pro-vide a cover for Bose's escape route. The submissionsmade by Shri Mukhoty, Counsel for the NationalCommittee, Shri A. P. Chakraborty, Counsel for theForward Bloc Party and Shri N. Dutt-Majumdat0'--Counsel for the Bose's family, may be summarisedas

(i) The Japanese held Bose in such high esteemand were so determined to help him escapethe consequences of his falling into the handsof the Allied Military forces that they pre-pared an elaborate story of a fictitious air-crash and Bose's death, when in actual fact,Bose reached Manchuria safely and thenceproceeded to Russia.

(ii) All the Japanese witnesses were prevailedupon to testify .to a false story in order tosave Bose; also to safeguard their nationalhonour, they have persisted in repeating the:4,untrue version even after the lapse of 25 ..years.

(iii) There are glaring discrepancies in the state- ,ments of the witnesses both inter se andbetween the statements made before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee and before

29

this Commission. These discrepancies provethat the witnesses were not describing some-thing which they had seen but were lendingtheir support to a manufactured story.

(iv) Bose was a very secretive person by nature,and he never revealed his plans, except tothe very few who had to receive last minuteinstructions for the actual execution of theparticular plan in hand. So, no one knewthe details of how Bose was going to escapeand if false news of his death would bebroadcast to distract attention from hisactual whereabouts.

(v) Among Bose's co -passengers none exceptHabibur Rahman knew him. So these wit-nesses cannot be said to have identified himas the man who was involved in the aircrash on the Taihoku airfield, and whoconsequently succumbed to the burn injuriesreceived in the crash. Also the only personswho are alleged to have died are the personswho were to go to Manchuria i.e. beyondTaipei. None of the survivors had to gobeyond Taipei. This strange coincidencealso supports the hypothesis that Bose andthe other persons who were to go on toManchuria did, in fact, reach there, whereasonly the persons who were to be left behindare said to have survived.

(vi) The Japanese did not show Bose's deadbody to anyone nor did they call any Anglo-American military authority to view thebody in order to prove Bose's death andto exculpate themselves from the charge ofviolating the terms of their surrender andhelping the enemy to escape.

(vii) No photographs of Bose to provide evidenceof identification of the dead body were takeneither in the hospital or at the crematorium.Considering that the Japanese have almosta mania for photographing persons andobjects, this omission is significant and sup-ports the hypothesis that Bose did not die.

(viii) No military honours were accorded to Boseat his funeral. Bose was the Head of anIndependent State which was recognised by9 independent countries. He was held inhigh esteem by the Japanese and it is in-conceivable that the Japanese could haveallowed his dead body to be cremated with-out the usual military honours or withouteven the placing of flowers or a wreath onhis dead body.

8 M of H A/74 -5

(ix) There are no flight documents to prove theidentity of the crew and the passengers onthe bomber which is alleged to have crashedat Taihoku on the afternoon on August 18,1945. No passenger manifest was forth-coming and there is no evidence of anyenquiry having been held into the accident.

(x) There is a singular lack of hospital recordsto prove Bose's illness, the nature of thetreatment given to him and his subsequentdeath ; no history sheet of his illness, nobed -head ticket relating to Bose could befound.

(xi) No cremation permit or cremation certificateto prove that Bose and no one else wascremated has been forthcoming.

(xii) There was no official announcement ofBose's death and it was only the privateDomei News Agency which made the an-nouncement. Strangely enough it was A. M.Sahay who was asked to draft the announce-ment. Sahay had not witnessed the crash.He had not even seen Bose's dead body andthe utilisation of his services also shows thatthe whole story of the air crash was false.

(xiii) The wrist watch which was recovered fromBose's person and brought to India byHabibur Rahman was not the watch which

_ Bose was wearing at the time of his allegeddeath or had worn at any time previously.This watch is a rectangular one and Bosealways wore a round -dialed watch on hiswrist.

(xiv) Bose had a gold -covered tooth, and if it washis dead body which was cremated, somequantity of gold must have been found inhis ashes. There is no proof that any goldwas found in the ashes which were takento Tokyo and deposited in the RenkojiTemple. This circumstance also contradictsthe story of Bose's death and subsequentcremation.

(xv) There was a general disbelief of the story ofthe air crash and the subsequent death ofBose. Responsible persons openly expressedtheir disbelief of the story and continued tosay that, in their view, Bose was alive.

4.51 These are the main grounds upon which thestory of the crash and Base's death was directly criti-cised. I shall now deal with these arguments

30

4.52 I have, in an earlier part of this report, drawnattention to the nature of the relations which subsistedbetween Bose and the Japanese. Although Bose waspersonally held in great esteem by the Japanese, theydid not accept him as an equal ally, for the simplereason that he had no resources, and for everythinghe wanted to do, for every military expedition heplanned, he had to draw upon the moral as well asthe material assistance of the Japanese. They couldnot but consider him as something only a little morethan a puppet. I have already emphasised the fact thatthe Japanese were extremely proud of their militaryrecord in never having suffered defeat, of their devo-tion to duty and their national honour. It is on recordthat when the Indians in South -East Asia spoke ofthe absentee property of the Indians they were told"absentee property according to international law isenemy property. What property do you have here?You are all puppets. You must acknowledge thegenerosity of the Japanese in entrusting you with themanagement of absentee property at all... As forIndian prestige, that is secondary to the execution ofthe Commander -in -Chief's Orders. Puppets? What isthe harm in being puppets? You should be proudto be puppets of the Japanese." This was said beforeBose arrived on the scene, but it is indicative of thetrue attitude of the Japanese towards Indians, an atti-tude that did not change much, even after Bose's arri-val. Shah Nawaz Khan has stated, in his evidence, thatthe Japanese gave them poor provisions, inadequatetransport and insufficient medical supplies. TheJapanese did not keep their promise to hand overoccupied Indian terr itory to the Provisional Govern-ment of Azad Hind. The administration of the Anda-man Islands remained with the Japanese militaryauthorities and Loganathan was nothing more thana civilian administrator exercising partial powers ofcontrol.

4.53 Shri A. M. Sahay (Witness No. 164) whowas the General Secretary of Bose's Cabinet statedthat the Indian community in South -East Asia wasextremely anti-Japanese because of the very arrogantattitude of the Japanese towards India. This was theview which Deb Nath Das (Witness No. 3) had ex-pressed to Sahay and Sahay agreed with him. ShahNawaz Khan was more forthright. Some passagesfrom his statement on this subject merit quotation.Shah Nawaz Khan is the author of a book "I N.A.and Its Netaji".

'There was much dissatisfaction among the per-sonnel of the I.N.A. The rifles suppliedwere old and rusty. The light machine-gunsand medium machine-guns had no spare

parts ; mortars and heavy artillary had nooptical scientific instruments. The armouredvehicles were useful for photographic pro-paganda, and a good number of prisonersof war were removed from Gen. MohanSingh's control. Some anti-aircraft gunnerswho were segregated for training were placedunder the direct command of Japaneseofficers. The I.N.A. advance parties inBurma were not treated well by the1,apanese."

This passage was put to the witness, in the courseof his deposition, and he said : -

'By and large, I would say, what is stated thereis correct."

4.54 The witness went on to say that, before Bosearrived, the feeling among the Indians was that theJapanese were trying to make stooges and puppetsof the Indians. When Col. Niranjan Singh Gill andMahavir Singh Dhillon were sent to Burma to makean on -the -spot investigation.

"They found that small groups of INA personnel,known as the intelligence groups, were beingused by the Japanese as agents and spies tocollect information, which was not the typeof job for which T.N.A. was meant to beused."

The witness added:

"As you have just read in the book we were - 4dissatisfied with the Japanese. We wereprovided with no transport; weapons werevery indifferent, and we had a feeling thatthey deliberately wanted to show that theI.N.A. could not fight, and our soldiersknew this . . . . . Very frankly, to be fair tothem, they were not quite sure of the I.N.A.Because of their earlier experience, theywere not quite sure that if they made thisI.N.A. too powerful it might start fightingthem too."

Another indication of Japanese attitude towards theINA is contained in the following passage from thewitness's deposition :

"When we went to the front line, every one of 41our officers was carrying on his back a fan-tastic load, weighing about 80-100 lbs. Notransport was provided. Everything, all therations for 10-15 days, all their clothing,bedding, trench tools, etc., they had to carryon their backs."

31

When the I.N.A. retreated they had to do so withouttransport, without medicines, in very heavy rain.

4.55 There are numerous passages in the "I.N.A.& ITS NETAJI" which reveal the Japanese attitudetowards the Indian National army. It will be sufficientto quote three passages. The first one appears atpage 64:

"From the day that we first came in contact withthe Japanese, most of us developed a greatdislike of Japanese methods of dealing withpeople whose cause they professed to cham-pion. This dislike intensified when we sawwith our own eyes the organised looting andraping indiscriminately indulged in byJapanese soldiers. We often asked ourselves:'Is the same thing going to happen in Indiawhen we take the Japanese with us?' Inaddition to :this, the more we dealt with theJapanese the more suspicious we grew oftheir real intentions on India. For example,when we first organised the I.N.A., theyissued guns to the I.N.A. without any opti-cal or mechanical instruments without whichit was not possible to fire these guns withany degree of accuracy. And no ammuni-tion of any kind was entrusted to I.N.A.,tanks and armoured cars were fit only forceremonial parades and propaganda photo-graphs. In fact, any one with any knowledgeof modern weapons could see that theJapanese were deliberately not issuing properarms and equipment to the I.N.A. andwithout essential equipment it was not possi-ble for any army to succeed against a wellequipped modern fighting force."

The second passage appears at page 107;

"The Japanese were not giving all the assistanceto the I.N.A. that they could and shouldhave given. They made all sorts of vaguepromises that the I.N.A. would be suppliedwith everything when it reached the frontline, but this, of course, was never done."

This was the conduct of the Japanese after Bose hadarrived and taken charge of the Indian National Army.

) 4.56 The Imphal campaign was a failure, and thisis what Shah Nawaz Khan had to say about thecause of the failure :

"Lastly, and with a clear conscience, I can saythat the Japanese did not give full aid andassistance to the Azad Hind Fauj during their

assault on Imphal. In fact, I am right insaying tha t they l e t us down badly and hadi t not been for the i r betrayal of the I.N.A.the history of the Imphal campaign mighthave been a different one. My own impres-sion is that the Japanese did not trust theI.N.A. They had found out through theirliaison officers that the I.N.A. would notaccept Japanese dominat ion in any way, andthat they would fight the Japanese in casethey attempted to replace the British."

4.57 The views expressed by Shah Nawaz Khan inhis book are entitled to the greatest respect, becausehe was not only a trusted colleague of Bose but hadbeen specially selected by him to command the crackSubhas Brigade which made the first attempt to pushthe British back, in an endeavour to free India. ShahNawaz Khan took part in this offensive and he, betterthan anybody else, was in a position to assess thetrue worth of Japanese professions and what was thereal Japanese attitude towards Indians. It does notneed a great deal of perspicacity to understand thatthe Japanese were interested in the I.N.A. not inorder to help India free itself from British bondage butto make use of the INA in their campaign against theAllies in South -East Asia. They had realised thatBose commanded a great deal of respect and followingamongst a vast number of Indian in South -East Asiaand that he was in a position to draw upon the wealthof the richer Indians for a patriotic cause. Their res-pect for Bose began and ended with his usefulness tothem. Aito. _their _surrender, Bose could be of noassistance to them. They deprived him of the personalaircraft which they had olaced at his disposal. Theyshowed scant respect to him ; Field Marshal Terauchidid not condescend to admit Bose's emissary to a per-sonal interview. The war had come to an end andso had Bose's usefulness to the Japanese. They paida certain amount of lip service to Bose, and offeredhim an asylum in Japan. They were willing to givesome little help in providing him with a means ofescape, but beyond this they were not willing to doanything.

4.58 On the last lap of his journey, Bose could notbe provided with more than two seats in the bomberwhich left Saigon. On this point there is not theslightest doubt, and the evidence is unanimous. Allthe witnesses have stated that Bose was considerablyupset, and scant courtesy was shown to him by theJapanese military authorities. Even allowing for thefact that after the surrender of the Japanese, conditionswere chaotic and it was not easy to make flightarrangements, it might have been possible for the

32

Japanese to permit Bose to take five or six of his col-leagues with him, as indeed, he was most anxious todo. The evidence is that when Bose was informed ofthe arrangements for his flight beyond Saigon, he gaveunrestrained expression to his irritation and was evenprepared to abondon the whole plan of escape. Hesaid that he would not proceed beyond Saigon. Hewas, however, prevailed upon by his colleagues andby Ishoda to accept the offer of the two seats and takeHabibur Rahman with him before all flights of Japaneseplanes were stopped. All this shows that the esteemin which Bose was held by the Japanese was not ofthe order which would impel them to enter into anation-wide conspiracy and compel a number of higharmy officers to perjure themselves. There is no recordin history of such a conspiracy or of the suborning ofsuch extensive false testimony in order to give shelterto one individual. So, there could be no question ofprevailing upon respectable military officers to perjurethemselves in a cause which bore no relation to theirown personal safety or honour and was certainly nota matter of patr iotic or national importance to them.It was argued that Japanese honour demanded - thatthese Witriesses-SWeaf TalselY to save Bose. But thisis a Wholly unaCeep-tabie Tiy- Pothesis, for while on theone hand, Bose was refused accommodation for 6 or7 of his closest associates who were not only his friendsbut were the members of his inner Cabinet, whose ad-vice and support he could ill afford to lose after hisescape, and on the other hand, high military officerswere willing to perjure themselves for the sake of aman who was of no further use to them after their(Japanese) ignominous and abject surrender. WithHiroshima and Nagasaki blasted by the fire of Atombombs, the Japanese national pride grovelling in thedust, their King whose status and virtues were alwayslooked upon as godly, humbled and humiliated, theireconomy shattered and their country about to be occu-pied by an alien army, the Japanese could not possiblyhave langsha211 holly unproffiable ;ven-ture.. They_agreed to send Bose to Russia, at hisspecial request, and took steps to carry out his wishes.In fact, towards the end,-111-ey- were entirely 'unaccom-modating, and Bose complained that the Japanese were"changing the plan". Also when the war had endedand when conditions in the Japanese army were sochaotic, there could be no question of the Japaneseagreeing to secrecy, subterfuge or dissimulation for aperson who was, as far as they were concerned, analien, who had been useful to them upto a point butwhose efforts had failed to achieve anything in the

I , war. Thene_was no demand by the Allies that Boseshould be handed over to them, and there Was -abs-o--lutely no necessity of inventing and advertising -an alibi,for him

4.59 Many of these witnesses appeared before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee when it visited Japan,and related the same story. There was then still lessdeed for them to perpetrate a totally false story of anaircrash. They had not appeared and deposed on oathon any previous occasion. Therefore, there could beno question of their being compelled, in conscience, torepeat a false story. The 5.11ah Nawaz Khan Committeewas the first committee before which they gave evidence,on oath, and elevelyeas&aftear...the incident when con-ditions had becoinepeaceful, when the trial of the wara l-Millais- was over and finished with, when there wasno demand for Bose by anyone, his name was not onany list of war criminals, when nothing could be gaineby these witnesses telling lies, they are alleged to havegiven false evidence on oath. Such a hypothesis justdoes not make sense. By deposing to a false story, theycould not ho-pe to support or advance any cause. Whenquestioned during the proceedings of this Commission,they repelled the suggestion that they had told lies tohelp Bose escape to safety. In fact, there was never atany time, either in 1956 or now, any danger thatthreatened Bose, were he alive. As early as 1946, Val-labhbhai Patel had publicly declared on the floor ofthe Assembly Chamber in Delhi that if Bose were alive,he would be fr ee to come to India and move aboutas and when he pleased, and as I shall presently show,Bose's name was not borne on any list of war criminalsand he could have made a public appearance withoutany risk to his person or honour.

4.60 Let us next turn to the discrepancies in thestatements of.the various witnesses who have testifito the story of the crash and Bose's death. In thisconnection, it must be remembered that the witnesses,when giving their evidence before me, were recallingevents that had occurred nearly 25 years previously.Several of them had, no doubt, deposed before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee in 1956, and had, onthat occasion, had the opportunity of refreshing theirmemories. But even since that event 14 years hadelapsed. Any one with some experience of hearing .witnesses testify knows how impermanent, how subjectto erasure, distortion and deception is human me-mory in the matter of minor details attending a majorevent. The broad facts stand out fairly clear andpositive, but all else is enveloped in the mist of obli-vion. Memory is prone to play tricks and conjure

hup imaginary pictures to provide verisimilitude to tmore easily remembered incident of a murder, an ai

crash, a death or a rescue. So, the exact positionof the murderer and the number of blows he inflic-ted, the exact trajectory of a falling aircraft, the side \ -to which it listed, its point of contact with the groundare only vaguely or inaccurately remembered. Thus,

too, an eye witness may, in course of time forget theexact time of some one's death. A doctor who hasto deal with and treat thousands of patients may notremember how a particular patient was dealt withand who was present at the time of his admission tothe hospital or at the time of his death. Ine_v_itablythere will be contradictions and discrepancies betweenthe evidence of witnesses who describe an eventwhich occurred a long time ago. Indeed, a completelyconsistent story is nearly always an indication of aprepared and stubborned evidence. In the present casethe story narrated by the witnesses is, on the whole,consistent in all its major ingredients. The demea-nour of the witnesses who narrated the story of thecrash, their own involvement in the catastrophe, theinjuries they sustained and what happened in thehospital, impressed me as being frank and truthful.When the lapse of time had made the recollection ofsome minor event or insignificant detail uncertain orvague, the witnesses did not hesitate to say: "I donot remember", or "I have no memory of this."

4.61 Take for instance the evidence of Col. Nono-gaki (Witness No. 53), who was Bose's copassengeron the last lap of the journey between Saigon andTaipei and received minor injuries in the crash. Itwas said about him that he did not know Bose be-fore, he had not seen him die and he was not able tosee his face in the hospital because it was completelybandaged. Therefore, it was argued, the statementof Col. Nonogaki amounts at most to hearsay evi-dence and should, therefore, not be admitted or, atany rate, relied upon. It was also urged that theseating order in the plane as described by Col. Nono-gaki was not consistent with the seating order givenby other witnesses.

4.62 The witness's evidence, however, is that hemet Bose on the evening of the 17th August at theSaigon airport. There could be no mistake aboutBose's identity at that moment. Witnesses who knowBose will have deposed to his getting into the planewith Gen. Shedei. S. A. Iyer (Witness No. 29)Deb Nath Das (Witness No. 3), Gulzara Singh (Wit-ness No. 153), Col. Pritam Singh (Witness No. 155)and Ishoda. (Witness No. 68) all knew Bose, theywere all present at the Saigon aerodrome and theysaw Bose enter the plane in which Gen. Shedci wastravelling Bose was introduced to the other passenJgers, and it was impossible to introduce an imposterinto the pt in run- Via- 'Onfose's colleagues andcounsellor's.' Nolitigakis- statement is:

"I met him on the evening of .the 17th Augustat Saigon airport. It was just before he

33

got on to the plane. I also went in thesame plane."

Immediately after the crash the witness saw Bosestanding on the runway.

"I remember the incident quite clearly and thesubsequent events thereof. Especially Iremember Mr. Chandra Bose was standingnaked at the airport."

Cross-examined on the point, he said:

"These things are particularly strong in my me-mory. Other things are weaker."

At the hospital the witness saw Bose all bandaged up.He said that Bose was a very big person, and thoughhis face was bandaged, from his physical featuresthe witness was left in no doubt about Bose's iden-tity. There was a continuity in the various incidentsfollowing the air crash. And there was no possibilityof the witness suffering from halueination or makinga mistake about the identity of Bose. He was cross-examined in great detail by Mr. Trikha, and to manyof his questions he said: "I do not remember exac-tly." The following extract from the verbatim re-cord will show that the witness ,gave his evidence ina natural and frank manner:

"Shri Trikha: You saw one bandaged personlying on the bed?

Col. Nongaki: Yes. I '-

Shri Trikha: That bandaged person who waslying on the bed was in his senses?

Col. Nonogaki: He was in his senses.

Shri Trikha: And the doctors were standing byhis side.

Col. Nonogaki: I think so. I am not sure aboutit.

Shri Trikha: You are also not sure as to whetherany nurses were present or not?

Col. Nonogaki: I am not sure. -

Shri Trikha: In that hall where this bandagedperson was lying on bed, there were manyother patients lying on the bed?

Col. Nonogaki: No.

Shri Trikha: Did you see any bed ticket by theside of this patient who was bandaged?

34

Col. Nonogaki: I do not remember.

Shri Trikha: You did not ask any doctors whattreatment had been given to that bandagedperson?

Col. Nonogaki: No.

Shri Trikha: Did you ask the doctor that youwanted to talk to that bandaged person whowas lying on bed?

Col. Nonogaki: I did not.

Shri Trikha: The doctor was not present whenyou talked to that bandaged person lyingon the bed?

Col. Nonogaki: I do not remember exactlywhether there was a doctor at that time.

Shri Trikha: Did you take his permissionwLether you were allowed to talk with thebandaged person.

Col. Nonogaki: I do not remember exactly.

Shri Trikha: You do not remember who was thedoctor who was standing there.

Col. Nongaki: No. .

Shri Trikha: What made you talk to that band-aged yerson at that time?

Col. Nonogaki: I thought he was dying, and Iasked the interpreter to find out what hewanted to say.

Shri Trikha: You came to know that that per-son was dying and therefore you wanted totalk to him.

Col. Nonogaki: Yes. I heard from the doctorthat he will not survive long.

Shri Trikha: Did you ask the doctor that if thispatient dies his photograph should betaken?

Col. Nonogaki: I did not ask.

Shri Trikha: Do you remember who was theinterpreter?

Col. Nonogaki: I have no memory.

Shri Trikha: Do you know that the person whowas bandaged and lying on the bed knewJapanese? .

Col. Nonogaki: I do not think he knew Japa-nese.

Shri Trikha: In which language that bandaged

person talked?

Col. Nonogaki: I thought he could know Eng-lish. So that is why I called an Englishinterpreter and he spoke in English."

4.63 A reading of the above extract convinces., oneof, the truthfulness with which the witness...gave hisevidence. Similar extracts may be given from theevidence of other witnesses, but it is sufficient to saythat the discrepancies do not relate to important andsignificant matters. The witnesses are not consistent lregarding the position of the different passengers inthe plane although they all stated unanimously thatGenl. Shedei and Bose were sitting in front. There aresome discrepancies regarding other patients who wereplaced in the same room as Bose. My attention wasdrawn to a statement of a witness who said that thereare three aerodromes at Taipei. What the witnessobviously meant was that there were three runwaysand not three separate airfields.

4.64 Dr. Yoshimi's statement was criticised on theground that there were contradictions between hisstatement made before the Shah Nawaz _Khan Com-mittee and before the Commission. There are, nodoubt, inconsistencies, and the v...yi.ta.g,ss_ase.rl,12ed themto the passage of time that had occurred since theeVents which were being deposed to. The witnessstated once or twice that the statement that he wasmaking before the Commission was truer than thestatement he had made before the Shah Nawaz Khan 4Committee. He was not concerned about who gavethe blood transfusion to Bose but this matter is notimportant, since Dr. Yoshimi, being in overall chargeof the hospital, would only.prescribe the treatmentand not administer .hAirnself. The actual transfusionof bfood was conducted by nurses and not by doctorsor surgeons. Dr. Yoshimi prescribed blood transfu-sion and the nurse carr ied it out. The ,evidence ofDr. Yoshimi was that he was not present at the timeof l ans.fusion,, Di T t §E -(Witness No. 69) said thathe saw the nurse trying to give blood transfusion, butbecause she could not find Bose's vein he had to helpher. I see no real inconsistency in the statement ofDr. Yoshimi and the statement of Dr. Ishii. Dr. Yo-shimi was present in the hospital, he may not havebeen standing by Bose's bedside the whole time, andmay have passed by when the transfusion was beingconducted. But the important point is that there wasno reason whatsoever for Dr. Yoshimi to make up awholly false story and depose to it on oath. Dr. Yo-shimi struck me as an eminently respectable indivi-dual whose status in life and whose professional pride

35

would prevent him from committing perjury in a casewith which he was in no way personally or nationallyconcerned.

-4.65 Thus we find that the discrepancies to whichCounsel have drawn my attention do not falsify thestory of the crash. They are due to the passage oftime and the memory of witnesses becoming somewhatvague regarding matters of detail.

4.66 Again it was argued that lack of evidence re-garding the details of Bose's plan of escape and themanner in which it was to be executed is due toBose's secretive nature and his old established and

.consistent practice of strictly keeping his own counsel_4 about all his schemes. So, the argument proceeds, no

one before his departure from Saigon, knew that hisescape would be covered up by a false annotmcementof his death in an air crash. Habibur Rahman'schoice as his sole companion beyond Saigon was anessential ingredient of his plan. Habibur Rahmanwas chosen because he was Bose's most loyal anddedicated colleague and supporter. He alone couldbe trusted with the entire secret of the plan of escape,and he alone could be depended upon not to divulgethe secret subsequently. Habibur Rahman has justi-fied the trust reposed in him. He has proved him-self to be a true follower of Bose by authenticatingthe false report of Bose's death and by adhering tothe story throughout.

Y 4.67 Mr. Mukhoty argued this matter at greatlength drawing attention to the statements of severalwitnesses who deposed to the completely dependableloyalty of Habibur Raman. From this lie soughtto infer that Habibur Rehman was prepared to die orperjure himself at Netaji's behest. Therefore, Habi-bur Rehman's verSion of Bose's end is completelyfalse and was invented or, at any rate, asserted andproclaimed by him to provide a cover for his escape.While Habibur Rehman's loyalty may be accepted asa proved and undeniable fact, the inferences soughtto be drawn from it cannot be accepted. Habibur Reh-man has not appeared as a witness in the present en-quiry, and his credibility is not a matter directly inissue. The statements made by him on various oc-casions, including his testimony before the Shah Na-waz Khan Committee, are no more than hearsay andtherefore inadmissible in evidence to prove Bose's

V death. Far less can these statements be used to dis-prove the crash story. Had Habibur Rchman appear-ed as a witness before me and had his previous state-

r m en t s been put to him as he stood in the witnessbox, the probative value of these statements could havebeen assessed. The argument that because Habibur

Rehman was a loyal and dedicated colleague ofNetaji, therefore, he deliberately narrated a false storyis wholly devoid of logic. Similar in essence and il-logicality is the assertion that because Bose was bynature a secretive individual and never shared hisplans with anyone except his closest confidants, he hadconceived a plan of escape of which no one knew any-thing and which he was able to execute. There aretwo non -sequiturs in this assertion (i) because no oneknew of the plan, there must have been a plan; and(ii) because the crash story was broadcast, the secretplan must have been successfully executed. -

4.68 Mr. Mukhoty drew pointed attention to ShriDeb Nath Das's reaction to the news about Bose'sdeath in the Teipei hospital following the crash of theplane in which he was travelling. This is what ShriDeb Nath had to say in the matter

"On the 22nd we were all in the same place. Ithink we were making some preparation forfood. Around 10 or 10.30 a.m. Shri A. M.

over the radio, somebody heard, that on the18th there was a plane crash and Netaji haddied in the hospital; he said such an an-nouncement was made a little before.

As soon as he told us, all of us stood in silence,standstill and prayed to God for the safetyof Netaji.

Because it was two or three days after the Japa-nese surrender. Naturally, we thought thatin order to make Netaji's exist or escape safethis plan has been made. We took it withgood grace. At that time none of us felt un-happy that we were bluffed over this. Wetook it as a bluff and everyone of us felthappy."

4.69 So, the news of the air crash was interpretedas a camouflaged or arcane information of Bose'sescape to safety. Deb Nath Das felt happy that theJapanese had successfully carried out the plan con-ceived by Bose and agreed to by the Japanese. Butnot a single one of the several witnesses who have

,\ spoken about the escape plan said that it had one of,its ingredients a fake or a false announcement of Bose'sdeath. The plan was only to save Bose by taking

him to Manchuria. How could, therefore, anyone in-terpret the radio broadcast of August 23 as a success-ful implementation and smooth execution of the planand not its disastrous failure, through misfortune, as itpurported to be and as everyone took it to mean. Theonly reason for his disbelief of the crash story DebNath Das gave was the delay in making the announce-ment. But the delay is explained by the lack of faci-lities for broadcasting available at Taipei and the needfor proper processing through a recognised news agen-cy at Tokyo, in the post surrender conditions prevail-ing in the region. How can any rational person interpretdelay in a matter of this kind, taking place at a timeof this kind, as proof positive of the falsity of thenews, when there was no previous understanding thata false announcement would be made in the event of asuccessful execution of the plan? It must be empha-sised that Deb Math Das gave no other reason at allfor his joy.

4.70 Let us examine the evidence of the other wit-nesses_who heard the news of the air crash, and con-sider how they reacted to it. S. A. Iyer (Witness No.29) was present at the Saigon airport when Bose andGeneral Shidei left in the bomber. Iyer was Ministerfor Publicity in Bose's Cabinet. He was to follow Boseas soon as an aircraft became available. He says thathe went to the airport on 20-8-1945, in the hope of

-getting a lift to Japan. At the airport, Rear AdmiralChuda told him that Bose was dead, but as the engineof the plane was running and making a loud noise Iyerwas not quite sure what Chuda had said. Iyer leftin the plane but Chuda was left behind. At TichoiAerodrome, where the plane next landed, Col. Tadatold the witness about Bose's death in an air crash.Iyer's statement was : "He said that as you know,Netaji left Saigon on the afternoon of August 17. Hisplane reached Tourane late the same evening. Theparty rested there for the night, took off the next morn-ing on the 18th August and landed at Taihoku inFormosa. In the afternoon, after a very brief halt,the plane took off again but soon afterwards it crash-

* ed."

4.71 The witness went on to say he was disinclinedto believe Tada's story because Tada did not appearto, be very communicative. At the same time Iyer didnot reject Tada's story. This is clear from the wit-

"Commission : Did you doubt the story of theplane crash because you felt that he (Tada)was deliberately putting you off?

Iyer : He was avoiding.

36

Commission : You thought, he was avoiding,

Iyer . Yes, I thought so. At the same time I alsothought that perhaps there was no ulteriormotive. I had two minds".

It is clear, however, that the witness ultimately accept-ed the crash story, because at Tokyo, he received Neta-ji's ashes at the Imperial Japanese Headquarters andhelped to carry them to the Renkoji Temple. He treat-ed the ashes with the reverence due to his leader. This,he would not have done, had he disbelieved the storyof Bose's death. Iyer was asked to draft the announce-ment of Bose's death which was to be broadcast bythe Domei News Agency, and he did so. This furthergoes to confirm the witness's belief in the death story.In 1951, the witness went to Japan to enquire intothe properties belonging to INA in India and abroad.In this connection he paid a brief visit to Tokyo.Before he left India he was asked by the Governmentto report on :

(i) the exact facts about the ashes of SubhasBose kept in a temple in Japan; and

(ii) authentic information regarding the gold andjewellery carried by him on his last knownplane flight.

- 4.72 Iyer prepared a report in which he discussedthe story of the fatal air crash in considerable detail.The view expressed by him was that Netaji had, infact, succumbed to injuries sustained by him in anaircrash on the Taihoku airfield. He went on to say"in conclusion I would repeat that I have not thefaintest doubt in my mind that the ashes that are en-shrined in the Renkoji temple in Tokyo are of Neta-ji's I

-- 4.73 The witness has written a book "UNTO HIMA WITNESS- , and in this book also the witness reiter-ated his belief that Bose's plane had crashed and hehad died at Taihoku. Iyer was present at the Saigonairfield when Bose left, and he heard nothing abouta secret plan of making a false announcement of anaircrash and of Bose's death in order to cover up hisescape.

4.74 Another witness Gulzara Singh (witness No.153) was also present at the Saigon airport whenBose left with General Shedie. Gulzara Singh wastaken to Hanoi subsequently, and there on the 22ndAugust, he heard the story of the airerash. He be-haved as if he accepted the story as true, althoughhe said that somebody brought the news that Bose'splane was seen crossing Manchuria.

"14.

4.75 Col. Pritam Singh (Witness No. 155) heardthe news of Bose's death, on the radio, when he wasat Hanoi. He said he did not believe it because hethought that the Japanese would have to "give somesort of story to save their skin because Japan wasgoing to be occupied by the Anglo-American powersand they could not escape themselves unless somesuch story was made". This reason for his disbelief iswholly unconvincing. Neither Gulzara Singh norPritam Singh had heard of any plan to make a falseannouncement of Bose's death. The last witness, towhose evidence I shall draw attention is Abid Hussain(Witness No. 157). He too heard of the air crashwhen he was at Hanoi. Nobody said that the newswas false or that it was intended to be a cover forBose's escape. He was specifically questioned on thispoint. He said that he was quite sure that the aircrash story was not a cover.

4.76 Therefore, apart from Deb Nath Das andPritam Singh, none of the witness Who heard thenews of the air crashdisbelieved it, and the reasonDeb Nath Das has given is wholly unconvincing. Somewitnesses quite frankly and honestly said that theywere inclined to disbelieve the news because theywished Bose to be alive. Indeed, an emotional resis-tence to accepting the tragedy of Base's death can bethe only reason for any reluctance to believe its truth.It would have been otherwise if Bose's plan of escape,to the specific knowledge of the witnesses, who wereon intimate terms with him and who were his collea-gues and advisers, was that five days after Bose'sescape to safety, a false story of an air crash and hisdeath would be broadcast. This neither Deb NathDas nor the other four witnesses to whose evidenceI have drawn attention, say.

4.77 Mr. Mukhoty has, however, interpreted thislack of knowledge as corroboration of Bose's habitualand deliberate exclusion of his closest colleagues fromhis secret plans. And yet, he is alleged to haveshared this plan with all its details with the Japanese,because only through them could the plan have beenexecuted.

37

4.78 Therefore the argument is that although Bosewas prepared to share the secret of his plan with anumber of Japanese officers, none except HabiburRehman, out of his own colleagues and supporters,knew anything about it. Is it possible that Bose

,(.44 should have placed greater trust in the Japanese thanin the members of his own Cabinet, specially when

t he remembered that the Japanese had, towards theend of the war, shown scant respect or regard forhim. From the beginning they had wanted him as ttheir tool, a pawn in their hands, who could he madefto move in compliance with their plans and wishes,

8 M of HA/74---6.

They had treated Rash Behari Bose and Mohan Singhin the same manner. That role could no longer beplayed by Bose when the war ended, because thereWas then no prospect of a Japanese victory and therewas no occasion for a fresh expedition or enterprisein which Bose could be made to play a useful part.

1Bose was fully aware of this state of affairs. The pra-t visions, transport and ammunition supplied to him dur-

ing the Burma campaign left much to be desired, thelocal Japanese commanders had exercised their owndiscretion, often to the detriment of Indian interestsand aspirations. They had, even twitted the Indianssaying ; "Puppets What is the harm in beingpuppets? You should be proud to be puppets of theJapanese." The command of the Andaman Islandswas denied to Bac, and the Japanese transferred only

than. They had denied him the use of the specialplane which had earlier been placed at his disposal.He was denied accommodation for his colleaguesin the bomber which was to leave Saigon. Bose hadbitterly complained to his colleagues of a change ofplan by the Japanese. He was so angry and resentfulthat he was prepared to stay on and not go beyondSaigon. He mistrusted the Japanese after their igno-minious defeat. In the circumstances, is it possiblethat he would confide to the Japanese a secret whichhe kept back from his colleagues, and would enterinto a conspiracy with them to the exclusion of hisown men and trusted lieutenants? The answer tothese questions must be a categoric and emphatic 'no'.

4.79 Again, is it possible that the Japanese whohad begun to behave in this cavalier manner towardsBose would enmesh themselves in a web of conspiracyhurriedly woven at the last moment, and refuse toemerge from it into the light of truth for 27 years.lkiy_s_hould_the Japanese who have deposed aboutthe crash, perjure themselves in this manner? Mr.Mukhoty's entire argument on this point savours ofan assertion that the existence of a specified objectin a totally dark room is proved, because the darknessprevents us from seeing it and disproving its absence,thus making its very invisibility proof positive of itsexistence.

4.80 It was next argued that strangely only personswho did not know Bose were selected to accompanyhim on the Journey beyond Saigon, and no members ofthe Hikari Kikan who knew him and who could beexpected to be of assistance and support to him, duringand after the journey, went with him. Nor were hispersonal associates and members of his Cabinetchosen for this purpose. These people, it was argued,could have looked after him and provided the neces-sary moral and material support. Moreover, the onlysurvivors were the passengers who were not to go t o

38

Manchuria, the destination of Genl. Shedei and Bose.The survivors had to go elsewhere. So, it was argued,it is impossible to believe the story of the crash. TheJapanese would not have pushed the Head of an inde-pendent State recognised by no less than nine indepen-dent countries and who, up to the present day, isreferred to as His Excellency Chandra Bose into analready full plane. Nor would he have been uncere-moniously hustled into a bomber with trangers. Mr.Mukhoty's argument predicates that Bose and thepersons who were to go to Manchuria did, in fact,get there, but they were falsely reported to have died.

' The persons who were not to go to Manchuria weresaid to have survived because they did not go withBose.

4.81 The argument pre -supposes that the flight wasspecifically arranged to implement a fake plan, con-ceived primarily for Bose's benefit, a plan which wasduly executed. But the evidence shows that the flightwas arranged in order to carry Genl. Shedei and otherJapanese officers, who had been posted to Manchuria.Indeed, the two scats placed at the disposal of Bosewere spared very reluctantly, and at first, only oneseat for Bose himself was being allotted. So, in thevery nature of things, Bose and Habibur Rahman werea sudden and unanticipated addition to an almost fullcomplement of the load of the aircraft coming fromManila and flying to Dairen. It will be rememberedthat the two planes which had brought Bose and hiscompanions to Saigon had gone back. The Japanesehad. no doubt, agreed, in principle, to convey Boseto a place of ,,atet ,, such as Manchuria, but they hadnot assigned him any accommodation on a specificplane before Bose's arri_vaLat Saigon ; Nor had theyworked out the detailsslidasscape plan. From Saigononward Bose's journey depended on what transportwould be available and when. It is needless to repeatthat post-war conditions were so chaotic and uncer-tain that the Japanese could not plan or predict anyflights even for their own personnel. This explainsBose's dejection at what be called a change of plan.The change was, in fact, nothing more than a changein Bose's expectations necessitated by the rapidly chang-ing conditions after Japan's surrender, and the acce-leration of American activity in stopping all unautho-rised flights by the Japanese and taking possession ofJapanese military stations including Saigon andTaihoku. So, there is nothing surprising in Bose'sco -passengers being total strangers to him, strangerswho were on the plane not as his companions, pro-tectors or his adjuncts, but in their own right, on theirown business, on way to the places of their new

'postine.

4.82 The evidence ot Lt_. Gent, Ishoda (WitnessNo. 68) on this point sets the matteffree from doubt.

He said that Field Marshal Terauchi had forbiddenthe use of Bose's personal plane beyond Saigon, soBose had to be accommodated in whatever aircraftbecame available. Ishocia went with Bose as far asSaigon and there made arrangements for Bose's journeyto Manchuria. The following passage from his depo-sition before the Commission may be quoted:

"I stayed in Saigon. In Saigon I was told byStaff Officer Tada that the plane in whichMr. Bose was to board could not take manypersons. Mr. Bose wanted to take his Cabi-net Ministers along with him, but I wastold that only Mr. Bose could go with Genl. 'Shedei. So, I went to the headquarters in IL,r -N - 1 - , - 1 - . . . , T ,-,,,-.1,L i C U A L 1 S i l l , - t t t t t t

Genl. Terauchi so that Mr. Bose's requestmay be complied with. As a result of my

' negotiations with Gen. Terauchi, he allowedhim to take about three members of hisCabinet along with him. The Staff Officerof Gen. Terauchi thought that perhaps threepersons may be taken along with Mr. Bose.When I returned to Saigon, I was told againby Staff Officer Tada that only two memberscould be allowed to board the same planealong with Mr, Bose. Mr. Bose did notlike that arrangement, and said 'Then I willnot go'. Then I told Mr. Bose that atthat time their was a risk that theflights could be stopped at any momentbecause of the situation. So I recommendedto Mr. Bose that he should leave even if hecould take only two members. By only twomembers I mean Mr. Bose and another mem-ber from his party. So, I suggested to Mr.Bose that he should accept that arrangementfor going to the Soviet Union. ThenMr. Bose had his last Cabinet meeting forabout 10 minutes. After the meeting,Mr. Bose told us that he would accept thatarrangement, but Mr. Bose asked us toarrange so that the other members couldfollow him by other planes as soon as pos-sible. So I told Mr. Bose that 'we willmake that arrangement as soon as possible.So you may please leave quickly with Gen.Shedie : Then there was the problem ofluggage. Mr. Bose had many baggages andhe wanted to take his baggages, but I told'Mr. Bose that Gen. Shedei would arrangeabout his baggages and so Mr. Bose agreedto leave about one-third of his baggages ' -behind. He took two-thirds of his baggageswith him",

39

4,83 As far the argument that all the passengersdestined for Manchuria only survivorswere per who were not...1)3,4o to Manchuria, thefacts do not support the submission made by Counsel

before the Commission, two, namely, S. N_Etlogaki(Witness No. 53) and Taro Kono ,(Witness No. 63),

there. This fact is -clear from the evidence of Tadashi_Ando (Witness No. 46) who said quite clearly thatthe persons on the plane told him that theywere going to Manchuria. Also these persons were

pir coming from Manila from where Gem Shedei wasproceeding on transfer to Manchuria. Apart from oneor two passengers who were to go to Tokyo, it seems

- that all the others, particularly two of the survivorsNonogaki and Taro Kono, were to go to Manchurie

'There is, therefore, no force in the argument that thesurvival of only those persons who were not to goto Manchuria supports the hypothesis of Bose's escapeand a false story having been promulgated to providean alibi.

4.84 I shall next deal with the arguments that nophotographs of Bose's dead body were taken andthat Bose was not given a State funeral with thehonours that his status deserved.

I have repeatedly drawn attention to the postwarand post -surrender conditions prevailing on territoryoccupied by the Americans and the complete demo-ralisation of the Japanese war machine. It will beremembered that several persons committed harakiriin a fit of depression because they could not face theignominious defeat of their country, a country whichhad never been defeated by any external foe. _After,August 15, the emphasis was not on .th_e_obssl,..svatioriof protocol and due proprieties but on promptness in. ,carrying out whatever t'asks could be performed beforethe Allied Forces clamped (Jowl a total ban on allJapanese movements. In the circumstances, therecould be no question of according military or Statehonours to Bose upon his death or of taking plioto-graphs of his person. Some photographs were probablytaken, ,and these.._wer Habib orRahman, but since Habibur Rahman has not beenexamined as a witness and there no evidence to provethe genuineness of these photographs I do not propose

lo rely upon them. I shall treat them as documents- which have not been proved. This does not mean

that I declare them to be false and therefore contra-dictOry of the story of the crash and Bose's death.

4 -As far as the present inquiry is concerned they weretreated as if they did not exist, because it is not knownin what circumstances these photographs were taken,who took them, to .whom they were handed over and

in what manner and through whose agency theyreceived publicity. In any event, it seems that therewas no. point in taking a photograph of Bose's face,because he had sustained such extensive burns thathis face was unrecognisable, though in the form ofhis body and his manner resemblance remained tomake identification possible. I do not find any forcein the argument that because no photographs weretaken Bose did not die or that because no militaryhonours accompanied the cremation of Bose's deadbody, he did not die and was not cremated; nor do!find any force in the argument that the lack of flowersor a wreath disproves the entire story of the crash andof Bose's death. In the circumstance of the case,these omissions appear to me to be perfectly natural.Indeed, I should be disinclined to believe a story ofa formal and ceremonious funeral.

V4.85 I come next to the argument that no flightdocuments relating to Bose's last flight were producedor were indeed available, and that this clearly provedthat no crash had taken place on 18-8-1945 atTaipei.

4.86 The papers in the plane must have perishedin the fire, because the front portion of the planewhere they would normally be kept was completelydestroyed. There is no allegation or proof of an en-quiry having been made into the air crash by theJapanese military authorities. In the chaotic con-ditions prevailing at that time, when the Japanesewere hurrying to get out of Formosa, when theAmerican forces were expected to arrive at any mo-ment and occupy the Island. no enquiry could havebeen held or even contemplated. We do not knowif there were any flight papers in Saigon, in Dataror at the army headquarters. Any flight papers at theArmy headquarters at Datar or .Saigon must havebeen lost or destroyed because they were not requiredby any authority. There is not a title of evidencethat there were at any time, in existence, any flightpapers relating to the flight of the bomber whichundoubtedly left Saigon with Netaji and HabiburRahman on board on August 17, 1945. It is onlyconjecture that such papers must have been preparedergo, their non -production disproves the crash story.It is against reason, common sense and the rules ofevidence to base a conclusion on such an unjustifiableand unsubstantiated assumption.

4.87 The Shah Nawaz Khap. Committee made anendeavour to secure documentary _evidence of thecause of the 1111- crash and of Gent. Sfiedei's death.A requeTTor tI . n n I n o i n tH :1 11 11 , ' !1 1,

m r On these I. f i L l t i c N 0 ,

and was conveyed to the t Lira ns.'se i.iuthoritics t hi on .;11

40

the Indian Embassy at Tokyo. The official replyreceived from the Chief of the Fourth Section, AsianAffairs Bureau of Japan is quoted below : --

"Dear Mr. Dar,

In compliance with the request of the NetajiSubhas Chandra Bose Enquiry Commission,made at the Third Regular Meeting on May26, 1956, 1 wish to state in reply as

(i) Official Enquiry Commission whereinNetaji was emplaned.

As a result of investigation made at the Opera-tion Section, Repatriation Relief Bureau,

I. Ministry of Health and Welfare, it has beenrevealed that na_official enquiry commissionto determine the causes of the accident in

; question was held so far .

(ii) Military Record on the death of the lateGen. T. Shedei.

Two copies of the record in question, secured fromthe Operation Branch, Repatriation Relief Bureau,Ministry of Health and Welfare, is attached theretoas enclosures respectively.

Mentioned above be transmitted to the Com-mission. I should appreciate it very muchif you would be good enough to transmitthe above reply to the said Commission.

Sincerely yours,

HISAJI HATTORIChief of the 4th Section, Asian Affairs Bureau,

GAIMUSHI."

4.88 It ma y be pointed out that the above letterappears in two separate parts at pages 62 and 64 ofthe printed copy of the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee'sreport. Along with this letter was sent the copy ofwhat appears to be an application made on behalfof the deceased Genl. Shedei for promotion. The

(Translation)

RYU-SEN-MAN No. 483 August 4th, 1947.

To

President of Demobilization Agency

From

Chief, Korean & Manchurian Affairs Section,First Demobilization Bureau, Demobilization Agency.

for Promotion of War -Dead)

Whereas the person mentioned below comes undefparagraph 5. Article 26 of ICHIFUKU (First Demo-bilization Bureau) No. 744 of 1946, the applicationfor his promotion is submitted herewith for your

Date of Death August 18, 1945

Cause of Death Death by war.

Place of Death Tailioktt Airfield

Position - Attached to Military Head-quarters in Manchuria

Lieut. General

Tsunarnasa Shidei

January 27, 1895

No. 24, Oku-onoe-cho-Yamashinalzushi, ma-ku,Kyoto City.

Chief, Korean and Manchurian Affairs SectionFirst Demobilization Bureau

Demobilization Agency

(Official Seal)

Military Rank

Name

Date of birth

Permanent Domicile

Military Career of Lieut.

Dsxember 25, 1915

August 1, 1940

October 27, 1943

May 23, 1945

August 18, 1945

Examined andForeign Affairs.

June 4, 1956.

General Shidei :

Appointed Sub -Lieutenantof Cavalary

Appointed Major General

Appointed Lieut. General

Appointed the Chief ofStaff of Japanese Corps inBurma

Died by war in Formosa.

authenticated by the Ministry of

(Seal)(Sd.) YASUTERU, ASAHINA,

SecretaryMinistry of External Affairs

(Archives Section)

It will be seen that the. promotion applied for was_not approved by the Ministry of External Affairs.

4.89. Counsel made use of this document to arguethat Gent Shidei had not died in Taihoku but haddied subsequently in Manchuria, because the position of Genl. Shidei is mentioned as: "attached to military

41

headquarters in Manchuria". Counsel argued thatGenl. Shidei could have been so described only afterhe had taken over charge at Manchuria. If he haddied at Taihoku in an aircrash he would not havebeen so described. The fallacy in this argument isthat an official designate is so described as soon asorders are passed appointing him to a certain post ortransfering him to another place, and if he dies intransit he may, without error, be described as holdingthe post to which he was appointed or attached tothe organisation to which he was going. The docu-ment clearly mentions the date of death as August1 /3. 1945 and the place of death as Taihoku airfield.Therefore, it is clear that, in the application for pro-motion made on behalf on Genl. Shidei, his death atTaihoku airfield on August 18, 1945 was clearlyaccepted as a proved fact. This document, there-fore, furnishes a clear corroboration of the story ofthe crash and of Gent. Shidei's death in it.

4.90. The letter quoted above also makes it clearthat no official enquily into the_ air crash was_madeby the Ja_p_a_LiesLauthorities. In the very nature ofthings, no such enquiry could have been made at thattime, and the lack of any documents relating to thecrash either in the form of flight documents, of aninvestigation into the causes of the crash, or of a re-port upon the crash itself, does not disprove the storyof the crash. I' find no force in the argument thatbecause this evidence is lacking, we must reject the

istory of the crash and treat it as having been deli-berately invented to provide a cover for Bose's

.14escape.

4.91. The next point is concerned with hospitalrecords pertaining to the treatment administered toBose at the Military Hospital, Taipei, his death andsubsequent cremation.

4.92. It was contended in the course of the en-quiry that there should have been available docu-napataLy_e_yld.bed -head ticker containing details of Bose's ailment,the treatment administered to him and the progressobserved. After his death, the doctor attending onhim must have drawn up and signed a_death certi-ficate giving particulars of the deceased and the causeof his death. Finally, there should have been a ere-,-

Illation certificate to prove that Bose's dead body was-duly cremated. This evidence, it was argued, shouldhave been forthcoming from the hospital and muni-cipal records at Taipei.

