Author: Sumeru Roy Chaudhury

How Japan Scuttled Subash Chandra Bose’s Plans to Return to India

Japan played a dubious role in the life of Netaji. While every country has opened up all Netaji files, Japan remains the only country to keep three files on Netaji ‘Secret’ even after 78 years. Japan owes an explanation.

People like to believe what they want to believe. Some believe there was no plane crash. Others believe Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was killed by the Communists in Russia. Some others trust that he came back to India in the guise of a Sadhu and lived for another 40 years. And there are yet others who are convinced that Netaji is still alive.

In the same way, it has become an established belief that to escape from the approaching Allied forces, Netaji decided to fly out of Singapore and take refuge in the Soviet Union. But why would he, in the first instance, choose to go further away, to Soviet Russia?

Also read: The Netaji Mystery: Marking the End of Another ‘Baba’ Story

Netaji was in a continuous cordial relationship with both Germany and Italy even after knowing about extermination camps and gas chambers in Europe, about the genocide of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Jews, and Russians. So, could Netaji expect a warm welcome awaiting him in the USSR?

Netaji’s nephew Professor Dwarka Nath Bose, who had visited the Archives in Russia along with the Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry, highlighted Russia’s aversion to Bose. He narrates:

 “Subhas…. was eager to visit the Soviet Union as he was an admirer of Soviet planning. However, he was never granted a visa for this purpose…. Jawaharlal had gone to the Soviet Union earlier with his father and so had Tagore. So, why this aversion to Bose? It may be traced to his speech as President of the Indian Trade Union Congress in 1928 when he said among other things, ‘The Communist Party of India has done great damage to the Trade Union movement. They take their instructions from Russia, etc.’…. Even when he obtained a Soviet visa from Afghanistan in 1941 after his escape from India and was eager to get Soviet assistance, he was kept at arm’s length during his two-week stay in Moscow in March 1941 and never met anyone of consequence. Instead, he was put on a flight to Berlin.”

Dwaraka Nath Bose on Soviet attitude towards Bose.

Russia’s assessment of Netaji

The Russian view of Netaji those days – narrated by their analyst V.K. Touradjev – was that Bose was an MI-6 agent, not in the sense of a “paid functionary” but acted as a mole in the Axis camp.

Russian view of Subhas Chandra Bose

Soviet journalist David Zaslavsky – in an article published in Pravda way back on January 7, 1946 – characterised Bose as a “fascist rogue”, “on Hitlerite pay”, “in the pay of Japanese imperialists”, etc. In short, Bose was not trustworthy for them. Records show that during the war, there was no indication that Netaji was welcome in Russia, and Netaji knew it.

Russian view of Subhas Chandra Bose

On November 20, 1944, Netaji sent an appeal to the Soviet Ambassador in Japan, Y. Malik, seeking Soviet support in India’s struggle for independence. This letter was passed on to NKVD (a forerunner of the KGB) on January 3, 1945. The appeal failed.

Netaji’s appeal to Soviet Embassy in Japan, Nov 1944.

Japan refused to take Netaji to Russia

Japan, too, disapproved of Netaji’s plan to shift to Soviet Russia. On a request made to the Japanese government at the end of May 1945, whether they would be in a position to extend facilities to Netaji and some of his associates to go to the USSR, Tokyo flatly refused Netaji’s request, in mid-June. Instead, they asked him to continue his fight for liberation in the spirit of “live or die together”!

Japan’s refusal to take Netaji to the USSR

What next?  

By May, it became clear to Netaji that the war in the eastern hemisphere was coming to its logical end. He decided with his inner Council of the Cabinet on May 17 in Bangkok, to switch over to underground activity operating from Indian soil. Directives were issued to the armed forces of the Indian National Army (INA) and to the Indian Independence League (IIL) to start moving clandestinely towards India for an armed revolution. He planned to involve the demobilised British army men, industrial workers of Ordinance factories, the peasants who suffered from the war, and political workers especially those having a leftist tendency.

