Some Old But Important Articles

Khan Abdur Gaffar Khan's Statement

Mysterious Lady's Sensational Confession

Black Box Of History On 12th June ’2010

Country Must Know What Happend To Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

A Special  Screening of the Documentary Film “Black Box Of History” Directed By Amlan Kusum Ghose on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose has been organised on 12th June ’2010, Saturday at 2 pm in Rabindra Bhavan, Asansol, West Bengal.

Panelists of Screening Dr. Pabitra Kumar Gupta (Former vice chancellor) Prof. Nando Chakraborty (Presidency Collage) Dr. Madhu Sudan Pal, (Head of the Cardiology Department Medical Collage) Sh.Bijoy Nag, (editor Jayshree) and Amlan Kusum Ghose (Director Of The Documentary – Black Box Of History).

Entry For Free.

The rabbit hole of Netaji mystery

As of today, the Netaji mystery maze has only two ways out. One leads to Russia, and the other to Faizabad. This I am stating with some knowledge of the issues involved. Inclusive of the myriad Netaji turned sadhu baba tales.

The point is, on scrutiny the entire gamut of theories vanish leaving only the aforementioned two premises. One can say whatever one wishes to — Netaji was in Guna, Dehradun, Sheopurkalan, or he was killed in the Red Fort — but without some backup evidence nothing is going to pass muster.

As things stand now, the seminal findings of the Mukherjee Commission will require to be worked upon to bring about an end to the controversy. It has been confirmed that Netaji flew towards the USSR even as his friends in the Imperial Japanese Army cooked up the news of his death. This begs the question: What happened to Netaji in the USSR? Right now there is nothing to conclusively prove that he was even there. Our Government isn’t interested; they formed an opinion long ago that Bose had died in Taiwan.

The Russians have given some inadequate information to them on the lines that Bose never came to the USSR in 1945 and afterwards. (An attempt by my friends and I to access the complete information under the RTI has not succeeded.) All we are left with are some intelligence and other reports saying Bose was in the USSR. Those bits might help one to form some belief or make further inquiries, which won’t be possible without the Government’s assistance.

Many people think that Netaji never got out of the USSR. They allege that he was kept a prisoner in a Siberian gulag and subsequently liquidated sometime during the Stalin era. Stalin butchered millions of his own people, he was not expected to show any affection to Subhas — the logic goes. Researcher VP Saini, who wrote a book titled ‘Conspirators, Abductors and Killers of Netaji?’ publicly says that former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was tacitly responsible for Netaji’s fate. Noted Russia expert Dr Purabi Roy is of the similar opinion. Personally, I have not come across anything credible to suggest that Bose was eliminated in the USSR.

The fascinating tale of Bhagwanji is on the other end of spectrum. Its preposterous outlook makes it repulsive to most people. Anyhow, for a variety of reasons, including a report given by India’s top handwriting expert, this case has something to stand on. But more investigation is required to arrive at a conclusion about Bhagwanji’s identity. This is taking into account Mukherjee Commission’s disapproval of the Bhagwanji angle “in absence of any clinching evidence”. That is, there was some evidence, but not enough. For instance, let’s see this passage from the report:

“Apparently, there is no reason for not acting or relying upon the evidence of the last two categories of witnesses particularly of the category who had seen Netaji before 1945 and also met Bhagwanji/Gumnami Baba face to face on a number of occasions, more so when their evidence regarding the frequent visits of some freedom fighters, eminent politicians and former members of INA on January 23 and during the Durga Puja festival is supported by the fact that letters written by some of them including Prof Samar Guha, Dr Pabitra Mohan Roy and Ms Leela Roy were found in `Rambhawan’.”

But, as the report noted, “there are other formidable facts and circumstances on record which stand in the way of this Commission in arriving at a conclusive finding that Bhagwanji/Gumnami Baba was none other than Netaji”.

As I see them, those facts and circumstances are:

1. The passing away of Bhagwanji’s front-ranking associates who could have given unimpeachable evidence.

2. Absence of any photographic evidence.

3. Negative results thrown up by forensic tests performed by governmental labs on Bhagwanji’s handwritings and some teeth believed to be his.

As regards point 3, no reliance can be placed on the judgment drawn on the Netaji disappearance case by any individuals or institutions linked to the Government of India. The Government’s apparent aim is to hush up the matter and if anyone is willing to buy the word of their labs on Bhagwanji DNA test, etc, they should also go along with the Government’s version that Netaji died in Taiwan. I hear the believers in the Russia angle coming up with inconsistent arguments. They won’t believe the Government side when it comes to Russia, but will believe them on Bhagwanji. They can’t have a pick and choose policy to suit their thoughts.

I fear if the Renkoji ashes, or for that matter some pieces of bone china crockery, are tested for DNA matching here in India, they will be proven to be Netaji’s remains. If I have formed such a negative opinion about my own government, it is only after coming across their misdeeds over this case. Those who have openly obstructed the justice can go to any extent to keep things under wraps.

It is in this background that I’d like you to consider the following hypotheses, rather allegations, purporting to offer further insight into the Netaji mystery. They are to the effect that:

1. Our Government has been aware as to what happened to Netaji. They left him to rot in Stalin’s Russia.

2. The sadhu baba stories were planted by the Government with the twin purpose of diluting the Russian angle and trivilising the entire issue.

3. The game started in early 1960s with Shoulmari baba. BN Mullick, the famed Director of Intelligence Bureau and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s right hand man, was behind it.