4.93. Photostat epples of two documents_ wereproduced before the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee.One document purported to be a death certificate and

the other an application for permission to cremate adead body. In neither of them was the deceased'sname mentioned as Subhas Chandra Bose, nor doesthe date of birth of the deceased correspond to thedate of Bose's birth. The cause of death was statedto be heart -failure. When the Commission visitedTaipei, Shri Samar Guha made earnest endeavoursto find any hospifal_pr lereMatorium records mention-ing Bose's name, but all he could find and producewas the photostat copies of the same two documentsas were produced before the Shah Nawaz KhanCommittee. Shri Guha did not adduce any evidenceto authenticate the documents, and indeed it was con-ceded that the documents did not relate to Bose.

4.94. Mr. Mukhoty, while arguing his case, assum-ed, in the first place, that these documents related toBose and were respectively his death certificate andan application for permission to cremate his deadbody. But, because the details of the deceased men-tioned in these two documents did not correspond toBose, he went on to demolish his preliminary hypo-thesis by saying that the documents did not relate toBose and, therefore, Bose did not die and his deadbody was not cremated. 'It would have been enoughto dismiss this argument as self-defeating, but becausethe documents were produced before the Shah NawazKhan Committee and also before this Commissionand because Mr. Mukhoty relied upon them to rebutthe story of Bose's death, I consider it necessary toexamine the matter in some detail.

4.95. In this connection I may refer to FIarM Shah,a maser_repor . ter . , . who paid a visit to Taipei atthe end of A st 1946_ He made an investigationinto the story of the air crash and Bose's death. Heclaimed to have obtained the two above mentioneddocuments from the municipal records at Taipei, andhe handed over these to S.A. Iyer in 1951. Iyermentioned them in the report he submitted to Mr.Nehru. Harin Shah, in 1956, published a booknamed 'Verdict From Formosa GALLANT ENDOF NETAJI Subhas Chandra Bose'. The theme ofthis book is that the story of the crash of Bose's deathhad been proved beyond all doubt. Harin Shah ex-pressed the view that though the particulars given inthe two documents do not, in terms, specify Bose,the documents, in fact, relate to him and thereforeprove his death and subsequent cremation. He attri-buted the discrepancy to a desir e on the part of theJapanese to keep the matter of Bose's death a com-plete secret.

4.96. The death certificate describes the deceasedas Okara Ichiro, male, born on April 9, 1901. Thecause of death is mentioned as heart -failure. The

42

illness manifested itself on August 17, 1945 andproved fatal at 4 P . M . on August 19, 1945. Theoccupation of the deceased is mentioned as "non-regular member of the army at Taihoku ArmyHeadquarters." The application for permission tocremate the dead body was made by T. Yoshimi on21-8-1945, to the .crematorium, and the time of cre-mation was stated as 6 P.M. on August 22. The nameof the deceased was, as in the Death Certificate, men-tioned as Okara Ichiro and his date of bir th asApril 9, 1901. The cause of death was, as in thedeath certificate, 'heart -attack'.

4.97. It is clear that neither the name nor the dateof birth of the deceased mentioned in these two docu-ments is truly descriptive of Bose. Neither docu-ment mentions the cause of death as burn injuriessustained in an air crash. Yet Harin Shah assumedthat the certificate did relate to Bose. Harin Shahappeared as a witness before the Shah Nawaz KhanCommittee and affirmed his belief in this behalf.Harin Shah did not appear as a witness before .theprescnt Commission although he was present at oneof the preliminary hearing. He had no personalinformation of any matter concerning Bose's dis-appearance, and as he did not ask to give evidenceon oath, I did not consider it necessary to summonhim.

4.98. Dr. Yoshimi who was the proper person tosign the death certificate as also the application forpermission to cremate the dead body was examinedon this point both by the Shah Nawaz Khan Com-mittee and in the course of the present proceedings.Before the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee he madethe following statement

"On the 18th of August, I had issued a medicalcertificate of death in respect of the deceasedperson writing his name in Japanese (KataKana) as and giving thecause of death as "Burns of the, third_deg-ree", I handed overt the certificate to theCaptain in charge of the guard. There wasa diary kept in the hospital in which recordsof all patients were kept. Such a recordwas maintained for Mr. Bose, and there hisdeath was also recorded. The recording wasdone either by myself or Dr. Tsurtita givingdetails of every treatment carried out. .1 donlo.Linavy what happened to the ho_spitkr.c.,7cords after the war."

In the course of the p nt_c_m -imade a similar statetnet.n. The following e 1iaet from

the records of the proceedings may be quoted :---

"Slid Cbakraborty : Do you remember that youwrote the name of Chandra Bose in the cer-tificate or you wrote some other words ?

Dr. Yoshimi : I wrote his name Chandra Bose inKatakana.

Shri Chakraborty : Do you know the full nameof Chandra Bose ?

Dr. Yoshimi : I wrote only Chandra Bose.

Shri Chakraborty : What did you write regardin]the reason of death ?

Dr. Yoshimi : General burning all over the body,degree three.

Shri Chakraborty: Nothing more was written onthe certificate ?

Dr. Yoshimi : Nothing more was written.

Shri Chakraborty : What was the age of ChandraBose mentioned n the Certificate ?

Dr. Yoshimi : I do not remember whether I wrotehis age or not."

Dr. Yoshimi's previous statement made before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee on this point was readout to him and he admitted its correctness. It is,4therefore, clear that the death certificate of which thephotostat co is mentiOnerin Rarin Shah's book igli rnot the document which was signed by Dr. Yoshimi inrespect of Bose's death. For the same reason, theapplication for permission to cremate Okara Ichirorsdead body certainly does not relate to Bose.

4.99. It follows that the two documents have noevidentiary value at all, and neither of them proves ordisproves anything. They relate b a_tolally differentperson and not Bose at all. r A r e l l the date of deathmentioned in the certificate is a day later than theddte of Bose's death. It may be mentioned here thatwhen I went to the crematorium at Taipei and inter-viewed the son of theorigmal caretaker, I showed hima photograph appearing at page 99 of Harm n Shah'sbook and asked him if the man represented there washis father. The youngman denied that the photograph.wasittat of -his father, So. at least in one respect4Harju. Shah...is...proved n o t to h a v e been tecu ra te , Butwhatever Harin Shah said M his book or before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee or to S.A. Iyer is notadmissible in evidence because (a) HarM Shah hadno personal knowledge and (b) he did not ,appear

143

as a witness, before this Commission to depose to thefacts stated above. Therefore, it is erroneous to arguethat because these two documents did not mentionBose's name and the date of his birth correctly theydisprove Bose's death and the subsequent cremation ofhis dead body. The argument is in the nature of non-sequitur, for what does not relate to an event, cannot

4 be used to disprove it. It is tantamount to raising aphantom and then destroying it. I do not, therefore,accept the Contention that these documents relate toBose and that they disprove the factum of his death.

4.100 The next point relates to the manner in- 44(vhich the news of Bose's death was broadcast. lyer's

evidence is that though he was told of the air crash

4 by Col. Tada on August 20, the news was given gene-ral publicity only three days later, on Aug_ust 23,

The draft of the broadcastwas the request _of ,the JapaneseOfficers. The announcement,'was..broadcast Jy,,atheDomei News Agencv2 ' . - - - - - - * -

4.101 It was argued before me that in the naturalcourse of events, an incident of such importance wouldhave been given immediate publicity through officialmedia, and the delay of five days, taken together withthe needless requisitioning of Iyer's services and theutilisation,of a private medium, gives rise to a veryserious doubt about announcement.

4.102. The crash took place on the 18th, and Bosetdied late that evening. There is no evidence to showthat any means of announcing the news publicly exist-ed at Taihoku. It was some time before the newscould be conyeyed to Tokyo, because at that time, theJapanese did not want their messages to be interceptedby the Americans. It may well have taken two daysbefore Tokyo was seized of what had happened atTaihoku. Iyer was the Publicity Minister in Bose'sGovernment, he had been a newspaperman and thefact was not unknown to the Japanese because Iyer hadlived in Japan for many years. As soon as Iyer arriv-ed he was asked to draft the announcement regardingBose's death. This request was apparently made be-cause the Japanese felt that Iyer would know thecorrect manner of describing Bose and would exerciseboth propriety and discretion in framing the announce-ment. The delay of five days in publicising the news

iannot be taken as a rebuttal of the truth of the story.

any other broadcasting agency apatt from the DomeiNews Agency. Besides, news of this type is always

**u icise d by a recognised news agency rather than* pby a department of the Government. There seems tobe nothing unnatural or extraordinary in Iyer having

been asked to draft the announcement and the an-nouncement having been made by a private newsagency five days alter the occurrence which it broad-cast. There is no evidence of any official broadcastin_station M Taipei or okyo. '

4.103. I shall now deal with the controversy (forit is nothing less) raging round the rectangular watchwith a slightly damaged rubber strap which was pro-duced by Shri Amiya Nath Bose after persistent re-quests made by the commission. It has been allegedthat this watch was removed from Bose's person afterhis death in the Military Hospital at Taipei, and washanded over by Mr. Nehru to Sarat Chandra Bose,elder brother of Subhas Chandra Bose and father ofShri Amiya Nath Bose. Thus. the watch was reliedupon. as evidence corroborating the story of the air

crash at Taihoku. Shri Mukhoty and Shri Dutt-Majmundar repelled this _contention and argued thatthe watch was never worn !v Pnse vho always carrieda round Omega gold watch on his wrist. So, it wascontended that the watch had no connection withBose, and its production did not, in any way, corro-borate the story of the Crash.

4.104. The only direct evidence of the recovery ofthe watch from Bose's person would have been thestatement of Habibur Rahman. In the absence of hisevidence, the production of the watch cannot be look-ed upon as corroboration of. the crash story. I shall,however, relate the manner in which the watch is al-leged to have been recovered and what the variouswitnesses have said about it

4.105. Shri Amiya Nath Bose, at the time of theproduction of the watch before the Commission, saidthat Mr. Nehru came to Calcutta in December, 1945.

"At that time Pandit Nehru was staying at our. house. He was coming from Allahabad and

1 went to receive him at the Howrah Station,I forget by which train. I brought him toour house, and after a. short time, he joinedthe members of the family at the breakfasttable. My father and mother and. I believe,other sisters and brothers must have been

. there also. Panditji brought out this watchand handed it over to my father . He saidthat Col. Habilanr Rahman had given himthis watch to be handed over to father, and

. I remember this very well andI can more or less repeat. Panditji statedthat according to Habib. Subhas was wearingthis watch at the time of the air crash. Hetried to remove this watch and got burns.

44

After looking at this watch father handed itover to me and asked me to take care of

it. 5 2

Shri Amiya Nath Bose was questioned, in greatdetail and at considerable length, about this watch.He was inclined to believe the story attributed toHabibur Rahman and to accept the fact that the watchdid, in fact, belong to Subhas Chandra Bose. He ex-pressed the opinion that his father Sarat Chandra Bosealso did not doubt Habibur Rehman's story. Whiledescribing the incident when Mr. Nehru handed thewatch to Sarat Chandra Bose, he said :

"I remember in December 1945 father tookNetaji's death for granted. He was verymoved by seeing the watch and said 'samewa tch . . . . . . . . same watch'."

A suggestion was made to the witness that his uncleused to wear a round watch, he said

"One thing I heard from many persons is that theround gold watch that be used to wear cer-tainly did not reach Europe ......That parti-cular round gold watch could never come toEast Asia."

He reiterated his belief that the round watch, whichhis uncle used to wear in India, never reached Europeand he had no reason to disbelieve Habibur Rahman'sstory. He also mentioned a round watch which hadbeen brought by Major Swami and was handed overto Sarat Chandra Bose. This watch too was said tohave been worn by Subhas Chandra Bose.

4.106 Witnesses have made totally contradictorystatements about the matter of this watch. AurobindoBose (witness No. 165) son of &mesh Chandra Bosesaid that Subhas Chandra's father had made a presentof a round watch to him. Dwijendra NathBose (Witness No. 162) another nephew ofSubhas Chandra Bose said: "that watch wasa gift from Subhas's mother and Subhas wasso passionately attached to it that he wouldnever part with it. He wore it even when he went tojail, and obtained the permission from the jail superin-tendent to keep on wearing it." Amiya Nath Bose hasalready said that the watch was not a gift fromSubhas's mother and, in any event, that watch neverreached Europe. Uttam Chand Malhotra, who hostedBose in Kabul, stated that the round watch which Bosewas wearing, when he arrived, was left behind. It wasgiven to Bhagat Ram and from Bhagat Rain, it wastaken away by a police man. Therefore, the round

watch, about which Bose's nephews speak, whether itwas a gift from .his mother or from his father, was leftbehind at Kabul. There is really no satisfactory evi-dence of what watch Bose was wearing when he leftSaigon on his last journey. Bhaskaran stated thatBose was wearing a round watch. But Bhaskaran'sstatement has been seen to be wholly unreliable andI am not prepared to accept his testimony on thispoint. Evidence in the form of photographs taken atvarious times and published in books, was producedby Shri Samar Guha. The matter is, however, incon-clusive because, according to one statement, Bose woremore than one watch. He was given a present of sevi;rat watches by the Philippines. Some of thesedistributed to his officers, and some be retained with'him either for further distribution or for his own per-sonal use. Shah Nawaz Khan stated, in the course ofhis evide.ace, that Bose used to wear around as wellas a rectangular watch. I do not see anything extra-ordinary in a person changing his watch. In my view,quite undue importance has been attached to thismatter, and although the indication seems to be thatthis watch was indeed recovered from Bose's deadbody, I do not consider its production constitutingimportant corroboration of the crash story. In anyevent if the watch did not belong to Bose, it cannotdisprove the crash story because the watch, which wasalleged to have been recovered by Habibur Rahman,passed through many hands and there is also evidencethat when Habibur Rahman was confined in the RedFort it was stolen from him by some souvenier hundertOne thing, however, is certain that Shri Amiya NatfiBose has taken great care of this watch and for a csiderable time he was most reluctant to part with it.It was only when the request to produce it was re-peated several times that he became prepared to makeit an exhibit in these proceeding,. It seems to me,therefore, that despite all the protests and denials ofthe Bose family, Shri Amiya Nath Bose, at any rate,believes that the watch belongs to his uncle SubhasChandra Bose and is to be valued and treated withreverence and affection.

4.107 My attention was drawn to the fact that whenthe watch was handed over to Sarat Chandra Bosethe hands showed the time to be 1.10. The time of theaccident is said to have been 2.35. This was allegedto be another circumstance which contradicts the crakhstory. The bands, can, however, be easily maniptil ,ted as I have personally tested. The watch is saidhave passed through many hands and was handed overto Shri Sarat Chandra Bose about four months altos,it was removed from Bose's person, and any one couldhave by accident or design changed the time. Somepeople have an irresistible impulse to wind a watch or

rotate its hands Playfully, when the Watch is in theirhands and this may well be the explanation for thetime 1.10 showing on the dial of the watch.,

4.108 Another matter over which some time wasexpended relates to the allegation that Bose had agold or gold -covered tooth. The significance of thisallegation is that no attempt was made to examine theashes now resting in the Renkoji Temple in Tokyo tosee if the ashes contained any gold. Two membersof Bose's family have made contradictory statementson this point. Shri Amiya Nath Bose said that there

* were gaps in his teeth and he had one or two gold teeth.4 "There was gold on one tooth at least; it was bound, with gold." On the other hand, Shri Anrobindo Bose

4 stated: "So long as he was in India, we were veryclose to him personally, he did not have any gold toothhere." None of the persons who sought to challengethe crash story on this ground siw Bose after he leftIndia. No one would think of shifting the ashes of adead person in order to find any gold in it unless therewas some meaningful purpose in doing so. After thecremation there was no question of idetification andno one would try to examine the ashes to find a quan-tity of gold in them. Later, when the ashes were takento Tokyo and placed in the Renkoji Temple, no onethought of committing the sacrilege of opening theurn and examining the ashes. When the evidence ofthe members of his own family is so contradictory, itwill be pointless to pursue the matter further. Atmost the gold was no more than a drop when meltedand might easily have been lost. Habibur Rahman, in

-1/0- -k he course of his deposition before the Shah NawazKhan Committee said:, . .

. "I remember distinctly that a little piece of goldwhich was from the filling of one of Netaji'steeth was removed and placed in the urn."

But since Habibur Rahman has not appeared as a wit-ness in the present proceedings, his previous statementcannot be treated as evidence and I do not propose totake it into consideration. Shri Samar Guha very per-tinently pointed out that a gold tooth would have beena distinct hazard when Netaji was travelling incognitoin 1941, as it would have facilitated identification, andhe may well have removed that tooth had it been agold one. In view of the contradictory statements ofthri Amiya Nadi Bose and Shri Aurobindo Bose, how-ever, it is impossible to come to any conclusion onwhether Bose did have a gold tooth or not and, in thecircumstances, the omission to examine the ashes atRenkoji Temple is a matter of no significance. If uponexamination, now, the ashes do not yield any clue, the

8 Moi HA/74-7

45

story of the aircrash cannot be said to have been con-tradicted because (i) Shri Aurobindo Bose said thatNetaji had no gold tooth, ( according to Shri SamarGuha, a gold tooth, if it were there, would have beena hazard and might well have been removed, and(iii) the infinitesimal quantity of gold which consti-tuted the gold filling might well have been lost. Onthe other hand, the presence of a piece of gold canalways be explained away by saying that it could havebeen introduced into the ashes by someone determinedto prove the story of the aircrash and Bose's death atTaipei.

4.109 A strange and, to a person trained in theprocesses and procedures of judicial investigation, anutterly irrelevant argument is that because many per-sons including some highly _placed and responsibleindividuals have, from time to time, expressed doubtsabout the truth or the credibility of the crash story,it must be held to have been disproved. Opinionsor beliefs of persons who have no first hand infor-mation of the subject matter of an inquiry are whollyinadmissible in evidence, and they cannot be takeninto consideration for the purpose of determining thetruth or to formulate conclusions about what hap-pened. Opinions are allowed to be cited only incertain specified cases and for certain specified pur-poses. These are set out in Sections 45 to 51 ofthe Tndian Evidence Act. Of these 7 sections, Sec-,lion 45 is the only relevant section. This reads asfollows

"When the Court has to form an opinion upona point of foreign law, or of science or

, art, or as to identity of handwriting (orfinger impressions), the opinions upon thatpoint of persons specially skilled in suchforeign law, science or art, (or in questionsas to identity of handwriting) (or finger im-preSsions) are relevant facts.

Such persons are called ezperts."

.. Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether the death of A wascaused by poison The opinions of expertsas to the symptoms produced by the poisonby which A is supposed to have died, arerelevant.

(b) The question is, whether A, at the time ofdoing a certain act, was, by reason of

- unsoundness of mind, incapable of know-ing the nature of the act, or that he was

, doing what was either wrong or contraryto law.

The opinions of experts upon the questionwhether the symptoms exhibited by A com-monly show unsoundness of mind and whe-ther such unsoundness of mind usually ren-ders persons incapable of knowing thenature of the acts which they do, or ofknowing that what they do is either wrongor contrary to law, are relevant.

(c) The question is, whether a certain documentwas written by A. Another document isproduced which is proved or admitted tohave been written by A. The opinions ofexperts on the question whether the twodocuments were written by the same per-son or by different persons, are relevant.

4.110 Of the remaining sections, Section 46, re-lates to facts bearing upon opinions of experts,Section 47 to opinion as to handwriting, Section 48to opinion as to existence of right or custom, Section49 to opinion as to usages, tenets etc. Section 50to opinion on relationship, while Section 51 merelysays 'whenever the opinion of any living person isrelevant, the grounds on which such opinion is basedare also relevant.'

4.111 A reading of the terms of Section 45 showsthat the opinions and beliefs Of private individualsabout a matter like the death of Subhas ChandraBose or the circumstances in which he disappearedcannot be treated as the opinions of experts. No-body, how so ever highly placed or how so everresponsible, can be said to be an expert in the senseused in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.Therefore, any opinion held by Mr. Nehru, MahatmaGandhi or any other person cannof be said to bethe opinion of an expert as defined by the IndianEvidence Act and admissible under Section 45 ofthe Act.

4.112 It will be seen that, by and large, opinionsof experts are admitted in only special cases as theillustrations to the sections show. A doctor is anexpert on the matter of illness, death, symptoms ofillness and causes of death. Tithe death of a personis a matter in issue the opinion of a doctor whomakes inferences from observed symptoms or onexamination of the chemical contents of his stomachor viscera will certainly be admissible under this Sec-tion. Similarly, if an inquiry is being made into thevalue of a building or its structural strength the opi-nion of an engineer or an expert valuer will be ad-mitted. Neither the doctor nor the engineer had any

46

personal knowledge of the manner in which the de-ceased died or the circumstances in which thebuilding was constructed. What they say about thematter is the result of their subsequent inspectionand is based on their training and expert knowledge.Their opinion is, therefore, admissible. But to travelbeyond the bounds laid down in the Indian EvidenceAct would be to enter the dangerous territory inwhich wild conjecture, hopeful speculation, wishfulthinking, misguided enthusiasm or a desire delibe-rately to mislead hold unbridled sway. l i the opi-nion of a person who has heard stories about Bosefrom others were to be taken into account, pride ofplace must be accorded to the majority report of theCommittee presided over by Shri Shah Nawaz Khan, 'for this Committee based its opinion not upon ru-mours or upon the beliefs and disbeliefs of indivi-duals how so ever highly placed, but upon the sworntestimony of persons who claimed to possess firsthand knowledge of the facts to which they weredeposing.

4.113 But, at the very start of this inquiry Ideclared that the findings arrived at by that Com-mittee were inadmissible in evidence and certainlynot binding upon me. In this view of the matter,neither the majority report nor the dissentient reportprepared by Shri Suresh Chandra Bose can be look-ed at as evidence. Nor has the oral testimony ofShri Suresh Chandra Bose any probative value, forit amounts to nothing more than his opinion resting ,on what he has heard second hand. If his opinionis to be taken into consideration, the opinion of histwo colleagues must also be looked at and treateas evidence. Then, by the sheer logic of numbersthe majority report must be given greater weight. Weshould then be driven to the absurd conclusion thatthis Commission could, without holding any inquiry.have adopted the findings of S/Shri Shah NawazKhan and Maltra.

4.114 It must, however, be conceded that the ar-guments set out in both the majority report and thedissentient report can legitimately be adopted byCounsel and urged by him to support or to rebuta specific version or hypothesis. Counsel, were in-deed, allowed to do this. Therefore, though almostthe entire long and rambling statement of Shri SureshChandra Bose is inadmissible in evidence, manythe arguments upon which he placed his conclusioniwere allowed to be advanced by Shri Mukhoty andShri Dutt Majumdar. There is nothing strange oranamolous in excluding this argument when utteredby Shri Suresh Chandra Bose and admitting it whenspoken byby Counsel, for the one is the mere opinion

44

4

of a non -expert and the other is commentary onevidence produced in the course of the present in-quiry. Shri Suresh Chandra Bose's statement wasmade as if it were a piece of evidence, though it wasno more than his opinion based on material whichis not before the Commission. Counsel's argumentson the other hand related to evidence heard by theCommission. The two thus fall into entirely sepa-rate categories.

4.115 Counsel has relied upon opinions expressedat different times by Mr. Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi,Dr. Radhakrishnan, Shrimati Vijay Laxmi Panditand other persons, though none of them had anypersonal knowledge of the matters under inquiry.These opinions are wholly inadmissible in evidencebut since the argumcnt was advanced with consider-able vehemence I propose to deal with the matterbriefly.

4.116 Let us first take the opinion expressed byMr. Nehru. It is said that in reply to a letter of12-5-1962, from Suresh Chandra Bose, Mr. Nehrusaid

"You ask me to send you proof of the death ofNetaji Subhas Chandra Bose. I cannotsend you any precise and direct proof.But all the circumstantial evidence that hasbeen produced and which has been referredto in the Inquiry Committee's report hasconvinced us of the fact that Netaji hasdied".

This statement has been construed as an expres-sion of opinion that no precise and direct proof ofBose's death existed, and therefore, in Mr. Nehru'sopinion, Bose had not been proved to have died. Itis clear that when we read Mr. Nehru's reply in fullthe interpretation sought to be placed upon is a grosstravesty of what he said. Mr. Nehru had through-out taken the stand that he believed in Bose's death,although even such belief would not be admissible inevidence on the grounds stated above.

4.117 On another occasion, Mr. Nehru is allegedto have said that he had no conclusive proof of Bose'sdeath. It is not clear in what context Mr. Nehru

-made this statement, but if by conclusive proof weunderstand proof which cannot be rebutted as laiddown in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, thenundoubtedly Mr. Nehru had no conclusive proof ofMr. Bose's death. This, however, does not meanthat Mr. Nehru disbelieved the story of the air crashand Bose's death. Mr. Nehru's words have been dis-torted and misinterpreted.

47

4.118 Another argument advanced is that thoughMr. Nehru was unwilling for some time to order aninquiry into Bose's disappearance, he was finally pre-vailed upon to appoint a Committee. When the Com-mittee submitted its report the government acceptedit and Mr. Nehru in his subsequent replies to ques-tions, asked in Parliament, said that he was convinc-ed of the truth of the crash story, and that there wasno further 'need to order a second inquiry. Mr.Nehru's decision to appoint the first Committee hasbeen interpreted as arising from a doubt entertainedby him regarding the truth of the crash story. Forthe same reason when Mrs. Gandhi agreed to theappointment of the present Commission, her conces-sion to the demand of a large number of Membersof Parliament was construed as a doubt in her ownmind regarding the truth of the crash story. Neitherthe order of Mr. Nehru nor the decision of Mrs.Gandhi to direct an enquiry into the disappearanceof Subhas Chandra Bose was the consequence of apersonal doubt ar disbelief in their own minds; but,in any event, any number of doubts, any measure ofdisbelief cannot add up to anything. The value ofsuch doubt is zero and the sum total of several zerosis no more than zero. It is clear that any doubtentertained by anyone, who has no first hand infor-mation, is of no significance whatever, when we aremeasuring the quantum or the value of the evidenceupon which a finding can be based. If the personwho entertained the doubt were to state the reasonsfor his doubt or the material which had led him todisbelieve a certain fact or event, we should examinethe intrinsic worth of such reason or material andcome to an independent finding. For this purposeand to this extent alone are doubts relevant. Doubtsand disbeliefs per se have no value whatsoever, andmust be firmly excluded from consideration. Mr.Nehru's change of mind, if it can be called a changeof mind, when he appointed the Shah Nawaz KhanCommittee was a concession to public demand.a. democracy such concessions are often made evenagainst one's better conviction, in response to thedemand of a few individuals who are more vocaland more vociferous than millions of others who arecontent to accept the happening of an event and haveno wish to question it. Such a decision often meansno more than that the Government in power hasnothing to conceal. The Government's good faithand its truly democratic nature are proved all themore convincingly by what may prove to be a _re-dundant inquiry. This is the real justification forwhat may seem to many a pointless and unrewardingexercise. Therefore; there is no force in the argu-ment that Mr. Nehiu's decision to appoint the ShahNawaz Khan Committee implied a belief, entertained

48

by Mr. Nehru, on good and cogent grounds, thatBose did not die as a result of injuries sustained byhim in an air crash.

4.119 As regards Mahatma Gandhi, the contentionof Counsel is that when he heard of Bose's death hesaid that his inner voice told him that Bose had notdied. He is alleged to have sent a wire to the Bosefamily at Calcutta not to perform the Shradh cere-mony, which is performed only in the case of a deadindividual. Also he is alleged to have said that Bosewas a great man and he was alive. If MahatmaGandhi did say these things they could only havebeen prompted by his deep respect for Bose and adesire to see him alive. When anyone near and dearto us, or anyone great is reported to have died, weare reluctant to reconcile ourselves to the loss and sowe do not believe in his death. Mahatma Gandhi'sexpression amounts to nothing more than such wish-ful thinking or a symbolic tribute to Bose. Thereis, however, no direct evidence of any message fromMahatma Gandhi dissuading the Bose family fromperforming the Shradh ceremony. This is merely theipse dixit of one or two members of the Bose family,and I am not convinced of the truth of what theyhave said in this behalf. Prof. Guha stated, in the

t. course of his examination,asked Gandhiji what he thought about the report ofBoSe S- death. Gandhiji replied that if some one wereto show him Netaji' ashes, even then he would notbelieve that Subhas was not alive. Mr. Guha didnot say that he was present on that occasion and whathe said was a second hand report made to him byan unspecified person. So, I find it difficult to acceptthe correctness of this statement. I do not find itrecorded anywhere and it is not clear what exactlyGandhiji said or meant. In any event, I cannot, onthe basis of this second-hand statement, accept thecontention that Gandhiji disbelieved the story of thecrash and therefore the crash never took place. Ihave already pointed out instances of exaggerationsand misstatements which have been prompted by arefusal to believe the story of Bose's death despiteoverwhelming evidence to support it.

4.120 As regards Dr. Radhakrishnan, his namewas specifically mentioned by Shri Goswami, whosaid that he presented , a copy of his book "NetajiMystery to Dr. Radhakrishnan" and on that occasion,Dr. Radhakrishnan said : "Well, I know of Netaji'sexistence in 1948". He went on to say that he (Dr.Radhakrishnan) went to Russia and there SubhasBabu came to see him and requested him to makearrangements for his (Bose's) return to India. Thisis alleged to ,have happened in 1954. Dr. Satyana-rayan Sinha made a somewhat similar statement and

stated that in Paris when he was acting as Dr.Radhakrishnan's interpreter from Russian into Eng-lish Dr. Radhakrishnan gave him to understand thatto his knowledge Bose was alive and was in Russia.

4.121 Extracts from the statement of Shri S. M.Goswami were sent to Dr. Radhakrishnan for hiscomments. He sent ,a prompt reply saying : "I haveread verbatim report of Shri S. M. Goswami's state-ment, which you were good enough to send me. Thelast time I met Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was inDarjeeling in the summer of 1940 and I have notmade to Shri Goswami any of the statement he has estattributed to me."

4.122 Dr. Radhakrishnan was too ill to be exa-mined orally. But he is a far more reliable andupright person than Shri Goswami and I can not givepreference to Shri Goswami's statement over thewritten reply sent by Dr. Radhakrishnan. ShriGoswami was merely inflating his ego, as .has beendiscussed in greater detail in another part of thisreport,

4.123 With regard to Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Pandit,she has sent an affidavit to the effect that she hadnever met Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in any con-nection after he left India. There is no reason what-soever for disbelieving this affidavit. It is far morereliable and acceptable than the evidence of a hostof witnesses who have made incredible statementsabout encounters with B o s e at different times and atdifferent places.

4.124 There is one more matter about which abrief mention must be made. Lord Wavell was theViceroy of India in August 1945 and he heard thenews of Bose's death in Taipei. Upon a first im-pression he recorded in his Journal "I wonder if theJapanese announcement of Subhas Bose's death istrue." He felt somewhat sceptical, and thought thatthis would be the sort of statement Which the Japa-nese would make, if Bose were going undergorund.In subsequent entries ,i,n_his_Journal, Lord Wavelltook Bose's death as proved and repeatedly referredto him as a dead person. These entries appear inthe book .Yeireer , e s __Journal_ liy_WaYeell.

4.125 A statement attributed to Lord Mountbattenhas been also mentioned in the course of these pro- ,ceedings. He is .alleged to have recorded that Subhas.i,:,Chandra Bose has once more escaped. If he didmake this comment it obviously meant that the AlliedMilitary authorities had not been able to capture S.Bose alive. Mountbatten's observations cannot betaken to mean that he had information of Bose'sescape to a place of safety.

4.126 These so called doubts and beliefs, there-fore, amount to nothing, and the argument of learnedCounsel that because eminent persons, holding res-ponsible positions expressed doubts about the truthof the crash story, the story was false, has no forceor validity. These persons had no personal know-ledge. They were giving expression to their viewsat a time when no proper inquiry into the matterhad been made. Indeed, in the earlier enquiry car-ried out by the personnel of the British Intelligencethe finding was to the effect that Habibur Rehman'sstory was true and that Bose had, in fact, died.

4.127 With regard to the other persons who haveexpressed their opinions and beliefs it is sufficient tosay that these persons were actuated not by a desireto tell the truth but by other motives. The evidenceof many of them has been discussed in another partof this report and the worthlessness of their evidencedemonstrated. There are other-s WWO- dO not meriteven a passing mention because their opinions or be-liefs are nothing more than a figment of theirimagination or deliberate falsehood calculated todraw attention to themselves.

4.128 After giving the most anxious considerationto all the available evidence, the criticism to whichthe statements of the various witnesses were subjectedand the arguments advanced by counsel, I havereached the conclusion that the story of the aircrashat the Taihoku airfield in Taiwan and the subsequentdeath of Bose, resulting from burn injuries sustainedby him in the crash must be believed. This story issubstantiated by the testimony of wholly independentwitnesses, four of whom were Bose's co -passengersin the plane which crashed, one is the doctor who

49

attended to him and signed his death certificate andseveral others mentioned in the course of this chapterwho have corroborated this story in all material par-ticulars. I am not prepared to accept the contentionthat the entire military organisation of Japan hadentered into a conspiracy to put forward a false storyin order to cover up Bose's escape. Such a hypothe-sis is foreign to reason and to human nature. Mostof the witnesses who gave evidence impressed me bytheir frank and honest demeanour. The Doctor , too,appeared to be a most convincing witness of truth.The criticism advanced against the testimony of thewwitnesses has been discussed by me in the foregoingpages, and in the end, it is only necessary to say thatthis criticism does not shake the strength and thevalue of the evidence.

4.129 I, therefore, find it proved beyond all rea-sonable doubt that Bose travelled in a Japanesebomber from Touraine to Taihoku on the morningof 18th of August, 1945. At Taihoku the planestopped for a short time to refuel. The pilot detecteda snag in one of the engines. This was attended to,and the pilot pronounced the aircraft to be air-worthy. The propellers of one of the engines hadbeen damaged in a .previous_accident and the repaircarried out did not completely restore the efficiencyof the engine. This finally caused the crash atTaihoku, almost immediately after the plane took off.The plane crashed to the ground, broke into two,partsand caught fire. In this fire the pilot_ and _Genl.Shidei died instantaneously and of the other men onboard, the co-pilot ,Ayoagi died later and Bose alsosuccumbed to his burn injuries during the course ofthe following night. His body was cremated and theashes were taken to Tokyo.

FIVE

EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN HYPOTHESES

5.1 In this Chapter I propose to deal with threematters which were agitated before me at some length,though they have only a remote and indirect bearingon the facts under inquiry, viz.

(i) what was the exact nature of relations bet-ween Nehru and Bose;

(ii) was Bose declared a war criminal, liable tobe tried and punished by the special tribunalset up for this purpose; and

(iii) What is the significance of the earliest en-quiries regarding Bose conducted by Intelli-gence and secret service personnel.

It will be seen at once, that the answers to thesequestions may throw some light on Bose's attitudeand his plans, but they cannot afford much assistancein the investigation of what happened on August 18,1945. But since it has been argued that these mattersare helpful in understanding Bose's character and theplans he may be assumed to have made (when nopositive evidence of such plans is available) theydemand more than a passing reference in this report.

5.2 The argument relating to Nehru -Bose relation-ship was advanced with considerable vehemence. Itwas alleged that Nehru was hostile to Bose, and hadbeen so, ever since Bose defeated Gandhiji 's nomineeat the election for the Presidentship of the NationalCongress in 1939. Nehru looked upon Bose as arival and, after India attained independence, a dangerto his position as supreme leader and political head ofIndia. Nehru, so it was argued, had never acceptedthe truth of the air crash story, and he knew thatBose was still alive. It was suggested in the courseof arguments that Nehru was indeed, in some way,responsible for Bose not making a public appearance.Nehru, therefore, contrived to obtain a false reportof Bose's death by appointing a committee, the mem-bers of which he could control or influence.

5.3 To support this argument, reliance was placedon the supposedly hostile feeling between Bose andNehru arising out of differences in their political

50

ideologies. A statement attributed to Nehru was that ifBose invaded India with the assistance of the Japanesearmy, he (Nehru) would oppose Bose with the forceof arms. It was also alleged that Nehru, at the invi-tation of Lord Mountbatten, went to Singapore in1946, and there, agreed to some plan whereby Bosecould bebe prevented from making himself manifest.

5.4 LA us first examine the political differencesbetween Nehru and Bose, and see if there is evidenceof any hostility or animus on the part of Nehru to-wards Bose. The Counsel for the Commission readextracts from A Bunch of Old Letters by JawaharlalNehru, the authenticity of the contents of which wasnot challenged by anyone. These letters show thatthere were, no doubt, political differences between Bosetind Nehru, and whereas Nehru was a more moderatepolitician, Bose was inclined to be more revolutionaryand more impetuous. But we find no evidence what-soever of any hostility, recrimination or vindictivenesson the part of Nehru. Indeed, before the unpleasant-ness caused by the presidential election of 1939, Bosehad written to Nehru in the most affectionate and res-pectful terms. He wrote on March 4, 1936 : "I shallmake the statement as short as possible and say clear]that I have definitely decided to give you my fullsupport. Among the front rank leaders of today, youare the only one to whom we can look up to forleading the Congress in a progressive direction." Again,on 13th March, 1936. he wrote to Nehru: "I canthink of no one else in whom I could have greaterconfidence." Writing on June 13, 1936, he expressedconcern about Nehru's health, saying, "from the papersI gathered that you were over -working yourself andI was feeling concerned about your health. I amglad that you went to Mussoorie for a rest, though ashort one. I can appreciate how difficult it is foryou to avoid over -working yourself; nevertheless,do hope that you will not strain yourself too much. ttwill not help anyone if you have a break down." Againon October 19, 1938, Bose writing to Nehru said,4,4,.."you cannot imagine how I have missed you all these"months. I realise, of course. that you needed a changevery badly. 1 am only sorry that you did not giveyourself enough physical rest A. K. Chanda, writing

51

on the eve of the presidential election on Novembei28, 1938, said to Nehru : "And if he (Gandhiji) metyou now, he would, in all probability, seek your helpin getting Subhas Babu re-elected." When the rifttook place, Nehru wrote to Bose, more in sorrow thanin anger,.-regretting that differences had arisen in theNational Congress. He said : "As 1 told you, your

4 contest in the election has done some good and sonicharm. I recognise the good, but I am apprehensiveof the harm that will follow. I still think that, in thebalance, it would have been better if this particularconflict had not taken place in this way. But thatis a thing of the past and we have to face the future."

ft Bose, however, appears to have taken the differencesas a personal affront to his dignity and position. He

4' did not reply to the long letter written by Nehru fromwhich the above passage has been quoted, and later,Nehru wrote to his brother, Sarat Chandra Bose, inreply to a letter which the latter had sent, "but yourletter hardly refers to any question of policy or pro-gramme. It deals with personal issues and briagsserious charges against particular individuals. Thisbrings the argument to a lower level and it is obviousthat if such opinions are held by any individual orgroup against another, mutual cooperation in a com-mon task becomes impossible. I do not know howfar your letter represents Subhas's views on the sub-ject I think it is desirable to have some kind ofinvestigation into the various charges brought by youor others. It is improper that such charges should be

, made vaguely, and the fact that many people believein them does not substantiate them. We cannot allowour public life to descend to a level of mutual re-

* crimination . . . . . . I had hoped that it would bepossible in these days of internal and external crisisto have a large measure of cooperation among Con-gress men, and laboured to this end at Tripuri andbefore . . . . . . . . if there is to be conflict among Con-gress men, I earnestly hope that it will be kept on ahigher level and will be confined to matters of policyand principle."

5.5 In these letters there is not the slightest signof hostility or antipathy. There is an expression ofregret on the part of Nehru for the differences in anational organisation. There is anxiety to avoid asplit and a spirit of what may be called sweet reason-ableness. It has often been said about Nehru thathe never entertained any venom or feelings of recri-

c- mination, and that although he was imprisoned a num-ber of times by the British Government, he foundit in his heart to be friendly towards the British afterindenpendence. It was the system he fought againstand not the individuals who were no more than instru-ments through whom the system was administered.

Indeed, not even the worst detractors of Nehru everaccused him of being vindictive or revengeful. Afterindependence when the question of Bose's family andany assistance which they might need arose, Nehrutook every possible step to help them. He was, atall times, agreeable to any measure designed to pro-vide financial or other aid to Mrs. Bose and hisdaughter, Anita.

5.6 The existence of Bose's widow and daughterwas first given wide publicity in India by the Hindu-stan Standard on May 5, 1951. The issue of thatdate contained a three -column account of a meetingbetween Aurobindo Bose and his Aunt, Mrs. SubhasChandra Bose in Vienna. in 1947. It will be recalledthat Aurobindo Bose is the son of the late SureshChandra Bose and, therefore, a nephew of Netaji.The published account was enlivened by a graphicdescription of the meeting, and three photographs de-picting Mrs. Subhas Chandra Bose, her mother andher young daughter, Anita. One or two passagesfrom this narrative may be quoted :

"Shri Aurobindo Bose, nephew of Netaji SubhasChandra Bose, told pressmen in Calcuttaon Friday that he was proud of her because

. she was fully inspired by the ideology of herillustrious husband." "His aunt, Mrs.Emilie Schenk], was eager to come to Indiawith her daughter Anita." "He informedthat Prime Minister Shri Jawaharlal Nehruhad written to Mrs. Bose some time agorequesting her, as a friend of Netaji and inhis personal capacity, to come to India andspend a couple of months here." . . . . . . . .

, "Shri Bose stated that when he took leave ofthem at Vienna, Mrs. Bose gave him somesouvenirs of Netaji. Among them werephotos of Netaji and his wife, the stone ex-

, tiacted after a gallstone operation onNetaji." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

! "In reply to the question why the news ofNetaji's marriage had not been disclosedearlier, he said it had been withheld for thesafety of Mrs. Subhas Bose and her child,because Austria was then under the occu-pation of the Allied Powers."

5.7 Another nephew of Netaji, Amjya Nadi Bose,who has appeared both as Counsel and witness in thepresent proceedings, wrote to Nehru on June 10,1952, saying : "I want to send, from time to time,small sums of money to my aunt in Vienna". Inanother letter he gave the name and address of hisAunt as : Frau Emilie Schenk], Ferrogasse 24 Vienna.Bose's family was quite enthusiastic about his widow

and daughter until Lalita Bose made a suggestion in1958 that Netaji Bhawan in Calcutta should be handedover legally to Anita. To this stig.gestion Amiya NathBose, at tirst,objected as also another nephew Dwijen-,clra Nath Bose. "I hey seemed to have agreed to thetransfer somewhat reluctantly. But when Anita's visitto India began to draw near, they had second thoughts.On November 1, 1960, Pradip Bose who is anothernephew of Netaji wrote to Nehru that the membersof the Bose family were meeting "on 9th Novemberto discuss problems which her visit will entail andalso to fis up a comprehensive programme for her." Inthis letter Pradip Bose did not question Anita's rela-tionship with Netaji, and admitted that she had writ-ten to him. At this time somebody appeared to havethought that Anita intended to stay permanently inIndia. A question was asked in Parliament, and thereply given was that the daughter of Netaji was likelyto visit India in December. 1960. Anita arrived inCalcutta and was warmly welcomed. Then she paida visit to Delhi where she arrived on December 17.TI-rs. Sunday Standard of December 18, 1960, publish-ed a photograph of her and also the following newsitem :

- Miss Anita Bose, 18 year old daughter of Neta-ji Bose, arrived here today by air from Cal-cutta for a five-day stay.

Miss Bose, who is accompanied by two othermembers of the Bose family, Dr. Sishir Boseand Lalita Bose, was received at the airportby Mrs. Nayanatara Sehgal, niece of PrimeMinister Nehru.

Miss Bose will be the guest of Mr. Nehru duringher stay in the capital. Mr. Nehru receivedher affectionately at his residence . . . . . . . .9

5.8 Some time after this, Haripada Bose raised apoint that Anita was not Bose's daughter at all. Thecry was taken up by other members of the Bose familyapparently for the reasons that Anita's relationshipposed a threat to their interest in the property left bySubhas Chandra Bose. Nevertheless, Nehru continuedto feel the greatest concern for Bose's widow andchild, and took steps to assist them financially. Apartfrom the small sums of money which Amiya Nath Bosesent her through the Indian Embassy in Vienna, Nehrucreated a Trust in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs out of INARelief Fund. The major portion of this money wasdrawn from the proceeds of a film depicting thecareer of Netaji. There was also a contribution ofRs. 45,000 by the West Bengal Government. Theincome from the Trust money was regularly sent to Mrs.Lose in Vienna. The Trust property was to become

52

the property of Anita Bose when she attained majority.Emilie Sehenkl wrote to Nehru expressing her grati-tude for creating a Trust for her daughter, Anita Bose."May God bless you", she concluded, for this noblegesture". Nehru took a personal interest in the draftingof the Trust Deed and the manner in which it wasto be administered. Indeed, he showed far more con-cern than Bose's family. As early as 1958, whenAnita was expected to pay a visit to India, Bose'snephews were not too eager to receive her. Dr. B. C.Roy, Chief Minister of West Bengal wrote to Nehruon December 5, 1958 :

"I have been discussing the question of Anita's ,4coming over to India. I am enclosing anote, which will give you an idea of thepresent position regarding the house in ElginRoad.

if the heirs of Subhas Chandra Bose are notready to receive Anita, it will be difficultfor her to come and stay at the Elgin Roadhouse, even if she wants to.

Under the circumstances, I have told Lalita to in-form Anita not to come to India at the

" present moment."

As already stated above, Anita did pay a visit toIndia in 1960 and was warmly received, but thewarmth was prompted by the knowledge that she wasnot interested in her late father's property and inten-ded to go back to Europe after a brief stay.

5.9 There is not the slightest evidence to indicateany feeling of hostility on the part of Nehru towardsBose. The political and ideological differences bet-ween them, which arose in 1938, had vanished withthe passage of years, and after 1947, when India at-tained independence, these differences had no rele-vance whatsoever because the raison d'etre of thesedifferences was the divergent means which Nehru andBose thought should be employed to attain indepen-dence. independence having been achieved, the means,which might have had relevance in 1938, were nowa matter of no consequence whatsoever. There isnothing to indicate that Nehru would not have wel-comed Bose after 1947, had Bose been alive and hadhe chose,n to make a public appearance. In fact, hestated on several occasions that he had always enter-tained sentiments of respect and affection for Bose.

5.10 With regard to the remark which Nehru isalleged to have made that should Bose invade Indiawith the assistance of Japanese forces, he would

oppose him (Bose) with force, no evidence has beenproduced to indicate when and in what circumstan-ces this remark was made. It has been alleged byShri Dwijendra Nath Bose that Nehru did make sucha remark during the course of World War II. Butit is clear that even if this remark were made, it doesnot indicate any hostility on the part of Nehru towardsBose. All that Nehru must have meant was that hewould have opposed Japanese domination of Indiato the same extent as he had been opposing British

,domination. Bose entering India with Japanese assis-tance could only mean one thing, viz. India wouldbecome a colony or a suzerainty of Japan, and to thisNehru was wholly and sternly opposed.

5.11 It has been argued that, in 1946, Nehru wasinvited by Lord Mountbatten to visit Singapore.There the two leaders drove together in an open carri-age and gave the appearance of being friends andpolitical allies, Nehru had been asked to place awreath on the INA Memorial, but he was dissuadedfrom doing so by Mountbatten. Mountbatten hadthe Memorial demolished and Nehru did not raisehis voice against this revengeful act of vandalism. So,it was alleged, Nehru was clearly hostile to Bose.

5.12 But Nehru's visit to Singapore in 1946 wasnot in answer to an invitation issued by Mountbatten.The visit was in pursuance of a resolution passed bythe Congress Working Committee on 7-11-1945. TheWorking Committee appointed an INA Inquiry andRelief Committee. The purpose of this Committeewas to gather information and give relief, whereneeded, to the I.N.A. personnel. The Committeeconsisted of 12 members, of whom Jawaharlal Nehruwas one. - The Working Committee then appointed- Jawaharlal Nehru to proceed to Burma and Malayato inquire into the condition of Indians there and toarrange for their defence and other help." It was inpursuance of this resolution and this direction of theWorking, Committee that Nehru went to South -EastAsia. He met Mountbatten there, but this was achance meeting. There is not a shred of evidence toindicate that Mountbatten had invited Nehru toSingapore or that he went there in response to suchan invitation. Nehru did go to the site of the demo-lished I.N.A. Memorial and brought back with himmarble slabs which had formed part of the Memorial.These he handed over for safe custody to Shah NawazKhan. In the circumstances, it was the most naturalthing for Nehru to do, because Shah Nawaz Khan,

4.. who had been tried as a traitor for taking part in the4 I.N.A. campaign against the British and proved to

have been Bose's staunch supporter and loyal friend,was expected to handle the marble pieces with the

8 M of H A / 7 4 - 8

53

care and respect they deserved. Also, it was naturalfor Shah Nawaz Khan to take the slabs to the safetyof his residential house in Rawalpindi. In the dis-turbed and uncertain conditions prevailing in thecountry towards the end of 1946, Shah Nawaz Khandid not think it wise to expose the precious marbleslabs to the danger of communal frenzy at Delhiwhere their identity would be immediately discovered.It was unfortunate that unanticipated events made itimpossible to bring the slabs back to India. Butnothing in this unhappy episode indicates Nehru'shostility or indifference towards Bose.

5.13 Let us now examine the contention that theInquiry Commission appointed under the Chairman-ship of Shah Nawaz Khan in April, 1956 was astage-managed event, calculated to suppress the truthand mislead the public into believing that Bose haddied in consequence of receiving fatal injuries causedby the crash of an aircraft in which he was travelling.A veiled allegation to this effect was made at the veryfirst public session of the Commission whenShri Amiya Nall Bose stated that he had a very pooropinion of Shri Shah Nawaz Khan's forensic talent andthe way in which be had conducted the inquiry.Shri Balraj Trikha, a little later, suggested that thereport should not be considered by the Commissionand Shah Nawaz Khan should not be allowed toquote from it. Shri Amar Prasad Chakravarti wasmore forthright, and at the hearing at Calcutta, onNovember 2, 1970, he posed the rhetorical question:"Is it not a made to order report to support the state-ment of Nehru which he made in 1952 ?" He wenton to say: "Had not the report been placed beforeParliament, I would' not have cared; people would nothave cared for this trash, this planned report". He

upon the Government to declare the reportnull and vOid. Suresh Chandra Bose, Netaji's elderbrother, who was a member of the 1956 Committee,said in the course of his evidence that an attempt wasmade to corrupi him and purchase his assent to themajority report by the offer of a governorship. Thisoffer, he said, was conveyed to him through ShahNawaz Khan, who spoke to him at Tokyo where theCommittee was recording evidence in the course ofits inquiry. Later, when he declined to sign the re-port, approved and signed by S/Shri Shah NawazKhan and Maitra, Suresh Chandra Bose was subjectedto pressure and coercion by Dr. B. C. Roy, ChiefMinister of West Bengal. Hence the report was acontrived and tendentious document and was proofof Nehru's hostility towards Bose and his determinationto suppress the truth and mislead the public.