Netaji himself was to return to Indian soil. It was decided that he would be dropped somewhere in Assam or Bengal. In case that was not possible directly, he was to proceed to Yunan, China, near the Burmese border from where he could slip into India.

Netaji decided to return to India: Debnath Das, GS, IIL Hq East Asia.

Debnath Das, general secretary of the IIL, remained the closest to Netaji during this period. Das was with him from January onwards in Burma and during the crucial months of May-July in Bangkok when Netaji was chalking out plans for post-Japan’s inevitable defeat. Das was the co-founder of the ‘Indian National Council’ set up in Bangkok in December 1941. He was the secretary when Rashbehari Bose was the president. He had the background of being a member of the underground revolutionary teams of Jugantar and Anushilon Samity. Das was appointed to head the mission.

Japan’s surrender

Netaji hurriedly returned to Singapore on August 13 after being informed of Japan’s surrender.

It was an emergency. The discussion at his house with all available military and civil chiefs continued throughout August 14 till the morning of August 15. It was decided that the Army would surrender as a separate entity.

Also read: Still Hidden After All These Years, India’s Official History of the INA and Japan’s Netaji Files

The members suggested that Netaji should leave Singapore and go away to some other safer place as the Allies would adopt a very vindictive attitude towards him.

Netaji said, “No!” He was prepared to face the consequences with his other colleagues. “The worst they can do is to put me against the wall and shoot me and I am prepared for it.”

Despite the strong suggestion that Netaji should not stay in Singapore, it was ultimately decided that he would stay there as he could not look for protection or help from any country.

Later in the day, Sarkar, legal adviser, who arrived from Bangkok, informed that General Isoda, Chief of the Japanese Liaison office attached to the Azad Hind Government in Bangkok, and Hachiya, Japanese Minister-designate to the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, were keen to render whatever service they could in Netaji’s plan to get away from Malaya and Siam so that he would not fall a prisoner in Anglo-American hands.

Netaji decided to leave for Bangkok.

In Bangkok

On arrival in Bangkok on the morning of August 16, before going to the IIL Headquarters, Netaji sat with the Japanese liaison officers at the residence of Isoda for the next stage of action. Isoda offered Netaji four alternatives:

  1. Netaji fly to Tokyo and seek shelter
  2. Surrender with his force in Bangkok to Lord Mountbatten
  3. Fly to Manila and surrender to General McArthur
  4. Proceed to Manchuria to join Russians who have occupied the area

Dropping Netaji somewhere in Assam or Bengal was totally out of their consideration. Netaji was compelled to choose the fourth option.

That the alternative choices were an eyewash is evident from the deposition made by Col. Yano who was present in the meeting Isoda had with Field Marshal Count Terauchi the previous night. It was arranged such that Netaji would arrive at Saigon and they would take Bose to Tokyo.

Late in the evening, Netaji called a meeting of all officers at his residence. There, he announced his decision to leave Bangkok for an “adventure into the unknown” with S.A. Ayer, Debnath Das, Colonel Habibur Rahman, Captain Gulzara Singh, Colonel Pritam Singh, and Major Abid Hasan, to continue the struggle for freedom.

The team left Bangkok early in the morning of August 17, for Saigon.

Where to? India?

Netaji never disclosed to any of his colleagues where he was going.

However, Debnath Das gave detailed information on Netaji’s plans. Das said, “It was Netaji’s plan to go to India and continue the country’s liberation fight from some underground centre. Japan agreed to take Netaji from Bangkok to somewhere in Bengal and agreed to take responsibility…”

It is “on this understanding, Netaji emplaned for Saigon, as according to the Japanese, it could have been easier for him and his officers to go to India through Saigon, as there was less vigilance of the Allied forces on that route.”

It was Netaji’s plan to go to India

At Saigon

On arrival at Saigon, while Netaji and his team were taking their much-needed rest, Isoda and Hachiya went up to Netaji’s room. Netaji immediately came out and woke up Debhath Das in the next room. He exclaimed, “You see! They are changing the Plan – I don’t know why – I think they are now taking me to Tokyo – just come and have a talk with General Isoda.” He asked Debnath to call all the other officers.