I am led to believe that our Government does have a good idea about the case. Two, there was something fishy about the sadhu of Shoulmari. The fellow who was said to be the administrator of the Shoulmari ashram was possibly an Intelligence Bureau officer.

And, I can’t help notice that the propagators of Shoulmari and other babas evidently had no insight into Netaji’s disappearance from Saigon. While countering the plane crash theory, which they had to, these people lifted arguments of Professor Samar Guha, who used to frequent Bhagwanji. Shoulmari and other babas also skipped the Russian angle, which I think is a reality so far as Netaji’s going there is concerned.

Bhagwanji called the Shoulmari subterfuge a “parallel bluff” and talked about “his” escaping to the USSR via Diren in Manchuria after a “concocted air crash”. He made an allegation about a top Azad Hind Government Minister – which rings true if we look at still classified records. It was rather intriguing for a holy man to talk about the functioning of prisons camps in Siberia. He gave out more details which appear to be the reasons why could not come out. One gets goose pimples thinking should they turn out to be true.

I fail to understand one thing: If indeed Netaji had been killed in the USSR in early 1950s, and some agency set up fake babas early 1960s onwards, what purpose would it have served? Why would the Government, which allegedly had things to hide, would shoot itself in foot by starting off a frenzy over a dead issue? What did Bhagwanji mean by “parallel bluff”? Why was the Central Intelligence Agency of America receiving dope on Subhas Bose as late as 1964? Didn’t those guys had better things to do?!

Some of the arguments made before Khosla Commission were hair-raising. It was charged that the Intelligence Bureau, a bugbear in those days, was on a lookout for information related to Bose. I remember one statement verbatim: “When the Government of India has accepted Shah Nawaz Committee’s report that Netaji is dead then how is it that the Intelligence Department goes after every news when it appears that Netaji is not dead and he is alive?”

All this (which is only a fraction of the facts I have collated in my book) call for some investigation if the people of this country think that the ambit of justice and truth also includes the case of Bose, as it does that of Jessica Lall. Such an investigation will have to be undertaken in the right earnest by our Government taking the public in full confidence. But as a prerequisite, they will do well to release all the information they, and their intelligence agencies, are sitting on. Then, they could take up the matter with the Russian Government at the highest level. They can always take a leaf out of Swedes’ book. After a decade of dogged pursuit, they managed to get the truth about Raoul Wallenberg out from the Russians. We won’t to wait that long. The Russians are our friends, and our Prime Minister is an admirer of Netaji.

The truth is out there. We can get to it by taking the issue head on, not by turning our backs on it. The starting point is Russia. The endgame could be in Russia or Faizabad. This is the point we have reached in the veritable rabbit hole of India’s biggest cover-up.

Anuj Dhar | Author: Back from Dead: Inside the Subhas Bose Mystery

Source: Facebook

China’s India policy: Murder with borrowed knives

Fears that China could employ a strategy of “murdering with borrowed knives” against India does not seem totally unfounded. A

leading Chinese think-tank , whose views count with the Beijing’s Communist administration, has put forward an outrageous suggestion that China should break India into 20-30 independent states with the help of “friendly countries” like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan.

The article, written by Zhan Lue and titled “If China takes a little action , the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,” has aroused strong sentiments in India where many see this as a reflection of the hardline thinking in Beijing.

Published on the website of a think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues, the article makes a series of preposterous suggestions saying that a fragmented India would be in China’s interests and also lead to prosperity in the region. Responding to the inflammatory nature of the suggestions, India issued a warning and a word of caution.

“We continue to maintain that opinions and assessment on the state of India-China relations should be expressed after careful judgment based on the long-term interests of building a stable relationship between the two countries,’’ MEA official spokesperson Vishnu Prakash said.

Giving the benefit of doubt to Beijing, MEA said the article “appears to be the expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations” , conveyed to India on several occasions most recently by the State Councilor Dai Bingguo during border talks last week.

Nevertheless, the reaction suggests that the article is not being taken lightly by New Delhi. China watchers point out that an article of this nature would have been vetted by the Chinese government. The article, which is published on the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), suggests that China should work towards breaking up India into 20-30 nation-states like Europe so that social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march towards prosperity.

Asking the Communist party to exploit regional sentiments in India, the article says that China can seek support of friendly countries including Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan to further this strategy. The article terms India as “Hindu religious state” that is based on caste exploitation which is coming in the way of modernisation.

It further argues that China in its own interest and the progress of whole of Asia should join forces with “different nationalities” like Assamese, Tamils and Kashmiris and support them in establishing independent nation states of their own. The article further said Beijing should support the United Liberation Front of Asom to help achieve independence for Assam from India.

Yet another suggestion is that China give political support to Bangladesh to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India get rid of “Indian control” and join Bangladesh as one Bengali nation. The strategist contends that if that is not possible then China should encourage the creation of a Bengali nation state for the aim of weakening India’s expansion and then recover the 90,000 sq km territory in Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing claims as its own.

The publication of the article has coincided with the 13th round of India-China border talks, which both sides have termed as positive. But pressure points have remained in Sino-Indian ties which have continued to flare up at regular intervals.

This includes the recent attempt by China to block an ADB loan to Arunachal Pradesh. Strategic experts here see it as a reflection of the growing hardline approach in China towards India. `This is part and parcel of hardline approach of think tanks (in China). They are trying to take advantage of India’s pliability,’’ said Mr Brahma Chellaney.

Source: Economic Times