5.14 It was made abundantly clear, at the verybeginning of this inquiry, that the report of the Shah

Nawaz Khan Committee could not be admitted inorder to prove the truth of its contents. This being ade novo inquiry, the findings in the previous inquirywere neither binding on this Commission nor rele-vant as a piece of evidence. But the circumstancesin which the inquiry was ordered are relevant forthrowing light on Nehru -Bose relations as argued atconsiderable length by counsel appearing on behalfof the Bose family and also on behalf of the NationalCommittee. The events which led to the appoint-ment of the Committee have been narrated byShri Shah Nawaz Khan and also by Shri SureshChandra Bose. There are no essential differences inthe facts stated by these two witnesses. According toShah Nawaz Khan, Government was not at all keento have the inquiry because the report of Bose's deathin an air crash had been accepted as true. But sincedoubts began to be raised in several quarters andthere were newspaper reports alleging that Bose wasstill alive, Shah Nawaz Khan felt that an inquiry wascalled for. He said in his evidence before me:

"As a humble soldier and a humble follower ofNetaji, like all of my colleagues here, I wasanxious to know the truth, and severaltimes, I approached our late revered PrimeMinister , Nehru and requested him to havea formal inquiry. I told him, `wc., do notbelieve what people say. Therefore, aregular inquiry should be held.' I kept onrepeating this from the day of my releasefrom the Red Fort in 1946. When we gotno response, then I went to Calcutta. There,I met the members of the Netaji SmarakSamiti and the President of that Samiti wasShri H. K. Mehtab and the Secretary wasShri S. C. Sinha. I met them and I toldthem that we must have a regular inquiry,the nation must know what has happened toNetaji and that we must know the truth.I told them that although Shri HabiburRehman was a very nice man, still unlesswe held a thorough inquiry, we could notbelieve him.

"Then the citizens of Calcutta held meetings. Iwant my friends here to know that it wasnot a Committee set up by the Governmentbut by the people of Calcutta. Then, wedecided that if the Government of Indiadoes not send a Committee, the people willsend a Committee. I then went to Tar-matar and met Netaji's elder brother andmy learned fr iend's uncle. I asked him, `ifthe people of Calcutta or the people of

54

India agree to send a people's committeeon their own, would you be a member ofthat Committee?' And he said, 'Yes'. Ihave all that correspondence with me herefor inspection if anybody likes to go throughit. I can place it on the Table of the Corn-mission.

"When this decision was taken, I came back toDelhi and met the Prime Minister. I toldhim that the people of India had decided tosend a committee to Tokyo and makeenquiries about Netaji's disappearance. Iasked him, 'would you kindly ask ourdiplomatic mission there to help us?' When r,I made that request to Panditji, he saidthat it would be better if this Committeegoes on behalf of the Government. Andthen the Committee was appointed. Therewas no pressure, no indication of any speci-fic line on which the Committee was askedto conduct the inquiry. It was entirely anindependent Committee as your Hon. Com-mission is today."

5.15 The statement of Suresh Chandra Bose in niway contradicts Shah Nawaz Khan's story. Hesaid .

i 4. . . . . . Prime Minister Nehru anticipated that

such an inquiry would come to the findingthat Netaji was not dead which he knew to I,be correct. So, he would be proved to be ra liar for having stated that Netaji wasiltikdead. Soon after this, a few leaders helda meeting in Calcutta and said that thoughthe Prime Minister had declared that Netajiwas dead they did not believe it, and sothey decided to form a Committee with meas its Chairman to make an inquiry regard-ing Netaji. Shri Shah Nawaz Khan was inthat meeting and a copy of the resolutionpassed in it was given to him with a requestto hand it over to me and to persuade meto give effect to the resolution passed. So,on his way to Delhi he met me at Tar- 4

matar, Bihar, and informed me all about itand told me that he would report the matterto the Prime Minister. Obviously, Shrci.Nehru knew that Netaji was not dea dswhereby he would be branded as a liar anso he appointed a 3 -men Committee withtwo Government officials, viz. Shri Shah k,Naraz Khan who was the Parl iamentary,Secretary and Shri S. N. Moitra, ICS, whowas the Chief Commissioner of the

Andamans and Nicobar Islands, and myhumble self as a non -official member takenfrom our family." .

5.16 It will be seen that Suresh Chandra Bose isdrawing inferences which are not warranted by thefacts, and that the appointment of the committee byNehru in no way implied Nehru's belief that Bosewas alive. Suresh Chandra Bose could not haveagreed to sit on the Committee if he had entertainedany doubts regarding the genuineness of his assign-ment, and his freedom to act in accordance with the

, Atdictates of his conscience. The evidence was taken--cin the presence of all three members. All three mem-

bers went to Tokyo where the statements of a numberof witnesses were recorded. Among these witnesseswere some who claimed to have travelled with Bosein the plane which crashed. A doctor who claimedto have attended him on his death -bed was also exa-mined. This evidence ostensibly pointed to Bose'sdeath in consequence of an air crash. After the in-quiry was completed, a draft document was drawn upin quintuplicate. This document was a short one andcontained the principal points to which the threemembers of the Committee had agreed. Shah NawazKhan stated: "This draft was given to the memberson the 30th June, 1956 and the members took ithome, digested it and came the next day with anychanges to be made. Shri Suresh Chandra Bose madethe changes in his own hand in pen on all the five

.stcopies and then signed it in token of agreement onthe frame -work on the basis of which the report was

8 At° be written." This document clearly states that allthree members agreed to the finding that Bose's planehad crashed and as a result of injuries sustained byhim, he had died a few hours later. A photostatcopy of the "principal points" is appended to thisreport and it will be seen that a phrase has been addedby Shri Suresh Chandra Bose in his own hand andhis signature appears at the end of the document.There is no indication of any pressure having beenexercised on Shri Bose before he expressed his con-currence to the conclusion regarding Netaii's death atTaihoku Airport. Subsequently, Shri Bose changedhis mind and declined to sign the final draft of thereport, and the majority report was placed before theParliament and published.

5.17 On the facts, therefore, there is nothing to>Indicate that there was anything fraudulent or stage-managed about the report from the time the Com-

ittee was appointed till the time the majority reportwas laid before the Parliament. Suresh Chandra Bosehad been present throughout the hearings, and he hadappended his signature to the principal findings upon

which the report of the majority was prepared. Icannot believe the story of the extremely naive andindeed stupid offer of a governorship which ShahNawaz Khan is alleged to have made to SureshChandra Bose. The latter's statement made on 4thNovember, 1970 is to the following effect:

"My colleagues Shri Shah Nawaz Khan andShri Maitra could not possibly consider theevidence that was recorded because hadthey analysed the thing, they would havecome to the finding that Netaji did not die;they were ordered to say that he had diedand they did so and for which they wererewarded by Pandit ShahNawaz Khan was made Deputy Minister ofRailways at the Centre and Shri Maitra,Deputy High Commissioner, Pakistan andsubsequently Ambassador of India in foreigncountries. And in passing I may say, abigger award was kept in store for me, andMr. Khan told me in Tokyo that Mr. Bose,you can become the Governor of Bengal ifyou choose to. These were the very words.For the rewards which were given to Khanand to Maitra, it was quite natural forPandit Nehru to give me some reward also,because being a brother, if I had goneagainst the evidence and supported the re-port that Netaji was dead, surely he wouldhave given me some reward."

5.18 It is impossible to believe this story. In thefirst place, Suresh Chandra Bose would not have beenappointed a member of the Committee at all, if itwere known that he had a completely closed mindon the subject and that he believed his brother to bealive. It was for precisely this reason that a subse-quent request to Nehru to name Dr. Radha BinodePal a member of the Committee was rejected. Dr. Palhad made statements which indicated that he couldnot bring an impartial, unbiased and unprejudicedmind to bear on the subject. Suresh Chandra Bosewas named because it was felt that, as Netaji's brother,he would be anxious to discover the truth, and takean objective view of the evidence produced beforethe Committee. Also, a committee of which a closerelative of Netaji was a member, was expected toinspire confidence in its deliberations. Had Nehruwanted to "pack" the Committee with persons whowould carry out his behests, he would not have in-cluded Suresh Chandra Bose at all. So, his veryinclusion is proof of Nehru' bona fides.

5 1 9 In the second place, had Nehru intended topui 'lase Suresh Chandra Bose's judgement, he would

56

have sounded him before his appointment was an-nounced, and the offer of governship would have beenmade before the Committee commenced its labours.No one wishing to obtain a false verdict from a judgeappoints him without any preconditions or allure-ments. The extremely naive and indeed stupid man-ner in which Shah Nawaz Khan is alleged to havemade the offer of Governorship to Suresh ChandraBose defies belief. Why should the offer have beenmade half way through the inquiry and, of all places,at Tokyo where witnesses claiming to have been in-volved in the same air -crash as Netaji and to haveseen him die were produced and examined? S/S ShahNawaz Khan and Maitra apparently believed this evi-dence and acted upon it. They could not think thattheir colleague had taken a contrary view. In anyevent, a majority report would have served the pur-pose as well as a unanimous report. Persons chargedof murder have not infrequently been convicted andhanged upon a majority verdict and Nehru could nothave felt any urge to obtain Suresh Chandra Bose'sconsent.

5.20 There was not a word of this shameful offerof a Governorship to Suresh Chandra Bose in theDissentient Report, though the writer was at pains toenlarge upon his grievances real or imaginary. Attwo places in his Report (p. 50 and p. 98) he speaksof having been subjected to a dint of influencing,persuading and coaxing by Dr. B. C. Roy, ChiefMinister of West Bengal. But there is no mentionof any offer of Governorship to him by Shah NawazKhan in Japan. This story was obviously inventedmuch later and introduced in order to furnish someslight justification for denigrating the integrity andbona fides of Prime Minister Nehru, despite the factthat Nehru nominated to the Committee the personswho were most likely to win the respect and confi-dence of everyone interested in discovering andlearning about Netaji.

5.21 Finally, Suresh Chandra Bose, after hearingthe evidence and considering it, signed the "principlepoints". Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this document aresignificant.

"2. Whether the plane crash did take place: Theplane carrying Netaji did crash. There isno other evidence to the contrary; the evi-dence should be considered carefully andin details.

3. Whether Netaji met his death as a result ofthis accident: There is no reason why they

' should be disbelieved. After a lapse ofabout 10 years, these witnesses, who belongto different walks of life and to different

an Indian and subse-quently a Pakistani, and the others, who areJapanese, who are mostly unconnected withone another and no longer in the service oftheir Government, and Japan not being a

state what was not true."

5.22 So, at that time, i.e. on 2-7-1956, whenShri Suresh Chandra Bose signed this document, heagreed that the plane carrying Bose did crash andthat Bose did die as a result of this accident. Heeven endorsed the reasons for believing the witnesses.The document was signed long after the alleged offerof governorship was made to Shri Suresh ChandraBose. Therefore, according to Shri Suresh Bose, herejected the insulting offer of a governorship in lieuof agreeing to sign a report confirming Netaji's deathand then, later, signed the document in which heexpressly and unequivocally agreed that the planecarrying Bose had crashed and Bose had met hisdeath as a result of this accident. Suresh ChandraBose's statement before the Commission is, therefore,seen to be totally false and unbelievable. No offerof governorship could ever have been made to him.No attempt to procure a false report from him wasor could have been made: Indeed, he, at the con-clusion of the evidence, concurred in the finding ofthe other two members; but for some reason, changedhis mind and resiled from his pronouncement.

5.23 From the above discussion it will be clearthat there is not a shred of evidence to support theallegation that Nehru was acting in a vindictive or iol lrrevengeful manner. There was no reason why heshould have wanted to procure a false report aboutNetaji. When the Committee was appointed, Bosehad been absent for more than 10 years. Nehru be-lieved that Bose would not have remained in hidingafter India became independent. Even as far back as1946, it had been stated publicly by Sardar Vallabh-bhai Patel that there was no bar upon Bose's move-ments, and that if alive, he was free to enter India andmove about as he wished.

5.24 So, it must be found that the ,entire allegationthat Nehru was hostile to Bose and contrived toobtain a false report regarding his death as a resultof an air -crash at Taihoku is without any substance.

5.25 Mr. Mazumdar has, on behalf of the family74-of Bose, argued with considerable vehemence andpersistance that the Government of India has deli-berately suppressed or destroyed evidence whichwould have proved that Bose's name was included inthe list of war cr iminals who were to be tr ied by the

57

War Crimes Tribunal. The significance of this con-tention is that after the victory of the Allies and theunconditiOnal surrender of the Japanese forces, Bosedecided to remove himself from the territory occupiedby, or under the control of, the Allies and remainedin hiding till such times as it became safe to makehimself manifest.

5.26 Even before the public sessions of the inquirybegan; I had been informed of this aspect of the caseby some of the persons who interviewed me and whowished to give. evidence before the Commission. I

Agathered that there seemed to prevail a general im--41 pression, in certain quarters, that the name of Subhas

Chandra Bose was borne on the list of war criminalsprepared by the Allied Forces, at the conclusion ofWorld War II, but since it was believed that Bosehad lost his life as a result of injuries sustained in anair crash on August 18, 1945, he could not be broughtto trial when the International Tribunal, constitutedto try 28 persons, sat in Japan. Subsequently, it beganto be said that Bose had not died, and was in factalive, but to escape the consequences of a. trial on acharge of committing war crimes, he had either re-mained in hiding or had been prevented by his friendsand well-wishers from revealing himself. Some per-sons expressly desired to testify before me, and askedme what the exact position was and if indeed Bose'sname was, at any time, on the list of war criminals.They stated that on the answer to this question woulddepend whether they were in a position to state thewhole truth or not. They also wanted to know- ifthere was a list of war criminals valid and still inforce and whether Bose's name was borne on thislist Another matter on which they wanted someclarification was whether the Government of Indiawas, under any obligation or international agreement,duty-bound to hand Bose over to an internationalbody who might try him upon criminal charges.

5:27 I, therefore, addressed a letter to the Ministryof Home Affairs -posing the following questions

I. Was Netaji's name borne on the list of warcriminals prepared at the conclusion ofWorld War II?

1 If so, is there - such a list which is still inforce, and is Netaji Bose's name on thatlist?

3. Should Netaji Bose be proved to be alive, isthe Government of India under any obliga-tion to hand him over to an internationalbody for being tried upon charges of com-mitting war crimes ?

4. What will be the Government's attitude to-wards the freedom of Netaji Bose, shouldhe be found and appear in person .?

5. Was any list of war criminals maintained apartfrom the list which was placed before theinternational court which held its sittings inJapan ?

5.28 A reply was received to this letter after a fewdays in which it was stated that the Home Ministryhas consulted the Ministry of External Affairs, theMinistry of Information and Broadcasting and theMinistry of Defence, and all three Ministries had statedthat no such information was available with them.This reply, however, did not deal with the five ques-tions which I had referred to the Ministry, and so afresh reference was made. In the -meantime, on 24thDecember, 1970, Shri M. L Sondhi, who appeared asa witness stated : "In the Tokyo verdict, Mr. SubhasChandra Bose ranks as a war criminal." M. Sondhi,however, could not support his statement with anydocument or other material. I told Mr. Sondhi thatthere was no question of Bose being tried by anyoneas a war criminal and that his name was not borne onany list of war criminals. To this, Shri Mazumdarsought an elucidation in the following terms : "MayI seek one elucidation from your Lordship if youwould be pleased to give that? Your Lordship hasbeen pleased to declare that you have the authorityto say and to pronounce here that neither the Tokyoverdict nor anything with regard to the war criminals'list applies to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. I shallfeel extremely grateful if your Lordship will kindlyelucidate the authority upon which this pronouncementwas made."

5.29 I told Mr. Mazumdar that I had made thestatement on my own authority, and this, I thought,should be enough in view of the fact that I had beenofficially informed by the Ministry of Home Affairsthat as far as they knew, Netaji Bose's name was noton the list of war criminals. A more detailed replywas not received to my original reference and in thisreply it was stated that enquiries made from the IndianMissions in the Hague, New York and Tokyo hadrevealed that the name of Netaji was never borne onany list of war criminals, and therefore, questions (3)and (4) which I had posed in my first letter did notarise. Despite this, on January 20. 1971, at the sit-tings at Bombay, Mr. Mazumdar again raised the issue.He did not categorically say that, according to the in-formation given to him, Netaji's name was, in fact,on the list of war criminals. His argument was to theeffect that his name might be on that list, and theGovernment was not willing to assist the Commission,

4g.58

as fully as possible, to clar ify the matter. He made aprayer that the Minister of External Affairs, ShriSwaran Singh, should be summoned as a witness, andindeed the Prime Minister should also be called tomake a statement on this, matter. He submitted thatthe Potsdam Declaration of July 20, 1945, the Instru-ment of Surrender signed on September 2, 1945 andthe Charter of the International War Crimes Tribunalwere pieces of relevant evidence which must be calledin order to throw light upon the matter. He referredto certain observations in the di jag judgementrecorded , Justice J3.,aelha, Ilinode Pal in the _WarCrimes Tribunal which had sat at Tokyo. There was,

no positive affirmation by Shri Mazumdarto the effect that Netaji was accused of war crimes, andthat this was the most important, if not the only rea-son, for his remaining incognito. I reiterated my beliefin the correctness of the information given to me bythe Ministry of Home Affairs in their letter of Decem-ber 23, 1970, but Mr. Mazumdar continued to persistLa a demand for more evidence and denounced theGovernment for, as he said, concealing importantevidence from this Commission.

5.30 The matter had been raised even on previousoccasions. The first time it was officially mentionedwas in 1956, when Starred Question No. 1939 wasplaced on the table of the Parliament and the replygiven was that there was no question of Netaji SubhasChandra Bose being on the list of war criminals.Then on 12th September, 1962, Shri Uttam ChandMalhotra addressed a letter to Home Minister LaiBahadur Shastri making an inquiry. The questionshe posed were :

(1) Is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose still consi-dered a war criminal ?

(ii) If so, is the Government of India in anyway bound to hand him over to the BritishGovernment or any other foreign govern-ment in case he is still found to be alive ?

(iii) If so, is there any time limit for doing thisand when this time limit is going to expire ?

(iv) How is the Government of India going totreat him in case Netaji Subhas ChandraBose makes an appearance.

A reply was sent to Shri Malhotra telling him thataccording to the information available with the Gov-ernment of India, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's namewas not included in the list of war criminals, drawn upby the United Nations War Crimes Commission.

5.31 On August 22, 1963, in., Starred QuestionNo. 194, the matter was again raised in Parliamentand a similar reply was given. The question andanswer are quoted below :--

QUESTION

"*194 SHRI B.D. KHOBARGADE : Will thePrime Minister be pleased to state :

(a) whether it is a fact that the name of NetajiSubhas Chandra Bose is still included in thelist of War Criminals; and

(b) if so, what steps Government have taken,to have Netaji's name removed from thatlist ?

ANSWER

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF EXTERNALAFFAIRS (SHRI DINESH SINGH)

(a) To the best of our knowledge, the nameof Shri Subhas Chandra Bose does not app-ear in any such list. The United KingdomHigh Commission in Delhi issued a state-ment in 1961 to the effect that his namedoes not appear and 12as never appeared insuch list. -

(b) Does not arise."There was, thus, a categorical, unequivocal denial

of the allegation that Bose's name was ever on anylist of war criminals.

. . .5.32 Yet a third time, the matter was raised byShri M. L. Sondhi on December 2, 1970, when heasked whether according to the law laid down in theTokyo Trial Verdict. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bosewas considered a war criminal. In his reply, ShriMirdha, Minister of State for Home Affairs, referredthe questioner to the Starred question No. 1939, towhich a reference has already been made above, andrepeated the stand of the Government on this matter.

5.33 Even before India attained independence,Sardar Vallablibhai Patel had stated in the LegislativeAssembly, in reply to Starred Question No. 89, onOctober 30, 1946 that there were no restrictions on themovements of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and there 4was no ban on his return to India. This statementwas made before the British rule had ended, and it isclear from this that the British Government had notdeclared Bose a war criminal and did not regard himone. A statement was also made by the British DeputyHigh Commissioner at Calcutta that Netaji was not onthe list of war criminals.

59

4

5.34 There is, therefore, no evidence whatsoeverto indicate that Bose's name was ever borne onany list of war criminals. There has been no specificand categorical assertion by anyone that Bose's namewas on the list of war criminals. That being thestate of the matter, I posed a question to Shri Mazum-dar on 21st December 1973 during the course of hisarguments. I asked him : "Are you making a defi-nite allegation that Netaji's name was in fact on thelist of war criminals ?" Shri Mazumdar did not answerthis question in the affirmative and all he said wasthat the matter was being altogether suppressed andthe, therefore, could not say categorically whetherNetaji's name was on the list of war criminals or not.On my question being repeated, he replied : "I am

4 not making any allegation. In all probability the nameis there."

5.35 The matter was raised by him again the nextday and I again put the same question to him. Hisanswer was the same, as the following extract fromthe verbatim record of the arguments of Counselshows :

"Chairman : When you argued yesterday, wasit your case that Netaji's name is in the listof war criminals? You did not give your...

Shri Mazumdar : I will tell you this. It is aquestion on which pertinently an investi-gation and an inquiry should be made.

Chairman : I must have some allegation by some-body. Are you making that allegation?Did you make the allegation at any stage?Are you making it now?

Shri Mazumdar : More important point thanthis is, is Netaji dead or is Netaji living.It is for the Commission to make an en-quiry on that point. Is that not the verybasis on which the Commission was appoin-ted ?

Chairman : Is it your definite case that Netajidid not die as a result of air crash on the18th August, 1945 ? Is it also your definitecase that Netaji's name was borne on thelist of war criminals ?

Shri Majumdar : Might have been. Very likely.

Chairman : If it is your case, what is it based? What is your evidence in support of it?

Shri Majumdar : Will the enquirer find it out ordoes the responsibility rest on me to findout for myself on the level of a privateperson from the intelligence report in whichvarious belligerent powers were involved inthe war.

Chairman : It was at your instance that thewhole question of war criminals was broughtin. in a very vague and somewhat nebulousmanner.

Shri Majumdar : In conformity with the indica-tions given by you that every Counsel willbe impartial, open-minded with the solepurpose of search for truth, we expect anddraw inference that Netaji did not die inthe air crash, his name was in the list ofwar criminals. That is a positive case, andhaving been seen on the 17th and he hadplanned to give the slip to his enemies andthe Allied forces and go to a place of safetywhere he could carry on his war, it doesnot require a case from me. He is livingthat is an inference that we can draw unlessit is rebutted.

5.36 It must be remembered that Shri Mazumdarwas appearing on behalf of the members of the Bosefamily. The family kas taken a strong stand againstthe findings of the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee, andtheir case is that Bose did not die in the alleged aircrash of August 18, 1945. Since a definite stand wastaken by them in the proceedings, it was incumbentupon their counsel positively to state the case of theBose family, instead of which Shri Mazumdar hascontended himself by making a negative assertion tothe effect that the Government have failed to provethat Bose's name was not on the list. It is almost asif Shri Majumdar were raising a phantom and askingthe Government to destroy it, although he himselfwould not say that the phantom was something realand substantial which needed to be destroyed. In anyevent, from the evidence and the circumstances dis-cussed above, it is abundantly clear that Netaji's name

It maybe that had he been alive and had been apprehended,he would have been tried as a war criminal althoughit has not been alleged that what he did brought himwithin the mischief of the Charter of the War CrimesTribunal. But since his death in the air crash wasaccepted by all concerned, there was no question,ever, of placing his name on the list of war criminalsor of trying him for any war crimes. The Tribunalwas appointed specifically and solely for the purpose

60

of trying certain individuals, and as soon as the Tri-bunal had concluded its work, it ceased to exist andits members became functi officio. There could beno question of trying anyone else under the terms ofthe original charter. There has been no internationalagreement or subsequent charter which would bringNetaji (were he alive- today) within the mischief ofany war crimes tribunal. The Government of Indiahas given no undertaking to any international body tohand Bose over to it, nor has there been any bar onhis movements or his entry into India. The argumentrelating to Bose being accused of war crimes is, there-fore, nothing but the purest conjecture, put forwardnot as an argument but as a piece of rhetoric andcasuistry to cloud the issue and to distract attentionfrom the real points for determination.

5.37. An argument, advanced with considerablezeal and enthusiasm, related to enquiries instituted toverify the truth of the report about Bose's death. LordWave11 had at first been sceptical about the matter,and had recorded in his Journal that if Bose wantedto escape, a false broadcast of his death in an air-crash would be just what the Japanese would con-trive.

5.38. Within a month of the broadcast, the Gov-ernment of India deputed a team of policemen to goto South -East Asia to make an on -the -spot enquiryabout Bose. The team, headed by Superintendent ofPolice Finney, and assisted by a wireless operatorDavies, and Inspectors of Police A. K. Roy and Kali-pada Dey, flew to Burma in the beginning of Septem-ber 1945, and thence proceeded to Bangkok, where anumber of persons were interrogated and the files ofthe British Military Mission were studied. Avisit was also paid to Saigon, but the team could notproceed further to make enquir ies at Taipei, becausearrangements for their transport could not be made,The team prepared a consolidated report which wassubmitted to the Government of India. Finney, Daviesand A. K. Roy were not available, when the presentinquiry was held, but Kalipada Dey appeared as awitness before the Commission and narrated the storyof the investigation and the substance of the reportsubmitted by the team. Copies of three reports bear-ing Finney's signatures, dated respectively 5-10-1945,10-10-1945 and 12-10-1945 and one report signedby Davies dated 7-10-1945, have been supplied to theCommission by the Intelligence Bureau.

5.39. Another independent inquiry was held by theCounter Intelligence Corps General Headquarters,United State Army Forces. The report of this in-vestigation was submitted by Lt. Col. Figgess on

8-10-1945, followed by a letter dated 17-11-1945.The report was based on the interrogation of HabiburRahman. With the letter were sent_ty_e_plictogr-aphswhich had been supplied by the Japanese GoVeratiKient.Three of the photographs depicted the wreckage of theaircraft in which Bose was alleged to have been involv-ed, one despicted Habibur Rahman with his face andhand bandaged, sitting on a chair in the hospital atTaipei, ard klone showed an unidentifiable body or ob-ject covered with a sheet. Copies of the report dated8-10-1945, letter dated 17-11-1945 and the fivephotographs have also been made available to theCommission, but neither Lt. Col. Figgess nor any othermember of the counter Intelligence Corps couldtraced and summoned to give evidence in person.

5.40. There was a yet third enquiry by the Com-bined Services Detailed Intelligence Centre (CSDIC).In the course of this enquiry B.C. Chakravarty (Wit-ness No. 168) interrogated a number of persons in-cluding Habibur Rahman in the month of Docember,1945. On the basis of Chakravarty's interrogation, aconsolidated report was prepared by four officers ofthe Centre. A ,c_.9.2y _of a report purporting to havebeen drawn up by the C.S.D.I.C. and covering 25closely typed foolscape pages, appended to the recordof interrogation, has been made available to the Com-mission.

5.41. The argument raised by Counsel is that noone and, in particular, not even the authorities of theiGovernment of India, believed the story of the crash,";and that was the only reason why they ordered en-quiries to be made into the truth of this report. Fro 'this, Counsel sought to infer that the story of thecrash was most certainly false and Bose did not diein the air crash. The argument, therefore, is of anegative nature and borrows support from non-exis-tent material. It is, however, necessary briefly toexamine the significance and relevance of these threeenquiries.

5.42. Kalipada Dey (Witness No. 5) was an Ins-pector of Police attached to the Intelligence Bureau ofthe Government of India in 1945. His story is thata team of Police officers headed by Superintendent ofPolice T. S. Finney was sent to verify the report ofBose's death. When questioned about the instruc-tions given to him by Mr. Finney, Dey stated: "So fa ii,as I can remember, he gave us instructions to make -t ienquiries whether he is dead or alive." Shri DIM= 'Majumdar, Advocate, pursued the matter further, andput the following question to him : "Inspector Dey,as an experienced and intelligent officer of British In-telligence in India, will you please tell the learned

Commission whether it is not a fact that between Sep-tember and November when you were deputed, theBritish Government thought and believed that Netajiwas somewhere in hiding in South -East Asia and,therefore, you were sent out to identify him, if youcould, and to effect his arrest. Is not that so?".Deyanswered quite clearly "No, to investigate regardinghis death". The team also received a copy of theJapanese message sent by wireless and the message wasto the effect that the plane which left Saigon and crash-ed at Taihoku aerodrome and Netaji had died. Thewitness went on to say that the substance of the police

port was that Netaji had died due to air crash ati t a i h oku on t h e 18th August. This is borne out by

the copy of the report supplied to the Commission.The witness said that some of the records of the en-quiry were destrmd in his e. This may havebeen done bythe British authorities before they hand-ed over the reins of Government to the Indian leadersin 1947. But since we have the primary evidence ofDey, the man who conducted the investigation andprepared the report, the destruction of any document isa matter of no consequence whatsoever. The sworntestimony of Dey, corroborated by the copy of hisreport supplied to us, leaves no doubt whatsoever thatthere was no question of disbelieving the report ofthe crash or of any concealment of evidence; and theGovernment of India quite naturally wanted to verifythe report of the death of an important individual whowas, to boot, a stern and uncompromising opponent

), of the British Raj. The enalLitry_.merely confirmed thenews which had been 1::! inally broadcast.

5.43 The evidence of Sasdhar Majumdar (WitnessNo. 7) furnishes further corroboration of Dey's evi-dence. He says that he met Finney, after the latterreturned from South -East Asia, and asked him whatwas the conclusion of the investigations carried outby him. The witness went on to say: "Mr. Finneysaid, in one or two sentences, that to the extent itwas humanly possible to draw a conclusion, they weresatisfied with regard to both the Army and the Civilianinvestigation that Netaji was dead." There was nothingin Majumdar's statement which casts doubt on thereliability of Dey's evidence or of the documentarymaterial supplied by the Intelligence Branch.

5.44 Not much need be said about the secondnrqmuierd Forcesy conducetedotaotter totheintestllainznee oe Tf the Unitednrietpedort pre-

pared'

,\

pared' by Lt. Col. Figgess was based on the record, of Habibur Rahman's interrogation carried out by the

4 C.S.D.I.C. to which a detailed reference will presentlybe made. Figgess did not appear as a witness in thepresent inquiry, and so the report prepared by him

8 M of HA/74 -9

61

had little probative value. In tny event, it is a pieceof secondary evidence. Finally, there is nothing inthe report to contradict or rebut the story of theair crash at Taihoku. The account of Bose's death,given by Habibur Rahman, was accepted as true. Thefive photographs submitted with Figgess' letter ofNovember 17, 1945, were produced before the ShahNawaz Khan Committee and form part of the recordof its proceedings. The same five photsraphs wereproduced before the prcsent Commission, but they arenot being relied mon, as in _the_ absence of HabiburRahman who alone could have testified to what they

/ depict, they cannot be held to have been proved.i Moreover, they are inadmissible in evidence as they do

not constitute direct or primary evidence either of theaircrash or of Bose's death.

There is, thus nothing in the report of the CounterIntelligence to cast doubt on the story of the happen-ings at Taihoku as narrated by Bose's copassengersand Dr. Yoshimi.

5.45 The third inquiry, as already stated, wascarried out almost entirely by Shri B. C. Chakraborty(Witness No. 168), who interrogated a number ofpersons including Habibur Rahman, and prepared aconsolidated report after discussing the whole matterwith his colleagues.

5.46 Chakraborty was a member of the IndianPolice Force who was deputed to the War Departmentof the Government of India during World War II andattached to the Combined Services Detailed IntelligenceCentre (CSDIC), a global organisation of which Col.Stenvenson was the local Commander.

( 5..:47 The sum and substance of Chakraborty's evi-dence is that in December, 1945, he interrogatedHabibur Rahman and a number of other persons. Healso scrutinised some Intelligence Reports made avail-able to the Centre. The transcripts of the interro-gation and the intelligence reports were examined anddiscussed by the witness and three other officers, andthen a consolidated report was drawn up and sub-mitted to the C.S.D.I.C.

5.48 Shri Chakraborty said tha.., he entertained gravedoubts about the truth of Habibur Rahman's story,and he embodied these doubts in the final report. Hesaid : "after analysing all the reports that were in handat the time in the C.S.D.I.C., it was obvious thatCol. Habibur Rahman told lies or the Japanese Gov-ernment concealed facts. Their reply was nothingother than a product of conspiracy regarding the move-ments of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on August 18,1945."

62

5.49 He was asked it the British Military Intelli-gence or the Allied Command had come to any con-clusions about Netaji's death or escape, his reply was:"None of them believed that this information could becorrect because of the various discrepancies in thereports and specially the notes pointing out the dis-crepancies by me and also by other officers."

5.50 The nature of these doubts and discrepanciesis indicated by the following extract from Dis statemerttbefore the

"Q : What was the substance or the conclusionabout the alleged air crash and Netaji'salleged death which was conveyed to London?

A : I will answer as far as I havewritten and not as far as I have heard. Afterrecording the statement of Habibur Rahman,I myself recorded the answers he gave oncross-examination. I asked him, why hewas not anxious to see the face of the deadleader when the doctors announced thatNetaji died on the operation table. His ans-wer was that he was not allowed to standthere for long. Secondly, when he was toldthat the body would be carr ied to the fur-nace, I asked him, "was it not your dutyas the second in command of the INA toaccompany the dead to the furnace ?" Tothis, he looked at my face and could notgive me any answer. He jumped at his feetand shouted, "I can say with Koran in handthat I was not allowed to accompany thedead from the operation table to the fur-nace". Thirdly, when on the followingmorning i.e. on 19th August, 1945 morning,a colonel of the Japanese Army and a doctorof the Japanese Base hospital; handed overto him a brass pot saying that this potcontained the ashes of Netaji he could notforward a pertinent answer. He admittedthat his only duty was to hand it over tothe Commander of the INA Gen. Bhonsle.Fourthly, when I asked him "under whoseadvice you had been to Tokyo to carry theashes" he did not give any reply. When Iquestioned him that he was hiding in Tokyoinstead of trying to communicate the infor-mation of the death of one of the leadingstatesmen of our country, he remained mum,he did not give any answer".

"0 : Did it occur to you to ask Col. HabiburRahman that when both of them were in

the same plane how Col. Rahman escapedwith minor injury and Netaji was alleged tohave been burned?

A : I did not ask him this question. But I canexplain your question. When the body israther bulky the impact of a crash is moreserious on the bulky side. However, Col.Rahman stands on his own statement. Thereis nobody to say or to contradict what he

said.

: Am I r ight or am I wrong that at the timcs .there was no conclusive evidence?

A : Yes, not at all. The only available evidencewas the statement of Lt. Col. Habibur Rah-man. When he was subjected to questionshe failed to give pertinent answers to allthe questions. The question was that hewas not delivering the truth".

4'Q: May I take it, Mr. Chakraborty, that whenyou submitted your report on 30th December,1945, you covered the entire episode ofNetaji Subhas Chandra Bose?

A : I submitted the report to the Command onthe 30th December, 1945, evening. I satwith three officers at Bahadurgarh. Thesereports, including the statements I recorded, kwere combined and a summary report wasprepared. This summary report was scrutini-sed by the officers. There was one fromEngland; I do not know his name. He wasalso there. After a thorough scrutiny andafter pointing out the defects in the state-ment a forwarding note was also prepared."

Did the report cover the incidents in regardto Netaji right upto the time of the allegedaircrash ?

A : Probably this covered their movements forthe last three months and the collapse andsurrender of the Japanese. There were afew lines here and there which have bearingon the main report but I do not rememberthose details. If you ask me a

. _question perhaps I can say something. Thisreport which I made and which should beavailable with the Government of Englandwas a very lengthy one covering all the 4,details including the substance of the state-ments of different important personages ofINA". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Q : Now, leaving aside the report, let me askyou if you did see Col. Rahman's hands?

A : Yes, in my younger days when I was inschool and college I saw him in 1928 andalso when he was the G.O.C. in the CongressVolunteers at Exhibition Road. I was thenin the St. Xaviers' Hostel in 1929.

Q I am not asking you about Netaji, I amasking you about Col. Habibur Rahman?

A : Oh, yes, I have seen his face.

Q : Did you see his hands?

A : Yes, I examined the burns of his hands,I got the medical report and I got the reporttested by another and re -tested by anothersurgeon".

This is what he has to say about' the theft of thewatch.

"Q : Did he tell you that he had brought a watchthat Netaji was waring during the last fate-ful days?

A : Yes, that watch was stolen from Col. Rahman.This was Netaji's souvenir and it was given to

him at the Taihoku airport after theaccident, . . .

Q: But before being stolen, did you see thewatch?

: A: I cannot recollect, there were so much talkabout it. I am carrying only an impres-sion in my mind as if I saw the watch.

Q : Can you say whether the watch was round. or rectangular?

A : I cannot tell you that.

Q : In his statement did Col. Habibur Rahmangive any description of the watch?

A : I did not ask him about the size and shapeof the watch.

Q : Can you give us an idea as to how longafter finishing the interrogation of Col.Habibur Rahman the watch was stolen?

A : I cannot say, I do not remember. But I amsure it was stolen".

.51 At the time this statement was made the filerelating to the inquiry instituted by the C.S.D.I.C.had not been sent to the Commission. It seems to

63

have been thought that the file was not available.Inpeed, Shri Dutt Majumdar questioned the witness onthe point;

0 : You are an extremely knowledgeable personand so I am asking you to kindly give usthe information that suppossing the Hon'bleInquiry Commission wants to requisition andcall for a copy of your Report of 75 pages,I understand submitted then, as also suchother statements, who should be requisitionedthrough Government of India for productionof the same?

A : The then Secretary, War Office, London.C.S.D.I.C. was not under the control of theofficers of India, and since war was over,it was disbanded, and personally I thinkthat such important things were not leftbehind by the officers who were working inthe C.S.D.I.C. May be, a few statements,not so important, were left with the Gov-ernment of India."

The non -receipt of the file amas s to have lenta measure of boldness, bordering on recklessness, tocfriri diakraborty's conduct when he made his depro-sition before the Commission, for he anticipated littlerisk of contradiction of the statements he made. Butthe file containing a lengthy and detailed record ofthe interrogation carried out by the C.S.D.I.C. and a25 -page closely typed report, was_subszak_tently madeavailable to the Commission, and I have no doubt atall that this is the material collected by Shri Chakra-borty and the material on which he professes to basehis doubts and his disbeliefs of the crash story. But,because the report covers 25 foolscap pages_ and not75, Shri Mukhoty and Shri Dutt-Majumdar haveargued that this is not Chakraborty's report. The realreport is alleged to have been deliberately withheldbecause it did not affirm the truth of t e crash stOry.On this assertion was built up a formidable edifice ofthe Government's mala fide and deliberate suppressionof evidence from the Commission. Thence proceededa vociferously argued contention that, to the know-ledge of the Government of India, Bose did not die ofinjuries sustained in an aircrash, and the Governmentdid not want the truth to receive publicity.

5.52 When examined, this argument is seen to benothing but a strh_m_of false assumptions and non-sequiturs. The file containing the record of the in-terrogation carried out by Chakraborty, and his reportwas produced before the Commission by an officerof the Government and I have carefully pursued thelong interrogation as well as the report. This report

64

is dated 31-12-045, the date mentione riChakraborty in the course of h stitement beforethe tiiiiimisSion. The report purported to have beensubmitted to the C.S.D.I.C. as alleged by the witness.The report may well have covered 75 pages whenwritten in long hand on a small sized paper. ShriChakraborty has not explained what was the size ofthe paper he used and whether the report was handwritten or in typed script. In fact the figure of 75 wasput to the witness by Shri Majumdar. It is difficultto believe that two such lengthy reports were preparedon the same date and submitted to the same authority.I, therefore, do not accept Counsel's contention that

IA the report has been withheld. I treat the report inl the file before the Commission as the report whichShri Chakraborty claims to have prepared.

5.53 The con1ent! of the file speak for themselvesas they are exa_ctly-what ShrLChakrahorty describedin the course 'of .his statement. The record of thestatement made by Habibur Rahman does not containthe contradictions and discrepancies mentioned byShri Chakraborty in the course of his statement quotedabove. Nor does the report prepared by him con-tain any mention of any doubt entertained by ShriChakraborty. Let me quote the relevant portion ofShri Habibur Rahman's statement from the file

"At about 1400 hrs. the bomber reached Taihoku(Formosa) airfield where it refuelled andthe passengers had lunch. No Indian wasthere to meet them and neither did Bose in-terview anyone there. While having lunchBose mentioned casually to B1269, in Hindu-stani, that he hoped the Japanese wouldmake arrangements for the rest of the partyto come in time, and not disappoint them,as they had done previously at the time ofhis return from Tokyo. After a stay ofabout half an hour at the airfield, the bom-ber took off again. Before B 1269 andBose entered the plane, the engine had beenstarted and the crew were all in their places.About 5 minutes after taking off, and whenthe plane had reached an altitude of about300 ft., B 1269 heard a very loud noisewhich resembled cannon fire, coming fromthe direction of the nose of the plane. 13-1269 thought at the time that the plane hadbeen attacked. The aircraft appeared tolose flying speed and crashed almost imme-diately afterwards, hitting the ground on itsnose. The engines as well as the rear ofthe plane were on fire. B1269 saw Boseattempting to move towards the rear of the

plane, but on B1269's suggestion, Bosechanged his course and moved towards thefront. The celluloid cover above the pilot'sposition had burst open. Some of the Japa-nese passengers reached the aperture beforeB1269 and Bose, and crawling through it,dropped to the ground. The aperture wasopen to the left side of the plane. Bosethen crawled through and was followed byB1269. In doing so the flames were comingfrom the front and B1269's face was burnedon the right side (B1269 carries obviousmarks of recent burning and scorching (I t,the whole right side. of his face). AlightiVeon the ground and collecting his wits, B126rnoticed Bose in a standing position aboutlt-I 2 yards away with smoke coming from hisgarments. Bose was endeavouring to re-move his clothes. I31269's clothes were noton tire. B1269 rushed towards Bose to helphim and finally succeeded in beating outthe flames. In doing so, B1269 receivedsevere burns on both his hands (his handsare still bleached and scarred).

Bose had sustained serious burns all over hisbody, and when he was laid on the ground,B1269 noticed 2 or 3 fractures on the skull.Bose lay for a while on the ground quiet witheyes. closed. His last words were in Hindu-stani "I feel that I shall die. I have fougliltfor Indian Independence until the last. Tmy countrymen, India will be free befolong. Long live Independent India." Elhad seen only one Japanese (probably aCapt) sitting on a boulder near the plane withbleeding injuries on his head. Besides burnson the hands, B1269's face was slightly burnton the right side, and he also received twominor wounds on the head and one laceratedwound on the right leg below the knee.

Within 10 minutes, a First Aid party arrived inlorries, and Bow. and B1269 were removedin one of the lorr ies to the Army Hospitala short distance from the scene of accident.Among others injured who came to the hos-pital (some before B1269 and others after)were a pilot, a Lt. Col., a Major and t.or Capt. B 1269 later heard that G .SHEDAI, the wireless operator, one of themembers of the air crew and the JapaneseAir Force officer had died. The JapanetoGen. had been killed instantaneously. 136tB1269 remained with Bose from the time of

65

the crash until the death of Bose at about21.00 hrs. that night Tokyo Time. Bose waitreated for his burns and several injectionswere administered by 3 or 4 Japanese doc-tors who attended him. B1269 does notknow the names of the hospital staff. Whilstin hospital, Bose regained consciousness fromtime to time and uttered a few words, some-times suggesting that he be given injections.Some Japanese military officers came to thehospital and made enquiries from time totime about Bose's condition. When thedoctors announced Bose's death to theseofficers, B1269 requested them to send newsto Bangkok and Singapore about the accident.Bose's body was kept in the room where hedied, and B1269 remained there all the nighttogether with Japanese guards and somepatients."

B1269 is the code number used for Habibur Rahman.

5.54 The file contains a note to the effect that B-1269 bears marks of burns on the face and on bothhands, two slight scars on the head and one mark ofan injury on the right leg below the knee. There is

"When asked to explain why Subhas ChandraBose was badly burnt and he himself was not,B1269 stated that Bose's clothes may havebeen drenched in petrol, as Bose sat undera petrol tank in the plane. Bose's clotheswere of light weight K. D. B1269 woreknee -boots, serge breeches and a serge tunic:his clothes were not burnt at all. (he wearsthem now at C.S.D.I.C.(I)".

The report also mentions that at Bose's cremation therewere about 30 Japanese medical and military officerspresent. "B1269 does not recollect any of theirnames. B1269 states that he was the only Indianpresent at the time. About half an hour after the bodyhad been set alight, B1269 left the crematorium withthe others .. . ...B1269 carried with him thewooden box containing the ashes of Bose, the twophotographs of Bose taken on the 21st August 1945,three photographs of the wrecked plane and a rectan-gular wrist gold watch with a leather strap".

5.55 Thus, the statement Habib made in the courseof his interrogation did not contain any of the dis-crepancies which Chakraborty mentions in the courseof his statement. Mention of the five photographswhich were later produced before the Shah Nawaz

Khan Committee was wholly omitted by Shri Chakra-borty when he testified before the Commission. Wemay now quote a passage from the conclusions set outin the report :

"The main interest In connection with B1269'scase lies in the fact that he was the onlyIndian present at the time Subhas ChandraBose met with a fatal accident when theplane carrying them crashed soon aftertaking off from Taihoku aerodrome on 18thAugust, 1945. B1269 has furnished con-vincing details that Bose there met his deathand was cremated in Taihoku in the presenceof several witnesses. If further proof wererequired these Japanese witnesses mightalso be located and examined if this has notalready been done".

'5.56 The file, therefore, gives the lie direct to ShriChakraborty's evidence in the present inquiry. ShriChakraborty's statement appears to have been made inthe hope that the file would not be forthcoming andthere would be no material to contradict his testimony.

5.57 The files and reports to which reference hasbeen made above are not more than secondary evi-dence, the probative value of which cannot competewith what primary evidence yields. Their _signifi-cance, however, lies in two circumstances. In thefirst place, these documents were prepared officiallyby an agency directed to find out the truth and notserve a partisan cause or purpose, nor to make atendencious report. The Government of India andthe Army authorities wanted to know what had hap-pened, and deputed their trusted and reliable officersto enquire, to interrogate individuals and submit theconclusions of their investigation. These officersmade direct enquiries, not lending a credulous ear torumour and gossip. The officers knew that they wouldbe judged by the measure of their competence andhonesty in conducting the business entrusted to them.They did not want to, indeed, they did not dare to,invent sensational, unwarranted or unsupported storiesof deep intrigues, miraculous escapes and fantastic en-counters.

5.58 Secondly, these records were _prepared _ at _aveu_s_a_r_k_stagg, soon after the occurrences to whichthey relate, when the memories of the persons whospoke about them were fresh, when they had not,been influenced by enuitinnal, political or chauvinisticpressures which came into operation in increasingmeasure, with the passage of time when imaginary orwishful accounts of Bose's disappearance and re-appearance began to be related and circulated. Of

66

such nature are Uttam Chand Malhotra's and Dixit's

narratives of their strange adventure in the Shaultnari

Ashram, Satyanarayan Sinha's flight of imagination and

the conjectures of Netaji Mystery by Goswanti.

5.59 I, therefore, find that there is no force in

Counsel's argument that the Government of India have

deliberately suppressed or destroyed evidence which

has a significant bearing on the matters under inquiry.

All files have been made available to the Commission,

although the contents of these files are strictly speak-

ing, not admissible in evidence. At any rate, the con-

tents do go to rebut the Counsel's contention that

doubts were always entertained about Bose's death

and that there is material in official records which dis-

proves the story of the aircrash. These files, if they

were admissible, would have corroborated the story

of the aircrash, but I do not propose to use them for

this purpose. At the same time, I cannot hold that

there is anything in these files which contravenes the

story of the crash or rebuts the evidence of the wit-

nesses who have deposed to it.

SIX

EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN WITNESSES

6.1 1 shall now consider the evidence of some wit-nesses whose importance lies not in the intrinsic worthof what they had to say, but in the enthusiasm andpersistence with which they pressed their claim to beheard. Let me say, at once, that all of them displayeda total disregard for truth, and their main objective incoming before the Commission seemed to be to satisfya desire for self aggrandizement. I would have dis-missed this evidence on the short ground that even acursory examination of it is sufficient to reject it, butbecause Counsel, while arguing the matter, devotedconsiderable time and energy to what these witnesseshad said, I deem it necessary to deal with it in somedetail,

6.2 The first witness I shall take up is Uttam ChandMalhotra (Witness No. 16) who, it will be remem-bered, gave shelter to Bose at Kabul in 1941, whenafter escaping from his home in Calcutta, he arrivedin Kabul after a long and hazardous journey.

6.3 Malhotra came to see me first, in my office,on August 20, 1970, soon after the appointment ofthe Commission had been notified. He identified him-self as the person who had given shelter to Bose inhis house in Kabul in 1941, and had helped him toescape to Germany. He said that he represented theNetaji Swagat Committee, which had been formed towelcome Bose when he should choose to make a publicappearance. Malhotra began by saying that Bosehad not died after sustaining injuries in an air -crash,on August 18, 1945, but was very much alive andwas now living in the Shaulmari Ashram near Sylhet.He went on to assure me Oat he would conduct meto Shaulmari and place my hand in Netaji's hand.In this he was supported by another person who ac-companied him as the representative of another com-mittee. This was an astonishing statement, and Iasked Malhotra why Bose did not make a publicappearance at once, thereby resolve all doubts and

immediately put a stop to the Commission's delibera-tions instead of remaining unmanifested and, in con-sequence, throwing a cloud over the entire issue andencouraging baseless conjecture and wholly unsub-stantiated theories. To this question, Shri Malhotra

67

could give no reply beyond saying that the Sadhu ofShaulmari Ashram would make himself manifest ,when he considered the time opportune.