They all came and vehemently opposed Isoda’s plan. Debnath demanded that there should be no change in the plan and Netaji must be taken to India. The logical reason is that “even if we are captured, the people will come to know and help us.”

At Saigon, Japan changed the plan and took Netaji to Tokyo

They resented the idea of giving only one seat to Netaji. Isoda explained that it was not possible to get a separate plane for the party because of the flying restrictions imposed by the Allied forces. But as one plane is on the way to Tokyo, Netaji could be accommodated there. A bit later he agreed to give one more seat.

They felt helpless at the new move, so surprisingly made at Saigon where they were placed at the most disadvantageous position, far away from their own armed forces stationed in Bangkok, Singapore, and Moulmein.

They even pleaded, “If there are unimportant Japanese personnel, why, General, you do not ask them to wait for the next plane; let us all go together.” Isoda replied, “I do not know yet.”

When the team reached the aerodrome, they found the plane almost on the move. The plane was an old heavy bomber Mitsubishi Ki 21. It came from Singapore and had 11 Japanese army men on board including General Shidei, Chief of the General Staff in Burma, on transfer to Manchuria.

Rahman wondered why Isoda and Hachiya did not accompany Netaji to Tokyo. According to Debnath, Isoda was among those instrumental in effecting the change in the plan.

The plane took off late in the afternoon.

Netaji switched plans

Cajoled and forced to board a flight to Tokyo leaving his team stranded at Saigon, Netaji decided to get down at Dairen along with Genl. Shidei. From there, he would journey to Mukuden, the capital of Manchuria. It would have served no purpose to him for continuing the flight to Japan which had already surrendered.

What really happened at Taihoku 

No sooner the plane was airborne, at about an altitude of 20-30 metres, there was the sound of an explosion followed by three to four loud bangs. The left engine fell off.

Rahman recorded, “Suddenly I heard a deafening noise as if some cannon shell had hit the starboard side of the plane.”

Habibur to Shah Nawaz Committee on the sound of canon shell hitting the plane (pp 14)

Nonogaki said, “I heard three or four loud bangs coming from the engine side.”

Takahashi said, “There was an explosion.”

Arai said, “I heard two loud noises and the plane started to dive.”

The plane nosedived. On crashing, the plane broke into two. Those at the back escaped through the door with minor injuries.

Netaji’s clothes got drenched with petrol from the explosion of the fuel tank in front and was engulfed in flames. Habibur’s hands and right side of face were burnt

The crash affected different persons differently. Seven people ultimately survived, with various degrees of injuries. Shidei and the pilots in front were burnt to the bones in their seats.

Netaji along with the other injured persons were taken to a nearby small military hospital. Netaji’s condition deteriorated. In spite of all efforts by the doctors, slowly, his life ebbed away. He breathed his last the same night.

The findings

After Japan’s surrender, they did not want themselves to be found by the Americans or the British, shielding Netaji.

If Netaji was found to re-emerge from India or from the Soviet Union with the help of the Communists, the bonafide of post-war Japan towards the British and the Americans would be at stake.

They, therefore, scuttled Netaji’s plan to fly out.

First, they tricked Netaji by not returning him to Indian soil. They diverted his plane towards Saigon on the plea that they could avoid the aerial vigilance of the Allied forces.

Then, they separated five of his six companions at Saigon and told him that he would be taken to Tokyo despite his strong rejection.

After a thorough investigation, the IIL’s finding was that the plane crash was deliberate. It was a manipulated ‘crash’. The intention was not to kill. But to spoil Netaji’s attempt to meet the Communists.

Japan’s secret Bose files

Japan has been continuously maintaining an evasive attitude toward Netaji. While every country in the world has opened up all Netaji files, Japan remains the only country to keep three files on Netaji ‘Secret’ even after 78 years.

This may well be construed as an indication of Japan’s dubious role in the life of Netaji.