6.4 Shri Malhotra sent an affidavit containing sub-stantially what he had stated before me at the per-sonal interview. He tendered his oral testimony ata public session of the Commission on the 28th, 29thand 30th December, 1970. The statement was a longone and covers 220 pages of the typed record. Thestory narrated by him, in the course of his deposition,was that in June 1962, four persons went to see himat his house in Delhi, one of them, who was dressedin a sadhu's garb, gave his name as Satya Gupta andtold him that he had spent three months in theShaulmari Ashram and had come to the conclusionthat the founder of the Ashram was, in fact, Netaji.Gupta went on to relate that he had revealed thisfact at hundreds of public meetings in Bengal butstrangely enough, no newspaper of Northern Indiahad published a report of what he had stated. This,Malhotra insisted, was the reason why he (Malhotra)had not, till then, heard of the Shaulmari Ashram orof the true identity of the Swami who had foundedit and was residing in it. Satya Gupta went on toinform Malhotra that a conference was going to beheld in Calcutta on July 22 or 23 to consider the ques-tion of Netaji's whereabouts. Gupta asked Malhotrato attend the Conference.

6.5 Malhotra accordingly went to Calcutta, andafter arriving there, he contacted Gupta on July 18.Gupta and one Roy met him and asked him to acceptnomination as President of the conference. Aftersome reluctance, Malhotra agreed. Malhotra also metDwijendra Nath Bose, Netaji's nephew, and questionedhim about the identity of the Sadhu of Shaulmari.Dwijendra Nath Bose categorically refuted the sugges-tion that the Sadhu was Netaji. Malhotra was thentaken to a Chinese restaurant where the party ordereda meal. At this restaurant, Malhotra talked to Dwi-jendra Nath Bose, and asked him if he had visited theShaulmari Ashram and had seen the Sadhu. DwijendraNath Bose replied that he had seen him from a distance

through a pair of binoculars. Malhotra then askedhim if, on seeing this Sadhu, he (Dwijendra NathBose) had exclaimed "Ranga Kaka," (this apparentlyis the nick name by which Netaji was known toDwijendra Nath Bose). Dwijendra Nath Bose, pro-mptly denied that he had uttered any such exclamation.Another question which Malhotra put to Bose waswhether he had been served with eggs in the Ashram,and when Dwijendra Nath Bose replied in the affir-mative, Malhotra exclaimed : "Only those who haveyour habit and only those who know that you likeeggs very much would have asked that eggs be sup-plied to you. If the Swami was not Netaji,, how couldyou have been supplied with eggs at the ShaulmariAshram ?" Ilespite Malhotra's insistence, DwijendraNath Bose continued to deny that the Sadhu of Shaul-mari Ashram was Netaji.

6.6 Malhotra was thus prejudging the whole issueeven before he had paid a visit to the Ashram and seteyes upon the Sadhu, said to be Bose. He was, infact, forcing his judgement on a close and reluctantrelative of Bose, insisting that the Sadhu must be hisuncle, because no one except his uncle could haveknown that Dwijendra Nath Bose liked eggs. Thisis a preposterous way of establishing identity. It hasnot been suggested that Dwijendra Nath Bose's gas-tronomic predeliction was a secret known only to him-self and his uncle from whom he had been parted for,more than 21 years. In the course of these years hemust have consumed thousands of eggs, if indeed, heis so fond of them as Malhotra would have us believe,and scores of persons must have known of his dietarypreference. In any event, the eating of eggs is notsuch a r are and so peculiarly a characteristic pheno-menon that it should serve as a mark of identification.Malhotra's suggestion is absurd in the extreme andDwijendra Nath Base's categorical denial of theSadhu's identity with his uncle makes nonsense ofMalhotra's logic.

6.7 To resume Malhotra's narrative, he was nowintroduced to Shri Niharendu Dutt-Majumdar, Advo-cate, and when he put the matter to him, Shri Majum-dar ernphtically maintained that the Sadhu of Shaul-mari Ashram was not Netaji. In Malhotra's words,"then we started the discussion and Mr. NiharenduDutt Majumdar told me that those people, Mr. SatyaGupta and company, who were saying that the SadhuBaba of Shaulmari Ashram were Netaji, were lying."Shri Majumdar brought the issue to a conclusion byinsisting that Malhotra seek an interview With theBaba, and drawing up an application, asked Malhotrato sign it. This application, addressed to the Babaof Shaulmari Ashram, was endorsed by Shri Majumdar

68

to facilitate Malhotra's obtaining an interview. Itmay be mentioned that Shri Majumdar was the LegalAdviser of the Ashram, and therefore, not only knewthe Sadhu personally but had considerable influencewith him. His endorsement of Malhotra's applica-tion would therefore ensure Malhotra's early inter-view with the Baba.

6.8 Malhotra went back to Delhi, and a day ortwo later, he received an express telegram informinghim that the Baba would grant him an interview onthe 30th July. Malhotra, at considerable inconveni-ence, and financed by his wife, who promptly produceda sum of Rs. 200 for his expenses, travelled to Shaul-mari and there, saw the Baba on the 30th and againon the 3,1st July. Malhotra's account of this inter-view is an interesting exercise in evasion, circumlocu-tion and misleading half-truths He did not attr ibuteto the Sadhu a categorical admission of his true identity,but by innuendoes and suggestions tried to conveythat the Sadhu accepted, or at any rate did not deny,Malhotra's verbal and spiritual tribute offered to himin the belief that he was offering it to Netaji. Malho-tra maintained that he knew Netaji intimately andhad entertained him in his house as a guest for a periodof 46 days in 1941, and he is quite certain that theSadhu he saw on July 30, 1962 was no other thanSubhas Chandra Bose. But strangely enough he basedhis conclusions upon a number of imaginary and un-convincing hypotheses. These he enumerated in thecourse of his deposition as follows:

1. Despite his denials, Dwijendra Nath Bose hadin fact seen the Sadhu of Shaulmari andexclaimed "Ranga Kaka". Of this fact hewas assured by Rattan Maheshwari ;

2. Shri Dwijendra Nath Bose was served witheggs at the Ashram, and this was clear proofof the fact that the founder of the Ashramwas Netaji, because only Netaji could knowthat his nephew, Dwijendra Nath Bose, liked"eggs;

3. Although Shri Majumdar had categoricallystated that Satya Gupta and Roy were lyingwhen they said that the Sadhu was Netaji,Shri Majumdar had not publicly denouncedGupta and Roy;

4. At a meeting at which Shri Malnotraa challenge regarding the identity of theShaulmari Baba, saying "if anybody knowsregarding the Shaulmari affair and knowsthat the Sadhu there is not Netaji. I will

and narrate to the people what is the actualthing at the Shaulmari Ashram,' No onein the course of next three hours came for-ward to say that the Shaulmari Sadhu wasnot Netaji. '

5. In the course of his interview, the Baba toldMalhotra : "You know the people ofBengal believe me to be Netaji. I wantedto give you an opportunity of seeing meso that I could tell you who, in reality,I am. This has become a strange kind ofmystery." But the Salim was never creditedwith having made an open admission or

4 confession of being Netaji.

-4 6. The Baba, according to Malhotra, had inviteda number of prominent persons includingMr. Nehru, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Mr. J. P.Narayan, Dr. B. C. Roy and Mrs. C. R. Dasto visit him at the Shaulmari Ashram, butnone of them had done so because they didnot want to expose themselves to the danger

' of having to say publicly, what they at heart,believed, viz. Bose was alive and was resid-

''' ing in the Shaulmari Ashram. Baba had.therefore, closed his doors to them now andwould not entertain them even if they came.

7. In the course of the interview, the Sadhureferred to Malhotra's article When :Busewas Ziauddin. On this Malhotra said :"Baba, how you have remembered me fromthe last 1946 to 1962." The Sadhu laughedand did net give a reply.

8. In the course of the same interview, Malhotrasaid to the Sadhu that people who visitedhim in the Ashram remained silent whenthey came out, and because of their silence,

,people thought that the Sadhu was Netaji.To this, the Sadhu replied : "They maythink so. If people think, what can I do.?"

9. Subhas Chandra Bose in his childhood hada nurse named Sharda and this was thereason why the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashramhad adopted the _name Shardanand.

6.9. It is scarcely necessary to discuss the logicaloundness or the probative value of the 9 reasons

-given by Malhotra for coming to the conclusion thatthe Sadhu was, in fact, Netaji. While Malhotra's

4. statement that he quite definttely recognised Bose inthe person of Swami Shardanandji would be a pieceof relevant and admissible evidence, the inferences he

8 M o f H A/ 7 4 -1 0

made from the various circumstances, narrated by him,amount. at most, to an opinion formed on extraneousmaterial and on the conduct of other persons. Suchopinion has no probative value, and is inadmissiblein evidence. I have already dealt with one of thepoints enumerated above, viz. Malhotra's reaction toDwijemita Math Bose's statement that he had beenserved with eggs for his breakfast at the Ashram. Theother points need not be noticed as the reasoningadvanced by Malhotra is wholly illogical and uncon-vincing. A word may, however, be said about thepublic meeting addressed by Malhotra at Falakata.When cross-examined by Shri Majumdar, Malhotraadmitted that at the very first public meeting whichhe addressed, after his visit to the Ashram, he toldhis audience that he was not at all sure of the identityof the Baba, and therefore, could not say that the Babawas. in fact, Netaji. He explained this statement inthe following manner : - Baba told me that he wasgoing for tapasya for one month. I thought this his,tapasya should not be interrupted. For this reason,

stated at the Falakata meeting that my eyes mighthave given me a wrong impression." Malhotra ad-mitted that at this meeting he had said that the Sadhudid not look the same person as Netaji.

6.10 Malhotra paid two more visits to the Ashrambut on neither occasion was he admitted to an audi-ence by the Sadhu, and therefore, the only time hesaw the Sadhu personally was on the 30th and31st July, 1962, and after these meetings he publiclyexpressed his doubts about the Baba being Netaji.What, then. made him change his view? Certainlynot any direct or personal information received byhim.

6.11 There are one or two other witnesses whocorroborated Malhotra's evidence regarding the iden-tity of the Salim of the Shaulmari Ashram. They areHira .Dixit, Sajjan Lai and Namwar Upadhyay.It is only necessary to give a few extractsfrom the evidence of these witnesses to showhow palpably false and unreliable theirevidence is. Said 1 -lira 1,a1 Dixit "I,went to Shaulmari Ashram on the 17th of Jan-uary, 1065, and I had, darshan of a Sadhu there. Iknow that he is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. I wentto Shaulmari Ashram without permission. I was ar-

Jested and a garland of shoe:; was put round my neck.was then beaten and produced before the Sadhu.

He told Inc that I had done a wrong in proclaiminghim to be Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, because hewas on the list of war criminals. I was thon.beaten

-and -put into jail. I have spoken at two thousandmeetings and proclaimed that Shri Sharda nand, theSadhu at Shaulmari Ashram is indeed Net aji...1

70

stayed with Netaji for half an hour in ShaulmariAshram. I talked to him. He did not admit that hewas Subhas Chandra Bose then. He said that he hadnot been born in Janaki Nath Bose's house, becauseI knew that he was born in Cuttack. I know for cer-tain that the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram was Netaji.I talked to him for half an hour. The man whoattended Mr. Nehru's funeral and was near his deadbody was Subhas Chandra Bose. I saw this in thenewsreel."

- 6.12 With regard to the Sadhu standing near ShriNehru's bier, the matter was investigated by theCommission, and we have the testimony of ShriLokesh Chandra and Shri Vira Dhammavara, a Cam-bodian monk. The evidence of these two witnesses isthat the bald and bare -headed monk seen standing inthe picture near Shri Nehru's bier was no other thanShri Vira Dhammavara. The rest of the statementquoted above has only to be rejected as completelyfalse. It may be mentioned here that Shri Dixit is theperson who wrote or compiled a book in which Mal-hotra's theory has been propounded, and Malhotra'sinterview with the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram hasbeen described in somewhat picturesque terms.

6.13 The story of Shri_Sajjan La! (Witness No. 14)is somewhat similar to the story narrated by Hira LalDixit. He began his statement by saying that he hadnever met Netaji in the flesh and had not known himpersonally. He had, however, seen his photographs.On hearing that the Baba of Shaulmari Ashram wasno other than Netaji, he went to interview him. "On1-10-1964, my wife, my children and I went toShaulmari Ashram. I met Netaji there. He was knownas Shardanandji in Shaulmari Ashram. I remained atthe Ashram for 29 hours. I talked to Netaji forabout three quarters of an hour during my visit. Ipaid homage to him, and so did my wife. The Sadhuasked me about our health and then asked me if Iwas in the same chakar (mental aberration) as Mal-hotra. I said, yes, and then he said to his Secretary,Ramani Ranjan, that this boy, meaning me, appearedto be a villain and that Malhotra will learn thelesson of his life ... .. ... .. ..The Sadhu did not denythat he was Netaji. I suggested that he should inter-view Mr. Uma Shankar Trivedi. He said that noone should come to see him without permission;otherwise they would be disappointed ......On thefollowing day I was turned .it of the Ashram. Ihad no further occasion either to go to ShaulmariAshram or to meet Netaji personally myself, but Ihave been telling every one that the Shaulmari AshramSadhu is in fact Netaji."

6.14 Namwar Upadhyay (Witness No. 22) alsoadmitted to a rude rebuff from the ShaulmariAshram. He said he wrote to the Ashram asking foran interview, and he received a letter in reply "tellingme that if I had no connection with Shri Uttam ChandNlalhotri, I would be allowed to visit the ASHRAM,"At the interview, he asked the Sadhu what wasthe truth in the rumour that he was Netaji. "I alsoasked him why he did not disclose his identity if therumour was false. Babaji replied: "That is not myprinciple." "The Sadhu asked the witness to preparea list of 100 persons who were familiar with Netajiso that they could come to identify him and proclaimto the world the truth of the matter. The witness,' -.7). .however, could not compose the list, and so the -matter did not proceed further. Despite this request Ar,of the Sadhu, the witness did not publicize what hadtaken place at the interview. He said : "I spoke aboutthe identity of Netaji and Shardanandji only to myintimate friends, but said nothing about it to outsidersor politicians. I spoke to everyone and said thatShardanandji was Netaji. I used to speak about thematter every day. I used to speak the truth to every-one whom I considered to be a man good at heart.If a bad man asked me about the matter, I wouldnot deny the identity of Shardanandji but would replyin a negative way that I respected Shardanandji evenmore than Netaji and placed him higher than Netaji.People understood whatever they liked from thisanswer and it was not my desire to explain the matterfurther". Upadhyay's conduct is inexplicable in viewof the importance of the matter and the witness'sanxiety not only to find out the truth but to advertiseeit by preparing a list of 100 important persons wilt-could identify the Sadhu and then proclaim his iden-tity .

6.15 The evidence regarding the identity of Shaul-mari Baba with Netaji has no probative value what-ever and does not merit any contradiction. Contradic-tion, in ample measure, is however, provided by anumber of witnesses. Shri Niharendu Dutt Majumdar,who knew Netaji well and who saw the Sadhu of theShaulmari Ashram upon several occasions, has cate-gorically stated on oath that the Sadhu is definitelynot Netaji, I shall presently discuss Shri Dutt Majum-dar's evidence on the point in greater detail. ShriDwijendra Nath Bose, Netaji's nephew, has madestatement to the same effect. Questions wee askeLin Parliament on more than one occasion, and it wa!authoritatively stated that the Baba of ShaulmariAshram was not Netaji. A criminal case was brought kagainst Malhotra and Dixit under sections 465, 468,.469, 471, 500 and 293A of the Indian Penal Code

by the Ashram, represented by the Personnel Assis-tant to the Secretary of the Ashram and by the PersonalAssistant himself. In the complaint, it was stated thatthe two respondents, i.e. Uttam Chand Malhotraand Hiralal Dixit had been falsely stating thatthe Sadhu of the Shaulmari Ashram was NetajiSubhas Chandra Bose and they had forgedciocuments to support their false statement. Onone occasion, the Secretary of the Ashram re-ferred to Malhotra and his supporters as "rabidlyimmoral persons, out to defraud people monetarilyand politically by taking recourse to utterly false,

booked up and concocted propaganda." On general-4 Considerations alone, it is impossible to believe the. story that Bose would remain in hiding for such a

-4 long time in an Ashram, be visited and seen by anumber of persons, and yet succeed in keeping hisidentity enveloped in the mist of doubt. Mr. SamarGuha and Mr. Surendra Mohan Ghosh, both ofwhom know Netaji well, have clearly stated that theSadhu was not Netaji. Indeed, the harassment towhich the Sadhu was subjected by Uttam ChandMalhotra and his supporters made the Sadhu insti-tate criminal cases against them and finally closeup the Ashram and escape to an unknown placewhere he could not be followed and intimidated.

6.16 The identity of the Baba of the ShaulmariAshram was mooted for the first time on Septem-ber 29, 1961 when Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, a schoolteacher, wrote a letter to Mr. Nehru, in the courseof which he said that the founder of the Shaulmari

-4 Ashram had spread rumours that he was Subhas. Inthe letter, Jaiswal stated that there was an air ofmystery and intrigue about the Ashram. The Sadhuwas a chain -smoker and smoked imported cigarettes.He was a linguist, being familiar with Russian,Chinese, German and other languages. He went onto say that the Ashram, in his view, was a centre ofsome foreign conspirators who were secretly workingthere:

6.17 he matter was referred to the IntelligenceBureau and enquired into. Several reports on theworking of the Ashram were submitted. Of these, theone submitted in June 1962 traced the history of theAshram, described its activities and expressed the

,view that there was nothing suspicious or blame-) worthy about what was happening in the Ashram, and

*" no political party in West Bengal had shown anyinterest in the Sadhu's affairs. In the meantime, how-

4 ever, the hare started by Radhey Shyam Jaiswaldrew the notice of some imaginative people whobegan to pursue it and advertise the notion that theSadhu was in fact Netaji. This stir rapidly assumed

the proportions of an agitation, and public meetingsbegan to be convened and addressed by the protago-nists of the strange belief. The initial step was taken

0by Haripada Bose, Joint Secretary of the Ashram, .who towards the end of 1961, began to declare that

;the Sadhu was Netaji in disguise. He was promptlyexpelled from the Ashram, and printed leaflets wereissued by the Ashram authorities, declaring inequi-vocally that the Sadhu was not Netaji. Haripada Bosewas joined by others, including Satya Gupta of theINA, and they addressed public meetings, insistingthat the Sadhu was no other than Netaji. The agita-tion gathered volume and became a threat to law andorder, in certain regions of West Bengal. Prohibitoryorders, under section 144 of the Criminal ProcedureCode, had to be issued, and there were some actualbreaches of the peace. No less than 20 meetings atdifferent places in the State were convened andaddressed by Satya Gupta and his supporters. UttamChand Malhotra now entered the scene and began toplay a prominent, indeed the most prominent, part inpropagating the hypothesis which had been vaguelysuggested by Radhey Shyam Jaiswal at the end ofSeptember, 1961, barely nine months earlier. In vaindid the Ashram authorities protest and issue denials.Investigation by the CID and the Intelligence Bureauabsolved the Shaulmari Ashram of any suspicious orclandestine designs. The reports submitted to theGovernment refuted the allegation that the Sadhu wasNetaji in disguise. But these declarations and reportsnotwithstanding, Uttam Chand Malhotra continued toexploit the gullibility of a section of people who areprone to bestow their emotions on anything extra-ordinary, anything sensational concerning a greatpersonality, be it no more than a figment of some-body's imagination. In the end, the Sadhu was oblig-ed to leave the Ashram and seek peace elsewhere.But controversy over his identity did not cease withhis departure.

6.18 To at least three persons who knew Boseintimately, the notion of the Shaulmari Ashram Sadhubeing Netaji appeared so fantastic and so remote fromreality that they did not deem it necessary to visit theAshram and refute Malhotra's contention by per-sonally seeing the Swami and hearing him. SureshChandra Bose, Netaji's brother, never visited theAshram. Sunil Das (Witness No. 169), a politicalworker and a close associate of Bose for some years(1939-1941), was convinced that the Swami couldnot possibly be Bose, his political leader and mentor.He paid a visit to the Ashram but did not see theSadhu. He, however, made enquiries which convincedhint that there was no need to seek a personal interview.After collecting all information from various sources

which he considered dependable, he came to the con-clusion that the Sadhu was not Netaji. Shri H. V.Kamath's evidence, though of a negative nature, goesa little farther than Sunil Das's testimony. The ques-tion of the Sadhu's identity was posed to him also,and he was handed a chit which was said to bear theSadhu's writing. Kamath was also shown a photo-graph of the Sadhu published in newspapers andmagazines. He learnt that Shri Sunil Das, Shri .SamarGuha and Smt. Leela Roy had made enquiries andcome to the conclusion that the Sadhu most definitelywas not Netaji. He accepted this conclusion, and didnot take the trouble to pay a personal visit to theSadhu, because the procedure for seeking an inter-view was too irksome. It involved sending a formalapplication together with three photographs of theapplicant. Also, Kamath thought that since Netajiknew him so well, if the Sadhu were, indeed Netajihimself, he would not have asked for any photo-graphs of his old political supporter and associateKamatb said : "I knew Netaji 'so well and I thoughtno purpose would be served by supplying thephotograph, so I did not send the photograph ......I am sorry to say that I did not, I regret to say I didnot feel it necessary or persuaded enough to go tothe Ashram to have darshan of the Baba." Withregard to the Sadhu's photograph, the witness saidthat though there was some resemblance in one ortwo facial features, the photograph was definitely notthe photograph of Netaji.

6.19 The motives of Shri Uttam Chand Malhotraare not obscure. He admitted to having organised theNetaji Swagat Committee, for which money wascollected by inviting membership of the Committeeand by the sale of papers, pamphlets, etc. He admittedthat a sum of Rs. 11,000 had been collected, and-though he stated that he had spent Rs. 16,000 inin furtherance of the work of the Committee, it isdifficult to accept the figure as accurate. There is,.however, little doubt that Malhotra has been col-lecting money and, as stated by the Secretary of theAshram. in an angry letter , Shri Malhotra, no doubt,took advantage of the fact that Bose had stayed inhis house on his way to Germany and Malhotra hadhelped him and played host to him. Malhotra hassought to exploit this old association to the full andhas, to a large extent, succeeded in doing so. Therebyhe has attained a great deal of notoriety and publicity,and has, possibly, been able to benefit himself finan-cially also.

6.20 The most convincing refutation of Malhotra'scontention is, however, furnished by the evidence ofShri Dutt-Majumdar (Witness No. 174). Shri Dutt-Majumdar was engaged by the Shaulmari Ashram as

Legal AdViser, and he had occasion to see the Swamiseveral times. He came in Contact with the Ashramfirst in August 1961, when he visited it to observeits cultural activity. Later, he Was asked, to conducta number of cases in which Swami was involved.Some cases had been brought by him against Uttam.Chand Malhotra, Hira Lal Dixit and others for mak-ing a false allegation about the Swami's true identity.There was also a warrant of arrest against the Swamihimself. When questioned about the appearance ofthe Swami and his resemblance to Bose, Shri Dutt-Majtundar was quite categorical. He said : "For thefirst time I had the privilege to see the Founder o r l b,the Shatimari Ashram in the second week of Feb-ruary 1962. On that occasion I was asked by theSadhu to stay on for another three days. I Was veryinconveniently placed this time. For these three daysafter having seen him I came back to Calcutta andissued a statement, a categorical statement to thepress. I had stated among other things that he wasnot 'Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. This was my con-clusion after having seen the Swamiji." The witnesswent on to give his reasons and said : "I have seenhim ,sometimes doing gardening work, sometimes heinvited me with the gardening implements and tellingme to da this or that ; at very close quarters, he wastaking his bath in the coldest winter, about five or sixtimes a day or even at the dead of the night. He wasa very tall man about 6-1/2' in height. I am told thatShri Subhas Chandra Bose, as we all know him, wasOnly about 5 ft. and 9 inches in height. I do not t)know whether by exercises one can increase hisheight. Shri Bose did not have that height. The Sadlittr - _was, generally dark and black complexioned. He wasfar sturdier than Netaji with a much blacker com-plexioned look. Subhas Chandra Bose had taperingfingers. As a noticed the Sadhu, he had rough andready fingers which resembled like a brahmin cook's."The intonation and dialect of the Swami when hespoke were unlike Bose's manner of speaking. TheSwami spoke the dialect of the Mymensing District,whereas Bose was brought up in Cuttack.

6.21 Shri Dutt-Majumdar was questioned aboutUttam Chand Malhotra's visit to him and to theAshram. He said : "Netaji had his hospitality inKabul, and I had his hospitality in Delhi, and Ifound that -like the Brijbasis of yore who would not,believe that Krishna had left Vrindavan, my very.....;0dear and esteemed friend suffers from that kind ofpsychosis." The witness added : "Yes, it had cometo my notice that Shri Uttam Chand Malhotraji had ..s;

e i i Bibaji of Shaulmari Ashram, and immediatelyafter Ins having seen Babaji, it was reported in thepress, that Uttam Chand Malhotraji had addressed

73

a meeting at Calcutta and proclaimed there that "nowthat I have seen him, I have seen that he is notNetaji, he is a great Mahatama ............But whyafterwards he changed, it is more than I can tell."

6.22 Shri Dutt-Majutmlar was questioned about theShaulmari Ashram at great length and he repeatedlystated that the Sadhu was most definitely not Netaji.The Sadhu differed from him in several respects, hisfacial features, his complexion, his height, the degreeof his baldness and his speech and intonation. Thereis no reason why Shri Dutt-Majumdar's statement on

01, this point should not be believed.

6.23 Satyanarayan Sinha is an individual of awholly different calibre from lid= Chand Malhotra.Sinha has had a chequered career. He has visitedmany foreign countries, and worked in many differentcapacities. By nature a boastful exhibitionist, he hasadopted a flamboyant style in his speech and in hiswritines. It took four days to hear his long, ramblingand often irrelevant statement, and the record of hisdeposition extends over 235 typed pages. During hisentire stay in the witness box, he never hesitated tosidetrack the issue and make repeatedly evasive rep-lies to unpalatable questions; he never felt abashedwhen he delivered himself of palpable falsehoods,nor was he ever embarrassed on being confronted withhis own contradictory statements. At the end, heleft the impression of a persistent braggart, a con-summate though transparent liar and a wholly unre-liable witness.

6.24 Sinha first came to see me at his own requeston September 28, 1970. He had, a few days earlier,-while seeking an appointment sent a statement sup-ported by an affidavit and a booklet entitled NetajiMystery, which he had written and published in 1966.In the course of his interview, he gave me a briefaccount of his life and activities, and made a requestthat his evidence should be taken in two instalments,once at Delhi and once at Calcutta. The reason whichhe advanced for making this unusual request was not

'convincing; he said that certain diplomatic paperswhich he wished to tender in evidence were at Cal-cutta and some of them were in the custody of hisfriends there. These papers could not be brought toDelhi. There was also some material which he would

:collect from the library of the Parliament and fromhis friends, and this material would be available inDelhi. So, the first part of his statement, he requested,

- relating to the disappearance of Netaji could be madein Delhi, while the second part, relating to the sub-sequent developments connected with Netaji's dis-appearance, 11 ould more properly be made at Calcotta. Since a programme of sittings at Calcutta had

already been decided upon and announced, I grantedSinha's request.

6.25 Sinha was the second witness to be examinedand the substance of his statement is that he,doubtedthe story of Bose's death in an air crash, at Taipeion August 18, 1945. He was determined to makeenquiries and prove the falsity of that story. He hadbeen told in Russia by a Russian, Kuslov, that Bosehad been seen in a Russian prison camp, in Siberia,long after the alleged date of his death at Taipei.Sinha was able to persuade his publishers, MessersBlandfords of London to finance an air journey toTaipei out of the royalties due to him in respect of abook Ile had written. The ticket was handed over tohim and he went to Taipei in November, 1964. Therehe met the son of Chiang Kai Sheik, and with hisassistance, he made local enquiries. He was provid-ed with the use of an aeroplane in which he flew overand around the Taipei airport, the alleged site of theair -crash. He made as many as 150 sorties, andduring these flights, he took a large number of photo-graphs of Taipei town and of the area surroundingthe airport. As the result of his enquiries and upon acareful examination of the photographs and flightdata which he examined and checked, he came to theconclusion that there had been no air -crash atTaipei on August 18, 1945.

6.26 f his is, in broad outline, the story of his en-quiry and conclusions. Sinha went to Taipei in 1964,more, than 19 years after Bose's plane is said to havecrashed there. He had no first hand knowledge of theaccident. He ,cannot be regarded an expert whoseopinion would be admissible in evidence under theprovisions of Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.I, however, propose to discuss Sinha's testimony be-cause of the importance attached to his writings, andthe emotions he aroused when he testified at theCalcutta Session.

6.27 The story narrated by him is simple enough,but when it is examined in the light of the entirestatement made by Sinha and his earlier statements,as published in the Ne lu t i My s t e r y , which he sent tothe Commission, his evidence is seen to be completelyfalse. The story is contradicted in every material par-ticular e.g. the purpose and the manner of his goingto Taipei, the nature of his enquiry at Taipei, andwhether he was able to fly over the site in an aero-plane and take photographs and what material in thematter of documents t d witnesses he was able toexamine at Taipei.

6,28 First as to his purpose in going to Taipei.1 he :story he stated before the Commission was that

74

he went to Taipei with the set and specific purpose offinding evidence to refute the crash story, which hehad always doubted. So, he asked Messers Blandfordsof London, his publishers, to buy him a ticket forTaipei. The ticket covered the journey

In the Netaji Mysterya wholly different story was given by him. There hehad said : "For me it is a chance -luck that has landedme at this Formosa Island. My foreign publishershad sent me an air ticket for the Tokyo Olympics,which reached me in Calcutta after a month the gameswere over. However. I have availed myself of theopportunity to get acquainted with some of theregions of the Far East we know so little about.. .AtHongkong I had an option to fly directly to Tokyoor vai Formosa. A friendly C.A.T. airline man luredme to a Formosa bound Mandarin jet and got set formy following the trails of Netaji."

6.29 Therefore, the story as given by the witnessin the book he published in 1966 was that it was merechance zhat took him to Formosa. He had intendedto go and see the Olympic Games at Tokyo, andindeed it was only at Hongkong that he was suddenlypersuaded to visit Formosa. In any case, the airticket reached him a month after the Games wereover. Yet, he gave no explanation of why he leftCalcutta at all, nor did he say that the ticket was fromLondon to Hongkong. If the ticket reached him inCalcutta, the starting point could not have beenLondon. I wrote to Messrs Blandford and askedthem to inform me if they had purchased a ticket forDr. Sinha in 1964 or at any other time. They statedin reply that they had never purchased any ticketfor Dr. Sinha. This reply of Messers Blandford givesthe lie direct to Sinha's statement, made on oathbefore me.

'

6.30 A third purpose of Satyanarayan Sinha goingto Taipei is furnished by a report and a photographin the newspaper China Post dated Novem-ber 27, 1964, which Mr. Sinha himself produced.According to this paper, Mr. Sinha was a member ofthe Indian Delegation to the Tenth Conference of theAsian Peoples' Anti-Communist League, held atTaipei. The photograph shows Sinha shaking handswith Defence Minister, Gen. Chang Ching Ko. Itseems that this was the real purpose of Sinha's visitto Taipei. When the matter was put to him in thecourse of his examination before the Commission, hedenied that he was a member of the delegation, butadmitted that the photograph which he producedwas, indeed, his. If this version is accepted, then theother two stories given by Sinha in the NetajiMystery and in his deposition before the Commission

are seen to be wholly false, and Sinha could not havegone to Taipei to make any investigation into thetruth of the crash story at Taipei.

6.31 The contradiction between the story as statedin 1966 and as stated four years later before theCommission is so fundamental that the two state-ments are wholly inconsistent. If the earlier state-ment is correct, Sinha cannot be believed when hesays that he went to Taipei specifically to find outthe truth about the story of the crash.

6.32 Again, before the Commission, the witnessstated that at Taipei hundreds and thousands ofair -crashes had taken place on and beforeAugust 18, 1945 and that the story of the loneaircrash in which Bose died was contradicted by whathe heard at Taipei in 1964. In his book, NetajiMystery, however, he had stated, "there are noreports of any other air mishaps at Taipei exceptthat one on October 23, 1944, in which Subhas Babudefinitely did not perish. According to Formosareports, there was no aircrash on 18th August, 1945."Again in Chapter 2 of the book he gives an accountof his interrogation of Mr. Chuang. Mr. Chuangsaid : "This is the location of the only aircrash thathas taken place in the history of Taipei."

A "When was it ?",

r"- "On October 23, 1944 at 1400 hours, Tokyotime."

"Did the Japanese news agency reports not putit as on August 18, 1945 ?"

"It is not correct. There has not been any crashat Taipei besides the one I am telling youabout."

The two statements are so completely contradictoryas to be wholly inconsistent.

4

6.33 In his evidence, Sinha stated that he wasprovided with a small aircraft in which he made noless than 150 sorties over and around the airport andtook dozens of photographs from the plane. In thebook, Netaji Mystery, there is no mention of his hav-ing been provided with a plane. The photographswhich he took and produced before me appear tohave been taken from different elevated recognisableplaces on the ground or tall buildings. For instance, 'the photographs of the airfield were obviously takenfrom the hillock on which the Grand Hotel now stands,and the photograph of the town in which a plane is seen 'to be flying was obviously taken from the roof ofcne of the high buildings in the town. According to

75

Netaji Mystery, Sinha did not know anyone in Taipeiwhen he arrived there, but the Formosan Governmentwas friendly, and two persons, Mr. Chuang andMr. Tao, became his close associates in the enquirywhich he had undertaken. It does not, however, appearthat Chuang was able to provide a plane for the ex-clusive use of Satyanarayan Sinha.

6.34 Then, again, when we come to the questionof witnesses interviewed and documents examined,there is complete contradiction between the evidencegiven before the Commission and the account narrat-ed in the book, Netaji Mystery. On page 4 of thebook, he says that the pilot of the plane which carriedhim from Hongkong to Taipei told him that therewere thousands of tons of Japanese papers safelydeposited in a far away cave. The pilot had access tothem, and so, Sinha would be able to see them. Thepilot introduced Sinha to Gen. Chiang Kai Sheik "andan informal meeting with him opened all the gatesto the Japanese secret preserved on the island includ-ing their intelligence reports. I could observe, study,examine and take photographs of whatever I thoughtcould have been of any value to my work." Thenarrative in the book makes it quite clear that Sinhadid examine those papers and intelligence reports.According to his evidence before the Commission,however, the only investigation he carried out wasflying the aeroplane to examine the site and to calcu-late the distances and time which must have beencovered by Bose's plane if the crash story were true.From this material, he conclusively came to the con-elusion that the story was false, and he, therefore, didnot deem it necessary to examine any witnesses or tolook into any documents. He did not even botherto enquire if the hospital had any records of Bosehaving been taken there and treated. Indeed, at onestage, he said that there were no documents availableat all, and he did not meet any of the military hospi-tal staff. When pressed to say whether he asked hisfriend Peter Tsiand to make available the hospitalrecords, he made the astonishing reply : "No. I nevertalked about hospitals. As an air man, I talked aboutthe crash and concentrated all my investigations oncrash alone." As an instance of his side-tracking theissue and making wholly irrelevant statements, thefollowing extract from his statement may be quoted :

"I calculated the speed of the sally bomber andcompared it with the statements of the wit-nesses there. The distance between Singa-pore and Bangkok is exactly 897 miles andit took 5 hours according to the witnessesthere. In the same way, I calculated the,flying hours between Tourain and Taihoku.

But the speed was accelerated. This wasall to cheek up the statement of HabiburRehman as to whether he was flying in theplane of Netaji or not. I checked up theflying speed, the latitude and at what timeit will reach. Actually, I repeated the per-formance also on my return back on one ofthe planes. I did not touch Tourain. ButI touched the nearby point and then I cameto Saigon just to see the flying conditions ofthat time. I had to get the whole pictureof it at that time. This was not enough atall, no proof of my conviction. There areother proofs also which I came to know onthat particular day as to which were theJapanese bases in Formosa, what route theyhad to take, what plane they had to take andwhere they were scheduled to take and allthat and also where was the suicide squadronbased. There was another Admiral who wasgoing to commit suicide even after theEmperor's orders. We had to see at whattime did he take off and all that. So, wehave to see the whole war picture. Seeingall these things, we have to pinpoint thewar record, not from hour to hour butfrom minute to minute. That is how I cal-culated the speed of the plane as it is saidin that book, how it flew from Tourain,when they had removed 10 anti-aircraft

1 , guns, how much load would be less and byhow much speed will be accelerated. So,it is a matter of clear calculation."

When pressed to give result of his calculation alittle more specifically, the witness delivered himselfof a long diatribe which had nothing whatever to dowith the subject matter of the inquiry, but which mustbe quoted in full to convey the true impression of themanner in which the witness gave his evidence andalso the entirely spurious nature of his story.

Will your lordship permit me to come to thatmap again? These Japanese lighting forceswere a peculiar ype of fighting forces in the

, annals of history. They ave a very proud. people. Until the end of Tilly, 1945, they

had no idea to surrender. Their military dis-position was that. Here is Dairen. It is writ-ten as S.S.A. Ketai. That means it is

Tht Chinese -Russian, lt came in dual control of. both of them from that date. 22nd August.I On that date, as le what was happening in

1-A this theatre of war, one has to take a rough

76

idea. After the Japanese surrendered, all ofa sudden, what happened in this theatre of

,a war, in this sector which is the Manchuriansector, was that the army of Japan wasbased there. That is three -fourth of a million,750,000 people. Here from the Russian

a side there were also artatyed the - Far EasternRed Army. Many of the Generals who out-shone there were my colleagues, and ifhad stayed in the Russian Army I could have

. certainly become one of the best strategistsof the UCO or Blusher. There was a techni-que of warfare. Here the peculiar techniqueis : take the place in Manchuria. All of a

e sudden what happens is that on the 8thAugust 1945, Russia declares war on Japan.Japan has made a mistake meanwhile. Themistake is that in order to .defend not Burma

- and other places, but Ok-inawa. Rikyu islandsor Philippines, they have shifted from hereto there, certain units of neir quantung armyalready, and this army which was left incharge of other Generals, they were not tothe tune of the fighting etc. When Japansurrendered on the 14th of August, that iswhat the Japanese Cabinet have decided that

e they need desperately, very very desperatelybecause one week a,g they were saying :'Don't compare us to the Germans. The

allies have captured their homeland. Ourhomeland, the Allies will never capture solong as we live. They were saying this. Whenas soon as those forces come here, heaviestfighting is going on. Japan concentratedevery effort to fight here from 9th onwardsin this sector and in this sector there is akey man of these Quantung Army and thekey man was Gen. Shidei who spoke perfectRussian. He knew this warfare and all those*

cliately asked to proceed from this high com-mand where he held the post of Army Chiefof Staff, "You go and immediately proceedthere at the earliest possible and take com-mand of this Quantung Army as Chief ofArmy Staff." As soon as he was given this

, command, it was just a chance meeting thatNetaji met Gen. Shidei at Saigon. Now fromthere both of them are flying to Dairen, be-cause if you find, Your Lordship, here inOkinawa and Rikyu are based American

e- troops. In Philippines there is MacArthurand also in Rikyu islands. There is one Mac-Arthur's command on that day. This isdated 15th that a Japanese surrender team

should start in Japanese planes from Kyushuthat is here. They; should fly in Japaneseplanes only upto Rikyu, and from Rikyu,they should go in American planes to Manilathe same day. Now MacArthur is expectingon the 16th evening here this way.. All theseplaces are very well guarded. In Swat() whichis here, there is one British and Chinesearmy working with them. Now, for Gen.Shidei, when he is there in this place, he hasto shake off all burden, and in speed, everyminute counts and had reached there hear-ing the broadcast of this Russian advance.Port Arthur which is here which was just to *ilkfall but had not fallen on that day. Whenthey received this message here, then Shidei, *at once, leaves for Dairen. Other Generalsare committing suicide, Harakiri, at a verylarge scale because a Japanese officer's lifeis not worth living, once they have lost thewar. So many important figures-----Tojo alsotried to commit suicide and those who couldprove useful to the country were devoting alltheir efforts not to allow the , Russians tocapture this Dairen. When this _order wasgiven to Gen. Shidei, tie immediately startsfrom there and then unloads everything atTouraine. Those days when the Japaneseplans are grounded, they had to find a wayout. What is the word which you use-- clan-destinely, I mean that when you are just *pressed all round by :he enemy, you have to .,find Out your schedule and everything hasto be planned secretly and very successfullyby manoeuvering and skilfully piloting youhave to go through. Now when they reachTouraine, they leave also their ADCS andall that and if Habib-ur-Rehman was withNetaji Subhas Bose, he was dropped therebecause the plane cannot take so muchweight and so many people and reachDairen- the same evening. Everything was

dropped there and it is admitted that fromSingapore to Bangkok it is 897 miles- livehours flying. They have to make at the most5.-l2 hrs. They cannot, take more to reachTaipeh that day because at 2 O'clock theteam is reaching from there with the Empe-ror's command telling the suicide squadrons"You surrender." This is the order that somez!,very high dignitary is approaching there atabout 3 O'clock at Tankurku. They have ,to leave in any case before that time because 41MacArthur's people and his command peoplewill be passing this way and if they see that

77

planes are grounded why this particularplane is flying, they can attack it and theycan get that down. -Under these circumstan-ces, all encircled by enemies two personswithout their ADCs ---a General is also aboutto have his ADC and Gen. Shidei is like thatand he asks for no ADC. If you calculatethe time, it will take 5 hours 35 minutes.From 5 O'clock if you leave here Taihoku,they reach here Taipei at 10 or 11 O'clock.Again it is in this sde because the Americanswho are based here will not follow theJapanese plane for a particular reason. Theydo not want to get involved with Russia inwar because Dairen andis from Marshal Varsi lovSky's

ed that any American plane should show upin the periphery of this area. Once there, theplane from Taihoku has taken off at 11.30and it has reached Dairen. There is no otherlanding ground in between. It has to reachwithin 5 hours 30 minutes according to.schedule. On the 18th, at about 6 o'clock inthe evening, Gen. S'hidci and Netaji bothreached Dairen there. When these Americansafter 3 or 4 hours landed there, they askedthe airport : Oh, well, we have heard fromintelligence reports from Swato or from here,British intelligence, that Subhas ChandraBose has flown. They said : What are youtalking about? We have never heard thisname in life. And so, in a hurry, by the nextplane, that means after 2 or 3 days, Habib-ur- Rehman comes there and there he is tuto-red by Japanese intelligence on that particulardate. What has happened in the meanwhileto these people? Here the 4 Generals havesurrendered to the Russians. And, on the22nd of August, the Russians capturedDairen. Till they captured Dairen, Japaneseare not supposed to disclose anything. Theydisclosed on 23rd. This is Domai agency.They said : What are you talking about?Subhas Chandra Bose had died. There is nopoint in following him at all. That is justto save him. And this is the truth, Sir, uptothat extent, which can be %edited from thenationalist Chinese agents whom I interro-gated there. And after this I located from thebooks on what minute and which plane fol-lowed at Taipeh."

6.35 The whole of this argument is sheer nonsense.There is no basis for the assumptions the witness

8 M of HA/74-1 I

makes, no substance in his reasoning and his deduc-tions arc not merely fallacious, they are nothing shortof idiotic.

6.36 It is, however, not only in the story of hisvisit to Taipei that we find gross and irreconcilablecontradictions but in almost every incident narratedby him. Even the date of his birth was not correctlystated in the curriculum vitae which he attached to hisaffidavit on 12-9-70, in which his date of birth is givenas 14th March, 1913, but subsequently he said thathe was born in 1910. This would not be a matter ofany significance were it not for the fact that whenSinha found that some of the events to which he hadanimadverted in the course of his statement would notbe consistent with his birth in 1913, he began to saythat he was born in 1910, and the ouestion, therefore,arises whether the events were invented in order toprovide an air of verisimilitude to his narrative. In thecourse of his evidence, he stated that he was accusedof taking part in certain political dacoities in order toobtain money for saving Bhagat Singh and others whenhe was a boy of 13 or 14 only. If Sinha was born in1910, the dacoities must have taken place in 1923 or1924, in which year Bhagat Singh was not even known.Bhagat Singh was arrested for throwing a bomb inthe Assembly chamber in Delhi in 1929. He was triedand hanged in 1931. Sinha left India in March 1930.Sinha also says that he went to Sabarmati Ashram withGandhiji in 1925, to Kashi Vidyapeeth and Shanti-niketan from 1926 to 1929 where he obtained theShastri degree. If he was born in 1913, he must haveobtained his degree at the age of 16, which seems fartoo premature.

6.37 Reference has been made to Sinha's request tohave his statement recorded in two instalments becauseat Calcutta he wished to produce certain documentswhich were not available at Delhi. At the Delhi ses-sion, he produced a number of documents, and under-took to produce more which, he said, were lying athis home. At the Calcutta session, however, he failedto produce these documents, and said that they werein his bag at Delhi and had been stolen therefrom.Although at one stage he had stated that he had takenhundreds of photographs, he only produced 4 or 5and gave the explanation that they were the onlyones relevant to the inquiry. He undertook to producemore but did not do so. At one stage, he gave theexplanation that they had been lost by the Editor ofthe Anaml Bazar Patrika to whom he had handed themover.

6.38 A few more instances of Sinha's strange con-duct and the contradictory and evasive replies which

78

he gave in the course of his evidence may be given toillustrate the true nature of his statement. He said thatin 1950 he heard from a Russian named Kuslov thatKuslov had seen Subhas Bose in Russia after 1945but he did nothing whatsoever until 1964, when hevisited Taipei, and on returning to India, published anumber of articles setting out his reasons for disbeliev-ing the crash story. He did not even appear as a wit-ness before the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee in 1956.On this point the following extract from his statementis significant :

, will go to the story whichyou were narrating before we rose. In 1951,

. you told us, you had made your suggestion, but you had not met with a favourable res-

. .. ponse for the reasons which you have stated.Thereafter between 1951 and 1956 whenthe Shah Nawaz Khan Commission was ap-pointed, did you in your writings, in anyarticle, magazine or book mention the infor-mation which you had received about NetajiBose being alive and having been seen in

-(; Siberia?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : Your Lordship, I took up thismatter with Jawaharlal Nehru again in 1952when I got elected to Parliament, and then1 produced before the Parliament this parti-cular map which is there. It is a Russianmap.

Commission: This very map?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : A copy of this map and therewas a case of privilege against me in Parlia-ment when I could not finish my story and

. my wings were chopped off.

Commission: What were you going to say? Wasit something about Netaji Bose or somethingelse ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : connected with Netaii. it waslike this that the Russians drove towardsthe South. It began in Berlin in 1940. Sothose documents came in my hand in Berlinfor the first time where, if I may read threelines which have a bearing on Netaji's . . .

Commission : Three lines from your . speech inLok Sabha ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : Not from my speech but fromthe Soviet documents,

Commission : Can you tell me what you said inParliament before the privilege procedure wasapplied to you ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : I said when the Communistbenches were saying, - What is the use ofplacing our army in the north when we havegood Russia ?" I stoodup and said that this logic which they are giv-ing is the logic of Moscow and Moscow hasits territorial aspirations plants towards ourcountry.

Commission : But you had not mentioned Netaji*Bose's name ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : I had only three minutes' timeto speak.

Commission : You did not mention Netaji?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : I could not.

Commission : Perhaps, you were going to M e n -

t i o n it ?

Dr. S. N. Shiba Yes.

Commission: We will proceed further. Then,what did you do, till 1956 when the ShahNawaz Khan Committee was appointed inthe matter of inquiring further into the dis-appearance of Nota":i ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : Those days there were other col-leagues who had taken up this matter aboutNetaji inquiry and one of the Members is,: "7.

t present here, my hon. friend, Mr. Kamath "411111who had taken up this matter.

Commission : I know there was a demand andin response to that demand the Shah NawazKhan Committee was appointed.

Dr. S. N. Sinha : Due to that pressure.

Commission : What did you individually do?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : I associated with our colleagues'efforts to ventilate the public grievances thatone inquiry committee should ne set up.

Commission Did you appear before the ShahNawaz Khan Committee ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : No, I did not, due to Pandi .Jawaharlal Nehru's rebuke.

Commission : You mean the rebuke which headministered to you in 1951 or on somelater occasion ?

79

Dr. S. N. Sinha : 1954.

Commission : What did he say ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : There was an open debate inParliament after that, and then he asked mein a private letter. How many times I hadbeen to the American Embassy and whetherI was their agent or not ?

Commission : Was it in connection with NetajiBose.

Dr. S. N. Sinha : Netaji Subhash Bose's case.

Commission : So, on account of that rebuke youdid not offer to appear as a witness before

, the Shah Nawai Khan Committee? When thereport was published, it was obviously incon-sistent with the information which you hadreceived ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : 100 per cent childish report. 1told Jawaharlal Nehru.

Commission : What did you do to question thecorrectness of the finding of that report ?Now, coming to your visit to Taiwan-- -thatis in '64. But before that between 1956 and1964 what did you do ?

Dr. S. N. Sinha : During these years 1 was most-ly on the Himalayan Front, on the TibetanFront, and there I was with our defences,so to say, defending that Siliguri sector in myown way and regarding Netaji and otherthings, though I had not shelved this mat-ter in my mind, I was making preparationsto be hundred Der cent sure that the planehad not crashed, and there is some hand ofSoviet intelligence in Delhi which i s stoppingthis truth from coming out that Netaji wasin Russian hands.".

Another blatant instance of evasion is set outbelow , .

Commission : With regard to the crash that tookplace in October 1944, what document did

. you see? So far you have told me that thePRO told vou about it. and you also made areference to a newspaper which you were notable to see. I want to know what was thedocument that you saw '7

Dr. Sinha : He took me to a temple there, aBuddhist temple nearby where there weretwo Chinese, and he said that these wereour agents posted here in Taihokti during

the British days. I must tell you one thing:This Peter Tsian had lived in Delhi during

Chiang Kai Slick's regime, as China's repre-sentative in Delhi. He knew Netaji also per-sonally. So, this man who was investigatingfor me about Netaji's case, for him, Delhiaffairs were not foreign or strange. So, hetook me to that temple and brought two eye-witnesses of that crash which had taken placein 1944.

Commission : These two Chinese witnesses toldyou about that crash.

Dr. Sinha : About that one crash which hadtaken place in October, but no one knewabout any crash which had taken place inAugust, 1945 at the Taipei airport.

Commission : I repea,t my question : was thereany document that you were able to see ?

Dr. Sinha: About this particular aircraft, lateron, I consulted the facts on file and alsoabout the Japanese suicide squadron whichwas based on Taipei, the date on whichthey flew, and all that. From this, I have

. volumes of material' to show that not onecrash but at least hundreds if not thousandsof crashes must have taken place on the

h i . Formosa island, and a few hundreds at leastbefore the 18th, on that Keelung-Taihokus e c t o r .

Commission: Were you able to get any docu-ments from the old hospital or military hos-pital? Before that, I want to ask, was theold military hospital in existence?