Japan has the answer

Netaji was last seen with the Japanese at Taihoku. In the next few days, they declared Netaji is dead.  Their investigative reports simply confirm the death. They do not say what led to the crash. They owe an explanation.

Canon shot-like “explosions” were reported by co-passengers Habibur, Nonogaki, and Takahashi, before the plane nose-dived. Would a falling propeller in full pitch, as is believed to be the reason of the crash, give a “deafening noise” inside the fuselage? Was it really a cannon shell that hit the engine? The take-offs at Saigon and Tourane, the previous halts, were okay. Why then the engine blew off at Taihoku despite offloading 600 kg of ammunition? The answers may lie in Japan’s three ‘Secret’ files.

Note: You can read other articles by the same author on the ‘mystery’ surrounding Bose’s death here, here and here. 

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

Remembering Those Who Opposed the Quit India Movement – And Who Didn’t

Praise for the Quit India Movement, coming from a leader as thoroughly moulded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s ideology as Narendra Modi, is quite heartening.

It was quite refreshing to note that just three days before the ‘August Kranti Divas’ on August 9, Prime Minister Narendra Modi very respectfully recalled the Quit India movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi, at a function to lay the foundation stone for the redevelopment of numerous railway stations across the country.

He said:

“Friends…9th August holds historical significance as the momentous Quit India Movement was launched on this date. Mahatma Gandhi gave the clarion call of Quit India Movement igniting a new surge of energy in the footsteps of India towards independence. Inspired by this spirit, today the entire nation is raising its voice against all evils…”

The surprise

Praise for the Quit India Movement, coming from a leader thoroughly moulded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s ideology, is quite heartening.

It is a well-known fact that during the Quit India Movement, the RSS sided with V.D. Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha. In the midst of the ‘do or die’ call by the Mahatma, it “kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942…” the Bombay Home Department observed .

Their head, M.S. Golwalkar and whole timers Deendayal Upadhyaya, Balraj Madhok, and L.K. Advani, during this period, did not participate in the Movement.

The Hindu Mahasabha and the Quit India Movement

Savarkar was openly against the Quit India Movement. He issued a statement urging Hindu Mahasabhaites and “Hindus in general” “not to extend any active support” to the Movement. He had continued by saying that any movement the Congress inspired would “prove most detrimental” to Hindu interests and “the integrity and strength of India as a nation and a state.”

Syamaprasad Mukherjee of the Bengal Hindu Mahasabha, as cabinet minister of the A.K. Fazlul Haq government of Bengal, was not to be left behind. Haq had, meanwhile, just a little over a year ago, presented the Lahore Resolution of 1940 for creation of Pakistan on behalf of the Muslim League. Mukherjee wrote to the Governor on July 26, 1942:

“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal?…It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people…Indians have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself.”

Savarkar’s diktat on the Mahasabhaites was already in force. He had announced, in this War against Japan, that “Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the (British) Indian government…by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number…especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam”.

This, at a time when Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was working on the military strategies to take help of the German and Japanese forces to liberate India.

Also read: ‘Quit India’: The Last Nail in the Coffin of the British Empire

 

The Boses on Savarkar

Rash Behari Bose, founder of the Indian National Army, who had in 1938 opened up a Hindu Mahasabha branch in Japan, got perturbed at Savarkar’s volte face. He made frantic appeal to him on March 21, 1942 from Tokyo, “England’s difficulty is India’s opportunity”.

He added:

“Please do not let your vision be blurred at this critical moment…Japan and her allies, being England’s enemy, are India’s friend…I have decided to mobilise all my Indian brothers in a supreme effort to strike at the fetters…But I shall not succeed unless yourself and other leaders at home support me…Then would you fail now when the long awaited chance for its success has fallen into our very laps?…India has nothing in common with England. But with Japan she is culturally united. Then, why side with England in a war against Japan? Rather why not side with Japan and destroy the British power?…I have nothing more to request.”

But Savarkar paid no heed to Rashbehari’s appeal.

In disgust, Netaji had written in his Indian Struggle, “Mr Savarkar seemed to be oblivious of the international situation and was only thinking how Hindus could secure military training by entering Britain’s army in India….”