Dr. Sinha: I did not go to any hospital oranywhere. As an aviator, I first investigatedwhether a crash took place or not. If thecrash had not taken place, the question doesnot arise of going to hospital or anywhere."

6.39 It is clear from the above extracts, culledfrom his statement, that Dr. Satyanarain Sinha hasattempted to practise fraud upon the Commission andthe public, by making false claims of an investigationinto Bose's disappearance. His single visit to Taipei toattend the 10th Conference of the Asian People's Anti-Communist League, was exploited by him to arrogateto himself the character of a public-spirited man,deeply concerned with Bose and his activities. I can-not believe that he was provided with a plane withliberty to fly it as often and wherever he wished. There

80

Was nothing he could learn by such flights. His cal-culations about the duration of the plane journey be-tween different points on Bose's route are sheer non-sense, and do not throw any light on what happenedat Taipei on August 18, 1945. His whole conducttrom the moment he claims to have heard Bose'sexistence in Russia in 1949, upto 1966, when he firstgave publicity to his startling story in his book NetajiMystery, is inconsistent with truth and natural beha-viour. A great part of his statement was concernedwith his antics in the field of diplomacy and Intelli-gence and his braggart claims about the nature andmagnitude of his achievements. But whenever he wasasked to state details about his work or his tours, heresorted to evasive tactics, by jumping to another topicand side-tracking the subject under scrutiny.

6.40 He began by saying that he was born in 1910.He went on to say that when he was a boy of 13or 14 (i.e. in 1923 or 1924) he was accused oftaking part in political dacoities to obtain money forsaving Bhagat Singh. But Bhagat Singh was not ar-rested till 1929 and had not even been heard of beforethat date. In his book China Strikes Dr. Sinha statedon p. 15 that he sailed from Colombo as a stowawayin March 1930 and then he was sixteen and alone inthe world". If he was born in 1910, he would clearlynot have been 16.

6.41 In the course of his testimony he said hestarted studying Medicine in Vienna and went to jointhe Soviet Combatant Forces as a Staff Captain. Later,when India became independent, he was, he says, aplenipotentiary in Vienna, and the whole country wasin his charge. Then, he helped the Tibetans to remainfree, and assisted the Dalai Lama to seek refuge inIndia. But his visit to Tibet was a private one. Hewent alone in the garb of a muleteer. This is justfantastic nonsense, reminiscent of the adventures ofSuperman depicted in comics to beguile the boredomof children and for the diversion of adults who areunwilling to make the mental effort for more seriousreading. Even more incredible is his statement thata Russian named Kuslov told him in 1949 that hehad met Bose in Cell No. 45 of the Yukutsk prison.He says he mentioned the matter to Dr. Radhakrish-nan, in January 1951, and to Nehru a little later . Dr.Railhakkrishnan told him not to meddle in the affairand spoil his career. Nehru's reply was "a sarcasticlaugh".

6.42 These statements of Dr. Sinha are absolutelyabsurd and they need no comment. An adventurerin his youth and an opportunist in later life, moving

from place to place and from job to job, he acquiredthe travellqr's proverbial propensity and readiness totell lies. The more his statement is examined themore convinced one becomes of its false and spuriousnature. His coming to testify before the Commissionwas a piece of play-acting, aimed at drawing attentionto himself and to borrow some, at any rate, of Bose'sglory by professing to have a deep personal interestin his doings. The story of Bose living in a Russianprison cell and his refutation of the crash story bymerely flying over the Taihoku airfield is not onlypalpably false but absolute nonsense invented to mis-lead guillible fools.

6.43 The third witness I propose to discuss is S.M.Goswami who distinguished himself not by his truth-fulness or by a desire to help the Commission, but byhis persistent, obstreperous, indeed, vicious attitude.He had nothing of any significance to communicate.He had no personal knowledge of any event or circum-stance having a bearing on Bose's disappearance. Hehad offered himself as a witness before the Shah NawazKhan Committee, and was examined twice. Hewanted to present himself to make his statement athird time, and made an application in this behalf. Theapplication was rejected and Goswami was directed toput down in writing whatever new evidence had comeinto his possession. He, however, did not do so.

6.44 He made an application to the present com-mission 'on 21.10.1970, requesting for permission tobappear and make a statement. At the Calcutta sittina ....on 16.11.1970, his request was sponsored by M..Trikha, Advocate, who was appearing on behalf ofNetaji Swagat Committee. Goswami pleaded his ad-vanced age and the delicate condition of his heart asgrounds for being allowed to make a statement beforethe witnesses scheduled to be examined on that daywere called. I agreed to hear his evidence. He madea long and rambling but wholly irrelevant statement. .He began by saying that he doubted the story of theaircrash and Netaji's subsequent death, because andonly because, there was a delay of five days in an-nouncing the event. He then proceeded to weave aweb of non -sequiturs, circumlocation and pre-vari-cation in which he sought to capture a conjucturalstory of Bose's continued existence and activity atnumerous places. A great deal of his statement wa'sa plain unadulterated political declamation, bearing neo.4relation whatsoever to the subject matter of the pre-sent inquiry. When his rhetoric was halted, he becamevicious, and roused the largecharged persons gathered in the hall where the publicsession of the Commission was being held, and insti-

6.46 This evidence which is nothing more thanhearsay and inferences from hearsay merits immediatedismissal without any discussion, because even a cur-sory glance at it shows it to be completely worthlessand possessed of no probative value. But in the con-text of this entire enquiry and the passions it has

Goswami was informed by aGertuan, namedHeinz Von _Have, that no air crash tookplace at Taipei on August 18, 1945.

(ii) Goswami spoke to the priest of the RenkojiTemple at Tokyo, and learnt that the boxsaid to contain Netaji's ashes had beenbrought in a jeep by Ramamurti and someAmericans. The association of Americanswith Ramamurti was, according to Goswami,sufficient to contradict the story of Bose'sdeath.

gated them to resort to direct and violent action inorder to compel and intimidate the Commission to re-cord his wholly irrelevant statement.

6.45 The sum and substance of Goswami's evidenceis that he had begun to entertain doubts about thetruth of the crash story because of the delay on thepart of the Japanese authorities in making an annou-ncement of the event of August 18, 1945. Thesedoubts were later confirmed into a convicition thatBose did not die as the result of injuries sustainedin the alleged air crash, and is in fact, still alive. Theadditional factors which led to this belief are briefly

(

(iii) Some observations in a report prepared bythe British Intelligence which were incon-sistent with the crash story came toGoswami's knowledge, when he read theDissentient Report written by SureshChandra Bose.

(iv) Goswami had been given the transcripts ofthree broadcasts made by Bose respectivelyon 19-12-1945, 18-1-1946 and 19-2-1946.This proved that Bose was alive after18-8-1945.

(v) Goswami came upon a photograph of Netajiin a group of persons forming a MongolianDelegation. The photograph appeared in abooklet publiscd on 8-8-1952. This photo-graph proved that Bose was alive in 1952.

(vi) B. C. Chakravarty, a member of the Intelli-gence Bureau had given him informationwhich disproved the crash story.

81

aroused, it is necessary to convery a true picture ofthis witness and the real nature and purpose of his evi-dence. I cannot do better than quote some extractsfrom the record of his deposition relating to thevarious points enumerated above, as the verbatim tran-script speaks for itself. -

This is what he said about Heinz Von Have:

Question : Did you seek Heinz Von Have'smeeting or did you meet him merely bychance ?

Goswami : No Sir, as a matter of fact HeinzVon Have and my office were in corres-pondence about business matters.

; .

Question : You arc in business now ?

Goswami: I am practically a retired man.

Question: But in 1949 you went into businessand Mr. Heinz Von Have was also in busi-ness in Germany ?

Goswumi: Yes, Sir.

Question: What business was he doing?

Goswami: Business in Batavia and all theseplaces.

Question: What Was the nature of this business?

Goswami: I think importing and exporting.

Question : What was he exporting or importing?

Goswami: I have not all these particulars. Per-haps he used to do business on machineriesfrom Germany to various places.

Question: In what connection did your officecorrespond with him for business matters?

Goswami: As a matter of fact when I arrivedin Germany, in Hamburg, he came to re-ceive me and he took me with him ............I was shown a picture of Netaji presentedto Heinz Von Have in which it was written"To my friend Heinz Von Have, with loveand affection". '

,A little later the witness said that be met Have asecond time and spoke to him about Netaji. Goswamiwas asked what Have had said about Netaji beingdead or alive. His answer was completely evasive,as is evident from the following quotation :

"Commission : What did he say about Netaji beingalive or dead?

Goswaini: Actually his life was saved by Netajifrom the Japanese when they took him tobe a Britisher or Englishman. Netaji dis-cussed about him with Tojo and said thatHave was his fr iend and a German and soplease let him go. But in 1949, when Imet him, he told me that the news aboutNetaji's death is stageplay. He was verymuch perturbed about Netaji because hewas grateful to Netaji. " . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Have told Goswami that he had gone to Taipei andthere he had met some German technicians who toldhim

... . . . . . .a ll we can say is that there was noail- ten days before nor tendays after."

No other witness has spoken about the presence of anyGermans in East Asia or of any German having goneto Taipei in August, 1945. In any event this is re-mote hearsay and third hand evidence.

6.47 Goswami went on to say that another placeof information given by Have was that IT,: met somepeople in a street in Tokyo.

"Goswami: In Tokyo. He saw some Japaneseholding a photo of Neta ji and worshippingit or doing something to it and anotherbatch of Japanese was passing that way andone of them said that these are all fools,the man is alive.

Commission: Anything else Have told you torhis believing that Netaji was not dead?

Goswami: He heard from some one that Netajiwas alive and the mouths of the Germansand Japanese were shut, and that is whythe Japanese made no announcement ofNetaji's death on the 18th August."

To admit evidence of this type would be to makenonsense of the law and rules of evidence and thecanons of justice. I

6.48 Next we have Goswami's visit to the RenkojiTemple. Mr. Goswami was asked what happenedin the Temple and this was the reply :

"Goswami: It is a very intersting story. I willtell you what happened. 1 saw the priestand asked him: "I want to see the box con-taining Netaji's ashes." Then he showedme the box. It was a box about 14" long

Id 9" wide and about 9" in height. Thenasked the priest, "who gave you the box?

\\NN

82

When did you get the box?" He said: "Onthe 18th September." Then I asked him"after a month." "How did this box cometo you ?- He said, "Ramamurti broughtthe box to me." I said : "How did he come ?"He said, "He came in a jeep." I said."Who were the other occupants of the jeep?"He said, "Americans." I told the priest."It is very funny that Americans have takenso much care about Netaji 's ashes and thefunniest part of it was that in the box itwas written with a fountain pen `NetajiSubash Chandra Bose.' It was very clum-sily written. I said "What about the whitecloth? Is it the same as was given to youin September 1945". He said "Yes." I ksaid: "How is it that 8 years have passed. -Do you mean to say that the whiteness of

,the cloth is still there and it appears to hea fresh one."

Commission: Did you have a look inside the boxor not? '

Goswami: No. The box was all covered andsealed.

Commission: The priest said nothing more than- what you have said just now?

Goswami: When I asked him what Ramamurtiused to do, he said that he kept the boxin front of him and worshipped it. When

I said "when Rammamurti would come, didhe close the doors and windows ?"

-He said "Yes." I said : You are a priest.How could you see that? You must havepeeped through the windows." He got flab-bergasted and shaky. He said "I was aGastapo."

The story of the broadcast by Netaji, is described inthe following Ti r

Goswami: Netaji made three broadcasts. Firstone was on 19th December, 1945 just afterone month.

Connnission: Did you listen to this broadcast?

Goswimi: No Sir. It was recorded in .B..13.C.

who was working there wasp,-actically told that.

Commission: Have you listened to the playingof the tape?

Goswami: No, it was recorded in B.B.C.

Commission: Do you know what the speech wasabout?

Goswatni: Yes, shall I read it out?

Commission: Did volt hear the tape beingplayed?

Goswami: How can I?

Commission: Where did you get this note?

Goswami: It was recorded in B.B.C. London.

Commission: Your Bengali friend had given thisstory to you?

Goswami: Yes.

Commission: What is the name of this Bengalifriend?

Shri Goswaini: I hesitate to give the name. Hehas already lost his service when this broad-cast was published in a Bengali paperBHARATBARSA,

Commission: We want to know how far thisbroadcast is the true broadcast of Netaji.Yo did not hear it. You have said thatyou have not heard it yourself. Unless yougive the name of your Bengali friend we can-not accept this evidence.

Goswatni: Sir, the language is sufficient to giveproof. ,

Commission: We cannot accept that. We musthave a person who has heard the broad-cast himself. Otherwise this evidence is ofno value.

Goswami: Frankly speaking, when I showedthis broadcast to Radhakrishnan, he toldme, well Goswami, I have heard anotherbroadcast, I said, how is it?

Commission: But you did not hear it. You said,three broadcasts. What are the others.

Goswami: The other one was on 18th January,1946 and the third one was on 19th Feb-

' ruary, 1946 and this is the fateful broad-cast that upset the whole thing. Netaji'sone mistake of putting one sentence abso-lutely shocked the British nation.

Commission: The Bengali friend gave you thetyped scripts of all the three broadcasts?

Goswami: Yes.

,83

Commission: You can give them to us. We willtry to get copies and ask this Bengali friendto come and give evidence.

Goswami: I do not know where he is now.

Commission : So, youhim..

Goswami: How can Imay be either inSwitzerland.

cannot help us to trace

go on chasing a man whoJapan or in London or in

Commission: When did he give you copies of thebroadcasts?

Goswami: This broadcast, that gentleman of theB.B.C. came on a tr ip here. He gave thetyped copies to his sister who retained it.Then, from the sister some gentleman whosename, with your lordship's permission, Ishould not say because he is in another ser-vice and when he gave it to me and after itwas published in BHA R A TBA R SA , Magh,1367 B.S. he lost his job. BHARA'TBARSAis a monthly magazine."

Cioswami's glib talk about Bose's one sentence being"absolutely shocking the British nation" is sheernonsense. There is no record of any convulsionhaving taken place in Britain as a result of anythingthat Bose ever said.

6.49 The matter of the broadcasts was revertedto again, and Goswami was asked to give furtherdetails. His interrogation proceeded as

Commission: Which year was it?

Goswami: 1945, and then on 18th January,1946 and then on 19th December, 1946 - -the most fateful broadcast which broughtruination of India.

Commission: But you did not hear any part ofthe broadcasts. Somebody in the B.B.C.whose name you are not going to discloseor whose address you do not know, heardthem.

Goswami : Sir, Kamal Bose is his name.

Shri Majurndar: Do you know anyone whomight have himself heard these broadcasttalks.

Goswami: In 1945, the War was on. The, broadcasts were made in 1945/46 if any one

. of us was listining to the broadcasts?

84

Shri Maitundar: Who is this Kamal Bose ?

Goswaini: He was the man who was conducting`Bichitra' ,in London.

Shri Majmndar: Where is he now?

Goswami: I do not know. After this broad-cast, published in BHARATBARSA, helost his job. After that he was in Patna, Icame to know. But I do not know whereis he now.

Shri Majunidar: Is he living now?

Goswami : Must be living or dead, I do not know.The strange case of the Mongolian Delegation wasrelated in the following manner :

Goswami: T have this picture of Netaji.

Commission: Where did you get this picture?

Goswami: I will show you the original. This wasfrom a booklet. This picture has beenendorsed even by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.Everybody in Parliament endorsed it aboutNetaji.

Commission: Let me see that booklet. (Bookletwas produced before the Commission).

Coznmission: The booklet was published on the8th August, 1952?

Goswanzi: Yes.

Commission: When did you get it?

Goswami: In 1953 while I was coming backfrom Japan.

Commission: You identify this figure in the cen-tre as Netaji?

Goswami: Yes, not only myself, Panditji himselfsaid in Parliament that it has a str iking re-semblance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shri Majzondar: Did you receive this pamphletfrom Hongkong?

Goswami: Yes.

Shri Majunzdar: From whom?

Goswami: I received it in a shiping office whereI went by a chartered ship from Calcutta toJapan. and there a gentleman, managingdirector of the firm, whose son,was working in China as a mining engineer.Got it from his son. While looking at it Ifound this picture and I asked for a copy

of it. He said 'Yes, but will you returnit because my son might be in difficulty'.I said, 'All right' but I never returned it.

Shri Majtundar: Negative of this picture in thepamphlet would be in possession of personsin Peking who had taken this photograph?

Goswami: Yes.

Shri Majumdar: You have said that you are en-tirely convinced that the central figure inthe picture was Netaji Subhas ChandraBose?

Goswami: Yes.

Shri Majurndar: Did I hear you correctly to saythat late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehruwhile looking at this group photograph saidthat this Central figure bears a striking re-semblance to Netaji?

Goswami: Yes.

Shri Majumdar: Do you know if any attempt wasmade to trace the persons represented in thegroup photograph and to establish theiridentities?

Goswami: My first surprise is that the bone ofcontention of going to China they went onlyto Tokyo .....

Shri Majumdar : Your answer boils down to this:Nobody tried to ascertain the identity of the

. .persons representea in tnis group pnoto7

Goswami: Yes. No one was allowed to go.

Shri Majumdar: Did you ask anybody in autho-rity that the identity of these persons shouldbe traced and established to make sure asto whose photograph the central figure is?

Goswaini: I asked the Chinese Ambassador.

Shri Majumdar: When did you see the ChineseAmbassador?

Goswami: In 1955.

Shri Majumdar: What is the name of the ChineseAmbassador whom you you re-member?

Goswanzi: It is very difficult to remember t he*.Chinese name, and moreover, Sir my visitwas very secret.

Shri Majumdar: Was it in Delhi?

Goswand: Yes.

85

Shri Maiumdar: Please tell His Lordship whattranspired in your conversation with theChinese Ambassador?

Goswami: I wanted to know, because Netajiassumed the name of Marshal Liu Po Chenand I was curious to find out .........I gotthe information that in Dairen Netaji metMao and there Mao was placed in secondposition and Netaji in the first. There,without firing a shot or without any blood-shed Netaji organised an army with 10lakhs of soldiers and they rushed to Chinaand pushed Chiang-Kai-Shek out of Taiwan.

Shri Majuindar: So. you heard the name MarshalLiu Po Chen and gathered the informationthat he was Netaji Subhas?

Goswami: Yes, and I suspected so and that waswhy I told the Chinese Ambassador that intile Chinese Military history you have givendescription of all other persons in detail,but only three lines about Marshal Liu PoChen and also told him that I suspected himto be Netaji. I asked him, saying that thereis a row here about Netaji being alive andI know that Marshal Liu Po Chen is thename of Netaji. He kept smiling and said:

'If I tell then I may die any day.' He said,'You pursue the areright.' He gave out this indication to me.

- Otherwise, how could I challenge the Gov-ernment two years ago that I was preparedto take any delegation to the place whereNetaji was to be found. I have not comehere to tell lies just to take credit, I am nota man of that type."

Shri J. P. Mitter pursued the matter further and ques-tioned Goswami as follows

"Shri I. P. Mitter: Who was present when youwere talking to the Chinese Ambassador?

Gaswarni: Do you think the Ambassador willhave another companion?

Shri Mitter: There was no interpreter ?

Goswami: Yes, there was. He had his PrivateSecretary. He was a handsome man.

Shri Mitter: Why did you say that there wasnobody else?

Goswami: I mean that nobody else was there.If my wife was standing by my side, wouldI mention that I met the Dalai Lama.

8 M of HA/74-12

Shri Miller: You have enjoyed your joke. Pleaseanswer my question. How long did thisinterview last?

Goswanii: About 10 minutes.

Shri Mitter: You only discussed that picture andnothing else.

Goswami: Yes and we discussed about Everest."The information which Goswami claims to have re-ceived from Shri Chakraborty was revealed in thefollowing manner :

Shri N. Dull Majumdar: Did you happen to knowa person whose name is Birendra ChandraChakraborty, a retired police Officer?

Goswami : Yes, he is my relation.

Shri Majumdar: Did you happen to know ifBiren Chakraborty, that officer, had any-thing to do with governmental enquiry re-garding Netaji?

Goswami: Yes."

Shri Majumdar: Will you kindly tell the Hon'bleCommission the gist of the conversationMr. Chakraborty had with you?

Goswatni: He was with me for 4 hours in myoffice. I met Biren Charaborty in the houseof Col. Chopra. Col. Chopra was an IMSofficer in Bangkok. Col. Chopra saw a rec-tangular wrist watch on Netaji. I went toChopra and told him that Shah Nawaz Khanwas insulting me and saying that I wastelling lies. I went to Chopra's house. BirenCharkraborty was also there, and told himthat he had got to come with him becauseShah Nawaz Khan made me a her in hisbook. On this the Government of Indiasent two men to arrest me. They approachedUpananda Mukherjee. Upananda Mukherresaid, 'How can I arrest him because he hasnot said anything illogical?' Then they ap-proached Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy. Dr.Roy said that Goswami has not said that thisparticular man is Netaji. I want to knowfrom him. Then he said, 'I do not wantto listen to you. I do not want Goswamibecause you want to make a fuss and set thewhole of Bengal ablaze. You go away frommy office. I am just telephoning to ShriNehru that this sort of game should not betolerated.'

86

Goswami worked himself up into a veritable frenzyand began making a demonstration of his importanceto the excited audience in the hall. Shri Dutt-Majum-dar thought it necessary to sooth and calm him.

Shri Majumdar: Mr. Goswami, may I request youto restrain your emotion? We are all char-ged with emotion on this subject. So, res-train your emotion and help the Hon'ble

Commission by giving precise answersto questions. I shall come to the photo-graphs later. My question was, what is thegist of what Mr. Chakraborty had toldyou?

Goswami: I have already typed it very hurriedlybecause I had to go through it, correct it,print it and do everything. The gist of thewhole thing is that these police officers whogave evidence here had no idea. He said,he was the main man in Burma, appointedby Churchill himself. Government of Indiahad no concern. So, I know, all that hashappened in Burma. In his opinion ShahNawaz Khan was a traitor.

Shri Majumdar: What places did Biren Chakra-borty visit? Has he narrated to you?

Goswami: Burma, Singapore and other placesin this connection. He has given that.

Commission: When did he visit all those places?

Goswami: During the Second World War time,before the conclusion of the hostility.

Shri Majumdar: Mr. Goswami, I am asking youabout Biren Chakraborty, which places inSouth -East Asia he had visited and when,during war or after the war?

Goswami: During war and may be, no, it isnot after the war.

Shri Majumdar: Which year would it be?

Goswami: Some time when Japan surrenderedon 15th August, So, you can take it asbefore that. Biren Chakraborty did greatwork so far as India is concerned when heallowed 12 INA officers to escape for whichhe was subsequently suspended and didnot receive his pay for 18 months and evenafter independence, that salary of 18 monthsas yet.

Shri Mahundar: Your lordship, I do not wantto trouble the witness about Biren Chakra-borty. If you are pleased to call him hewill be able to enlighten us".

6.50 Biren Chakraborty, as stated in the precedingchapter was called as a witness. He made a detailedstatement and the record of the interrogation conduc-ted by him forms part of the record of these proceed-ings and was studied by me. It will be rememberedthat Chakbraborty's statement is wholly at variancewith what Goswami stated. Chakraborty went toBurma and then to Saigon, after the end of the war.He did not go to Singapore. His conclusion, as setout in the report. was that Bose had died at Taipeias narrated by Habibur Rahman. He was convincedof the truth of Habibur Rahman's story. Chakrabortysaid nothing about allowing any I.N.A. officers toescape, nor anything about his having been suspendedand his salary withheld from him. Goswami's state-ment on this point is a tissue of lies, and Shri Dutt-Majumdar thought it advisable not to pursue thematter further rest Goswami perpetrated more false-hoods and nonsence.

6.51 Goswami also produced two books which hehad published. One of these deals with the mysterysurrounding Netays disappearance, and in the otherGoswami has sought to prove that no one ever clim-bed Mt. Everest. numerous instances of his evasivereplies and irrelevancies could be quoted. Often hemade palpably false statements. Of this one instancewill suffice.

1%

6.52 Goswami had referred to certain newspaperitems in his book dealing with Netaji and he wasquestioned about these reports. The following ex-tracts from his evidence will show the true characterof Goswami's evidence.

"Commission: You have only newspaper re-ports which you have published but youhave no information obtained personallyby yourself from anybody who has seen ormet Netaji. These are only extracts fromnewspapers publications. You have onlyre -published news items which came out inthe newspapers.

Gosivami : Yes. One is dated 15th May, 1970.another January is not given, an-other dated 29th August 1945, and anotherfrom London dated 2nd September.

Commission: "The Observer" dated 2ndSeptember said that no news came outat all.

87

Goswarni : Reuter news is there.

Commission: With regard to the last of the fournews items we wrote to the "Observer" inLondon and received a reply from themthat no such news item appeared on thatdate or on any other date. So, tell us wherefrom you got the information. Have yougot a copy of "The Observer" of thatdate?

Goswaini: It is upto the Commission to find itout.

Commission: Where from did you get this infor-mation of Reuter's correspondent?

Goswami: I have collected from London.

Commission: But London Newspapers say thatthey have no such information. So, I amasking you to give us the original.

Goswami: I have incorporated the news in mybook.

Commission: But it is denied by "The Obser-ver." So, I ask you to produce the original.

Goswami: Reuter should be asked.

Commission: Where did you get it from?

Goswami: Reuter's press news.

Commission: Which paper?

Goswami: Malayasian paper quoted it.

Commission: But "The Observer" says that theydid not publish it. So, the Malayasianpapers are wrong.

Goswami: Sometime, Sir, suppose you get someadultery case there is no direct evidence.

Commission: That is for us to judge. I wantto know where from you got the informa-tion. Have you got the Malayasian News-papers?

Goswami: Yes, Sir.

Commission: Can you produce it?

Goswami:with me now.

Commission: Where did you see the Malayasianpaper?

Goswami: In Rangoon. All these valuable in-formations were shown to me by some

people from their files, but they did notwant to part with the files.

Commission: Where did you read and copythem?

G O S W a i l l i : In Rangoon.

Commission: When were you in Rangoon?

.Goswami: In April, 1954.

Commission: But one of these news relates tothe year 1970. How could you see it inRangoon?

Goswami: That is the one which came out aboutCambodia's affairs.

Commission: Where did you get it from?

Goswami: It came out in a paper, Press Bureau.So, instead of asking me the question itwould be better if you ask this to thepapers.

Commission: I will ask them later on. Now Iask you from where you got it?

Goswami: I got it from the news report.

Commission: That one shows that you did notmention Netaji's name?

Goswami: Netaji 's name is only known in Indiaand not outside?

Commission: Netaji's name is only known inIndia and not outside.

Commission: It does not mention Mr. Bose'sname either S.C. Bose or Subhas Bose.Then, of the four cuttings you have pro-duced only one. What about the threeother's ?Can you produce them?

Goswami: I saw them in papers.

Commission: Now, here is another one and yousay that you saw it in Malayasia, that isabout Reuter's statement published in "TheObserver" on the 2nd September, 1945.You saw it in Malayasia and copied it outthere in 1954?

Goswami: Yes.

Commission: Now, this is another, that is about29th August, 1945, where did you see it,the American correspondence, where didyou see it published.

Have you got the original?

Goswami: How is it possible to get to all thepress and collect them.

88

Commission: Where did you get it?

Goswami: The papers are in the National Lib-rary. With regard to the American cor-respondence that is in the AmericanEmbassy.

Commission: In Calcutta or Delhi?

Goswami: In Delhi.

Commission: Be quite exact. Where did yousee this?

Goswami: It came out in the papers.

Commission: Which papers?

Goswami: It is mentioned in the pamphlet.

Commission: The name of the paper is not men-tioned. The newswhere did you see it?

Goswami: I saw it in New Delhi. I think inNew York Times.

Commission: Where did you find it, in whichLibrary? Was it the American Library?

Goswami: Either in Calcutta or in New Delhi.

Commission: You cannot exactly remember

Goswami: So many offices they have got.

Commission: So you cannot exactly rememberwhether you saw the New York Times inCalcutta or in Delhi.

Goswami: I cannot exactly tell you because Iwas merely a weekly passenger to Delhi forbusiness. I think I saw from the Americanoffices in New Delhi. I used to meet theAmbassador of America.

Commission : Have they the copy of New YorkTimes of 1945?

Goswami: I doubt very much.

Commission: You got them. They must havethe copies either in Calcutta or in NewDelhi.

Goswami: Is it possible for a man of 72, nowwhose life has been wrecked over by booksto collect all these copies.

Commission: It may not be possible but I wantto know the source. Where you saw this? Areyou sure that you saw the New York Timesof 1945 in the American Embassy?

Goswami: In Delhi so far as my memory goes.

Commission : You copied it out from there?

Goswami: Yes Sir."

Mr. Goswami's evidence was concluded on16-114970, but the next day he reappeared beforethe Commission and insisted on giving additional evi-dence saying that he had omitted to make a completestatement the previous day. The political passion andthe angry mood aroused by him made the crowd oflisteners in the Hall clamour for Goswami to beheard. The people shouted, vociferated and besie-ged the staff of the Commission, threatened them withviolence unless Goswami was allowed to make astatement. I agreed to hear him again. He star-ted by making a wholly incredible statement:

"I inadvertantly omitted to say something inthe course of my deposition on 16-11-1970before this Hon'ble Commission. An officerof the Russian Army came on tour to Indiain 1956, after about 11 years' stay in theSoviet Union. In course of h is statement,at Kapurthala, he informed the Press hehad an occasion of seeing Netaji inMoscow. He said that he saw Netaji inthe best dress and entering Kremlin withhigh dignitaries on 24th December, 1956.On another occasion he had a personal talkwith Netaji. Netaji told him that he wasvery anxious to return to India, but unfor-tunately there was no response from Indiafor necessary arrangements for his return"

When this story of a well dressed Bose, pibliely andopenly, going to the Kremlin is compared with Sinha sversion ofRoKeTanguidiiiird(2-eif No.'45_of"a prisonin Siberia, one wonders to what extent fantasy andperversion of truth can proceed. After a few morepalpable untruths Goswami delivered himself of a long,meaningless and fantastic harangue from which thefollowing passage may be quoted to convey the fullimpact of the persistent and vicious attitude of thiswitness:

"There is another big point. I know for certain tshow we got our independence and freedom.There were 14 items in the agreement. The

cepted fact. The next was with regard totrade. It was said we shall maintain theimperial preference of 71 per cent duty, as

89

you know, with the British goods. Therewas another clause probably as far as I re-

tan and India it should be resolved by Bri-tish madiation. Sir, thirty pages of AbdulKalam Azad's Book have been kept inthe National Archives for thirty years. Whyis it so? I met Humaynn Kabir in the Par-liament House and also Maharaja of Bikanerwho was sitting there.turn those thirty pages. He said if it wasin my power, I would have done that. HasAbdul Kalam Azad left any will that thesethirty pages should be kept there? Then he

saying it in English, He took away thosethirty pages. I did not ask why he did so.

your Nehru was given a red carpet receptionat Singapore. They have some motivesand got the cards under the sleeves. Then

back of it. Leonard Mosley in his book,The Last Days of British Raj, described thatin between the Bania Gandhi and KaloBrahmin Nehru, the Shatriya Subhas hasbeen sandwiched. I have got many otherthings to prove here as I have given in the

bodia now. He was in Hanoi right fromthe year 1953, and he is the man who foughtagainst Americans. You probably know whatbombs have been dropped on North Viet-nam. That was also dropped in the SecondWorld War. Robert Kennedy in a state-ment said that a superior force is behindthe South Asian scene. Another thing cameout in the paper Span probably in 1967.There is another important thing which Ishould state. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bosein a broadcast said, "you, my countrymen,do not accept it." Once a dinner was givenand he refused it. Subhas Chandra Bosesaid, "My countrymen, do not accept thepartition; if you, do, you are finished for weshall never be able to stand in the nearfuture. Do not succumb to the Britishconspiracy." And he said many things andthe most important thing, he said was, "Ishall be coming to you in the earliest of1947." This gave the British a heavyshock. Lord Mountbatten, in Singapore,got a very clear reception of this broadcast.He said this to the King. The king gaveit to Attlee, and then a conference was

arranged at Singapore in which Nehru wasinvited in the month of March 1946, andhe was given a red carpet reception. I haveseen in the Illustrated Weekly a picture inwhich Nehru is in the centre. Pamela andLady Mountbatten are on his two sides.Another thing was that Lord Mountbattenbroke the I.N.A. memorial at Singaporeabout seven days ago from that date. Ido not know what was in his mind; butmost probably his intention was to impressupon Nehru that 'It is you and you alone.whom we consider to be the leader ofIndia.' Abdul Kalam Azad, in his book,India Wins Freedom, vehemantly protestedagainst the negotiations that Nehru washaving in Singapore. In the meantime,Lord Wave11 here said that India is madeinto one, it cannot be divided geographical-ly, you Hindus and Muslims first combineand then your independence would be hand-ed, and he fixed the date as the 18th ofJune, 1948, that means about ten monthsahead but Nehru had a nightmare when heheard from Lord Mountbatten. Nehruknew, Gandhi knew, both of them suppresedthese things from the country and Gandhiwanted his fostered Harrow boy to be thePrime Minister. When Nehru was madePrime Minister, Patel objected to it andmany people also objected because Patelwas the seniormost man in the Cabinetand therefore he should be given the chance,when Gandhi had to come to the rescue ofNehru and explain to Patel, "arey turnbare bhai ho, chhota bhaiko salmi lo." Iknew Lord WaveII and I met him in Ashu-tosh College on the 16th August 1946 whenthe great Calcutta killing was there. Thispoor man was then the Deputy Directorwho took advantage of his official position,approached Lt. Gen. Butcher and said,"please help, please help." He gave mean armoured car, and said that he couldno give me full help because his officialorder was only to patrol the streets. I saidjust give me an armoured cat and let meproceed on it so that I can do some rescuework. I rescued about 25 to 30 thousandpeople and brought them to Ashutosh Col-lege, Jasoda Bhaban and other places. LordWavell visted the places and Lt. Gen. But-cher introduced me to him. The first ques-

you manageto rescue so many people alone? I said,

90

Sir, --I know things, and nobody was allowedto go and interfere in these matters. SoI had to seek the help which I got fromLt. Gen. Butcher and that saved the situa-tion because he sent a contingent in St.Xaviers' College and from there I startedrescuing people. So this is the backgroundof our independence. In the meantime,Nehru came back and was very busy tofinalise the negotiations. Never for a mo-ment, neither Gandhi nor Jawaharlal Nehruever expressed that Subhas Chandra Bosehad written a letter in which he said thathe wanted to escape to India. On theother hand, on the 14th again, the draftwas made in Singapore and finalised inDelhi, and nobody was allowed to go thereand even Sarat Chandra Bose was refused.Once Sarat Chandra Bose used to have greatrespect for me and he said Coswamiji, doyou expect me to stay with them? I said,why did you join them. He asked meall sorts of questions, and in that informa-tion paper, you can see after my articlethere is a small article of Sarat Bose, andwhen he was asked to comment on SubhasChandra Bose, he said that all I know ofmy brother is that he is in North China. Isaid, Sir, that agrees with me becauseSubhas Bose's plane never crashed. Twen-ty one years ago, Heinz Von Have toldme this because Heinz Von Have when heescaped from Dehra Dun Jail was taken toRangoon where he was captured by theJapanese, thinking him to be a British orAmerican. He knew Sulphas Bose and sohe approached him. Subhas Bose at firstcould not recognise him but then when Havesaid that I am Have, he said, Oh, you Have,and then he embraced him and told theJapanese that he was a German. He hada discussion with General Tojo and let himgo. He had a dinner with him and let him go.I will now give you another history. SubhasChandra Bose arrived at Bangkok on the16th. He had dinner with Col. Choprathat night. He saw a gold wrist watch in hishand. Here when Shah Nawaz Khan washaving his own Commission, it was throughmy efforts that it was organised. It had togo to Kamath, Kidwai and other people andsaid, why are you pressing on this questionof a fr esh probe when you see that Nehruis reluctant to have it because he knowsthat Subhas Bose is alive. Then they said

that they would bring the ashes. That wasopposed, and then I gave that big pictureto Kamath and he went inside the Parlia-ment, showed it to all the members. Hesaid that in the face of this picture how canwe have these ashes. So Nehru was forcedto order for an enquiry but the funniestpart of it was that he gave the terms of ref-erence as circumstances leading to the death.Tell me, Sir, if Netaji is dead, what shallwe ao with the circumstances? We do notcare a straw for that and the slipshod man-ner in which this Mr. Shah Nawaz Khasheld the Committee. First of all, he dinot in form me a t a ll, but then Shri S. N.Maitra, who was a distant relative of mine,met me and said that well, the Committeecannot do without you. Sol was called andthen when I told him that Col. Chopra hadseen that gold wrist watch on his hand atBangkok on the 16th, he said that Col.Chopra was not in Bangkok at that time.Next morning I met Col. Chopra and saidthat you have got to come with me and Ibrought him in my own car . And whenShah Nawaz Khan saw Col. Chopra, he said,well, Chop, Chop, and I said, Chop is goingto Chop you this time. So in his evidencehe said that Netaji had a gold wrist watchwhereas Shah Nawaz Khan gave a retangularwrist watch to Sarat Babu as the last souvenir,iof Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

He was whole day there, and on the 17th morn-ing, left for Saigon. There Simi SubhasChandra expressed his desire to surrenderhimself at a place called Dalat, about 10miles from Saigon. It was the place of F.M. Terauchi. He said, we cannot allowthe Britishers to take away such a preciouslife of Asia. It was found that Netaji wasin F. M. Terauchi's house all these days atDalat. In the meantime Americans and Bri-tish had already been entering the area. So,that was a very critical time and F. M. Te-rauchi asked Shidei to give a biplane to

1 .Netaji and his body -guard. There wasair crash. I said 21 years ago and I sa4

this now. In 1945 it was very difficultget people in Japan. I asked an old manwhether they had any knowledge of a biplane Lcoining. From there they went to Ma n4 Fchuria. It was then under the occupationof Japan. I will repeat

91

was bombed on 6th, Negaski on 9th and onthe 12th Russia declared war on Japan. AsI gathered Russia declared war against Japanbecause they said that Japan had 200 UBoats and the Anglo American will takepossession of those boats. Then Japansurrendered. McArthur in his terms askedJapan to hand over Subhas Chandra Bose,but the Japanese said they did not know hiswhereabouts and all that. Anyhow, whenTruman came to know about this, he order-ed McArthur not to touch Subhas Chandra.If any action has to be taken against SubhasChandra it is the British. Don't touchSubhas Chandra. From 22nd he went toDairen. As soon as 30,000 Japanese pri-soners arrived at Kobe, in the first ship, Iwas there in Kobe in the Orient Hotel. Allother officers were in different hotels. I metone General there. I asked him, can youtell me anything about your release? Is itChinese who did it? He said, Mr. Goswami,I have got great doubts. From the very daywe were in the camp we were so well treat-ed. Do you think it is done through secondor third man? He said, may be because Ihave heard there is an Asiatic who is guid-ing Mao. From Manchuria Subhas ChandraBose made three broadcasts and the lastbroadcast was so fatal when he said; I amcoming in the early part of 1947. Whenhe could not get any reply I put it to Dr.

has been giving broadcasts but there is noresponse. When he read my book, he said,Goswami, this broadcast you show, I haveheard Subhas Bose's voice. I said, Sir, howis it? He said, you see, I am not interestedin broadcasts. There is a radio in my draw-ing room, and from the radio, the voice ofSubhas Chandra Bose was coming-- a mostthrobbing voice, as if weeping and appeal-ing, "don't divide India; it will ruin us, Hin-dus and Muslims." In the meantime, hewas taking guerilla training. In 1949, in ameeting at Dairen, Stalin, Subhas ChandraBose and Mao-Tse-Tung were there andSubhas Chandra was made No. I. SubhasBose by his tactics occupied the whole ofChinese land. He became Advisor of Mao-Tse-Tung. There are several stories told toDr. B. N. Dey by Chou -En -Lai sometimesas Liu -Po -Chen, sometimes as ChandraBose.

Chou -Fn -Lai said that Mao was hot headed, thathe might bring misery, a third World War.Immediately he ordered to occupy Hong-kong. Chou -En -Lai was absolutely per-turbed. He went to Chandra Bose, toldhim, "Please stop it." Chandra Bose, wentto Mao. A greater hater of British he said,"No, for diplomatic reasons we have got todo many things. If today we occupy Hong-kong, the American 7th fleet, which is stand-ing nearby, might bomb China, and theremight be a third world war. If Hongkongremains in the hands of the British it willbe a duty free port and China can do busi-ness." What was predicted has come truetoday. China is making crorcs and croresof rupees from Hongkong. He remainedthere upto 1955. Then he went to EasternTibet, an autonomous State, and there heorganised the Liberation Army founded in1949. I think your Lordship has seen thepicture in my book. I approached the Chi-nese Ambassador to identify the person inthe picture. He said it was Marshal Lio PoChen. I was convinced that he remainedin Eastern Tibet and organised, and today,Netaji Bose's Asian Liberation Army has gotfour million soldiers. Mr. Griffith, eminentpolitical commentrator, said that in the worldthere is no army to match them. So simple,so truthful and so much for humanity thatI have never seen. Everyone is given fourhours of military training, rest of the timeis devoted to making shoes, poultry and do-ing this and that. It is a self-sufficient coun-try. Only raw materials come from Chinato that country. Netaji has established aheavenly kingdom on the other side of theHimalayas. There are hundreds of feederroads, jeeps and helicopters. Eastern Tibetis the headquarters. Herr Hitler ran awayin a submarine to Japan. He came to Mabu

in Burma. In1962, Subhas Bose was distributing two lakhpamphlets on the border, and on 23rd Jan-uary in Raigunj, Asansol, Shah Nawaz Khansaid when he went to Tezpur he came acrossa pamphlet which stated that the advancingarmy was not Chinese but the liberationarmy commanded by Netaji. Netaji's ideawas to capture Assam, go through and sur-round the whole of East Pakistan and makea sovereign Bengal. But Nehru startednegotiations with British andhelp us, help us. They came to his aid with

machineries and everything. Subhas feltvery annoyed. He said, We are goingback." There was unilateral cease fire. No-body has heard about unilateral cease fire.When the Chinese were advancing and win-ning what made them change their mind anddeclare a unilateral cease fire? This snever to be found in the military history ofthe world for many thousand years. Sincethen he went back. Pakistanis feel proudthat Chinese are behind them but no helpwas coming in the Indo-Pak conflict andPakistan got defeated by the hands of Gene-ral Chandhuri. Biju Patnaik was given over-all charge of NEFA where Netaji came. Heasked the Air Force people to bOmb theplaces. They refused, saying that until andunless orders came from Delhi, they couldnot do that. It was connected with Netaji,so they refused. Biju Patnaik went thereand bombed the places, and then Netaji gave

Then they captured Se-ta Pass, Bomdi-la, and came to Tezpur. BijuPatnaik, as overall commander of NEFA,was asked by Nehru to go to America forpurchase of arms and ammunition. It isa very funny thing. Biju is known to mefor several years but what knowledge hashe got in respect of arms and ammunitionsto fight this liberation army? For a singleperson a plane was chartered. What thatplane contained I want to know from theGovernment. Biju was given a diplomaticvisa so that there may not be any questionabout the contents of the plane. Absolutelydesperate, poor man ran everywhere to cometo the aid of India. There was refusal, re-fusal. Netaji was a nightmare for Nehru,

Nehru said, "Why have you written thisbook?" I was very much attracted by theGovernment of India's "Satyameba Jayate."

"So, from there finding no place Netaji came toHanoi when Ho Chi Minh took his oath.Robert Kennedy has already mentioned thathe is there. I have omitted to mention onething. During the Korean war in 1952this Asian Liberation Army fought underthe name of Chinese volunteers and thereMcArthur saw him and wanted to kill him.He was in Hanoi for 3 Years and it was heand Hitler who fought the Americans there-.5 lakhs of soldiers were there in the libera-tion army. Originally_ North Vietnam had

92

20i30 thousand soldiers. America claimsthat they have killed about 2 lakhs of sol-diers. Wherefrom these soldiers came?China or Russia did not give soldiers. Theywere all from the Asian Liberation Army ofSubhas Bose, and so far as I know, the Ame-ricans started fighting in Cambodia. Hewas fighting there and he is in Cambodianow and I have said that openly. So, thereis a very big game going on. But my pointof argument is that when Gandhiji andNehru got the information why had notthey disclosed it to the country? At thecost of Subhas they wanted to rule. Gci*,and see what Subhas has done ---a singb,man has brought an heavely empire on theother side of the Himalayas. One doctor Al '

who was arrested by the Chinese and waskept there in the hospital and the descriptionhe gives is wonderful. Mr. Griffith. theUNO's political commentor gives praise tothe liberation army that there was none tocompete with them in the world. Sir, 1request you that the 30 pages of AbdulKalam Azad's India Wins Freedom kept inthe National Archives be brought out. It isnot for Nehru's wishes that these should bekept for :30 years when the present genera-tion will die and younger generation willgrow up and they will forget about transferof power. That there was a conspiracy atSingapore is evident from the fact that whew#.,Lord Mountbatten arrived in Bombay hisfirst utterance was, "I am the last Viceroy G *

His Majesty who is going to liquidatethe British Empire." Without any negotia-tions with Gandhi and Jinnah, the draft re-solution was signed in Singapore, and in aclose door meeting, the final agreement wassigned. Then, Sir, Shri NiathurarnalingaThever, the President of the Forward Bloc,went to Manchuria has said before the ShahNawaz Committee. As regards that photoof the Mongolian delegation when it wasshown to Gulzarilal Nanda, he said: "Thisis Netaji." Jagannath Kolay also knows allaffairs. He said "Mr. Goswami, I now findwhy Nehru was absent-minded. Why Sir,I said. He replied, - Because you havtpreleased this in the press and when Nehru,/,saw it he became absent minded for 2weeks." So I make my submission that Iknow how we got our independence, and Iam writing a book on the lines 'of Mosley'sThe Last Days of British Raj, where I will

93

expose each and everyone. I know manythings, Sir. I know also that out of 23crores of Dharma Teia a very big amountwas given to somebody. I will prove that'hypocrisy thy name is Britain' and I willexpose their whole game.

Another thing Sir, People have a very wrongimpression that it was Mahatma Gandhiwho gave us the independence. JawaharlalNehru made no contribution to our inde-pendence. But our first thanks should goto Herr Hitler who started the Second WorldWar which paved the way of our independ-ence. He gave sufficient money, arms, am-munition to Subhas Bose to raise a waragainst the British and with that he wassent in a 1_1' boat 640 to Maclagaskar, andwith that money, Subhas Bose formed theAzad Hind Force. My second thanks wouldgo to Roosevelt. It is Roosevelt who madea condition with Mr. Churchill that unlessand until independence is given to India,am not going to give you any aid.' Then,in Bahama in Miami, an agreement wassigned by Mr. Churchill that immediatelyafter the end of hostilities India will be madefree. The third is Shri Subhas ChandraBose. When in his last broadcast he said,'I am coming', this frightened the British.Lord Mountbatten invited him and what apompous show was made and Mr. Nehru'shead was up and swelled. What he hasdone. He advised to tighten our belts. Pleasetell him that we are tightening our belts for

; - the last 23 years. We have been reducedto skeletons. Sir, with due apology and ifyou do not mind I will say sOmething abouta medical theory.

Chairman : I would like to hear you aboutNetaji and I think that you do notlook anything like a skeleton.

Goswaini : Sir, a doctor from Vienna saidthat in every human being there is a malehormone and a female hormone. Accordingto the proportion of this hormone his cha-racter is formed. A man can behave in aneffiminate manner whereas some femalescan behave in a manly manner. So I haveanalysed that Subhas Chandra Bose has got90 per cent male hormone and 10 per centfemale hormone because of his kindness, hissympathy, his affection for humanity. MyLord, Dr. B. C. Roy had 80 per cent malehormone and 20 per cent female hormone.

sM of HA/74-13

Rafi Ahmad Kidwai had 70 per cent malehormone and 30 per cent female hormone.But in the ease of Nehru it was 80 per centfemale hormones and 20 per cent male hor-mones. And, today, I can assure you thatthis man Subhas Chandra with 90 per centhormones can capture India within sevendays. I am now 72 years old and whoknows that probably it would be my lastevidence. I have taken much of your timeand I thank you for this."

6.53 I have taken the liberty of inflicting upon thereader several long passages, particularly the last one,from Goswami's evidence as these passages demons-trate better than any argument or discussionthe utter futility of enforcing the laws and rules ofevidence and observing judicial procedures and foren-sic discipline in an enquiry which aroused deep andviolent passions and destroyed the reason and theobjectivity of many of those who participated in it.

6.54 Goswami's statement throws no light on theissues involved in the present enquiry. It revealsnothing of any significance, and the only thing it suc-ceeds in proving is that a determined and vicious in-dividual can inflict a great deal of irrelevant nonsensein a matter which is surcharged with political emotionsand uncompromising personal loyalties. With this Idismiss Goswami's testimony as completely worthlessmaterial, possessed of no probative value whatsoever.

6.55 Another witness about whose evidence morethan a word must be said is Suresh Chandra Bose, ifonly because he was Netaji's brother and was a mem-ber of the Committee of 1956, appointed to enquireinto Bose's disappearance. As already stated, he dis-agreed with his two colleagues, and wrote a Dis-sentient Report which he published in book form. ThisDissentient Report contains a long catalogue of SureshChandra Bose's grievances and the shabby treatmentwhich he received in the matter of his residential ac-commodation in Delhi and his inability to have fullaccess to the documents of the Committee's proceed-ings when he wanted to record his differing views.

6.56 Suresh Chandra Bose's testimony in the pre-sent proceedings was a long diatribe against Nehruand Shri Shah Nawaz Khan and a statement of hisreasons for disagreeing with his colleagues. Thereasons are for the most part a reproduction of whathe had set out in his Dissentient Report. He had nopersonal knowledge of any event or circumstance con-nected with his brother's last journey, his arrival atTaipei and his subsequent disappearance in August1945. His statement, let me say at once, is whollyinadmissible in evidence and has no probative value

94

whatsoever. It is nothing more than the expressionof his opinion, based on evidence before the Com-mittee of which he was a member.