It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that not only did the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS oppose the Quit India Movement, rulers of the Princely states too opposed it. The Muslim League (ML) and the Communist Party of India (CPI) stayed aloof. Despite CPI’s call for keeping aloof, large number of communist activists participated in the movement.

Netaji on the Quit India Movement   

Netaji, who had left India differing with Gandhi’s soft approach towards the British, on reading the news in Berlin of Gandhi launching the ‘Quit India’ movement told his close associate A.C.N. Nambiar that he need to be with Gandhi at that stage. In his message over the ‘Azad Hind Radio’ he called the Quit India Movement “non-violent guerrilla warfare”.

He appealed to the leaders in India and the countrymen, over radio on August 17, 1942, “Comrades…the movement in India has been continuing with unabated vigour, and has been spreading like wild fire from towns to the countryside…I would request Mr Jinnah, Mr Savarkar, and all those leaders who still think of a compromise with the British, to realise once for all that in the world of tomorrow there will be no British Empire…Inquilab Zindabad.”

He appealed to every section of the community to participate in this movement. He suggested that tactics of guerrilla war need to be applied and gave guidance on the same. He called for boycott, interruptions, disruptions, destruction and demonstrations, as the case may be, of all British establishments.

A procession in Bangalore during the Quit India movement. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

A procession in Bangalore during the Quit India movement. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Over a lakh arrests were made which included all top leadership of Congress, including Gandhi. Mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. According to the British estimate, 63 officers were killed, 2,000 officers wounded, and 200 officers fled. Over 1,000 freedom fighters were killed (Congress estimated 4,000-10,000) and over 3,000 wounded.

A ‘Congress Radio’ was set up clandestinely in Bombay as the broadcasting mouthpiece of the Congress. It could be heard all over India and up to Burma. The station continued to broadcast recorded messages from prominent leaders of the movement including Mahatma Gandhi. It reported on incidents from across the country, countering the narratives from the official state broadcaster ‘All India Radio’. Due to its guerrilla tactics applied the government found it difficult to jam the broadcast. It took them three months to finally arrest all those associated with this successful liaison work.

Congress’ jibe

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge was quick to pick up Modi’s reference to the Quit India Movement as “igniting a new surge of energy in the footsteps of India towards independence”, a mantra given by Gandhi.

He mentioned Modi’s utterance as “our victory” – considering those who did not remember the Quit India Movement for 75 years are doing so now. He said, “Your political forefathers pitted Indians against Indians, supported British rule, served as informers for them and strongly opposed Quit India. They had a suspect role in the conspiracy to assassinate Gandhi. They opposed the Tricolour. They did not hoist it till 52 years of Independence. Sardar Patel had to warn them over boycotting the tricolour.”

A reformist?

Modi’s departure from the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS view of the Quit India Movement is not new.

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, in his 2017 article, in The Wire, ‘Narendra Modi’s Position On Quit India Doesn’t Quite Match His Predecessors‘, had raised this question first: “Is Modi the first saffron revisionist?”

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD.

Bengal Divided Will Pull In Several Different Ways

The BJP’s inability to corner and dislodge the Mamata Banerjee government appears to be the main reason as to why its central leaders have taken the path of separatism.

BJP’s selection of Ananta Rai, who took on the title of Cooch Behar’s ‘maharaja‘ some 18 years ago, as its candidate for the upcoming Rajya Sabha elections from West Bengal reminds us of endorsing the observation of the former home secretary of the British India government H.H. Rishley and treading the path of Viceroy Lord Curzon, simultaneously. 

As chronicled in Modern India by Sumit Sarkar, Rishley said in 1904, “Bengal united is a power. Bengal divided will pull in several different ways.”   

Curzon followed by writing a letter to St. John Brodnick, the Secretary of State for India, in February 1905, “The whole of their (Bengal’s) activity is directed to creating an agency so powerful that they may one day be able to force a weak government to give them what they desire”. So, Bengal’s (first) partition followed the same year. 