The evidence which Suresh Chandra Bose tenderedbefore the present Commission was little more thana resume of what he had said in his Dissentient Re-port. Indeed, he had prepared a written statement towhich he constantly referred during the course of hisstatement, although he was asked to give his testimonyfrom memory and not from a document prepared athome. Therefore, his evidence is only the expressionof an opinion. Such opinion formed by a witnesscannot be used for the purposes of determining whattook place. For, if Suresh Chandra Bose's evidenceis relevant and admissible, all the more so would bethe majority report of the Committee of which he wasa member, because this majority report was based on

conviction of Suresh Chandra Bose's opinion. In anyevent, the examination of Suresh Chandra Bose's evi-dence is a pointless exercise, because all the evidenceon which he bases his opinion has been producedbefore this Commission, and in law and justice, anindependent assessment of this evidence must be madeby me, acting as a one-man Commission to inquireinto and report upon the matters referred to me, other-wise I should be abdicating my function and transfer-ring the responsibility of making decisions about filocredibility of witnesses and of formulating findings andconclusions upon their testimony to someone who isneither competent nor authorised to do so.

6.57 It has been mentioned in Chapter Five thaton 30-6-1956, Suresh Chandra Bose signed a Notedescribed as Points Agreed to. This note extends overthree pages and was prepared in quintuplicate. SureshChandra Bose signed this document, and made anaddition in his own hand on the first page. Thisaddition can be clearly observed in the photostat cop\.of the document attached to this report. He has triedto explain this away in his Dissentient Report at page178 in the following manner :----

"The npxt point is regarding a note made by mefor my personal use on 30-6-1956, in whichI recorded the suggestion made by all threeof us for the preparation of my draft report.Some of the highest officials of the land,having failed in all other ways to persuademe to sign the report of my colleagues andthereby made it a unanimous one, fell backon this note of mine as a trump card andtried their best to compel me to sign my

colleagues' report. alleging that, I had signedthat note, which contained a statement thatsaid that after examining the witnesses, Iwas convinced that Netaji was dead . . . . . .This note of mine has been printed at Pages 1

70 and 71 of the Report of my colleagues,and as it contained the suggestions of allthree of us, some of those suggestions may ,have been of the nature of findings, but theywere definitely not "points agreed to."

6.58 The reading of the document however, com-pletely falsifies the explanation set out above. In thecourse of his statement before the Commission, Suresh

t .Chandra Bose said nothing whatsoever about thisdocument and gave no explanation of how he cameto sign it. It is quite clear that this note was not ,

' prepared for the personal use of Suresh Chandra Boseas he says in his Dissentient Report, because it wasprepared in quintuplicate and each copy was signedby each of the three members of that Committee. Noris it correct to say that Suresh Chandra Bose wasta draw up the draft report because at the end ofthe document it is clearly stated that the draft wasto be prepared by Shri S. N. Maitra. It is clear *that after listening to all the evidence produced beforethat Committee, Suresh Chandra Bose gave his im-primatur to the unanimous findings of all three mem-bers ; but then he changed his mind. This volte face .

was a subsequent attitude, dictated by something thatcan only be guessed at or conjectured, but which musthave been in the nature of some external influence rikor pressure exercised upon him for reasons that bore' %no relation to a desire to seek the truth. Suresh 'Cart_A_Ira_13.2.s_e_A not discovered any further evidence-after 30-6-1956 which made him change his mind.He does not say that a researching of his conscienceor a closer re-examination of the evidence led him tothe conclusion that he had erred in concurring with hiscolleagues. So it must have been at the persuasion orintimidation of someone that he turned his back uponMessrs. Shah Nawaz Khan and Maitra and left themin anger. Thereafter, he complained bitterly of thetreatment meted out to him in the matter of residentialaccommodation at Delhi, and of being subjected towhat he terms "machination on the part of the high-est officials of our Government." This was a feebleand wholly unconvincing attempt to lustify his conductin first concurring with the findings of his colleague%and then publishing a Dissentient Report.

6.59. The sordid story of an alleged offer of thelk

post of the Governorship to Suresh Chandra Bose has Lalready been discussed in Chapter Five and I have 1recorded my considered finding that this story is com-pletely false and was invented by Suresh Chandra

95

Bose to give a semblance of justification for hisstrange volte face, after expressing his concurrence withthe findings and conclusions of the earlier Committeeand signing a document acknowledging this concur-rence. The fact of the matter would seem to be thatSuresh Chandra Bose was willing to be used as a toolby persons, who for reasons of their own, wanted toproclaim their disbelief of the crash story, and whocontinued to assert that Netaji was alive and consti-tuted a challenge and a hazard to Nehru's politicalpositiost.la the country.

6.60 This last observation of mine emerges fromSuresh Chandra Bose's own evidence. He said in thecourse of his statement that Nehru anticipated that an

-415 enquiry into the disappearance of Netaji would defi-nitely lead to the finding that Netaji was not dead.He, therefore attempted to obtain a finding palatableto him, and appointed this Committee so that theCommittee would pronounce Netaji to be dead. Atpage 726 of Volume II Suresh Bose is recorded ashaving said :

"Prime Minister Nehru anticipated that such aninquiry would come to the finding thatNetaji was not dead which he knew to becorrect. So, he would be proved to be aliar for having stated that Netaji was dead.Soon after this, a few leaders held a meetingin Calcutta and said that though the PrimeMinister had declared that Netaji was deadthey did not believe it, and so they decidedto form a committee with me as its Chair-man to make an inquiry regarding Netaji.Shri Shah Nawaz Khan was in that meetingand a copy of the resolution passed in it wasgiven to him with a request to hand it overto me and to pursuade me to give effect tothe resolution passed. So, on his way toDelhi he met me at Tarmatar, Bihar, and

informed me all about it and told me thathe would report the matter to the PrimeMinister. Obviously, Shri Nehru knew thatNetaji was not dead whereby he would bebranded as liar and so he appointed a3 -man committee ..."

6.61 The very fact that Netaji's own brother wasselected to sit on the Committee proves the bona fidesof Prime Minister Nehru. It is impossible to believethat Nehru expected Suresh Chandra Bose to pervertthe truth against his own conscience. The fact ofthe matter is that it was Suresh Chandra Bose wholater, under pressure or intimidation, resiled from thestand he had taken when he subscribed to the principalagreed points, set out in the document which he hadcarefully studied and signed, after adding a clause inhis own hand. If Suresh Chandra Bose thought thatNehru was making a tool of him why did he agreeto serve on the Committee, why did he not resignat once and why did he associate himself with thathe believed would be a spurious enquiry. The rightand hopourable thing for him to do, when he wasoffered the allurement of a post of Governorship, wasto resign. In conclusion I may draw attention to aclear misstatement made by Suresh Chandra Bose inhis deposition before the Commission (vide page 754of Volume H) :

"Major Takahashi (witness No. 43) and CaptainYamamoto (Nakamura) (Witness No. 51)had definitely stated that there was no planecrash."

Both Takahashi and Yamamoto did state before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee that there was an aircrash and Suresh Chandra Bose himself admitted thisfact in his Dissentient Report (See page 103 bottomand page 106-107 of the printed Dissentient Report).

SEVEN

SOME THEORIES AND HYPOIIIESES

7.1 1 shall now deal with the other versions aboutBose's whereabouts and the various stories that werenarrated in the course of this inquiry, to disprove theallegation of his death at Taipei. There are manywitnesses- who severally claim to have seen, met ortalked to Bose at various times and places long afterAugust 18, 1945. These encounters are said to havetaken place sometimes in an aura of mystery, of some-thing secret and clandestine yet scarcely concealedfrom the public gaze or public knowledge. At otherdines, Bose is said to have appeared in public placesamidst crowds, exposing himself to persons who couldhave recognised him, but singularly failed to identifyhim. The sum total of the evidence of these witnes-ses would seem to be that Bose, the great leader ofmen, the courageous fighter, the extrovert and a voci-ferous propagandist has now been metomorphosed intoa strangely shy individual who frequently changes hisguise and personality, moving from place to place,never making himself truly manifest, never openlydeclaring his identity, but suggesting it by means ofpeculiarly subtle and equivocal innuendoes and arcanegestures and expressions.

7-2 The case of the Baba of Shaulmari Ashram hasalready been discussed in detail while examiningUttam Chand Malhotra's evidence. Of the numerousother stories one is that Bose was seen by Mr. DevunSen, M.P. at Marseilles in 1946. Devurilonger alive. But his story is related by two witnes-ses :

MILIS (Witness No. 173) andCHAPLAKANT BHATTACHARYA (W. No. 177)

7.3 Mukand Parekh was Personal Assistant toMr. Devun Sen, who was a Member of Parliamentfrom 1967 to 1971. He says that Mr. Devun Senwent to France in 1946. Many years later, DevunSen again went abroad. And when he came back,Parekh questioned him. His story is as follows:

"When Mr. Devun Sen came back I questionedhim about Netaji, because I wanted to knowwhether Netaji was alive. He did not say

96

anything in front of other people, but hecalled me aside and questioned me why Iwanted to know these things about Netaji.I told him that there was a confusion in thecountry and uncertainty about Netaji beinga l i ve . . . . . . M r . Devun Sen told me not toask these questions in front of other peopleand added that when he came back from : tCalcutta, he would speak to me about thematter."

This happened in 1966.

kept on asking him about Netaji being aliveand then in 1968 one night, at 2 A.M. hecame to me and said that he wanted to tellme something. I thought he wanted to askme something about Parliamentary Affairs,but he said that he wanted to say something *4'about Subhas Bose. He asked me to re-member that I was his P.A. and that hetrusted me implicitly. Then I wrote downA

- what he said. He spoke in Hindi and I i r t;took it down in Gujarati. What he said 4was this :

In 1946 I was going to London as an Officialdelegate at the ILO Conference at Geneva.We stopped at Marseilles for refuelling. Aswe were hungry, we went to a restaurantfor taking some refreshments and sat rounda table. The trade union leader, ShriJoglekar was with us. Suddenly, a militaryman came and, standing in front of us, hebegan to laugh. But his face was familiar.He looked like an European. My com-panions rose to go to the plane and I wantedto go to the toilet. The military man wassitting in front of the toilet door and makingta sign for silence by placing a finger upon\his lips. I recognised the man to be Netajliilbut because he had signalled silence I didnot speak to him."

97

7,4 The story of this encounter should have beenrelated to Bose's near relatives, particularly hisbrother, Sarat Chandra Bose. With this aspect of thequestion the witness dealt with as follows

"Mr. Sen told him (Joglekar) not to talk aboutthe matter there, and he said that thismatter should not be allowed to go beyondthe two persons, i.e. Shri Sen and Shri Jogle-kar. On going to Calcutta, Shri Sen hadtold Shri Sarat Chandra Bose the wholestory. Shri Sarat Chandra Bose observedthat Netaji would never reveal his identity in

7France and that is why he had signalledsilence. Mr. Sen told Chaplakant Bhatta-charyya, Suresh Chandra Banerji (he isdead) and D. L. Sen Gupta. Mr. Sen saidthat he did not want to talk about it inpublic because it was a deep political mat-ter ,".

It was in 1970, long after the Commission hadbeen appointed that this story first saw the light of-day. It was never mentioned before the Shah NawazCommittee.

7.5 The interval of 24 years between the strangeencounter at Marseilles and its narration in public isnothing short of aston hing. There was no reason atall why the matter should have been kept secret. Alsoit is clear that Mr. Sen had not met Bose in personfor he said Bose looked like a European whereas inactual fact Bose's wheat coloured complexion and the

L.- cast of his features were typically Indian.No one could have mistaken him for a European,certainly not one of his own countrymen.

7.6 Chaplakant Bhattacharyya repeats the samestory. He says :

"Mr. Sen mentioned to me about this when bothof us were in the Lok Sabha. Mr. Sen hadgone to Marseilles under a group of labourleaders, and there, when changing the plane,they had gone to the airport restaurantwhere we had some refreshments.. . .. .Mr. Sen mentioned specifically the name ofMr. Joglekar as being with him and thenarration that I had from him was like this.While he was sitting he suddenly observedr that a man in military attire was scrutinis-ing him very closely, He looked up andrealised that he was Netaji. Of course, thefirst simple thing in him was to speak tohim, but as he moved, Netaji raised hisforefinger and pressed it on his lips justforbidding any disclosure of his familiarity.In that way I saw that. Afterwards when

they went to the bath room both he andJoglekar, one after another, when comingOut of the bath room, they found the samefigure standing near the passage of thebath room with his forefinger placed on hislips. That is why they did not approachhim. But the recognition of the personbeing Netaji was separately and individuallydone by Joglekar and Devun Sen. Mr. DevunSen had been to the bath room first and hewas coming out. As he was coming. out,Mr. Joglekar was following him and it isMr. Joglekar who called Mr. Devun Senand said:

What is it that you have seen? He said : Haveyou not seen that Netaji is standing there :And then Mr. Devun Sen advised Mr. Jogle-kar not to create a row about it ; it mightlead to very undesirable consequences andso that is how they stopped."

Mr. Devun Sen and Mr. Joglekar are both deadand their story is no more than hearsay evidence.The story itself does not carry conviction.

7.7 Mr. Chaplakant Bhattacharyya deposes toanother dramatic incident which took place sometime after partition one summer. Mr. Bhattacharyyawas then the Editor of His

"It was after partition and it was summer. Atthat time the Anand Bazar Patrika office wassituated in Burman Street, not in its presentbuilding near Chowringhce. The Editor'sroom was on the second floor. That wasthe top most floor of the building. Myroom was rather a long room with threedoors, and because of summer, the door infront of me was closed ; the door next to itwas also closed and the farthest door wasleft open. It was about I P.M. SuddenlyI heard the sound of wooden sandals en-tering from the farthest door. As I waswaiting to receive the person coming, twoyoung men came before me. One was in

'full military attire and the other was dressedlike a Sanyasi, very young in age, and hehad all the requirements of Sanyasi andbhastna (ashes) was there ; the deer -skin wasthere ; kamandal was there. I was takenby surprise at such a combination appear-ing at such an hour and I asked him whatis that you want from me. They said, Sir,we are coming from Japan. We got down

98

at Dum Dum and are coming straight toyou. I sa id: "What is the matter ?" andthey said we have a message from Netajiwhich we have been asked to deliver toyou. My Lord, this was a very surprisingexperience, unexpected experience for whichno one was prepared at this time. So, Itold them ---I scrutinised the two young menvery carefully and then I told them "unlessyou can give me some proof that you arecoming from Netaji, how can you expectthat I will talk with you about him, or isit in the message that you say you arebringing from him to me ?" They said:"We have a letter ." I sa id: "Kindly showthe letter. I shall see the date at the topand the signature at the bottom. I don'twant to see the text. I know his signaturevery well. I can easily find out." Theysaid: "The letter is meant for Sarat Boseand unless we get Sarat Bese's permissionwe cannot show you the letter." I said:"Then you have got to see Mr. Sarat Bosefirst and then come to me if you so choose."After that they left. I was expecting forsome days for them to come back to me,but they did not appear. That was a strangeexperience which has remained unexplainedto me even up to now. Why the two per-sons came, what did they bring and whydid they not come again? This happenedin the office of the Anand Bazar Patrika.Then I enquired from the staff workingdown -stairs and they told me that the twoyoung men had come and "we directedthem to you." This is the experience thatI have about this matter. They never cameback."

Unless this is a figment of the witness's imaginationor halueination on his part, the visit of the two young-men to the witness must be looked upon as nothingmore than a practical joke. When questioned aboutinforming Sarat Bose of this encounter he said:

"Somehow I did not contact Mr. Sarat Boseimmediately. I left it for some time later ,and after a year or a little more, Mr. Bosepassed away."

The incident, the witness said, must have takenplace in the year 1948 or 1949. But the witnessnever ,,poke to any one about it. He was shownthe letter Bose was alleged to have written to hisbrother. The two visitors apparently never went to

Sarat Bose. Only a fool or an extremely gullibleperson can believe Bhattacharya's story or accept it asproof of Bose being alive in 1948.

7.8 Another encounter with Netaji which is allegedto have taken place in 1947 is also related by hearsayevidence. This is the Story of Sardar Niranjan SinghTalib (Witness No. 192), who has held high Ace.He was the President of the Punjab Pradesh CongressCommittee, a Deputy Minister, and then a Ministerof State and subsequently a Cabinet Minister in thePunjab. I His story is that in 1947 he went to thehouse of Sardar Baldev Singh where he was intro -kduced to one Mr. Wag, an American Military Officer.'According to Mr. Talib .

- As soon as Sardar Baldev Singh introduced meto him, he took me to another room andhe started showing some photographs ofNetaji. He said that Netaji disappeared toIndo-China. He did not die in the crashbut he disappeared and he went to Indo-China and he showed me photographs ofsome cottage where Netaji was stand-ing."

These photographs, according to the' witness, weretaken after the date of the crash. Wag had beencommissioned by an American paper to write astory about Bose. This story was however, neverpublished, and there is nothing to show that Wag'sencounter with Bose after the date of the alleged crashwas ever given publicity under Wag's signature in anyAmerican newspaper. Shri Talib went on to say:

"I wanted to take one of the photos. But sud-denly I do not know what happened tohim; he took all the photos. He got some-what suspicious and he stopped further con-versation. He doubted something that Imay not leak it out "

It is strange that the story which was intended tobe published in an American newspaper had to bekept secret. According to Dwijendra Nath Bose thestory was related to him by Shri Talib, In any eventShri Tab's story is secondary hearsay evidence andDwijendra Nath Bose 's corraboration is one stagefurther removed.

7.9 There i then Goswaini's story that Bose visited lPeking in 1952 as a Member of the Mongolian TradeUnion Delegation. A photograph of this Delegation,together with the Australian Trade Union Delegationwas published in a pamphlet (Exhibit No. W -8/G)which has been placed on the record of this inquiry.

The same photograph was published in the issue ofHindustan Standard dated 5-10-1955 and the Jugan-tar. The Hindustan Standard also published a state-ment made by Goswami, at a Press Conference. Anenlarged framed copy of the same photograph wasbrought to the hearings of the Commission byGoswami. and its display aroused a great deal ofemotion among the audience. Goswami also allegedthat a bald monk wearing glasses standing near thebier of Shri Nehru was no other than Subhas ChandraBose. The second contention of Goswami will beexamined in a subsequent part of this chapter. Withregard to the photograph of the Mongolian and Aus-stralian Delegation I cannot accept it as a refutation ofBase's death at Taihoku in 1945. If the photograph

4 " in the pamphlet is accepted to be genuine, there is noreason why Bose's name should not have been men-tioned. The only resemblance of the person allegedto have been Bose in the photograph and the real Boseis that both show a partial baldness of the head andboth wear glasses. Either Bose was concealing hisidentity so cleverly that no one else in the Delegationcame to 1:now the truth or the partial resemblance wasonly accidental and no significance can be attached toit. In any event, the evidence of the photograph doesnot establish that Bose was alive after 1945.

7.10 Another strange story of an encounter withBose, in January 1954, is related by Mubarak Mazdoor(Witness No. 194), an active politician and a memberof the Socialist Party. His story is that, while on aholiday. he went to Rangoon and visited the Ena Lake.which is a tourist attraction. He went on to say :

"After roaming about on the Lake, watching thecrowd, I got tired and came to a tea stallwhere I was standing near a bench. On thatthere was a sitting a gentleman dressed inPongi dresswith saffron coloured dress. It was in theyear 1954. It was towards the end ofJanuary 1954. As soon as this gentlemansaw me, he said, l'ashrif rakhiaye'. I gotvery much interested in a gentleman whocould speak Hindustani, and wore a Pongidress. T,sat down by his side. By that timethe stranger ordered a cup of tea for me andspoke to the tea -stall holder in very nice andeloquent Burmese As soon as I saw thisman, my mind started wondering as to whocould be this man. I had definitely seenhim. I asked the gentleman, "How do youspeak good Hindustani ?" He said, "I havelived in India for quite a long time." I askedhim, "What is your nationality ?" He ans-wered : "men and women are born in one

country, some in the other country, and aftera short duration, they complete their jour-ney and kave this world, can you expect aman to tell his nationality after he is dead.You are putting a question to me about mynationality. There are some importantpoints." After that he saw a foreignercoming and he left me. A short while aftera pretty Burmese girl came to me and said,your friend Mr. Monk, wants you. Beforehe left me, I asked his name and he told methat his name was Mr. Monk. I accompa-nied the Burmese girl to a quite place on thesand where they were taking their lunch.I was also offered lunch by the Burmesefriend of Mr. Monk and that foreigner.Then, Mr. Monk and his friend took me intheir car, and left me at my hotel ............He left a great impression in my mind andI was pondering, he must be a great man.He had great resemblance with Netaji SubhasChandra Bose .........I want to say that hewas alive and I believe that Mr. Monk wasMr. Subhas Chandra Bose ......He was nonebut Subhas Chandra Bose."

Strangely enough when the witness Was 'questionedfurther he said that when he put the direct question tothis strange Monk and asked him if he was indeedSubhas Chandra Bose, the stranger replied in the nega-tive. Then comes this surprising passage in the wit-ness's statement :

"Then again I said, is Subhas Candra Bose dead?He virtually shouted at me and said, whosays that Subhas is dead?

The witness did not appear before the Shah NawazKhan Committee, although he said he was persuadedby hundreds of people to go to Calcutta and makea statement before that Committee. His ludicrousstory needs no comment. It has only to be heard to berejected.

7.11 There is yet another story of this kind of acci-dental or chance encounter, related by Sharda PrasadUpadhyaya (Witness No. 20), a Primary Schoolteacher of Jabalpur. The incident to which he de-posed is said to have taken place in 1957 or 1958, inthe month of May. The witness says :

"It was about 10 or 11 a.m. I was going to havea bath in the Narain Nallah, which is a,,-trearn which flows near our village. RamKumar Chaube, another resident of ourvillage was also with me. We were going

r,

es.

towards the path which comes from Jabalpurand goes along the stream. We sawtwo sodhus come from this route. Hear-ing the sound of some stones distrubed bytheir walk, I looked back and saw that thesadhu in front was definitely Subhas Chan-dra Bose. He was wearing saffron colouredclothes. He was wearing a Itingi and a loosekurta. He also had a sheet or shawl onhis head. He was carrying a stick. I hadnever met Netaji personnaly, but being aschool teacher, I have seen many of hispictures in the course of my instruction tomy students. And the person I saw wasexactly similar to the pictures of Netajiwhich I had previously seen. Netaji askedme where the route led to, and I told himthat it went straight to Jabalpur ............We continued to follow Netaji, but hestopped us and asked us to go and do ourown work and not follow him. We didnot dare to disobey him and so left him.I did not address him as Netaji, but noti-cing that we were following him and thatthe stream had been left behind, he toldus to go about our own business and wedid not dare to follow him or speak tohim further".

The witness went on to make a confession of his tooready credulousness by saying :

"The same day 1 spoke about the incident tothe people in the village. They told usthat what we were saying was not correctand that it was impossible that we shouldhave met Netaji and we should not talkin this manner."

The story really deserves no comment.

7.12 MAWIJ ANGAMI, (Witness No. 202) aNaga political leader, associated with Phizo for seve-ral years and now detained in the Special Jail, Now-gong (Assam) was examined as a witness. His sto-ry is that he met Bose near Penang in April, 1958.He said :

"Till 1958 I did not know much about ShriSubhas Chandra Bose nor whether he wasdead or alive. In 1958 when some INApersonnel met me in Rangoon, they told methat Shri Subhas Chandra Bose was alive.They did not mention the place where hewas. I met only two officers. They toldme that Netaji was alive. After some daysI went to Burma. There I contacted other

100

INA personnel. From there I went to Penang,and they made arrangements for me tomeet Shri Subhas Chandra Bose. I per-sonally met Shri Subhas Chandra Bose, inPenang in 1958 April .. .... .... ..Before thatI had never seen him. One of the con-fidential men of Shri Subhas Chandra Boseintroduced me to Shri Subhas Chandra Bose.He told me to describe him as Mr. Guptaand Subhas's name was simply made as'Azad'. Before I could meet Shri SubhasChandra Bose I had to take a pledge thatI would not disclose the existence ofSubhas Chandra Bose ... ... ...That confi- 4".dential man introduced me to him and Ihad to believe, that the person introducedwas Bose.

The witness's only knowledge of Bose's physiognomywas derived from some photographs which he hadpreviously seen.

7.13 The witness added that he had related thestory, in confidence, to a press correspondent, and anews item was published on September 2, 1957, inthe Hindustand Standard, as follows:

"That Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is alive andhe had a high level conference with PhizoNaga rebel leader somewhere in Indi-Tibetborder in 1952, is understood to have beensaid by Mawu, personal envoy of Phizorecently arrested in Damcherra Chama whilereturning to Nagaland from Pakistan".

The witness, when questioned about this news item,denied its correctness and said:

"The mistake lies in the fact that I told himthat meeting would be arranged and notthat the meeting had taken place betweenMr. Phizo and Shri Subhas Chandra Bose".

The Bose'S appearance at this meeting was describedby the witness thus:

,"He did not look like an old man. He was

keeping a beard but not full. Within fiveyears the appearance had changed. He toldme that within five years he had changeand even his own men would not recog-nise him". 'Till

7.14 The witness's statement is strangely at vari-ance with the report in the Hindustan Standard. Hesays he met Bose in April, 1958, the paper reported

the meeting to have taken place in 1952. He hadnot met Bose earlier, so how could he say that Bose'sappearance had changed in the course of five years.There is no reason why Bose should have wished tosee Mawu-Angami who was to him a total stranger.Mawu was in no position to help Bose, nor was anyhelp sought by Bose. The witness has not statedwhat the purpose of this meeting was, what discussiontook place among the two persons and whether anyconsequences followed as a result of this meeting.He took a solemn pledge to keep the matter a secret,and yet he revealed it to a Newspaper reporter who,at once, gave it wide publicity. The encounter hadno purpose or meaning and the whole story appears

, to be totally unreal.

7.15 Another story of an encounter, in 1962, isdeposed to by Swami Nirvanananda (Witness No. 43).This encounter is said to have taken place in Siliguri,in the summar of 1958. The witness said that hesaw a jeep in which there were four persons includ-ing Bose and the driver. The jeep was standing idleon the roadside, at the bottom of the hill, and the menin it were eating some fruit, and chatting. The wit-ness approached them with a view to getting a lift.Two of the passengers seemed to be Germans, wear-ing yellow clothes. The driver was dressed in militaryuniform. And the fourth person was identified tobe Bose, and he was wearing a lungi and a whitekurta. He was clean shaven and was wearing glasses.

ss The witness was given a lift in the jeep. The Ger-mans talked to him but Bose did not. Later, nearthe Silliguri railway station, just as he was about to'get off the jeep, Bose disclosed to him that he wasindeed Bose. This is how the witness narrates theincident:

"He disclosed this to me later on. Those Ger-mans asked me "Can you recognise Netaji?"I told them that I had seen him once, thatis for about half an hour. I cannot nowrecognise. Then they asked me whether Ihad seen his residence to which I said yes.They further asked me whether I couldgive the exact address of his residence. Isaid, it is 2, Woodburn Park, Calcutta,and I have visited it several times. Thenthe gentleman who was sitting at the frontside of the seat burst into laughter. Thenhe told me that it is Subhas Bose who istalking. This Subhas Bose who has be-come very popular in the world in the nameof Netaji, is talking. Then I was wonder-ing to know who was this Subhas Bose.At last it struck my mind. In the mean-time we reached the station and when I

8 M of HA/74-14

101

alighted from the jeep, Netaji talked to main Bengali:

'Again I will see you, stick to your mission'."The witness went on to say that he saw Bose againon the 28th May, 1964. He was then standing nearMr. Nehru's bier in Teen Murti Bhavan. We knowin fact that the person standing near Mr. Nehru'sbier was not Bose. It was a Cambodian monk,named Veera Dhammavara (Witness No. 224), whowas called to depose before the commission. ShriDhammavara came and stated that he had stood byMr. Nehru's bier and that it was his photograph whichwas shown to him and which has been falsely said tobe Bose's photograph by a number of witnesses.

7.16 The testimony of Veera Dhammavara suppor-ted by the statement of Dr. Lokesh Chandra (Wit-ness No. 223), an eminent scholar and a highly res-pected individual (now a member of the Rajya Sabha)furnished a complete refutation of the contention ofS. M. Goswami and of Dr. Satya Narain Sinha alsothat Bose was seen standing near Nehru's bier at theentrance to Teen Murti House. Many persons tookadvantage of some slight resemblance between Dham-mavara's facial features and Bose's baldness to assertthat Bose was alive in 1964. Even without the evi-dence of Dr. Lokesh Chandra and Shri Dhammava-ra, the story merits rejection, for it is unbelievable thatwhile Bose was striving the whole time to keep hisidentity concealed, he threw caution to the winds andboldly appeared, his face unconcealed, at a place andtime when thousands who knew him would immedia-tely recognise him and hail him. In fact, no onerecognised the bald monk as Bose. It was only whena newsreel taken by the Film Division of the Ministryof Information and Broadcasting was screened, thatsome sensation -monger propounded the astonishingstory of Bose being alive and having come to attendNehru's funeral. The photograph was reproduced invarious newspapers and books, some of which havebeen produced and exihibited in these proceedings.Uttam Chand Malhotra and Satya Narain Sinha pro-duced the copies they had collected to prove thatBose is still alive. Malhotra's copy is Ex. UMPCIX29-12-1970.. He also produced a book in HindiShaultnari &Whit hi Netaji (W. 16 RR) in which thesame photo has been reproduced. Goswami produceda copy of the newspaper, Dak or The Call containingthe same photograph, while Satya Narain Sinha pro-duced an enlarged copy of the picture along with thepicture of the Mangolian Delegation in Peking. Thisfatuous clutching at anything bearing the slightest re-semblence to Bose, however remote and absurd indi-cates a kind of obsession or what Shri Dutt-Majumdar

102

called a Bose psychosis which may explain the wildconjectures, the unjustified accusations and the highemotions aroused by the very mention of Bose's death;but it certainly does not throw any light on the subject

matter of this inquiry.

7.17 Equally strange and bizarre is the story ofGurbachan Singh, taxi driver (Witness No. 19) whoclaims- to have met Bose on the 13th January, 1962.He said that one day, five youngmen from IndoreCollege hired his taxi for taking them to the Qutab

Okhla and other places. After seeing theOutab Minar, his passengers asked him to drive themto Birla Mandir as they had given up the idea ofgoing to Okhla. What happened next is described

"After driving for about two miles, near theSwasti Bhavan and the Aurobindo Ashram.I saw three Sadhus emerging from a wheatfield, on the right hand side, and crossing

-- the road. The eldest Saclhu among themwas walking in front, and the other two werewalking behind him with their hands be-hind their back. All the three sadhus werewearing safforn-coloured sheets or shawls.

. The one in front was wearing a lungi and ashawl. He carried a stick in one hand anda Kamandal in the other hand and wasalso wearing spectacles. A driver has tobe careful about people crossing the road.and I slowed down to see what sort of sa-dhu these three persons were. When Iarrived near them I sounded my horn. Thisstartled them. and they looked at me. I

' was very much surprised to see that theforemost sadhu was Subhas Chandra Bose.In 1939 I had seen ,Subhas Chandra Bosefrom a distance of 10 or 12 feet (when he

- was delivering his address at the RamgarhCongress. In those days I used to be awood contractor. I saw Subhas ChandraBose first when he came in the Congress

- procession and then when he was readingout the resolutions. I was in front of himfor over two hours. It was then that hesaid that the time had come to take directaction if we wanted to free ourselves from

- slavery under the British.

I stopped my car, got clown and addressed himtwice as 'Netaji'. But he put his fingerson his lips to silence me, and looked at mein great anger. My passengers said to me,"Sardarji, come away, he is very angry."I told my passengers to take two taxis and

proceed on their ,journey because 1 wantedto follow Netaji. The students told menot to do so because i f I followed him orinformed the police, he would get into

- trouble because Netaji was under some sortof restriction.

I proceeded on my way and gave upthe idea of following Netaji. Whenever Ispoke to anyone about this incident, theydisbelieved me and said that Netaji had beendead for several years and J was a fool tosay that he was alive."

There is really no need to comment on the fictionalnature of the above narrative except to say that wemay disbelieve it with the same readiness as thoseto whom it was related on previous occassions. It isclear that the witness has invented the story anddeposed to it because of a desire to draw attention tohimself.

7.18 MAHESH CHANDER (Witness No. 25)claims o have seen Bosc near Jadugir-ka-bagh,Meerut, on 7-10-67. The story he related is asfollows

On 7th October, 1967, Netaji came to Meerutand stayed in Jadugir-ka-bagh. On themorning of 7th October, Pandit Bhadra Sencame to me and said that a sadhu who wasstaying in Jadugir-ka-bagh had sent for mePandit Bhadra Sen did not tell me who thissadhu was. In the Jadugir-ka-bagh sevenor eight persons, besides me, were presera,near the sadhu, who was sitting on awooden chowki. The sadhu wore whitetalunad and a white kurta. He had a whitebeard, He also wore spectacles. He wasbare -headed, and on seeing him I felt thathe was the same individual whom I hadseen in 1939. I asked him why it was thati

, was seeing him in that guise. But he asked7

me not to speak about the matter. MadanMohan had sent Bhadra Sen to call me be-cause Madan Mohan had been to Shaulman Ashram and also to Okhi Math. I hadno talk with Netaji. But he called me tovisit him at 1 O'clock. I do not knowwhether he recognised me as the man wilthad called on him many years previously:1But he asked me what. I was , doingwhether I had married. I told him that Idealt in cotton yarn and that I had married4several years previously. He asked ni ifwould accompany , him to Banaras. Accord-ing to his instruction I went home, got

103

ready, and came back and travelled withhim. There were two motor cars in whichwe travelled. We spent the night at Etahand then at Etawah. At Etawah, RamelhChandra Saxena joined us. I was not askedto make any contribution or pay any moneyto Netaji."

The journey proved inconclusive and the witnessnever met Bose again. There is no explanation, what-soever of why Bose sent for this person whom he had,in 1939, met for a few brief moments, if the witness'sstory of the encounter in 1939 can be believed. The

; ent i r e incident appears to be nothing more than afigment of the witness's imagination, narrated in the

_4( hope that the publicity given to it would make himappear important.

7.19 BRAJENDRA SWARUP (Witness No.timber merchant of Etawah, who had seen

Bose deliver a lecture in the Patel Park in 2arrukha-bad in 1939, claims to have met him in 1964. Hesaid that on the 8th December, 1964, after readinguttam Chand Malhotra's articles about the ShaulmariAshram Baba being no other than Netaji, he wenthimself to Shaulmari. There he met Swami Sharda-nandji. The witness stated :

"I got a slight idea that Shardanandji was thesame man whom I had heard speaking asSubhas Chandra Bose at Farrukbabad."

4/ There was -another encounter between the witnessand Bose On the 7th August, 1966, when he went toOkhi Math. On neither occasion did Swamili speakto him. On 9-10-19-67, he met Swamiji again atMeerut. Swamiji was then in a motor cat and thewitness was asked to supply 3 kilos of pure cow'smilk to him. The milk was obtained from a nearbyshop and supplied to the passengers in the motor car.The Swami, the witness says, was Bose and he re-mained there for about three-quarters of an hour.

7.20 Yet another encounter took place in 1968when the witness claimed to have remained with theShaulmari Ashram Swami from 27-9-1968 to2-10-1968 at Amarkantak in Madhya Pradesh. Hesays that he used to see Swami every day but neve;pDld him that he had recognised him as Bose. But

improved upon the statement a few momentslater and said

Amarkantak he once said that he wasShardanandji. I told him that I recognisedhim as Netaji and every pore of my bodyknew this. He smiled on my saying this.

He did not abuse me nor was I garlandedwith shoes."

The witness to meet the Baba or Bosefrom time to time. He met him on 7-6-1969 for thelast time. After that he said he had no further com-munication from this Swami nor had he seen him.

7.21 The reference in the garlanding with a stringof shoes was to the indignity suffered by Dixit(Witness No. 13) when he visited Shaulmari. Bra-jendra Swarup thus claimed to have enjoyed Bose'sconfidence and achieved a more prestigeous statusthan Hira Lal Dixit. But the story of the numerouschance encounters narrated by the witness is no lessfalse and fictions than Dixit's contention that theShaulmari Sadhu is in fact Bose.

7.22 THAKUR SINGH (Witness No. 42), whowas a member of the Indian National Army in Burmais another witness who claims to have met Bose as lateas April, 1970. His story may be related in his ownwords. Giving evidence on 3-3-1971, he said :

"I saw Netaji last April. I saw him in Ambalabut he did not, admit that he was Netaji.He talked to me from 10 A.M.at Ambala. Since I have spent my wholelife with Netaji, I was able, to recognisehim. My brother-in-law is a Flight Ser-geant in the Indian Air Force posted atAmbala. His name is Ishwar Singh. I hadgone to Chandigarh and he telephoned measking me to come to see him before Iwent to Kapurthala. I went to Ambalaand he told me that he had met Netaji.I asked him how he had met Netaji. Hesaid, he would tell me afterwards. I wentto Kapurthala, and from there, I wrote aletter to him asking him to let me knowthe details of how and when he had metNetaji. The next day my brother-in-lawcame to Kapurthala. He told me that hehad met Netaji at the house of a certainperson whose name he did not reveal. Mybrother-in-law showed my letter tothis man, but the man, told him to tear upthe letter and told me orally, by word ofmouth, where he and my brother-in-lawhad met Netaji. My brother-in-law tele-phoned me at Kapurthala at the BlockSamiti and called me to Ambala. Thiswas in April, 1970. My brother-in-lawtook me to another Air Force Officer'shouse. I do not know the name of this AirForce Officer. Netaji used to come to this

104

house. Outside the room two or threepersons in saffron clothes were sitting,and in reply to my query, they said that Icould not see Swamiji. Half an hour, later,they permitted me to go and see Swamiji.It was only when I told them that myname was Col. Thakur Singh and that Iwanted to see Swamiji that they permittedme to go in. For three hours then Swamiji,whom 1 recognised as Netaji, talked to meabout the politics of various countries andwhat was happening _everywhere. At halfpast one he called out, and asked whetherthe midday meal was ready. He told mealso to go and have my midday meal. Itold him I wanted to ask a question, andthen asked him about a unit which hadbeen formed in Singapore to which Netajihad told me to go. Swamiji was sittingalone when I went into the room. I recog-nised Netaji by his talk and not by hisappearance because his complexionwas different. Swamiji was a little darkerthan Netaji, whom I had known to be fair-complexioned and pink. I did not recog-nise Netaji, when I first went into theroom and saw him. It was only later whentalking to him that I realised that he wasNetaji. I did not ask him why he waswearing saffron -coloured clothes. When-ever we used to salute Netaji we used toclose our eyes on account of fear. But Idid not close my eyes when I saw Swamijithat day. He is not an ordinary man.When I addressed him as Netaji, he toldme to shut up. It is not true that he wassomebody else and not Netaji."

All that it need be said about this witness is that hedefies reason and belief. The story narrated by himis manifestly false.

7.23 I do not propose to examine each and everyencounter of this kind and will content myself by refer-ring to two or three more instances only. The mostimportant of these is the incident deposed to byUsman Patel (Witness No 32). His story is :

"I went to Nagda after this Commission had satin Bombay. I heard that some Baba hadcome to Nadga. I was told this by a mancalled Shukla from Bhangra near Gwa-lior . . . Chiranjitlal Sharma, an officer ofthe Forest Department also gave me thesame information . . . These two men

asked me to go and see Baba and identifyhim. They had stayed with the Baba forsome time. They did not know who thisBaba was. _I had not seen this Baba before.These two men took me to Nagda. I wentstraight to the hermitage of Baba. Informa-tion of my arrival was sent to the Baba. Weobtained the permission of Baba to seehim and all of us went inside. There was achowkidar outside, but he, too, was ourman. The chowkidar belonged to Nagdaand was engaged by the Baba. It was4 P.M. There is no electricity in Nadga.There was daylight inside the room. Bab i f*.was present. Baba was sitting on a charpoy. A.The room measured about 30' X 15'. Wesat about 10 ft. away from the Baba. The ).Baba was then wearing only a loin cloth.My two guides told the Baba that they hadbrought Usman Patel, that is myself. TheBaba began to weep and I also was intears. I wept because I remembered Netaji.I do not know why the Baba wept. Therewas no other reason for my weeping. Ispoke to Babaji and asked him why he hadgrown a beard and put me in trouble ?Baba made no reply. I again said why hehad ruined us. I told him that he had be-come a Sadliu and grown a beard andabandoned us. I became angry and left theBaba and came out."

After this somewhat unsatisfactory interview, thewitness was again taken to the same Baba.

"On the second occasion, Babaji called me atnight. On the second occasion I reached

, Nagda at 6 P.M. The Baba called meat 10 P.M. and told me that, in future, ifI wanted to see him I should go to him inthe evening and not during the day . . . Iwent inside the room . . . I saw the Babahad shaved his beard. I went and touchedthe Baba's feet and sat down near him. Heasked me what I was doing. I told him thatI was working as a labourer wherever 1could get work."

The witness went to Captain Talwar, and told hitthat the Baba looked like Netaji. He asked Captaii.Talwar to accompany him to Nagda and verify thefact for himself. The story of the visit is describedby Captain Talwar (Witness No. 175)if he knew Usman Patel, Captain Talwar said t h a t ;he had met him only recently when Patel had gone

105

to sec him on August 14, 1970. Captain L. C. Talwar

"I was sitting in my office. A few INA peoplewere surrounding me and he wanted tospeak to me alone. I told him, - Wait abit and let me finish with these people,then I will give you a chance". After thatI took him to another room, next room andhe asked me to accompany him toNag,da to Swami Jyotirrnoy Dev and he alsoasked me to take a few of the INA people"because the man, Sadhuji who is Netaji,is in danger and he wants some INA people.I replied that I cannot take INA men withme unless and until I am myself satisfiedthat he is Netaji . . . On the next morning,i.e. the 15th, we started from here (Delhi).We remained one night at Agra becausethe bridge was broken and next day westarted for Gwalior. 16th/17th night wewere in Gwalior, and on the 18th eveningwe reached Shivpur Kalan in DistrictMorena. From there I was taken to a housethat is in village Raipur. I forget to men-tion that there was another man also withUsman. His name is Kartar Singh. We threehad left Delhi on the same day together.So, Kartar Singh took me to his own housewhich was in village Raipur. Kartar Singhis an agriculturist and he has got someland there. He belongs to U. P. and is set-tled there . . I wrote a chit on that even-ing but it was sent to Swamiji, or Babaji,whoever he is, the next day. I will showyou the chit. It is on my own letter -head andI wrote : "Respected Swamiji, I am here,at Raipur, as desired. I may kindly bepermitted to have your darshan". On the18th morning, it was sent through a mas-cenger to Swamiji and the messenger toldme when he delivered this chit to Swamijihe asked for a pencil to make some notesand Swamiji wrote this reply with his ownhand on the back of the chit. In that hehad written two lines for me :

"Main nahin janta turn kaun ho aur kis sabab seRaipura main rah rahe ho."

(I do not know who you are and why you arcstaying in Raipura).

Then there was a message for Kartar Singh, which

read:

"Kartar Singh, turn bare behooda aadami ho.Kya ab blii muje satane se baaz nahinaayoge. Eashwar ke liya mujh bridhfiant . . ." I cannot read .................. Onreceiving this chit, I was very much annoyedand asked these Patel andKartar Singh, why they had brought mehere from Delhi. He replied : actually amessenger came from the Ashram or theMandir, or whatever it was, and he told methat Swamiji wants that you should go toDelhi and bring Captain Talwar of theI.N.A. So I asked him to bring thatmessenger and I will enquire myself."

The visit to the Ashram then followed and CaptainTalwar accompanied by a Sikh Doctor and an Advo-cate from Gwalior went to the Ashram on the 20th.

"We reached there in about half an hour's timeand the chowkidar stopped us at the gate.Actually I told them not to say that I amCaptain so and so from Delhi. They askedme to keep quite and we shall let you know."

The three visitors entered Swamiji's Ashram. TheSwami was, apparently, undergoing a fast and wasextremely weak. The visitors stayed there for aboutfive minutes, and spoke to him but the Swami merelymoved his hands and did not speak. Captain Talwarsaid:

"I was looking at him from top to bottom andfrom head to feet. When there was no replywe thought that he was too weak and sowe did not want to trouble him ............According to him he was not Netaji.

On the question being repeated Captain Talwar ans-wered that the man he saw was not Netaji.

"I am sure hundred per cent that he was notNetaji. His way of talking was also not that.of Netaji."

Indeed according to Captain Talwar, the Swami wasextremely angry with Kartar Singh, who, he said, wasexploiting him. He addressed Kartar Singh in thefollowing words:

"Aapko sham nahin nail ki m en i is halat mainmujhe dhoka de kar ise ander le aaye."

(Are you not ashamed that you have broughthim here by deceit to see me in my presentcondition),

106

7.24 A few more witnesses fall into this categoryand a brief reference to their evidence may be made.The first of these is Datta Jagtap (Witness No. 83).He says that in 1951 two persons complained againsthim to .Netaji and Netaji called him at Khalapur, asmall village near Khopoli on the Bombay -PoonaRoad, These men came with weapons, and underduress, took .the witness to Khalapur. Netaji, whomhe knew, because he had seen him twice, once in1937-38 at Haripura and the second time at the Tri-pura Congress, reprimanded him because he (wit-ness) had married the wife of Dr. G. D. Naik, a poli-tical leader of Goa. He says that in 1968, he wentto Manipur to meet Netaji, once again but could notdo so. The witness's evidence is a bunch of lies andhe cannot be believed. There is no reason whatso-ever why Bose, living incognito, should have sent fora man he did not know and reprimand him. ,

7.25 The second witness is P. M. Karapurkar(witness No. 84). He is the Agent of the CentralBank of India at Sholapur. He claimed that he re-ceives direct messages from Bose by tuning in hisbody like a radio receiving apparatus. Nothing furtherneed be said about this fatuous story. The witnesshas never met Nctaji in person, and has only seen hispictures. it passes comprehension how the witnessis metamorphosed into a radio receiving set di whyBose should have chosen him to send messages whichhe (witness) stoutly refuses to disclose, because bydoing so he would be violating Bose's confidence.

7.26 The third witness is S. P. KATTIMATH (Wit-ness No. 85). He is the Divisional Officer, Dharwarin the Life Insurance Corporation. He said that hegets messages from Bose through some of his follow-ers and close associates. He, however, declined toname the person who brought these messages to himand what the substance of the messages was.

7.27 Another witness whose evidence must benoted here i s Dr . B. RAMACHANDRA RAO (Wit-ness No. 80). It may be stated, at the outset, thathe admitted to being a neurological patient, and hadspent some time in hospitals for treatment. He isobviously a person with a deranged mind. His evi-dence is at variance from the evidence of other wit-nesses. He says that he travelled with Bose in a Rib-marine from Germany. He says that he was the onlyIndian in the submarine and even excludes the pre-sence- of Abid Hussain who is said by every one tohave accompanied Netaji from Kiel to Sumatra andTokyo. Rao says that Bose did not eliaire the sub-Marine enroute, and he travelled in the same sub-marine from Germany to Tokyo. He says that he

was Bose's medical attendent, and was at Saigon, atthe end of the War, when Bose arrived from Bang-kok. His story is that, at Bangkok, a member of theHarakiri Squad was chosen to pilot the plane whichBose, the witness and a number of other persons en-tered. It was planned that as the British 14th Divi-sion was pressing through and Bose was being hunt-ed, a fake air crash should be arranged to save Bose.So the plane took off and landed at a Japanese emer-gency landing place after 20 or 25 minutes. Thewitness went on to say:

"The pilot and some of the luggage weie left inthe plane, and perhaps 2 or 3 other persons were also left in the plane. Myself,Netaji and 2 or 3 persons also came out.The sword of Netaji was in the plane andsome other belonging of Netaji and some,of the wearing apparel of Netaji were alsoleft in the plane, on the instructions of aJapanese intelligence officer."

Bose was transferred to the Japanese barracks neatthis emergency landing place. Bose, the witnesS andthe other persons in the party stayed at this place far5 or 6 days, and then a German submarine arrivedthere. The examination of the witness proceeds thus:

Q. Did you sec, Netaji getting into the sub-, 1,< marine?

A: After the submarine arrived he was in con-ference for a lot of time as to where to goand what to do. He asked the command-, _er , "Can you just push us to USSR?"

Q: In your presence he asked this?

A: Yes, Netaji asked the Commander of thesubmarine. But he was not sure. Subsquentlythe submarine left after erasing the Swas-tika mark.

The witness sto Singapore.

ayed on for 2 or 3 days and then came

7.28 It is quite clear that the story. narrated- by thewitness is no more than the outcome of halucinationor the product of a demented mind. Nothing moreneed he. said about this .witaess.

7.29. Rajaram Dixit (Witness No. 26), an advo-cate f, ,klainpuri in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is an-other instance of psychopathy, f',)r his story is so utter-ly lantasfic that only a person with a deranged mindcould le e lot fated IL i l l a l l se6otrates, as Di \doubtedly did. This, in brief, is what he said :

107

7.30 Dixit's father died when he was only 14. months old, but his father's sister's son Raghuvindra

Dayal who was a Salim and a Guru, adopted him andtrained him to work on the National Congress fromthe early age of 6. Dixit grew up to be a zealous pat-riot and a true congressman; but when in 1938 or1939, Bose paid a visit to Kanpur, where Dixit was

- now living, he disobeyed the party's advice to abstainfrom taking part in welcoming Bose. "I took pride inbreaking such advice rather than in its strict obser-vance", he said. Dixit, though only 21 at the time, madeall arrangements for Pose's reception and his adress to

ira mammoth gathering in Shardhanand Park. Bose ar-rived, was received and was seen off by Dixit, but onthat occasion, the only word he was able to say toBose was "Namaste", becausz- Bose's motor car wassurrounded by a group of admirers, and Dixit couldnot get close enough to say more.

7.31. The next time when Bose visited Kanpur, toaddress a meeting, Dixit sat with him on the dais. Thissudden catepulting into prominence and Bose's confi-dence was achieved not by writing to Bose or conver-sing with him but through what must have been aprocess of thought communication. In obedience to asecret instruction sent by Guru Raghuvindra Dayalfrom his death bed. he (Dixit) waited for an oppor-

* tuntiy to have contact with Bose, and the opportunityto achieve this objective was afforded by Bose'ssecond visit to Kanpur. By then the British authoritieshad received intelligence reports of Dixit's politicalleanings, and had sent a posse of C.I.D. men to sur-

4 round him. Contact with Bose was lost after this visitwhen Bose left the country , and went away to Ger-many. in course of time, Dixit read newspaper re-ports of Bose's death in an aircrash at Taihol(u. butlie disbelieved the story, "because T knew that Netajiis a superman having a big diplomatic brain.".