Recent developments between the Union and the State of West Bengal show that the former’s attitude towards Bengal remains the same even today.

Ananta Rai has been demanding for a separate state of ‘Greater Cooch Behar’ carved out of West Bengal. This demand is part of an even greater demand of  Kamatapur comprising 8 districts of West Bengal and 15 of Assam. In the recent past, the area has witnessed large scale violent statehood movements by the Gorkhas, Rajbangshis, Kochs and Kamatapuris.

The region is sandwiched between Nepal, Bhutan on one side and Bangladesh on the south. The “chicken’s neck”, also known as the ‘Siliguri Corridor’ in north West Bengal, a piece of land just 21 km wide and 70 km long, that connects the entire north-east India with the mainland remains a vulnerable region. More so, in recent years with China expanding its chain of model villages close to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), 130 km away, which faces the strategically crucial corridor.

In the past, two of BJPs Union ministers from Bengal have openly encouraged dismemberment of West Bengal much to the embarrassment of the other state leaders. After all, the Rajbangshis matter in only three Lok Sabha constituencies and they fear losing the rest of West Bengal.

Additionally, BJP is the only all-India party that supports the demand for separation of the Darjeeling Hills from West Bengal. 

Also read: Anti-BJP Sentiments Stir Darjeeling Amidst Drastic Changes in Hill Party Equations

It is being said that the ‘maharaja’, holds considerable influence over the Koch-Rajbangshi community and has over 18 lakh followers accounting for nearly 2.4% of voters in the state. Not all followers need be voters nor reside in the three districts of Alipurduar, Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri, where they are concentrated. Besides, the other faction of the community led by Bangshibadan Barman, supports the TMC.   

It is also being said that there are 33 lakh Rajbangshis. The projected current population of these three districts where they matter electorally, is 76 lakhs and 30% of them or about 23 lakhs are from the Rajbangshi community according to reports. So the remaining 10 lakhs are scattered insignificantly in other districts. Has the BJP gone wrong somewhere in their expected vote calculations? But that is not so important for the country. 

Anant Rai’s reported statement that creation of a new Union Territory (UT) in north Bengal was “only a matter of time”, raises serious concern. Rajbangshis are spread over not only north Bengal but in parts of Assam, Bihar, Nepal and Bangladesh. It goes without saying that fuelling any ethnic passion in this vulnerable region will be detrimental to the safety and security of the entire north-eastern part of the country. 

The BJP’s inability to corner and dislodge the Mamata Banerjee government appears to be the main reason for their central leaders to take the path of separatism. The people of Bengal went through a trauma when their second partition came in 1947. To add insult to that injury, the BJP government commemorated what the Governor “peculiarly chose” as “the State Foundation Day of West Bengal” on June 20, that never was. 

Also read: Citing Mamata Govt’s ‘Neglect’, Bengal BJP Chief Raises Pitch for ‘Trifurcation’ Demand 

The effect on BJP has not been good. In the recently concluded panchayat polls, the results of which have been temporarily withheld by the court, local media has unofficially estimated a sharp fall in their vote percentage from 38% in 2021 to 22% in 2023. A whooping loss of 16%. 

A report by the media shows that most people in Cooch Behar are against the separation of north Bengal. The locals’ favouring BJP in 2021 stemmed out of TMC’s failures and not out of support for separation from the state. The BJPs internal disconnect between the central and state leaders is clear.   

It had dawned upon the British that to defeat Bengal’s linguistic nationalism they needed to encourage religious nationalism. Similarly, it seems, it has dawned upon the BJP that as religious divisions have not worked among the Bengalis at large, they need to side with ethnic division to draw dividends. 

Not satisfied with the breaking up of Bengal into east and west, which Syamaprasad Mukherjee of Hindu Mahasabha supported in 1947, they are now, as media reports show, toeing the line of trifurcation of what is left of Bengal within India. 

It is feared that forming UTs in this sensitive region with remote control from Delhi and reducing Bengal to south Bengal may have serious repercussions. One hopes that the authorities will not miss the woods for the trees.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. 