7.32 In 1950, Dixit had the good fortune to seeBose again. The meeting took place in strange cir-cumstances at Bombay. The Rajkumari of Mainpuri,also known as the Rani Sahiba, fell seriously ill, andshe asked Dixit to help her. He took her to Lucknowwhere the doctors advised her to go for treatment atthe Tata Memorial _Cancer Hospital in Bombay.0Dixit made the arrangements and the Rani Sahiba, ac-companied by the wife of the Governor of Uttar Pra-desh arrived in Bombay. Dixit stayed in Bombay while

$ the Rani Sahiba was being given medical attention.

V. 7.33 Whenever Dixit came out of his houc in Bom-bay and wherever he went he "was surrounded by

7 hundreds of foreign girls", who were all spies of dif-ferent nationalities. This strange assembly of girls,known to be spies, however, did not arou,e the curio-sity of any one, and not even the police took 'any

notice of their unconcealed, altnir-t brazen, subver-sive activities. Once an attempt \No\ made to shootDixit by Nanavaty, an officer of the Indian Navy, whobecame notorious for killing his wife's paramour. Ac-cording to Dixit, Nanavaty and his wife were "first-class spies of Britain". One day Dixit was taking theair and walking along the road by the sea -side, when

"All of a sudden, a healthy and stout man,guarded by another man, came to me. Andthe moment he came near me, he said,"Look here. I am Netaji." He was dressedin the dress of a Kabuliwalla. And I hada serious and thorough look at his face

= like this, to see whether he was SubhasBabu or somebody else. And I was convin-ced that he was Subhas Babu. Then Ibegan to dance."

The witness suited his action to the words, byperforming a brief terpischorian act. The examina-tion of the witness proceeded thus :

Commission : Did a crowd collect there ?

Shri Dixit : Not at all, because we were onlythree, the guard,Netaji and I. I for-got to tell him anything because ofjoy at that time for two minutes. Iwas so much overjoyed.

Commission : He also watched you dance ?

Shri Dixit He laughed very loudly, he burstu. into laughter.. Then, after that, Sir,

I said to him, 'You are here. Havee you come to know of the tragedy

which happened to me He said,i 'Yes, I know. You were going to

2 be shot dead by the British spies.And they are British spies. I havealready this information with me.'

7.34 Dixit said that he had a long discussion withBose on that occasion. He told him that he (Dixit)had been approached by conspirators, who had plan-ned Mahatama Gandhi's murder, to join them. Dixit,towever, refused. Witness, therefore, claims to havehad previons infOrmation of Mahatama Gandhiji's mur-der, but he was not examined by the Kapur Commis-sion investigating into the matter, theough (he says)he sent an affidavit to the Commission. It is obviousthat Mr. Justice Kapur declined to belie Dixit's ab-surd story and thought it unnecessary to examinehim personally.

7.35 Dixit went on to say :

"In the roaring voice of a lion he told me, 'Iassure you a day will come when I will

108

made a thorough probe in this matter andput it before the whole world. I give youthis suggestion. Don't care for anybodyelse in this world. He gave this suggestion

Only his bodyguardwas there. Nobody else came. Nobody elsewas there. Nobody else, except his guardwas allowed to be present there." Question-ed if he and Bose had sat close to oneanother, the witness said : "We were in-telligent enough to take our seats in sepa-rate places, and to talk in such a mannerthat others would not come there, nor couldlisten to what we were talking. We wereintelligent people talking. He gave me hisassurance in a roaring voice."

The witness's examination proceeded:

Commission : But when anybody roars, usually inBombay, a crowd collects

Shri Dixit : The roaring was just for me, justfor my hearing, not for others. Then,My Lord, when he gave this assu-rance, I stopped weeping, and I wasagain very happy and I again star-ted dancing out of joy, because begave me this assurance. Then 1 wasvery angry and he was smiling atthe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

: Very angry ? For what?

Shri Dixit : Yes, Sir, because this was the lastmeeting, I was angry with my fate. But hewas smiling. Then again, in the end, in aloud voice. Netaji told me, 'Do your duty.Don't care for anyone else in this world. Iam there. I am alive', and he gave me the

, order also, pointing out to those girls, 'Goand do your duty there. This is the country'scause.'

Commission : What sort of duty would it be withthe girls there?

Shri Dixit : Having to unearth the secrets of theforeign countries by having contacts with

' them".

7.36 The witness was asked if he had spoken aboutthis meeting to anyone, and he replied : "No, Sir.I declared, therefore, that Netaji was alive. Where-ever I went people came to me and put this question:Is Netaji alive? And I said, he is alive. Then theythought that I was mad.".

7.37. The third and the last meeting with Bosetook place at Mainpuri in February or March 1969,

On that occasion Bose was in the Rani Sahiba's gar-den and Dixit went to see him there. Bose was aloneand was wearing a lungi round his nelher limbs, whilethe upper part of his body was bare. He was, however,wearing, what the witness called 'precious shoes',precious because 'they were very beautiful to look at.'Bose wanted to have a bath at the tubewell and :Dixitasked his servant to Work the tubewell motor. Dixitsaid that he was quite sure that he recognised the per-son whom he had met in Bombay and whom he hadmet earlier in Kanpur. Bose stayed in Mainpuri for5 days, conversing with the witness every day, alsohe drank the milk of a black cow arranged by Dixit.iySaid Dix it :

"I thought for Netaji, I must make special ar-rangements for his food. He said: 'I do nottake food or fruit.' Then I said :VonId youlike cow's milk? He said : 'Yes, that is thecorrect thing.' So I arranged for this blackcow. It used to roam about in the garden,eating the grass the whole day and it usedto give the best milk.".

, 7.38 Finally, the witness claimed to have receivedmessages from Bose and the latest message he receivedwas on Christmas day in 1970. Bose on that occasiontold him that he would keep a str ict watch over theproceedings of the present Commission.

7.39 No comment on this palpably false and fantas-tic story is called for. That Dixit, an obsercure lawyer 4of Mainpuri, should have been singled out by Bose for iclandestine meetings and intimate conversation couldonly have been imagined by a diseased mind or aperson so utterly lost to all regard for truth that hecould on oath, tell blatant and transparent lies.

7.40 It will be seen from these narratives that thereis no dearth of stories invented to prove that Bose isstill alive. Knowing Bose's character, his tempera-ment, his antecedents and the part he played bothbefore and after his departure from India in January1941. it is impossible to believe that he could haveconducted himself in the manner described in theabove stories. There was no need for Bose to mas-querade himself as a sadhu or a Swami and whilerevealing his identity to persons whom he had knownslightly only he need not have asked them to keepthe matter secret. He is alleged to have appeared twith his face completely uncovered in public places...such as the funeral of Pandit Nehru, as a member ofthe Mongolian delegation to China and so being re-cognised by the persons who knew him well. Yet, at **--

the same time, we are asked to believe that Bose wastaking every precaution to conceal his identity so

much so that he made gestures of silence to thosewhom be met, and asked them not to reveal his iden-tity. The meetings were, in all cases, acciderital andquite unanticipated. But they never had any pur-pose or any meaning. Most of the persons whoclaimed to have met him were not his intimate asso-ciates or political workers personally known to him.Some of them had never met him in person and theirknowledge of his facial features was gained from oldphotographs. Others were certainly not on such inti-mate terms with him that he should have singled themout for a private indeed, a conspiratorial discussion.The Complete collection of these stories reads likeArabian Nights Entertainments or exploits in astrange wonderland in which nothing Seems real orrational. In the same category falls the story relatedby Gora Chand Sanyal (Witness No. 6) who saysthat he was in charge of the prisoners of war campin Singapore in August or September, 1945. San-yal's story is not a direct story, for it is merely anaccount he heard from someone else. It is interest-ing becanse it is indicative of the manner in whichwitness in the course of this inquiry have tried tostrain human credibility in their endeavour to addimportance to themselves. He says that among theprisoners in Singapore was Kazu Hiko in the JurangRoad camp. who acted as Bose's driver. Sanyal

"One day when I was working in the camp, de-tailing the Japanese drivers for driving con-voys, clearing debris and different otherworks, this Kazu Hiko came to me and toldme a very interesting story about Netaji'smysterious departure from Singapore. Tobe very frank, as I love Netaji, as I adoreNetaji and as I worship Netaji I wm veryinquisitive to learn the story from him. Hetold me that along with the Japanese Gene-ral and these two swords he drove Netajialong Bukidimah Road down to the sub-marine base and Netaji told this driver towait there for half an hour and if they didnot return by that time the driver shouldtake the car back to the camp ..........Theydid not return and afterwards I told thedriver to drive my car and as a matter offact I appointed him as my own driver.So long as 1 stayed in the camp, this KazuHiko was driving my car, and one day hehanded over the two swords to me when hecame to know that I came from Calcutta,the place of Netaji."

One of the two swords is said to be the one whichBose wore with his military uniform. The manner in

8 m of H A/7 4 -1 5

109

which the swords were brought back to, India wasalso unusual. According to Sanyal these swords werekept concealed in a rubber plantation in Singapore.Then, when he was returning to India he broughtthem in his hold -all. He says that, one evening, hehappened to meet the late Air Marshal SubratoMukherjee and asked him to take him to India. TheAir Marshal was going to India in his plane and gavea scat to Sanyal. Sanyal brought those swords toIndia, handed them over to his mother where theyremained unknown for several years. The witnessdisclosed the possession of the swords only in 1969when he spoke of the matter to Moni- Chakraborty,a reporter of the newspaper, Jugantar. The story wasthen published in Jugantar of 3-4-1969 (Exhibit No.W -8/E). The entire story narrated by Sanyal con-stitutes hearsay evidence, for he is merely statingwhat he heard from Kazu Hiko. The identity of theswords has not been established by independent evi-dence, and the long period of complete silence on thepart of the witness is a factor which induces disbeliefof the witness's testimony. I find it difficult to be-lieve that the Air Marshal would, disregard militaryrules and carry a passenger in his special plane whenthere was no urgency about Sanyal's return to India,and there was no other reason for departing from thenorms of conduct.

7.41 The last piece of evidence in this category towhich a reference must be made is the story told byUsman Patel of a fake crash at Taipei to coverBose's escape. He says that he was one of the 30 inthe battalion which constituted Bose's bodyguard. Heremained Bose's bodyguard till the 18th August,1945.

"On the 18th of August, I accompanied Netajiat 8 or 8.30 A.M. We reached Saigon atabout 10.30 A.M. We stayed there for anhour and a half. There the aircraft wasrefuelled. We left Saigon at 11.30 A.M.We reached Taipei at about 12.30 or 12.45.. . . . . . . . .. .There were in all four persons inthe aircraft, including the pilot of the planeas the fourth man. Netaji, Col. HabiburRahman and myself were the three person ,'and the pilot the fourth one ...... ......

Q: How big was the aircraft ? Was it a big oneor a small one in which you went to Tai-pei from Singapore?

A: It was neither a small aircraft nor a big air-craft It was enough to accommodate 8 or10 passengers. When we landed at Taipei,

110

Mr. Rash Behari Bose's wife and her twosons and Japanese officers Nikame and So-mane were present. These people were allin the resthouse and they came to welcomeNetaji. A little later, Mrs. Rash BehariBose asked the Japanese sepoys to give bothof us, Col. Habibur Rahman and myself food.So, Col. Habibur Rahman and I went to themess. The food was ready, and I hadtaken only 2 or 3 morsels, when a Japanesecame and said that I was wanted by Netaji.I left my food and ran to Netaji. Netajiasked me to set fire to the aircraft. I pick-ed up two two -gallon tins of petrol. I en-tered the aircraft. The pilot was sitting inhis seat. I sprinkled petrol on all the seatsand other places. After sprinkling petrol,I came near the door of the aircraft, andwith a lighted match, set fire to the aircraft.I was, at that time, standing inside the air-craft near the door. I jumped out and at-once the pilot took off the plane. Theplane would have gone up about 50 feet.The pilot took the aircraft upto 50 or 60feet. Then he crashed it to the ground.He himself parachuted out. The pilot land-ed on the ground first and he ran to whereNetaji was I went to Netaji. Netajisang a song. Rash Behari Bose's wife andher two sons and Japanese Captains Ni-kame and Somane and Japanese Sepoys,all sang the song. Col. Habibur Rahmanran to the plane to take out his box. Hetook out the box and in doing so, he sus-tained several burn injuries. He sufferedinjuries in his hand and on his face. Healso sustained a cut on his big toe .. . . .. . . .Netaji took off his military clothes and puton Japanese clothes .. ... .Netaji asked me tostand near a pillar on one side. The Japa-nese soldier tied my hands to the pillar ofthe rest -house. After this, the Japanesetied a bandage over my eyes.

Then Netaji said, see Patel, time is bad. Enemyis on all the four sides. It is difficult forthe to save myself and I (Patel) should goback to India. After this all of them wentaway. I do not know where they wentaway because I could not see as my eyeswere bandaged. Some time later, theJapanese soldiers untied me from the pillar.I saw Col. Habibur Rahman was lyingdown. Except one or two soldiers therewas no one at all. Habibur Rahman was

taken to the hospital. I got an empty -shelland put Netaji's clothes in this and buriedit in a trench which was there. I coveredit with earth and levelled it."

When questioned if he had related the story to any-one, he said:

. "I did not relate the story of the burning of theaircraft, its crash and the disappearance ofNetaji either to Mahatma Gandhi or toMr. Nehru because India was not at thattime free. I did not relate the story to any-one till I appeared before the Shah NawazKhan Committee. When the Shah Nawaz A

Khan Committee was still in India and tPrbefore it left for Japan, I went and relatedthe whole story to Mr. Nehru. I related the ,wstory also to Shah Nawaz Khan. ShahNawaz Khan did not permit me to appear

L, before the Committee to give evidence. Idid not approach any newspaper reporterat that time nor did I tell anyone my story."

The witness claimed that he knew Mr. Nehru welland Mr. Nehru had conferred favours on him.

7.42 The story of his visit to Mr. Nehru is describ-ed as follows: --

"At Delhi I tried to see Mr. Nehru for threedays, but I could not see him. On thefourth day I put on my INA uniform andwent to his residence. I stood up at thegate of Mr. Nehru's residence when hecame home in his car. He recognised mebecause he had seen me frequently at theRed Fort. He got down from the car andput his hand on my shoulder and askedme: 'Patel, when did you come?' He ask-ed me why I had not seen him before.I told him that I was waiting there for threedays and I was not allowed to enter. Hetook me inside the house. I was givenfood, and Mr. Nehru was sitting oppositeme. Suddenly, I thought I saw Netajistanding there. I left my food and stoodup. I told Mr. Nehru the full story. Ifell down at his feet and begged him totake me with him so that I could showhim the place where Netaji's clothes had_been buried by me . . . . . . I left Nehru'sbungalow and went to Maulana Azad'sbungalow. Maulana Azad recognised me.I asked Maulana Azad what the truth wasand he told me that 'I had been with Nehru

and had talked with him.' I said that

unless he told the whole truth, I would

commit suicide in his presence . . . . . . . . . .

He told me that he was going to write a

book before he died and that he would

mention this matter in that book."

It is clear that Usman Patel is either given to

halucinations or has woven a completely false story

round two basic facts viz. Habib is said to have sus-

tamed burn injuries and Maulana Azad wrote a book

M of H A/74 -1 6

111

of which some pages are not to be revealed for

several years. The witness has tried to include these

two facts in his story. The story, however, is totally

at variance with the version of Bose's journey as

narrated by all other witnesses, and according, to him

Bose left Saigon on the 17th August and not on the

18th.

7.43. I find it impossible to accept any part of the

story narrated by this witness.

EIGHT

SOME MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

8.1 In this chapter I shall discuss a number ofmiscellaneous matters without mention of which thisreport would lack the virtue of completeness. I shallfirst take up the role played by Prof. Samar Guha inthese proceedings.

8.2 Prof. Samar Guha may be said to be the Primemover and initiator of these proceedings. It was hiszeal and persistence which finally prevailed upon theGovernment of India to institute the present inquiryand appoint this Commission. He took a live interestin the proceedings, and t es t i f i ed befor e thei s - ,sion on three separate occasions. He went to Taiwanand was present there when the Commission paid avisit to that place to inspect the airfield where Bose'splane is alleged to have crashed and to gather what-ever evidence was available there. He has madeseveral statements in Parliament and at pressconference about the subject matter of the inquiry.He, therefore, deserves more than a passing mentionof the role he has played.

8.3 Prof. Guha is an active member of the ForwardBloc and a dedicated, uncompromising follower ofNetaji. I have little doubt that he has been actuatedby the highest motives in doubting the truth of thecrash story and in trying to unravel the mystery ofBose's disappearance. I cannot, however, helpobserving that he has lent too ready an ear to gossip,rumour, conjecture and fantasies woven by interestedindividuals. He has accepted newspaper reports asreliable evidence of the published facts, though inmany cases, these reports were inspired by sensation-mongering reporters or were given publicity byindividuals who had scant respect for truth. Thisattitude, unfortunately, led him into making a politicalissue of what should have remained a national cause,to which every one should have brought an impartialmind, an unswerving determination to seek the truthand a stern resistence to emotion -charged gullibility.Prof. Guha's zeal led him to convert his pursuit oftruth into a predatory hunt in which the objectives I Government of India. There is, for instance, thewere the report of the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee re-peata harping on the failure of the Government toand the story of Bose's death caused by an air crash. file a statement in these proceedings in accordance

112

This was regrettable because he who seeks the truthdoes not set out with the prepossessed notion of dis-proving a hypothesis or theory. The impartial,unprejudiced mind has no blot on its copy book whichmust be erased before the new score can be writtendown. Shri Guha's passionate anxiety to disproveBose's death made him interpret every piece ofevidence, every rumour, every conjecture only interms of his personal prepossessions rather thanobjectively and judiciously.

8.4 A formal appearance on behalf of the All-India Forward Bloc was first entered on 2-11-1970when Shri Amax Prasad Chakraborty, represented theAll -India Forward Bloc before the Commission. Hepresented a petition which is a long and ramblingpolitical harangue containing nothing of any value tothe Commission or any material which would advancethe inquiry. There are certain conjectures andspeculations, and a great deal of adverse critcism ofMr. Nehru and of the Government. There is nostatement of facts, no indication of any evidence thatwould throw light on the manner of Bose's disappear-ance. There is a reference to the opinions expressedby Gandhiji and Nehru but no mention of what theseopinions were based on. The sum and substance ofhis long statement is that Bose was a great patriot,brave, resourceful and dynamic, and despite repeatedprofessions and declarations to the contrary, theGovernment of India has, for a long time, believedin his continued existence in the land of the living.The Government was, however, determined tosuppress the truth and hamper any objective inquiryinto what actualy occurred

8.5 This proved to be a wholly unjustified charge,and there is not the slightest evidence to support it.The motive behind this charge is the political opposi-tion of the Forward Bloc to the party in power, anda number of false and illogical inferences from per-fectly innocent acts and official announcements of the

*b.

113

with Rule 3 of the Central Commissions of Inquiry(Procedure) Rides, 1960 framed under Section 12 ofthe Commissions of Inquiry Act, and the failure ofthe Government of India to place at the Commission'sdisposal all files, documents and other evidencerelating to Bose's disappearance. The matter wasdiscussed by me in my Order dated 2-11-1970 bywhich I disposed of the petition and the oral sub-missions-made by Shri Amar Prasad Chakraborty insupport of the petition. I ruled, by that order, thatthe terms of reference specifying the scope of the

*inquiry, clearly implied that the Government had nocase to advance or to prove, and this Commission wascompletely free to determine the truth and submit

-4its report. I also ruled that no case of concealmentof evidence had been made out against the Govern-ment, and that I would, in due course, call for suchfiles and documents as appeared to be relevant.This is what, indeed, happened. As and when Ireceived information regarding files and documentswhich could throw light on the subject matter of myinquiry, I sent the appropriate requisition to theGovernment. The requisition was invariably com-plied with and all files and documents asked for weremade available, except one file which was said tohave been destroyed in the ordinary course of routine

4

according to which old and unwanted files are des-troyed to lighten the burden of the record rooms.Prof. Guha, however, persisted in his complaint that

4the Government had not assisted the Commission andhad placed impediments in its path and deliberately

-Awithheld evidence. I have, at several places, in thecourse of this report stated that the Government un-hesitatingly placed all material in its possession at theCommission's disposal, and whenever necessaryobtained material from other countries through itsdiplomatic channels.

8.6. Prof. Guha has no personal knowledge of whathappened to Bose. His knowledge is derived fromwhat he has heard and read. From the informationso collected he has argued a case for disbelieving thecrash story. His evidence, therefore, is pure hearsayand thus possesSid (-)f no probative value. His state-ment, can no doubt, be used as a kind of clue orpointer which if followed up, may or may not lead toevidence which would be both relevant and admissibleliccording to the law of evidence. But the inferencesdrawn by Prof. Samar Guha and the reasoning adopted

' by him are wholly inadmissible, as they constitutenothing but the personal opinion of Prof. Guha whichlies beyond the purview of Section 45 of the IndianEvidence Act.

8,7 I shall, however, cite a kew mstances.-4-.....thekind _of evidence which Prof. Guha tcliesj Qp andwhich led him to the conviction that the entire story

of the air crash on the Taihoku airfield and the subse-quent death of Bose is not only false but was deli-berately fabricated by the Japanese military authorities.Prof. Guha was shown photographs of Vira Dhamma-yara and the Mongolian Delegation of Peking and aphotograph of the Shaulmari Ashram Baba. Prof.Guha categorically stated that the last photograph wasa fake document. Regarding the first two photographshe said that he could not be certain, but he wasdoubtful if they represented Bose. He went on tosay that Surendra Mohan Ghosh had gone to ShaulmariAshram and met the Baba there. Shri Ghosh hadalso formed the opinion that the Baba was not Netaji,but Prof. Guha went on to say that there were manycircumstances which led to the falsity of the crash story.First there was the delay by the Japanese in bropd-casting the news of the crash. He interpreted thedelay as proof that the story of the crash was onlya cover for Bose's escape to safety. The delay is,however, not susceptible of such explanation and maywell have been due to a number of other causes suchas the chaotic conditions prevailing at Taipei at thatperiod, the lack of any communication facilities in thehospital in which Bose died, or Japan's preoccupationwith more urgent matters.

8.8 Prof. Guha mentioned some documents whichhe had seen in Japan and East Germany. He, how-ever, was not able to specify the documents, and hisstatement on this point was extremely vague andinconclusive. He then mentioned an article in thePravada in which it was stated that Bose could notbe given asylum in Russia. Prof. Samar Guha didnot say that he had read the article himself, nor didhe mention the date upon which this article appeared,although from the context it appears that the articlewas published in 1945. The substance of this articlewas interpreted by Prof. Samar Guha as a cover be-cause he thought that Russia was friendly towards Boseand so a contrary assertion in the Pravada could onlybe intended to distract attention and provide an alibifor Bose. The inference drawn by Prof. Guha iswholly unjustified. In any event, a copy of the relevantissue of Pravada has not been produced, and I cannothold that such a statement appeared in that paper.Then again, Prof. Guha stated that gandhiji 'ad *aidon one occasion that even if somebody showed himthe ashes of Netaji, he would not believe that Bosewas dead. This statement, even if it was really madeby Gandhiji, cannot disprove the crash story. Itscontradiction is furnished by Prof. Guha himself whenhe said that after Col. liabilmr Rahman had metGandhiji and given him the account of the air crash,Gandhiji said: "After meeting Col. Habibur Rahman,I would ask my countrymen to believe what HabiburRahman said." Therefore, according to Prof. Guha

himself, Gandhiji believed Habibur Rahman's story.Another piece of evidence mentioned by Prof. Guhais an article published in the Nation, a newspaper runBy Sarat handra Bose. This article was printedbelow the headline "Netaji in China" The articleis not before us but whatever may have been writtenin the Nation, does not prove the truth of the factsnarrated. Another matter mentioned ,,by Prof. Guhais that when Mr. Nehru paid_a_yi_sit to the RankojiTemple in Tokyo, he wrote in the visitor's book:"May the- mess-ag`e of Budha bring peace to mankind".Prof. Guha has expressed surprise at the omission ofNetaji's name from the remarks vvrirten by Mr. Nehruin the book; but the omission does not prove thatNetaji was alive or that Nehru entertained an opinionwhich supported such a hypothesis. Prof. Guha nextsaid that Nehru had on one occasion told Shri K. K.Shah that he did not believe in Bose's death. ShriShah was examined as a witness by the Commissionand he categorically denied that Nehru had made anysuch remark to him. Another statement made byProf. Guha relates to Mr. Justice Radha Binod Paul."Mr. Paul told me that on going through the papersof Japanese documents and others in connection withthe War Crimes Tribunal he was convinced that thereis no proof of the reported death of Netaji". Mr.Justice Paul, however, never took the trouble to men-tion the material contained in the documents, nor didhe hold any inquiry into the matter. A somewhatvague statement made by him that the matter of Bose'sdeath demands a thorough investigation cannot be inter-preted to mean that Mr. Justice Paul was convincedof Bose's continued existence, on cogent material whichhe had examined or that he had seen any positivedisproof of the crash story. Yet another vague state-ment is attributed to Mr. Ba Maw, formerly PrimeMinister of Burma. When questioned about Bosecdeath, he said: "Yes, myself and Dr. Wang were alsoreported to have died in a plane crash". Mr. Mawis not alleged to have possessed any first hand infor-mation about Bose and a statement of this kind throwsno light whatsoever on Bose's disappearance. Again,Prof. Guha claims that Shah Nawaz Khan.repeatedlytold him that he did not believe in Bose's death. ShahNawaz Khan himself, however, did not corroborateProf. Guha on this point, and in his evidence, heexpressed his unequivocal belief in the truth of thecrash story. In the same way, Prof. Samar tuha saysthat Ityashicla said that lie had not carried Bose'sashes to Tokyo. Hyashida in his book,Netuji_SubhasChandra... liw, however, has dearly mentioned thisfact. The book was produced before Shah NawazKhan and a copy is also before me. The last pieceof evidence to which T shall refer is a copy of theInter ress Report produced by Prof.,_Gyha. This isa ertnatiTilt7i7716ii;lititit, cannot be said to throw_

114

any light whatsoever on the subject matter of thisinquiry. When Prof. Samar Guha was asked if hehad, in the course of his life, met anyone who hadpersonally seen Bose after the date of his reporteddeath; he replied that he had not.

8.9 Mention must also be made of Prof. Guha'swell intentioned activity at Taipei during the Com-mission's visit to that place. He tried to contactindividuals possessing first hand knowledge of theevents of August IS, 1945, and to discover document-ary evidence proving or disproving Bose's death fromthe records of the hospital where he was alleged tti

have been treated. No eye witness of the air crash,no member of the hospital staff who had been on duty !in August 194.5 could be found. The _official whowas incharks of the crematorium, in 1945 was dead,so was the MAyOT of Taipei who arrived there sometime after August 18, 1945,-- and who is said to havemade some sort of enquiry into the matter. Notthat the Mayor's report, if available, would have beenadmissible in evidence, .for it would be nothing morethan the opinion of an individual. tof.....Deuha, how-ever, tussereclesLineobtaining.. copies of tw_o_docu men ts,one of Which purports to be the death certificate ofone Ta Ts'ang Yi Lang (Okura Ichiro), male, bornon April 9, 1900, who was an Agent of the LandForces, Taiwan Army CoMmand, and who died atTaipei at 4 p.m. on August 19, 1945, of a heart- ,attack. This certificate was issued by Ho Ten Teng4tTai Chih (Tsuru Ta Nobori Dai Shi), who was an,Officer on Probation, Army Hospital, Army Health .Department, Taipei. The other document was a per-mit to cremate the dead body, of die same Ta Ts'angYi Lang (Okura Ichiro), who was to be crematedat 6 p.m. on August 22, 1945, at Taipei crematorium,the name of the person to whom the licence was issuedcould not be deciphered from the photostat copy. -

8.10 Prof. Guha, while tendering these documents,stated that both of them related to Bose, Later heargued that since the name and other particulars,stated in the copies, did not correspond with Boseor the doctor who claims to have treated him, thedocuments could not relate to Bose, and therefore,Bose's death and the cremation of his' dead body hadbeen disproved. I have dealt with this self-defeatingargument in Chapter Five, and mention it here INcause Prof. Guha used these documents to makehighly indiscreet statement to the press at Taipei and 'again on his return to India. This is what he isreported to have told the Press at Taipei on July 17,1.973 :

- The mission inquiring into the fate of NetajiSubhas Chandra Bose has found no proofwhatsoever thathe died at Taipei."

115

Mr. Guha went on to say that some reports byBritish and U. S. intelligence hinted Bose had escaped

t from Taipei to the Soviet Union.

8.11. On returning to Delhi, Mr. Guha made severalstatements to the press, three news -items based onthese statements are quoted below :

- NETAJI DID NOT DIE IN CRASH: GUHAHindustan Times Correspondent.

visited Taiwan along with the Netaji InquiryCommission, told newsmen here today thathe found no proof whatsoever' of the alleg-ed death of Netaji in a plane crash at Taipeion August 18, 1945.

He said that according to some, a body was cre-mated but nobody was allowed to see it. TheCommission found two certificates, one issu-ed by the Municipality and other by the cre-matorium authority, but on deciphering theJapanese language, it transpired that thename of the person was not Netaji but of aJapanese Army Officer. This and otherfacts placed before the Commission madehim feel that the reported dealh of Netaji inthe plane crash could not have been possible.

Hindustan Times July 25, 1973"A

8.12. It will be seen at once that the report is mis-A Aleading. The certificates were not found by the Com-

mission, but were obtained by Shri Guha himself whopresented them to the Commission alleging first thatthey related to Bose, and then denying their connec-tion with Bose and arguing that Bose did not die andhis dead body was not cremated. He was thus argu-ing from professedly false premises. I have alreadydealt with this matter and pointed out that the certi-ficates have no probative value because they do notpurport to relate to Bose's death and his cremation.

8.13. Shri Guha made two other statements to thepress, one of which was published in the Statesman ofJuly 25, 1973 and is in the following terms :

!New Delhi, Samar Guha, M.P.convenor of the National Committee toassist the Netaji Inquiry Commission, said ina statement today that "Our investigation inTaipei made us feel that there is no validreason to believe the story of the reporteddeath of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in thealleged plane crash in Taipei on Atmust 18,

. 1945."

M of HA/74-17

8.14. ShrL.Guha was thus pronouncing final judge-ment on the subject matter of the Commission's in-quiry. The second statement was published by thePatriot in its issue of July 24, 1973, which is asfollows :

-Socialist leader Samar Guha, yesterday toldnewsmen that the Commission could not getany conclusive evidence on the INA Chiet'sdeath in an aircrash and subsequent crema-tion of the body."

He said : "On investigation in Taipei in Taiwanmade us feel that there was no valid reasonto believe the story of the reported death ofNetaji Subhas Chandra Bose in the allegedplane crash on 18 August, 1945, the newsin relation to which was officially circulatedby the then Government of Japan.

"Prof. Guha substantiated his statement by stat-ing that a former airport unit officer of Tai-pei, Mr. Lin Chwan, who was an employeeof the air force hospital in the month ofAugust 1945, told the Commission that hesaw a very fair looking, tall Indian in a par-tially bandaged condition in a single room,sitting most of the time on his bed in a dig-nified, calm posture.

Mr. Lin said the patient 'disappeared' from thehospital after three or four days.

Prof. Guha said that this report contradicted theofficial report of the Government of Japanthat Netaji was taken to the South Gate Mili-tary Hospital where he died.

Prof. Guha said that the evidence recorded by thefirst inquiry commission headed by ShahNawaz Khan differed from the facts gatheredby the present Commission.

For instance, he pointed out the different datesgiven in the official version of the death andthe records traced out at the Health Depart-ment of Taipei. While Tokyo broadcast thedate and time of the air crash as 18 August,1945 at 9 p.m., the Health Department re-corded the accident on 19th August at zerohour.

Similarly, Prof. Guha added, while the officialbroadcast said that the body of the Netajiwas cremated, the Health Department andcrematorium records contained the names ofa Japanese general and some air force per-sonnel as killed and cremated.

116

According to department rules, no person couldbe cremated without a death certificate fromthe department. Since no death certificatewas issued by the department in regard tothe Netaji's death, the official version couldnot be taken to be correct, Prof. Guha con-tended."

8.15. The news report is clearly tendentious andtends to prejudge the issue before the Com-mission. Prof. Guha did not contradict these reports,and I must accept the news items quoted above ascorrect reproductions of his statements to the Press.Prof. Guha, by declaring, that the story of the aircrash on August 18, 1945, at Taipei and of Bose'sdeath in the course of the next few hours had beencompletely disproved, arrogated to himself the func-tions of this Commission by pronouncing judgment onthe subject matter of the present enquiry. In judicialproceedings, such a statement would have fallen withinthe mischief of the law of contempt of Court, and evenin these proceedings the statement cannot be describ-ed as anything but reprehensible. I, however, decided,not to take any action against this mis-guided and ill-advised outburst of Prof. Guha, as I felt that he wasprompted not by any malice, but by the excess of hisenthusiasm and his superabundant affection for hisleader, Bose.

8.16. The sum and substance of Prof. Guha's evi-dence, therefore, is that he heard various persons ex-pressing, at different times, their disbelief in the crashstory. These persons, however, had no personal know-ledge of the facts of which they spoke. Their disbeliefmay have been born of wishful thinking or because noofficial inquiry into the matter had been made andno judgment pronounced upon all available evidence.Prof. g uhaLs....testima has no probativevalue whatsoever and does not advance the case at all.Newspaper i-efiorti-, opinions orindividual; who haveheard rumours in the streets or who want to believein Bose being alive are wholly inadmissible. Indeed,the entire statement of Prof. Guha must be held tobe inadmissible in evidence though even on its facevalue it makes no contribution towards the discoveryof the truth relating to Bose's disappearance.

(ii)

8.17. Of a totally, different character, were the anticsof Shri Balraj Trikha. I use the word antics advis-ably, for no other expression would accurately des-cribe the colourful and variegated activity of this ad-vocate at different stages of the inquiry proceedings.

8.18. It was clear on the very first day when

Shri Trikha put in an appearance on behalf of theNational Committee as junior counsel to Shri AmiyaNath Bose, that he was acting not so much out of adesire to render assistance in the search for truth, asto advertise his importance and to collect political divi-dends by exploiting whatever had captured the imagi-nation of the people for the time being. Shri Trikhawas, by no means, alone in making an exhibition ofhimself in this way, though he far surpassed the othersboth in the manner and the degree of his performance.

8.19. At the very first public session of the Com-mission, Shri Trikha whose printed letter -heads dis-play his status as Advocate of Supreme Courts ofIndia and Nepal, declared that he had been appointedjunior counsel to Shri Amiya Nath Bose on behalf ofthe National Committee. The next morning he pro-fessed to have been briefed by Netaji Smarak Samitiand some Members of Parliament. He did not specify ifhis new status meant a shift in loyalities or merelyan additional burden that had been laid on his shoul-ders. He then announced his association with theAll -India Netaji Swagat Samiti, whose professed ob-jective is to prove that Netaji is alive and to accordhim a befitting welcome.

8.20. In a letter he addressed to the Commission onOctober 28, 1970, he said : "I have been associatedwith this inquiry as a counsel of the Commission, re-presenting Netaji Swagat Samiti and the National Com-mittee on Netaji Inquiry.. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . I shal l domy best as faithfully as possible to be of real serviceto the Hon'ble Commission to enable the Hon'bleCommission to come to a finding that Netaji did notdie in the Taihoku aircrash as reported earlier in theShah Nawaz Enquiry report. It is now a historicalfact that the Shah Nawaz report was a procured docu-ment and it did not inspire confidence in the country-men."

11,7 7

8.21. At several open sessions of the inquiry hedeclared that he and the party he represented, wouldproduce Netaji in person before the Commission. This,however, was a promise or a threat which he was un-able to carry out. I, t je i i a de a c om pl et e volteface, and tried to represent himse as d wholly impar-tial individifarnoTeifitEres s ar- 1- 1T h r efs wer e thoseof an objective enquirer into the truth of the matter.He did this because he wishe& to- be. appointed the......._official counsel for the Commission, whose fees would. , ....,.........__be paid by the Government. His professions were,however, not accepted, and his prayer to be appointeda counsel for the Commission was not acceded to be- Arcause he had unequivocally championed the cause ofthe Netaji Swagat Samiti and striven to prove thatNetaji was alive.

8.22. He was not beyond uttering innuendoes againstthe Chairman of the Commission, to gain a modicumof popularity, as the two following instances, amongothers, will demonstrate.

8.23. Capt. Talwar, formerely of the I.N.A. convey-ed to the Commission the name of Col. Raturi, as apossible witness because Col. Raturi was intimatelyknown to him and had commanded a battalion on thefront. Acting upon this information the office of theCommision issued a summon to Col. Raturi toappear and testify. Col. Raturi appeared before theCommission on 1-3-1971 and made a statement inthe course of which he said that he had believed Habi-bur Rahman's story and those who disbelieved it wereindulging in the exercise of wishful thinking. WhenShri Trikha rose to cross-examine the witness, he putto him the following question :

. "So, you were called here to make a statement. that the story about the death, as given by

Col. Habibur Rahman, is correct."

The question clearly contained an insinuation that thewitness had been advised to make a certain statement.I was compelled to administer a reprimand to ShriTriklia after calling-Cat TaTiar i 'witness to statethe reason why summons had been issued to Col.Raturi. On another occasion ShrL Trikha demandedthat the _expenses for his iOurngy in Japan, should ,bepaid by the Government and if the Commission couldnot arrange such payments, Shri Trikha would con-sider that the intention of the Commission was notto allow the counsel to accompany the Commissionto afford him the opportunity of cross-examining thedoctor who treated Bose and signed a death certificate.I had to tell Shri Trikha that as he was appearing fora specific party, his expenses could not be paid outof public revenues. Shri Amar Prasad Chakraborty,had made his own arrangements for the journey andhe was present when the doctor was examined.Shri Chakraborty had full opportunity to cross-examinethe doctor. I had to tell Shri Trikha that the insinua-tion contained in his address was preposterous andquite unwarranted.

8.24. Shri Trikha continued to push himself intoprominence, and at one stage, he made the recklessstatements that be had met Bose face to face at theSaigon airport. The COmniTi n fild proceeded toSaigon, and had held a sitting on 4-11-1971. A dayor two later, the Chairman and the staff oithe Com-mission left Saigon. It was then that Shri Trikhaclaims to have met Bose. He spoke of this toShri Prem Bhatia, High Commissioner for India inSingapore a few days later, and briefed newspaper

117

correspondents to publish his claim of having metBose. A Singapore paper published the news item,but the report was not accepted by the Statesman ofDelhi as it was considered a false and irresponsiblestatement. Shri Balraj Madhok, however, made areference to the Saigon meeting in a speech at theRambla Ground in Ghaziabad on 28-1 1-197 1 and thisspeech was reported in the Nay Bharat Times.

8.25. In View of the publicity given to this strangeencounter at Saigon, I considered it necessary to callShri Trikha as a witness, but as soon as summons, forhis appearance, were issued, Shri Trikha completelydiappeared, abandonirdg his brief on behalf of NetajiSwagat Samiti and remained absent until the conclu-sion of the proceedings. Summons were issued toShri Trikha several times by post and some of themwere returned undelivered although the address wasthe address supplied by Shri Trikha to this Commis-sion. Finally, summons were posted on the door ofhis residence. Shri Trikha knew that he was requiredto testify before the Commission, as on one occasion,he was orally informed of the Commission's desire, atone of the sittings. As soon as he was told this hewithdrew from the hall and remained absent there-after.

8.26. I was compelled to call Shri Prein Bhatia asa witnes el Shri - Mafia stated that, in fact,Shri Trikha had made a statement regarding his en-counter with Bose, to him and some other persons atSingapore. When the statement was made, the re-presentatives of the Statesman and other newspapers,were present. The inference to be drawn fromShri Trikha's conduct is that he made a completelyfalse and irresponsible statement at Singapore.This is a matter which can well be consideredas the basis of proceeding against Shri Trikha forprofessional misconduct, but I refrained from addingthis indignity to the reputation he had earned as areekks and irresponsible member of an honourableprofession.

(iii)

8.27 Habibur Kaltman was an important witness,in as much as he was the only compatriot, colleague-in -arms counsellor and confidant of Bose who accom-paired him on the last lap of his last known journey.He had given evidence before the Committee pre-sided over by Shri Shah Nawaz Khan, and it wasnatural that he should be called to testify in the courseof the present enquiry. He resides in Pakistan, and itwas beyond. the powers OT R7CommisSiori to sum-mon him or . compel his attendance. A letter ofrequest issued through our High Commission brought

118

back the reply that Habibur Rahman was not willingto come to India to make a statement, nor would hemake himself available for such -purpose in Pakistan.He said he had nothing to add to -the_statement whichhe had made -before the previous Committee. 'Thiswas unfortunate but there was no means of procuringHabibur Rahman's evidence.

8.28 It has been argued there isno acceptable evidence of 'Habibur Rahman's refusalor reluctance to appear before this Commission, andthe communication received from our High Commis-sion cannot be treated as proof of its contents. WereHabibur Rahman's refusal a matter in issue or some-thing of primary importance, I might have been per-suaded to call the official who signed this letter , butI decided, in the circumstances of the case, to treatthe letter as an official act performed in the ordinarycourse of official work and therefore free from sus-picion and scarcely needing formal proof. I have noreason for doubting the truth of its contents, nor forsuspecting that the official concerned was trying toconvey false information, for nothing could be gainedby suppressing the truth in this matter. Also, itseemed to be natural enough that Habibur Rahmanshould not wish to inconvenience himself by under-taking a long journey merely to repeat what he hadalready said 15 years previously, before another offi-cial body. I am, accordingly, satisfied that HabiburRahman is not willing to give evidence before theCommission. In any event, it is hardly material whyHabibur Rahman did not come to testify in this en-quiry. The fact remains that he did not come and

.; his evidence is not available to us. At most, hisabsence can be looked upon as a lacuna or as some-thing missing. The ultimate consequence of this .1a-,cuna will depend on the quantum and worth of theevidence adduced. This is not a case in which anadverse inference can be drawn against a party fornon -production -or suppression of a material piece ofevidence, for there are no parties and it is to no one'sadvantage to hold back Habib's evidence. All thatcan be said is that an important piece of evidenceis wanting, but its absence cannot aver sely affectany of the remaining evidence. I have already saidenough on the subject and of the Government's atti-tude towards this enquiry and it is hardly necessaryto repeat that the Government had no interest incausing a false report to be made about HabiburRahman's unwillingness to depose before this Com-mission.

8.29. Habibur 'Rahman had made a number of oralstatements to a number of persons to whom he narrat-ed his experience and what had happened on the last

lap of the flight in which he and Bose were involved.In December 1945, he was interrogated twice by thepolice and by the Combined Services Detailed Intel-ligence Centre (CSDIC). An attempt has been madeby Counsel for the Netaji Swagat Committee, for theNational Committee and the Bose family to argue thatthere are several discrepancies and contradictions inthe various statements made by Habibur Rahman atdifferent times. From this it must be inferred it wasargued, that Habib's story of the air crash is totallyfalse and so it follows that there was no air crashand therefore Bose did not die at Taihoku on the18th August, 1945.

'148.30. The previous statements made by Habibur r

Rahman are wholly inadmissible in evidence. Thesestatements do not fall under any of the provisions of t lsection 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even thestatement made before the Shah Nawaz Khan Com-mittee is .inadmissible in this case, if for no other rea-son than that Habibur Rahman was not subjectedto any cross-examination and parties and counsel werenot represented before the Shah Nawaz Khan Com-mittee. For this reason I do not propose to takeinto account any of the previous statements made byHabibur Rahman for any purpose whatsoever. 'Thesestatements cannot be used to support the story ofthe crash nor to disprove it by invoking the argumentthat discrepancies ,prove Habibur Rahman to be afalse witness. The statement which Habibur Rahmanmade to the C.S.D.I.C., however, has a special signi-ficance not because of its intrinsic value but because 4f,it controverts an argument advanced before me. Theargument is to the following effect.

8.31. Shri B. C. Chakrabarty (Witness No. 168)who examined Habibur Rahman and recorded hisstatement claims to have made a 75 page report. Thisreport was not forthcoming and it was argud thatit has been suppressed. The matter has been fullydiscussed by me when dealing with Shri Chakrabarty'sstatement and it is only necessary to repeat here thatthere is nothing in the recorded statement of HabiburRahman which supports the oral testimony of ShriChakraborty that in his report he rejected the theoryof the air crash and the consequent death of SubhasChandra Bose. When Chakrabarty was questioned onthis matter all he could say was that Habibur Rahman'sstatement was the only evidence supporting the crash,story and he was somewhat doubtful about the ac7se:curacy of Habibur Rehman's evidence. Chakrabaretycould have given details of his report but he failed todo so. The report, which is available, cannot beused as primary evidence, and its value is merely to Alcorroborate or contradict Chakrabarty's oral evidence

119

-

as given before this Commission. Indeed, as I havealready stated, I decline to accept the story that thisreport was lost or deliberately suppressed. The filedealing with the C.S.D.C. investigation contains the

,-detaited report submitted on the date mentioned byChakrabarty, and this clearly is the report falsely

-alleged to have been suppressed.

8.32 I, therefore, do not purpose to say anythingfurther about the previous statements made by HabiburRahman except to repeat that these statements haveno evidentiary value whatsoever.

8.33 The only other matter relating to Habiburfl'Rahman is that he had sustained some burn injuries

and these were seen by a number of persons both in.4 ° Taiwan and subsequently in India. The statements of

those witnesses, who claim to have seen these injuries,s corroborate the story of the air crash, but let me say

it, once again, not Habibur Rahman's story, whichmust be treated as non-existent.

(iv)

8.34 It will be recalled that not i fewf,nersons claim- to have investigated the matter of Bose's disappear-

ance and arrived at certain conclusions. Some ofthese persons paid visits to Formosa and Japan andtheir on -the -spot enquiries have been given an alto-gether undue importance. In effect, the testimony of

' these persons is nothing more than hearsay and, there-fore, wholly inadmissible in evidence. A detailed ref-erence has been made to the evidence of Dr. Satya-

-4 rtarayan_Sinha, Shri S. M. Goswami and Shri S. A. Iyer,the last of whom prepared a report which he sub--: -4milted to Nehru. A word may, in this context, he saidabout the testimony of Jacidish Chandra Sinha (Wit-ness No. 179) . He was a member of the All IndiaCongress Committee, and was elected to the WestBengal Legislative Assembly, in which he sat from1942 to 1947 and again from 1967 to 1970. At thetime of testifying before the Commission he was amember of Senate and Syndicate of the Calcutta Uni-versity. An individual so loaded with honours andthe insignia of respectability merits discussion.

8.35 J. C. Sinha's statement falls into two parts. Heclaims to have heard Habibur Rahman relate the storyof the aircrash and Bose's death on several occasions,and on each occasion the story was in some respects

ddifferent from the story Habibur Rahman had previ-ously related. These discrepancies led Mr. Sinha to corn-damn Habibur Rahman as a false witness and rejecthis story. He also described the result of an on -the-spot inquiry held by him. at Taihoku where his planemade an unsheduled halt and then in Japan where hespent about three weeks. . .

8.36 141r. Sinha had appeared to make a statementbefore the Committee presided over by Shri ShahNawaz Khan, and since his statement made then was,in some particulars, different from the statement madebefore me, he was asked to explain the discrepancies.He took the very easy way out of the difficulty inwhich he found himself by saying that his previousstatement had been incorrectly recorded and he hadsigned it without reading it. What he said was. "I hadoccasion to go through the statement I made beforethe Shah Nawaz Committee. As soon as it was typedout, it was handed over to me, and in a hurry, I wasasked to sign. 1 had no occasion to go through it."

8.37 This is a completely false statement, and isbelied by documentary. evidence. On the record ofthe Shah Nawaz Khan Committee proceedings thereis a letter from the witness .dated 25th of April, 1956,addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, which

"My dear General Saheb,

As per our conversation, I am sending toyou my Private Secretary, Shri'Hem ChandraDas, for getting the draft type -script of theevidence which 1 have given this morningbefore your Committee for correction.

I shall be grateful if you will please hand,over tohim, who is authorised to take the same onmy behalf.

With k i ndest.. regards,

Yours . sincerely,J. C. Sinha"

8.38 On the back of this letter is the receipt givenby Hem Chandra Das for a "closed over received from

: A perusal of the .file ofthe previous Committee shows that almost allstatements were in this manner sent tothe respective witnesses, who studied them at leisure,made corrections, signed them and then returned themto the Committee. This is precisely what Shri Sinhaalso did, and therefore, when he said that he had nooccasion to go through his previous statement, he putforward a false explanation of the discrepancies in thetwo statements he made.

8.39 In any event, the story given by 'HabiburRahman to the witness, even if the story varied insome particulars, when related on different occasionsdoes not prove, anything. Habibur Rahman is nota witness in the present proceedings and the vara-tions in his statements-would have been relevant andadmissible . only if Habibur Rahman had testified ;be-fore the Commission and had been confronted with

120

his previous contradictory statements. Had this hap-pened, Habibur Rahman might or might not havegiven a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancies.

8.40 With regard to the on -the -spot inquiry atTaihoku, the witness said that he found himself thereby chance, because the plane in which he was pro-ceeding to Japan made an unscheduled halt there.The witness had made no reference to this halt in hisstatement before the Shah Nawaz Khan Committee.The story of the halt at Taihoku is quite unbelievableand his statement that he met the airport officer whotold him something that made him disbelieve the storyof the aircrash is wholly unconvincing. Similarly thisinquiry at Japan does not advance the matter further.He prepared no record of this inquiry, he did not evenreduce to writing any of the statements made to himand he does not remember the names of the personswho expressed their disbelief of the aircrash story.Another matter mentioned by Shri Sinha is that Nehru,on several occasions, expressed to him his disbelief inBose's death. I am not prepared to accept any of thestatements proffered by Shri Sinha and am constrainedto dismiss his evidence as a piece of self -advertisement.

(v)

8.41 The Government's initial reluctance to accordsanction to the Commission's visit to Taiwan and theobservance of diplomatic etiquette when the Corn-mission heIdits Sillingi ar raWi, occasioned a greatdeal of ill-informed and unjustified criticism of theGovernment of India. It was argued with a greatdeal of vehemence that the Government did not con-template with equanimity the discovery of unpalatablefacts, and had, for that reason, not accepted the Com-mission's first proposal to visit Taiwan. It was only whenShri Samar Guha made a personal appeal to the PrimeMinister, and spoke of the dissatisfaction which mustbe felt by him and by many others if the Commissionwere not afforded the opportunity of inspecting thescene of the alleged air crash and examining the evi-dence of witnesses available there, that the Govern-ment finally agreed to sanction the Commission's visitto Taipei. But the freedom of the Commission (soit was alleged) was circumcised by so many directivesand inhibitions that the objective of the visit wasstultified, even before the Commission set out on itsjourney to Taipei.

8.42 The spearhead of this criticism came, quitenaturally, from Shri Guha who, in the course of astatement to the press which was published on 25thJuly 1973 in the Delhi edition of the Statf.,ctitnn, said:"The Netaji mystery would have been finally resolved

by the Commission if its initiative and freedom ofinvestigation into the circumstances leading to the dis-appearance of Netaji were not inhibited by the res-triction imposed on it by a department of the Ministryof External Affairs." A few days later, the matterwas raised in Parliament, and Shri Guha asked aquestion to which Shri Surendra Pal Singh, Ministerof State in the Ministry of External Affairs, said that"no directive was issued to the Netaji Inquiry. Com-mission. In all its enquiries outside India involvingcontacts with foreign Government agencies, the Com-mission has functioned with the assistance of IndianMissions located abroad. Taking into considerationthe fact that we have no Mission in Taiwan, suchassistance was not possible when the Commissivisited Taiwan. In view of this, and in view of th jfact that we have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan,it was suggested that the Commission may make in-'dependent inquiries without enlisting the formal co-operation of any official or non -official body in Tai-wan, and make its own arrangements on a privatebasis. The Commission; in its judgment, decided toaccept this suggestion. It is incorrect to say that theCommission's work was hampered in any way byGovernment."

8.43 The Delhi Statesman of August 17, 1973contained a report of its special representative of ajoint statement issued by a number of M.Ps. Thestatement said : "the objective of the Commission'svisit to Taiwan had been practically frustrated by theExternal Affairs Ministry by the restriction it, hallplaced on the judicial freedom of the CommissioFor it was directed not to write to the GovernmentTaiwan nor to seek direct help from it in mattrelating to the inquiry."

8.44 The argument was taken up and repeated byShri Mukboty in the course of his final address whenhe reviewed the evidence gathered by the Commissionand discussed its probative value. Referring to theGovernment's initial hesitation in processing the visitto Taiwan he said : "even at this stage they (Govern-ment, of India, are worried over the question whetherYour Lordship will like to go to Taiwan for an on-the -spot investigation. Even after 25 years of theso called tragedy they are worried, because to mymind, the truth will be given to your Lordship by the Formosan Government; they want to put shackleson your arms, so that you cannot approach the Frit--mosan Government to give you any report." Alater, he posed the rhetorical question : "Why YourLordship was not allowed to correspond freely withthe Formosan Government. why Your Lordship wa4.-not allowed to ask for the report, which they claimed':to have with them as far as this inquiry is concerned ?"

--f

I

44.

121

8.45 The %,riticism of Shri Samar Guha and othersassumes that a specific directive was issued to thisCommission prohibiting it from dealing directly withthe Government of Taiwan. This, as I shall presentlyshow not only misrepresents the facts but miscon-ceives the diplomatic procedures which must governrelationship between official bodies of different coun-tries. Even in the case of a country with whom Indiahas diplomatic relations, an official body appointedby the Government, such as the present Commission,cannot correspond directly with the Government orofficial departments of a foreign country. Such an

04-opproach must be made through our Embassy. TheGovernment of a foreign country cannot entertain anofficial requisition or inquiry, for to do this wouldbe, in a sense, to submit to the authority of a foreigngovernment. Even in Japan with whom India hasfull and normal diplomatic relations, all correspon-dence with witnesses and other bodies in Japan wasconducted through our diplomatic channels. Whenthe Commission went to Bangkok, it encountered ameasure of difficulty because the Thai Governmentobjected to the official Inquiry Commission of aforeign country holding official sessions in theircountry. They apparently took the view that the Com-mission would be directly issuing summons and otherprocesses to the subjects of the Thai Government, aposition which was not only unacceptable but waswholly untenable because it might have been inter-

reted as an erosion into the sovereignty of the Thai5overnment. Our Ambassador in Bangkok had,

4herefore, to assure the Thai Government that theCommission would be acting like a private body inBangkok and would not be issuing any writ or lettercompelling the attendance of any Thai subject. Itwas only then that permission was granted to theCommission to hold its sittings in Bangkok. WithTaiwan India has no diplomatic relations whatsoever,because the Government of Taiwan has not been re-cognised by the Gowrnment of India. Therefore,there could be no question of any official transactionsor official communications between this Commissionand any governmental department of the Governmentof Taiwan. When even in a country where there arediplomatic relations, the Commission cannot, in ac-cordance with diplomatic etiquette, communicatedirectly with official agencies, the inhibition is all the

onger in the case of a country with which theret.exist no diplomatic relations and of whose government

there is no recognition.

8.46 The Ministry of External Affairs did not issueany directive to this Commission but brought to, itsnotice the diplomatic etiquette in this matter. Thiswas already known to me, and, therefore; r did notfind myself constrained by any directive or inhibition.

Even before leaving this country I Awl informed ShriGulia that since it was his personal appeal whichhad made possible the visit to Taiwan, the responsi-bility_ of producing witnesses before the Commissionss6iild be his. Shri Guha accepted the onus and fur-nished a list of 15 witnesses of Taiwan. I agreed tocall them. Apart from this, the Commission hadno knowledge of what witnesses would be available.A communication had been received from PritamSingh (Witness No. 214) who had been a member ofthe I.N.A. and is now residing in Taiwan. He hadoffered to produce some evidence having a bearingon the subject matter of the Commission's inquiry,if the Commission visited Taiwan. He did, indeed,give a great deal of assistance to the Commission, andnot only did he bring some witnesses who deposedbefore the Commission but also acted as their inter-preter. The Commission was able to inspect the Tai-hoku Airport and to pay a visit to the crematorium.No other evidence came to the knowledge of the Com-mission, and the Commission did not learn that theGovernment of Taiwan had, at any time, held anyinquiry into Bose's disappearance in August 1945.There were two or three private institutions whichtendered assistance to the Commission. There is,however, no truth whatsoever in the allegation thatthe Commission's work was hampered because I wasunable to communicate directly with any departmentof government. No direct communication is possiblewith any official agency in a foreign country.

8.47 Tile criticism of Shri Guha and others on thisscore is, therefore, wholly unfounded, and appears tohave been motivated by the fact that despite the visitto Taiwan so cherished by Shri Guha, no cogentand reliable evidence about the subject matter of thepresent inquiry could be discovered there.

(vi)

8.48 Another matter deserving attention is the dis-posal of Bose's remains. After his death on thenight of August 18, arrangements to transport his bodyto Tokyo could not be made owing to lack of trans-port. Nor could anything have been gained by post-poning the cremation because the top I.N.A. personnelwere in disarray and scattered at different places inBurma, Singapore, Bangkok, Saigon etc. The deadbody could not be taken to any of these places fora ceremonial funeral because the Allied OccupationForces were fast taking possession of them. Japanwas the safest and the most convenient place. So,the dead body was cremated at _Talp_FL and the asheswere 6-fleeted and placed in a wooden casket to awaittheir despatch to Tokyo. Habibur Rahman was re-covering from his burn injuries and he was to go to

112

Tokyo. So, on September 5, 1945, the casket con-taining Bose's ashes was entrusted to Lt. Col. Sakai(Witness No. 47), Mr. Hayshida (Witness No. 61)and Habibur Rahman; who flew from Taipei toFukuoka. From there Habibur Rahman continuedhis journey to Tokyo by air while Lt. Col. Sakai andMr. Hayshida travelled by train.

At Tokyo S. A. Iyer (Witness No. 29) had preparedthe text of the broadcast announcing Bose's death.He had been making enquiries at the army headquartersfor news of Bahibtrr Rahman and Bose's remains.On September 7, he was told to come to army head-quarters the next morning. That day he saw HabiburRahman and was handed a small wooden boxcovered with white cloth which he was told containedBose's ashes. Iyer was, at that time, staying inSahay's house. He also knew Ramamurti (WitnessNo. 76) who was a neighbour of Sahay. Ramamurtihad also accompanied Iyer to the army headquarters.The box, after a day or two, was taken to RenkojiTemple where it was deposited and where it has re-mained ever since.

8.49 This story is narrated by 8 witnesses. Theevidence of S. A. lyer, Ramannirti, Lt. Col. Sakai,A. M. Sahay, Hayshida and Karruppiah (Witness No.112) is on the whole consistent though there are afew discrepancies about some minor details of theincident. The story of S. A. Virik (Witness No. 92)who was in Tokyo in those days is somewhat different.He said that he alone took the ashes to the Temple.Virik was one of the group of I.N.A. cadets who hadbeen sent to Japan for training. It may be that hismemory deceived him after a lapse of more than 25years when he testified before the Commission. Themain story, however, emerges consistently and all thewitnesses agreed that the box containing the asheswas taken from Taipei on September 5 and it reachedTokyo on September 7. On September 8, it wasdelivered to S. A. Iyer and Ramamurti, and then, aday or two later, it was deposited in the RenkojiTemple. It may be recalled that Lt. Col. Sakai wasone of Bose's co -passengers. There is no reason fordisbelieving these witnesses. I have already statedmy reasons for rejecting the hypothesis that the entireJapanese nation and the Indians who appeared aswitnesses and deposed to the story of the air crashand Bose's death were in conspiracy to deceive theworld. It, may be mentioned that despite the louddenials of the genuineness of these ashes, all Indians,including members of Bose's family, who have paid a

visit to the Renkoji Temple, have treated the casketcontaining the ashes with the utmost reverence. Theirattitude is similar to the attitude of Shri Amiya NathBose, who, while denouncing the genuineness of thewatch he produced, could not even entertain thethought of parting with it. and guarded it as a pre-cious memento of his famous uncle. One is naturallydriven to the conclusion that these denials and deni-grations proceeded not from any honest belief butfrom political motives. Mr. Hayshida, when he gavehis evidence, made a reference to the ashes, whichhe took to Tokyo. The incident, as described by himin his book, and before the Shah Nawaz Khan Com-mittee is substantially as deposed to by him beforethe Commission. One or two discrepancies did findtheir way into his statement. For instance, before theShah Nawaz Khan Committee he had stated that whenhe arrived at the airport, he found Lt. Col. Sakaiand Habibur Rahman alreidy present with the boxcontaining Bose's ashes. In his deposition before me,he stated that he had reached the airport beforeLt. Col. Sakai and Habibur Rahman. When he wasreminded of the previous statement he conceded thatthe earlier statement was correct and that memory haddeceived him after the lapse of 14 years.

8.50 From the evidence discussed above, I amconvinced beyond all reasonable doubts that the woodencasket lodged in the Renkoji Temple at Tokyo con-tains Bose's ashes and these ashes were placed in thebox at Taipei after the cremation of his dead body.

8.51 I do not propose to say anything about the -valuables or the I.N.A. treasures which Bose wascarrying with him on his last journey. This matterwas not enquired into, and all that emerged fromthe statements made by a number of witnesses is thatthe valuables were scattered on the airfield whenBose's plane crashed. Some of the articles weredamaged. Whatever valuables could be collected weregathered and placed in a box which was sent to Tokyoalongwith the casket containing Bose's ashes. Thisbox, too, was entrusted to Ramamurti who, in 1959,handed it to the Indian Ambassador in Tokyo. Asuggestion was made by counsel that part of thistreasure had been misappropriated by Ramamurti andhis brother J. Murti. But there is no satisfactoryproof of such misappropriation. This was not a matterspecified in the terms of reference given to this Com-mission, and no useful purpose could be served bypursuing a quest which was not likely to yield any-thing definite or worthwhile.

NINE

FINDINGS

9.1 The ' conclusions arrived at in the precedingchapters may now be set down as the findings of theCommission.

(i) Bose was informed on August 12, 1945,that the war was about to conclude andthe Japanese had decided to surrender tothe Allied Forces. He was at that time atSaranban. The message was broughtto him there by Negishi (Witness No. 50).

(ii) Bose at once left for Singapore where hediscussed his future plans with his collea-gues and the Ministers of his Cabinet,almost day and night. The decision wastaken on the 14th when Sakai arrived andconferred with Bose. It was decided thatBose himself should leave Singapore andtry to escape to Russia where he hoped tofind asylum,

(iii) On the morning of 16-8-1945, Bose leftSingapore accompanied by Col. HabiburRahman, S. A. Iyar (Witness No. 29), a

'Japanese Liaison Officer Negishi (WitnessNo. 50), Col. Pritam Singh (Witness No.155) and others. The party arrived atBangkok at 3.30 P.M. and spent the nightthere.

(iv) At about 8 A.M. on 17-8-1945, Bose andparty left by two planes for Saigon. Bose'sparty included Col, Habibur Rahman, DebNath Das (Witness No. 3), S. A. Iyer(Witness No. 29), Hachia (Witness No.51), Ishoda (Witness No. 68), GulzaraSingh (Witness No. 153), Col. PritamSingh (Witness No. 155), Abid Hassan(Witness No. 157) and others. The partyarrived at Saigon at 11 A.M.

(v) The planes in which Bose and his party hadtravelled to Saigon had to go back, andfresh arrangements had to be made for thenext stage of the journey. Bose was in-formed that one seat could be given to him

123S/8M0fHA-18.

in a Japanese bomber which had comefrom Manila and was going to Dairen inManchuria. The plane, Bose was inform-ed, had, on board, a number of Japanesearmy officers who had been posted toManchuria and who could not be left

behind.

(vi) Bose was very upset on hearing this, becausehe wanted to carry all the members of hisparty with him. Ishoda and Hachia weresent to Dalat where Field Marshal Tarauchiwas camping. These two emissaries couldnot see Tarauchi personally, but hisAdjutant told them that it might bepossible to make available two or threeseats in all for Bose.

(vii) Ishoda and Hachia returned to Saigon andconferred with the pilot of the plane andthe Japanese military authorities there.The conclusion was that two seats wereplaced at the disposal of Bose.

(viii) After some discussion, Bose decided to availhimself of the two seats, and askedHabibur Rahman to accompany him.

(ix) The Japanese bomber left Saigon at appro-ximately 5 P.M. carrying Bose, HabiburRahman, Lt. Col. Sakai (Witness No. 47),S. Nonongaki (Witness No. 53), Tarokono,Navigator (Witness No. 63), Takahashi(Witness No. 65), the pilot in chargeTakizawa, Genl. Shidei, second pilotAyogi, all three of whom were killed andsome others, whose names need not bementioned. They were the crew andother officers posted to Manchuria, or toTokyo.

(x) The plane arrived at Touraine at 7.45 P.M.and the party spent the night there.

(xi) On the morning of 18-8-1945 the bomberleft Touraine earrYing the previous com-plement of crew and passengers andarrived at Taipei in Formosa at 2 P.M.

124

(xii) The party had a snack lunch at Taipeiwhile the pilot attended to a snag, whichhe declared, had been corrected, after a

short while.

(xiii) The plane took off 2.35 P.M. but within afew seconds one of thel engines flew outand the plane crashed near the fringe ofthe Taihoku aiafield. The body of theplane broke into two parts and caught fire.

(xiv) Thel pilot Takizawa_ and Gertl. Shidei werekilled inside the plane. The rest of thecrew and passengers came out, but all ofthem had sustained burn injuries, two ofthem viz. Ayoagi and Bose had receivedvery severe burns.

(xv) The injured persons wire carried to thearmy hospital a few kilometers from theairfield and given medical treatment.

(xvi) Bose had sustained burn injuries of the thirddegree and despite the efforts of the doc-

V tors to revive him, he succumbed to hisinjuries the same night.

(xvii) Of the other injured persons Ayoagi, thek, second pilot also died.

(xviii) Two days later, Bose's body was crematedand his ashes were carried to Tokyo inthe beginning of September 1945 wherethey were delposited in the RenkojiTemple.

(xix) There is no reason for believing that therelations between Nehru Bose wereanything but friendly on a personal basis.Political differences' between them did not

I lessen Bose's great respect for Nehru and1 Nehru's affection for the younger politi-

cian whose patriotism no one questioned.

(xx) There is not the slightest evidence of anyattempt by Nehru to suppress the truthabout Bose at any stage or to make falsestatements about his death at Taihoku onAugust 18, 1945. His concession to a

- public demand for enquiry was aninstance of his compliance with democraticprocedures and not an admission of hisdisbelief in the truth of the crash story.

(xxi) The personnel of the Committee appointedby Nehru's government to enquire intoBose's disappearance is ample evidenceof his bona tides. He appointed Bose'sbrother, who could be presumed to makean earnest search for truth about hisbrother and whose appointment would winpublic confidence, The Chairman was ShahNawaz Khan, who was a close associateand confidant of Bose and who had takena very prominent part in I.N.A.'s campaignagainst the British. Shah Nawaz Khan".could, therefore, be depended upon toconduct the enquiry honestly and con-scientiously. The third member was ShriS. N. Maitra, a member of the I.C.S. anda Bengali. He was chosen because of hisadministrative experience, his proved inte-grity and his attachment to Bose whobelonged to his own State.

(xxii) There is no evidence of any attempt by thepresent government to withhold evidenceor place impediments in the way of .thisCommission. All documents called forhave been_ supplied and the delay occa-sioned in making some files and documents

,available cannot be construed as placingobstacles in the progress of the enquiry. k,such delays are a normal feature of gov-ernment red -tape and pre -occupation with..,more urgent matters.

(xxiii) Bose had impressed the Japanese as a greatpatriot and a competent administrator

I could win the confidence of Indians inSouth -East Asia. The Japanese, however,looked upon him not as an equal ally,buf as a person whom they could use fortheir own ends. It was with great reluct-ance that they allowed Bose to organisethe Burma campaign against the Britishforces. The Japanese, however, did notgive adequate assistance to the I.N.A.,and despite promises, they did not h a n tover the occupied territory to the Pro - 4visional Government of Azad Hind. An -instance_ ln_point was the Nicobar andAndaman Islands, the administration ofwhich was not completely entrusted toMaj. General Loganathan, who was sent

*te

as High Commissioner by Bose to takecharge of the Islands. All the evidencepoints to the fact that the Japanese neitherhad complete confidence in I3ose's abilityto lead a large army and secure victoriesover the Allied Forces, nor did they fullytrust him. They, nevertheless, had con-siderable respect for him because theysaw that he was a man of remarkablecourage and unquestioned patriotism.

( xxiv) The Japanese attitude towards Bose under-went a change when the war concluded._The Japanese were more concerned withtrying to retrieve whatever they could oftheir own resources than with giving large-scale help to Bose which would have prov-ed detrimental to their own interests. Alsothe blow to their self-esteem was so vio-lent that they became indifferent to Boseand his future plans.

(xxv) The numerous stories about encounters withBose at various times and various placesafter 1945, are completely false and,unacceptable. They are the result eitherbf hallucination helped by wishful thinkingor have been invented by persons whowanted to draw attention to themselvesand advertise themselves as public-spiritedmen.

9.2 The determination of the findings set downabove brings this inquiry to its conclusion. BeforeI take leave of the matter, I must place on recordmy appreciation of the assistance rendered by thelarge number of the individuals and orga-nisations who have assisted me at all stages of thislong and sometimes arduous undertaking. It is not

125

possible to mention all names, but I am conscious ofa sense of gratitude to many who are not specificallynamed, but who greatly facilitated my task in Indiaand abroad. The readiness with which witnesses inJapan, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. . , _came forward to give evidence was most gratifying.There are also others who rendered much assistanceto me. The counsel appearing in the inquirydeserve my thanks for their courtesy and their senseof duty. I should particularly like to express myappreciation of the assistance rendered by Shri A. P.Chakraborty, who conducted himself completely inaccordance with the highest traditions of the Bar,always courteous, always well prepared, always act-ing with a high sense of integrity and always willingto render real assistance to the Commission. Imust also express my gratitude to the late Shri T. R.

Counsel for the Commission, whose hardwork and impartial summing up were of inestimablevalue to me. He was ably assisted, by his juniorShri S. B. Wad.

9.3 I am beholden to the Commission's staff fortheir unstinted services at all times and more parti-cularly when the pressure of work subjected themto not a little strain. This strain fell more parti-cularly upon the stenographers and typists who hadto work for long hours and type out a voluminousrecord and a long report. Without their co-operation.and help it would not have been possible to conductthis inquiry and complete this report.

JUNE 30, 1974. G. D. KHOSLA

S. No. of Name of Witnesswitness

APPEND IX

List of witnesses examined by the commission

Date Place Volume PagesNo.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Shri Shah Nawaz Khan 16-10-70 New Delhi I 1 -1 2 023-12-70 New Delhi III 799 -9 0124-12-70 New Delhi III 90 2 -9 7 5

27-9-72 New Delhi XIII 400 1-4 048

2. Dr. Satya Narain Sinha 17-10-70 New Delhi I 121 -2 012-11-70 Calcutta I 33 9 -4 0 53-11-70 Calcutta II 406 191

3. Shri Deb Na th Das 19-10-70 New Delhi I 20 2 -2 8 920-10-70 New Delhi I 29 0 -3 3 818-12-72 New Delhi XV 4308-4388

4. Shri Suresh Chandra Bose 3-11-70 Calcutta II 49 2 -5 1 317-11-70 Calcutta II 72 3 -7 4 418-11-70 Calcutta II 7 5 1 -7 7 217-8-72 Calcutta XII 3603-3625

5. Shri Kalipada Dey 4-11-70 Calcutta II 51 4 -5 4 3

6. Shri G. C. Sanyal 4-11-70 Calcutta If 54 4-56 16-11-70 Calcutta II 5 6 2 -6 0 3

7. Shri Sasadhar Majumdar 6-11-70 Calcutta If

8. Shri S. M. Goswami 16-11-70 Calcutta II 642-69118-11-70 Calcutta I i 78 3 -7 9 8

9. Dr. B . N. Roy 16-11-70 Calcutta II 6 9 2 -7 2 2

10. Shri Samsul Zatnan 17-11-70 Calcutta II 7 4 5 -7 5 0

11. Stu i Ramesh Chandra Chanda 18-11-70 Calcutta II ' 77 3 -7 8 2

12. Shri M. L. Sondhi 24-12-70 New Delhi III 97 6-10 00

13. Shri Hira Lal Dixit 24-12-70 New Delhi III 1001-1005

14. Shri Sajjan Lal Totla 24-12-70 New Delhi III 1006-1008

15. Shri Nawal Singh 28-12-70 New Delhi III 1009-1027

16. Shri Utta tn Chand Malhotra 28-12-70 New Delhi III 1028-1077

29-12-70 New Delhi HI 1078-116930-12-70 New Delhi IV 1170-124725-9-72 New Delhi XIII 3938

17. Shri P. S. Lavania 30-12-70 New Delhi IV 1248-1267

18. Shri Bhanu Prasad Umashankar Trivedi 30-12-70 New Delhi IV 1268-1292

19. Shri Gurbachan Singh 31-12-70 New Delhi IV 1293-1296

20. Shri Sharda Prasad Upadhyaya 31-12-70 New Delhi IV 1297-1298

21. Shri Sham Lal Jain 31-12-70 New Delhi IV 1299-1361

4-1-71 New Delhi IV 1362-1400

22. Shri Namvar Upadhyaya 4-1-71 New Delhi IV 1401-1422

23. Shri U. C. Sharma 4-1-71 New Delhi IV 1423-1432

5-1-71 New Delhi IV 1433-1452

126

(1) (2) (3)

127

(4) (5) (6)

24. Shri Brijendra Swaroop 5-1-71 New Delhi IV 145 3-1 466

25. Shri Mahesh Chandra 5-1-71 New Delhi IV 1467-1472

26. Shri Raja Ram Dixit `Neeraj* 5-1-71 New Delhi IV 1473-1511

27. Shri Moot Chand Arya 5-1-71 New Delhi IV 1512-1515

28. Shri S. C. Sengupta 6-1-71 New Delhi IV 151 6-1 634

29. Shri S. A. Iyer 20-1-71 Bombay V 1641-171421-1-71 Bombay V 1715-1767

' 18-10-72 Bombay XIV 4063-4111

19-10-72 Bombay XIV 4127

30. Shri E. Bhaskaran 21-1-71 Bombay V 176 8-4 77419-10-72 Bombay XIV 411 2-4 126

31. Dr. S. K. Joshi 21-1-71 Bombay V 1775-1778

32. Shri Usman Patel 21-1-71 Bombay V 1779-178322-1-71 Bombay V 17 84 -1 78 928-9-72 New Delhi XIII 4049--4962

33. Shri S. S. Padheye 22-1-71 Bombay V 179 0-17 92

34. Shri M. A. Jamal 22-1-71 Bombay V 179 3-1 795

35. Shri M. S. Doshi 22-1-71 Bombay V 1796-1801

36. Shri R. B. Vermani 22-1-71 Bombay V 1802-1804

37. Col. B. S. Raturi 1-3-71 New Delhi V 182 0-18 39

38. Shri Jagdish Kodesia 1-3-71 New Delhi V 1840-1877

39. Shri Madan Mohan Prabhakar 2-3-71 New Delhi V 189 8-1 900

40. Shri Ram Surat Ram 2-3-71 New Delhi V 190 1-1 912

41. Col. Mahboob Ahmed 3-3-71 New Delhi V 19 13 -1 94 2

42. Col. Thakur Singh 3-3-71 New Delhi V 19 4 3-1 95 9,3-3-71 New Delhi ' V 19 7 4-1 97 5

I ).. 43. Swami Nirwanananda 3-3-71 New Delhi V 196 0-1 973

44. Shri Hem Raj Batai 3-3-71 New Delhi V 197 6-1 978

45. Lt. Gen. Fujiwara 30-3-71 V Tokyo VI 19 83 -1 99 3

46. Mr. Tadashi Ando 30-3-71 Tokyo V 199 4-1 999

47. Mr. Tadao Sakai 31-3-71 Tokyo VI 200 6-20 16

48. Mr. Attur Sain Jain 31-3-71 Tokyo VI 200 0-2 005

49. Mr. K. V. Narain 2-4-71 Tokyo VI 20 17 -2 04 9

50. Mr. Negishi 5-4-71 Tokyo VI 2050-20618-4-71 Tokyo VI 216 4-2 191

51. Mr. Hachia 6-4-71 Tokyo VI 20 6 2-2 09 6

52. Mr. Koji Takamiya 6-4-71 Tokyo VI 209 7-2 109

53. Col. Shiro Nonogaki 7-4-71 Tokyo VI 211 0-2 1468-4-71 Tokyo VI 215 5-2 163

54. Mr. Watanabe 8-4-71 Tokyo VI 2147-2154

55. Mr. Ahira Kyuru 10-4-71 U. -Kobe VI 2 1 9 2 -2 1 9 1

-4- 56. Mr. M. J. Patel 10-4-71 Kobe VI 2195, 4V 57. Mr. D. C. Gupta 10-4-71 Kobe VI 2196

58. Mr. Bhagwandas Mulkhraj Jhaveri 10-4-71 Kobe VI 2197

.., 59. Mr. Ram Singh Gulani 10-4-71 Kobe VI 2198

--4. 60. Mr. Hans Raj 10-4-71 Kobe VI 2199

(1) (2)

61. Mr. Tatsuo Hayashida

1 62. Mr. J . Murti

63. Mr. Taro Kono (Major)

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

Mr. Koji Asada

Mr. Takashashi

Mr. Shigetaka Sugiura

Mr. Kenichi Sakai

Mr. Suburo Isoda

Mr. Yoshio Ishii (Dr.)

Lt. Col. Masanari Shibnya

Mr. Mono T aka ku ra

Dr. Taneyashi Yoshimi

Shri T. L. Sasivarna Thever

Shri R. Srinivasa Iyengar

Maj. Gen. S. C. Allagappan

Shri M. Ramamurti

Shri M. Sivaraman

78. Shri K. P. Kesva Menon

79, Dr. S. Vasava Menon

80. Col. (Dr.) B. Ramachandra Rao

81. Dr. B. M. Bhuyan

82. Lt. Col. (Dr.) B. M. Pattanayak

83. Shri Datta Jagtap

84. Shri P. M. Karapurkar

85. Shri S. P. Kathimath

86. Shri Dina Nath

87. Shri Zora Singh

88. Shri Gautam Bhardwaj

89. Dr. Ba Maw

90. Shri P. P. Narayanan

91. Shri A. K. Chaudhury

92. Shri S. S. Vii ik

93. Senator Dato Athi Nahappan

94. Datin (Mr s.) Athi Nahappan

95. Snit. R. Bhupalan

96. Dr. A. N. Ray

97. Smt. Anima Ray

98. Shri A. Guru pathan

99. Smt. Satees at hi Naidu

100. Shri K. N. S. Iyer

101. Shi i K. P. N. Nair

102. Shri Xaviour Samy

(3)

12-4-71

12-4-71

13-4-7114-4-71

13-4-71

14-4-71

14-4-71

16-4-71

16-4-71

22-4-71

23-4-71

23-4-71

24-4-71

7-7-71

7-7-71

8-7-71

7-7-71

12-7-7113-7-71

13-7-71

14-4-71

9-8-71

9-8-71

10-8-71

23-8-71

23-8-71

24-8-71

11-10-71

11-10-71

11-10-71

12-10-71

14-10-71

14-10-71

14-10-71

14-10-71

14-10-71

14-10-71

15-10-71

15-10-71

15-10-71

15-10-71

15-10-71

15-10-71

16-10-71

128

(4) (5)

Tokyo

Tokyo

TokyoTokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo .

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo '

Tokyo

Tokyo

Miyazaki

Madras

Madras

Madras

Trivandrum

TrivandrumTrivandrum

Trivandrum

Trivandrum

Puri

Puri

Puri

Panjim

Paulin'

Panjim

4 , Rangoon

Rangoon

Rangoon

Rangoon

Kaula Lampur

Kuala Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

Kaula Lampur

(6)

VI 2200-2225

VI 2226-2253

VI 2254-2288VI 234 2-2 348

VI 228 9-2 302

VI 23 03 -2 33 4

VI 2335-2341

VI 2349-2359

VI 2360-2401

VI 2407..2419

VI 2420-2444

VI 2443-2454

VI 2455-2478

VII 2479-2491

VII 2492-2494

VII 2498-2509

VII 2510-2529

VII 2530-2536VII 2542-2545

VII 2537-2541

VII 2546-2559

VII 2565-2589

VII 2590-2593

VII 2594-2601

VII 2602-2617

VII 2618-2620

VII 2621-2630

VIII 2631-2638

VEIl 263 9-2 642

VIII 2643-2645

VIII 2645-2648

VIII 2649-2652

VIII 2653-2657

VIII 2658---2662

VIII 2663--2665

VIII 2666--2668

VIII 2669-2671

VIII 2672-2673

VIII 2674-2675

VIII 2676-2678

VIII 2679-2681

VIII 2682-2684

VIII 2685-2686

VIII 268 7-2 692

129

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

103. Shri Gandhi Nathan 16-10-71 Kaula Lampur VIII 2693-2598

104. Shri Chatter Singh 16-10-71 Kaula Lampur VIII 2699

105. Shri V. Samy 19-10-71 Singapore VIII 2700-2701

106. Shri M. Micheal 19-10-71 Singapore VIII 2702.

107. Shri Syed Mumtaz Hussain Shah 19-10-71 Singapore VIII 2703-2706

108. Shri H. Mohinder Singh 19-10-71 Singapore VIII 2707-2708

109. Shri Meharvan Singh 19-10-71 Singapore VIII 270 9-27 10

110. Shri S. Abdual Jabbar alias Jaffar 19-10-71 Singapore VIII 2711

111. Shri N. M. Kengaraju 20-10-71 Singapore VIII 2712-2713

112. Shri N. Kuruppiah 20-10-71 Singapore VIII 2713-2716

113. Shri G. Sarangapani 21-10-71 Singapore VIII 2717-2718

114. Shri Kashi Nath Yadav 21-10-71 Singapore VIII 271 9-27 20

115. Shri Sadhu Singh 21-10-71 Singapore VIII 2721

116. Shri Hardit Singh 21-10-71 Singapore VIII 2722-2723

117. Shri John Jacob 22-10-71 Singapore VIII 272 4-27 25

118. Shri S. Ramanujam 22-10-71 Singapore VIII 272 6-2 727

119. Shri Bhulan Yadav 22-10-71 Singapore VIII 2728

120. Shri George Cheah 22-10-71 Singapore VIII 272 9-2 731

121. Shri Chhedi Rai Sharma 22-10-71 Singapore VIII 2732

122. Shri P. G. S. Nair 25-10-71 1- Penang VIII 273 3-27 35

123. Shri Harbans Singh 25-10-71 Penang VIII 273 6-2 737

124. Shri P. S. Patel 25-10-71 Penang VIII 273 8-2 739

125. Shri Joga Singh 25-10-71 Penang VIII 2740-2741

126. Ski V. P. Thomas 25-10-71 Penang VIII 2742

127. Shri N. K. Menon 25-10-71 Penang VIII 274 3-27 44

128. Shri T. B. Gopal Krishir 25-10-71 Penang VIII 2745

129. Shri Balwant Singh 25-10-71 Penang VIII 2746-2747

130. Shri Harbans Singh 26-10-71 Penang VIII 27 4 8-2 74 9

131. Shrimati Satwant Kaur 26-10-71 Penang VIII 2750

132. Shri M. K. Mathu Ramalingam Pillai 26-10-71 Penang VIII 2751-2753

133. Shri La! Singh 26-10-71 Penang VIII 27 5 4-2 75 5

134. Shri D. S. Joshi 26-10-71 Penang VIII 27561-135. Shri Pratap Singh 28-10-71 Bangkok VIII 275 7-2 759

136. Shri C. Rai Narula 28-10-71 Bangkok VIII 275 7-2 759

137. Shri Ram La! Sachdeva 29-10-71 Bangkok VIII 27 60 -2 76 2

138. Shri S. T. Mehtani 29-10-71 Bangkok VIII 2762-2766

139. Shri Darshan Singh Bajaj 1-11-71 Bangkok VIII 2767-2768

140. Shri Ishar Singh 1-11-71 Bangkok VIII 2769-2772

141. Shri M. K. Unnithan 1-11-71 Bangkok VIII 277 2-2 774

142. Shri Alma Ram Jain 4-11-71 Bangkok VIII 2775-2778

4-11-71 Bangkok VIII 27 79 -2 78 0

144. Shri C. U. Chandiramani 4-11-71 Bangkok VIII 278 2-27 93

145. Shri Abdul Hameed 4-11-71 Bangkok VIII 2794

146. Shri Mulka Govind Reddy, M.P. 30-5-72 New Delhi IX 2814-2842

130

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

147. Shri H. V. Kamath ' 31-5-72 ' , i New Delhi IX 2843-2881, 1-6-72 New Delhi IX 2882-2911 ,

148. Prof. Samar Cuba, M.P. , 2-6-72 New Delhi - IX 2912-2960

5-7-72 New Delhi IX 2982-300129-3-73 New Delhi XVI 4464-4489

149. Shri T . L. Sundra Rao 5-7-72 ' ' New Delhi IX 2961-2981

150. Shri Barun Sengupta 6-7-72 New Delhi IX 3002-3040

151. Slid Prakash Vir Shastri 24-7-72 New Delhi IX 3065-3074

152. Shri S. R. Mirchandani , 24-7-72 New Delhi IX 3075-3096,

153. , Shri Gulzara Singh 25-7-72 New Delhi IX 309 7-31 30

154. Shri Surcndra Mohan Gliosh 25-7-72 New Delhi X 3131--3147,

155. Shri Pritam Singh (Col.) ' , 25-7-72 New Delhi X 314 8-3 179

156. Dr. R. M. Kazliwal 26-7-72 New Delhi X 318 0-3 206

157. Maj. S. Abid Hassan 26-7-72 New Delhi X 3207 -3251

158. Shri R. C. Iyer 7-8-72 New Delhi XI 3267-3277

159. Shri S. K. Uppal 7-8-72 New Delhi XI 327 8-32 80

160. Shri Krishna Murari Lal Saxena 7-8-72 New Delhi XI 328 1-3 283161. Shri B. N. Mullick 8-8-72 New Delhi XI 3285--3342

162. Shri Dwijendra Nath Bose 8-8-72 ' New Delhi XI 3343-3391

9-8-72 , New Delhi XI 339 2-3 41411-8-72 New Delhi XI 359 7-36 02

163. Shri A. Tayaram 9-8-72 New Delhi XI 331 5-3 420

164. Shri A. M. Sahay 9-8-72 New Delhi XI 3421-346310-8-72 New Delhi xi 346 4-3 54611-8-72 - " New Delhi XI 3547-3571

165. Shri Aurobindo Bose ' 11-8-72 New Delhi ' XI 357 2-35 96

166. Shri Satya Ranjan Bakshi 18-8-72 Calcutta XII " ' ' 3626-3648

167. Shri P. C. Sen 4-9-72 Calcutta ' XII 3649-3674

168. Shri P. C. Chakravarty 5-9-72 Calcutta - XIE ' 3675-3754

169. Shri Sunil Das 6-9-72 Calcutta XII 375 5-3 802

170. Smt. I l la Pal Chaudhry 20-9-72 New Delhi XIII 380 3-3 817

171. Shri Kamal Guha 21-9-72 New Delhi XIII 381 8-38 26 '

172. Shri A. C. Das 21-9-72 New Delhi XIII 3827-3851

173. Shri Muku nd Parekh 21-9-72 New Delhi XIII 385 2-3 856

174. Shri N. D. Maju mdar 22-9-72 New Delhi XIII 38 5 7-3 92 2

175. Captain L. C. Talwar 25-9-73 New Delhi XI II 3923-3937

176. Dr. Pabitr a Roy 25-9-72 New Delhi XIII . 3938--3975

177. Shri Chaplakant Bhattacharya 26-9-72 New Delhi . XIII 398 0-4 000

178. Shri K. K. Shah, Governor , Tamil Nadu 10-11-72 Madras XIV 412 8-4 132

179. Shri Jagdish Chandra Sinha 4-12-72 Calcutta XIV 4133-41416-12-72 Calcutta XIV 4231-4271

180. Shri Subosh Kr. Das of Hindustan 4-12-72 Calcutta XIV 4142

Standard .

181. Shri Dhruba Chatterjee of Amrita 4-12-72 , Calcutta XIV 4142 ,

Bazar Patrika'

182. Shri Amiya Nath Bose 4-12-72 Calcutta XIV 41 4 3-4 18 0

(1) (2)

131

(3) (4) (5) (6)

183. Dr. S. N. Dutt

184. Lt. N. B. Das

185. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar

186. Shri Amitava Chowdhury

187. Shri Shyamal Chattopadhyay (Dr.)

188. Shri Brajagopal Mukherjee

189. Shri Sangaika of Aizwal

190. Shri Chandra Singh Rawat, M.L.A.

191. Air Vice Marshal D.A.R. Nanda

192. Shri Niranjan Singh Talib

193. Shri Chandra Pardasani

194. Shri Mubarak Mazdoor

195. Shri Pradeep Bose

196. Shrimati Malabika Dutta

197. Shri Amar ivlajumdar

198. Shri Nikunja Bihari Haoldai

199. Major S. C. Kar

200. Shri M. Maninder Singh

701. Shri H. Nilomani Singh

202. Shri Mawu Angami

203. Mr. Lai Min Yee

204. Mr. Tao Yung

205. Mr. Lin Chun Chan

206. Mr. Lu Kuo Rwa

207. Mr. Chang Chuen

208. Mr. Lin Chuan

209. Mr. Kao Ytm Tsung

210. Mr. Way Yun Peng

211. Mr. Lin Chin Yen

/12. Mr. Rama Swaroop

/13. Mr. Y. R. Tseng

/14. Pritam Singh

/15. Ft. Lt. R. Kannan

216. Shri Har Prasad Rai

/17. Shri N. K. Gulati

/18. Shri D. N. Sharma

219. Shri Prem Bhatia

2/0. General Wadalia (Varincler Singh)

//1 . Shri V. P. Nanda

222. Shri Asok Gupta ,

223. Dr. Lokesh Chandra

224. Shri Vira Dhammavara "

Sr8 M of HA/74-19.

5-12-72

5-1/-7/

5-12-72

6-12-7/

6-12-72

6-12-72

7-12-72

19-12-72

20-12-7/

/0-1/-7/

/0-1%72

9-4-73

9-4-73

10-4-73

10-4-73

11-4-73

11-4-73

13-4-73,

13-4-73

15-4-73

13-7-73

13-7-73

13-7-73

13-7-73

13-7-73

13-7-73

14-7-73

14-7-73

16-7-73

17-7-73

17-7-73

17-7-73

10-9-73

10-9-73

17-9-73

17-9-73

17-9-73

8-10-73

11-10-73

18-10-73

19-10-73

30-10-73

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Silchar

New Dehil

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Calcutta

Moirang (Imphal)

- d o- -

Nowgang

Taipei

Ta:pei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

Taipei

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

XIV 4181

XIV 4182-4189

XIV 4190-4217

XIV 4218-4230

XIV 4272-4287

XIV 4288-4290

XV 4291-4307

XV 4389-4414

XV 4415-4418

XV 4419-4461

XV , 4462-4463

XVI 4495-4517

XVI 4518-4549

XVI 4550-4557

XVI 4560-4572

XV I 4574-4578

XVI 4579-4585

XVI 4586-4589

XV I 4590

XVI 4591-4602

XVI I 4603-4610

XVI I 4611

Xv i i 4612-4617

XVI I 4618-4620

XVI I 4621-4636

XVI I 4637-4643

XVI I 4644-4649

XVI I 4650-4651

XVII 4652-4653

XVI I 4656-4661

XVI I 4662-1665

XVI I 4666-4674

XVI I I 4720-4721

XVI I I 4722 -47/5

XVI I I 4800-1801

XVI I I 4802-4803

XVII I 4805-4807

XVI I I 4911-4934

XVI I I 4958-4960

XVI I I 5004-5006

XVI I I 5013-5029

XVI I I 5055-5059

S.No. Name of the Counsel

2

APPENDIX If

List of counsel who appeared before Netaji Inquiry Commission

-Party represented Place Date(s)

5

October 15 & 16, 1970

3 4

1. Shri Amiyanath Bose National Committee for New DelhiAssisting Netaji In-quiry Commission

2. ShD i1 . K. Lala . . . 1970

October 16 & 17, 19 & 20.

, December 28 to 31.

3. Shr i R. K. Sinha.

4 . Shri J . P. Mitter .

5. Shri A. K. Sen . .

6. Shri Govinda Mukhoty

- d o -

December 23 & 24, 1970.

Calcutta16 to 18.

New Delhi November 17, 1973.March 14, 1974.

1973

September 10, 20, 24, 26 to 28.October 8 to 12, 15 to 18 & 26.

November 2 , 5, 12 to 16.December 5,6, 10, 11, 14, 17,

_ - 18 & 22.

1974

January 14 to 19, 21 to 25,28 to 31.

February 1, 7, 8, 13 to 15, 21,22, 25 & 26.

. Shri Amar Prasad Chakraborty . National Committee and Calcutta 1970

Forward Bloc

Remarks

November 2, 3, 4, 6, 16, 17 & 18.

1972

August 17& 18.e September 4 to 6.

December 4 to 6.

TokyoMadrasTrivandrumPuri - -PanajiSilcharNew Delhi 1970

December 28 to 31.

132

6

133

:44

8. Shri Balraj Trikha National Committee New DelhiNetan Swagat Samiti New Delhi

CalcuttaTokyoBangkok

9. Shri Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar . (i) National Committee New Delhi

(ii) Shri Suresh Bose andmembers of Netaji's

family.

10. Shri P. K. Bose .

11. Shri Gopi Nath Dixit .

12. Sin i T. R. Bhasin .

. Shri Suresh Bose

Calcutta

New DelhiCalcutta

Shri Shah NawaziKhan New Delhi

Senior . Counsel for the New Delhi

Commission

Bombay

1971

January 4 & 5

1972

May 29 to 31.June 1 and 2.July 5 to 7, 24 to 26.Aug. 7 to 11.Sept. 20 to 22, 25 to 27.Dec. 18 to 20.

1 1973

March 29 & 30.October 17 to 19,23 & 26.November 2.

1974

Much 11 to 14.

1970 --October 16.1970 --October 17, 19 & 20.

March 1, 2, 3.

December 23, 24, 28 to 31.

3, 4, 6.16, 17 & 18.

Sept. 4 & 5.December 4.

June 1 & 2.July 5 to 7 & 24 to 26.August 7 to 11.Sept. 20 to 22, 25 to 28.December 18 to 20.

Sept. 10 to 14, 17 to 21 and24 to 28.

October 8 to 12, 15 to 19,22 to 24, 26, 30 &31.

November I, 5, 7, 8, 12 to 16,19 & 20.

December 5,6, 10 to 14, 17 to 19,

i34

3 4 6

Calcutta

Sept. 4 to 6.Dec. 4 to 6.1973 --April 9 to 11.

Silchar

Imphal

Nowgang

Madras

Taipei 13, 14, 16 & 17.

13. Shri S. B. Wad . . . junior Counsel for the New Delhi

Commission

14. Shri Ganesh

Bombay

New Delhi

August 7 to 11.Sept. 20 to 22 & 25 to 28.

December 18 to 20.10 to 14, 17 to 21 and

24 to 28.Oct. 8 to 12, 15 to 19,30 & 3 I.Nov. 2 5 12 16 19 & 20.Dec. 5, 6, 10 to 14, 17 to 22 & 27.

24, 25 & 28 to 31.

February 1, 7, 8, 14, 21, 22 & 26.March 12 to 14.

November 1, 7, 8, 13, 14& 15.

1. It was Netaji's idea to continue the struggle forthe liberation of India. This was thought of by Netajisome time before Germany and Japan surrenderedand which Netaji had at that time said to a selectedfew that they would sooner or later lose the war.Netaji also discussed with his Cabinet members aboutthis point.

04e

If Since October 1944, when Netaji visited Tokyo,rhe carried out these intentions of his and attempted to

contact the Russian Ambassador, and finally decidedto go to Manchuria with that purpose in view.

2. Whether the plane crash did take place? Theplane carrying Netaji did crash. There is no otherevidence to the contrary; the evidence should beconsidered carefully and in details.

3. Whether Netaji met his death as a result of thisaccident ? The witnesses support this story. Thereis no reason why they should be disbelieved. After alapse of about 10 years, these witnesses, who belongto different walks of life and of different nationalities,Habib an Indian and subsequently a Pakistani and the

-others, who are Japanese who mostly are unconnected2with one another and no longer subordinates of their

--4°Government and Japan not being a totalitarian State,would not be expected to state what was not true.

Enquiries made subsequently (1) by British Intelli-gence teams operating from Delhi and (2) British andAmerican Intelligence teams operating from Tokyo(3) non -official Enquiry appear to corroborate thestatements of these eye -witnesses and a few others,who appeared on the scene immediately after.

A person of the status of Netaji as Head of a State,that was not only recognised by Japan, but was helpedmaterially in every way by Japan and vice versawas not given the requisite facility and honour dueto him, from the very start, viz, by providing a sepa-, t e plane or seats for him and for all of his asso-ciates; treatment in a small hospital with a juniormedical manner of cremation; dis-posal of ashes etc. all without due honour and res-pect, viz., full military funeral : body placed on a guncarriage with full military honours etc.

I f

30-6-1956 for draft , Report

4. Cremation :

the 2 doctors and some ofthe subordinate Hospital staff.

Main ( I ) Habib (2) Nakamuraand (3)rative. .

Re : of secrecy may be arguedonly.

Re : interestedness, so theirstories supporting Habib, takes awaymost of charge against Habib for oath ofsecrecy; in what way could they beobliged to Habib?

No other suggestion that the body was disposedof in any other manner --So bodycremated.

The evidence of the doctors will' have to bediscussed very carefully, as it will surelybe a matter of detailed criticism byeminent doctors throughout the world.

5. Ashes : Ashes from the crematorium to Renkoji

then to Tokyo etc.

There is nothing to show that there was tempering,but to prove that it was definitely those of Netaji,much more stringent measures required by law shouldhave been taken and a different and very strict proce-dure by way of seals, guards, etc. should have beentaken.

In all probability, the ashes could be said to bethose of Netaji.

6. Treasure :

Comments should be minimum.

Evidence recorded by us should be placed in aguarded manner.

We may state that out of the quantity carr ied byNetaji, a portion eventually was deposited in theNational Archives.

135

136

The dropping of the treasure from the plane, itscharred and molten condition and identification ofsome items, would help the report.

We should state that this may be the subject -matterof a separate Enquiry and this Enquiry should startfrom the complete assets, in cash and kind andliabilities of thc Azad Hind Government.

7. ShrFrhevar's shatements and statements of ShriCotswold:

Their statements should be discussed while dealingwith Netaji's, death or otherwise and a little more indetails separately later on.

Draft by Shri S. N. Mount.

Draft -10-7-1956.

Discussion, cotrection and finalisation. 13-7-1956.

of India. 16-7-1956.

S. C. Bose2-7-1956

- Illegible.2-7-1956

Shah Nawaz Kh2-7-19

I n 7

S. No. Name of the book

I . I.N.A. and its Netaji

2 : Unto Him a Witness . .

3. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose .

4. Springing Tiger

S. Gallant End of Netaji . .

6. Netaji Mystery

7. Netaji in Germany

8. Netaji Mystery Revealed . .

9. Netaji Inquiry Committee Iterori, 1956

10. Dissenting Report . . . .

11. Chinese Aggression .

12. On the Himalayan Front . .

13. China Strikes . . . .

14. I warned my Countrymen . . .

15. Last Days of the British Raj .

16. India from Curzon to Nehru and After

17. Viceroy Journal . .

18. Shaulmari Sadhu Hi Netaji (Hindi) .

19. Swadhinta Sangram Ke Sainani (Hindi)

1, 20. When Bose was Ziattddin . .

21. Indian National Congress Resolutions .

22. Everest Is It Conquered .

APPENDIX IV

Lists of books referred to

000

137

Majni Gen. Shah Nawaz Khan

S. A. lyer

raistio Hyashida

U Toye

Ilarin Shah

Saiyanarain Sinha

N. 0. Oanpuky

S. M. Goswarni

. S. C. Rose

. Dr. Satyanarain Sinha

. Dr. Satyanarain Sinha

Dr. Satyanarain Sinha

. S. C. Bose

. Leonard Mosely

. Durga Das

. I,ord Wd CII

. Hint I .al Disit

. Shri Rain Eatelipuria

. Uttam Chand Malhotra

, March, 1940 -September, 1946

. S. M. Goswami

,

PR I NTED BY TH E MANAGER, GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS, RING ROAD, N E W D E L H I ,

1974

,,