How Will RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat Pay Tribute to the ‘Islamophille Secularist’ Subhas Chandra Bose?

In sharp contrast to what the RSS head sees as a Muslim sense of supremacy, Subhas once said that in the ‘past Hindus have enjoyed what may be regarded monopoly in matters of appointments.’

Today, January 23, is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s birth anniversary.

In 1943, Netaji Subhas was seeking donations from Indians in south-east Asia for the Indian National Army (INA). The Chettiars, the Tamil business community, were the most affluent among them all. They invited Bose to their main Tendayuthapani Temple in Singapore to speak to the devotees where they would make a substantial donation to the INA by presenting him his weight in gold and jewels. 

But there was a problem: the temple was notorious for its inegalitarian practices.

To Subhas, a large contribution he needed desperately was of no account if his officers were to be humiliated because of their caste or religion. Bose was the ultimate Indian. He pointed out that he could not enter a place of worship where not only Indians of other faith but even Hindus of ‘depressed’ castes were not allowed.

Rather than get outraged, the priests immediately apologised. Netaji went to the temple along with his Sikh, Muslim and Christian officers. The priests applied a ‘tilak’ to each one’s forehead and none objected. Bose delivered a moving speech in the innermost sanctorum of the temple where non-Hindus were never allowed.

When Subhas stepped out of the temple, he wiped off the ‘tilak’. When asked, he replied: “That’s personal”. Now that he’s once again leading the people, no religious symbolism stayed on him or his government.

Abid Hassan, who had coined the salutation “Jai Hind” and accompanied Subhas on his historic submarine journey, reminisced how “Netaji wiped the tilak from my forehead” as they left the Chettiar temple.

This was Netaji, who did not discriminate between religions; and did not let religion interfere in governance. 

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose reviewing the troops of Azad Hind Fauj – 1940s. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Netaji forged an innovative path to cosmopolitanism by nurturing a process of cultural intimacy among India’s diverse communities. If we are to honour Netaji, we should seek to emulate that accomplishment, wrote Sugata Bose, grandnephew of Subhas Bose and himself a historian.

When the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh announced its intention to hold  a programme – ‘Netaji loho pronam’ – in Kolkata on January 23, Chandra Kumar Bose, another grandnephew of Netaji and former state vice president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, made a simple point. He urged its chief, Mohan Bhagwat to announce that the RSS was adopting the secular and inclusive ideals of Netaji if the organisation is serious about honouring the ‘patriot of patriots’.

However, Bhagwat, a few days later, claimed in an interview that the Hindus of India are fighting a 1000-year war to protect their religion and culture, and that Muslims can live in the country if they shed their sense of supremacy. It is obvious that Bhagwat’s thinking is in opposition to what Sugata Bose or Chandra Bose interprets as Netaji’s vision of India.

In sharp contrast to what Bhagwat sees as a Muslim sense of supremacy, Subhas saw that “In (the) past Hindus have enjoyed what may be regarded monopoly in matters of appointments. The claims of Mohammedans, Christians and Depressed Classes have to be favourably considered, though it is sure to give rise to a certain amount of heart-burning among the Hindu candidates”. So, he went ahead and appointed 25 Muslims out of 33 vacant posts in Calcutta Corporation as remedial action, and gave the remaining eight seats to Dalits and Anglo-Indians.

Also read: Revisiting Events Celebrated by Subhas Chandra Bose’s Azad Hind Government

Those with a pro-Hindutva outlook deliberately misinterpret what Subhas was trying to do. According to their propaganda, he believed the onus for Hindu-Muslim unity lay on the shoulders of the Hindus alone – that Hindus should be willing to make unlimited and extreme sacrifices to that end and that “appeasing Muslims” is the only way to achieve national unity.

According to them, the Muslim League, though born in Bengal, had little support among Muslims in Bengal. It was Subhas Bose under the umbrella of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das who cultivated Huseyn Suhrawardy, a Bengali barrister, and helped him to become a prominent politician. He later served as the prime minister of Pakistan from 1956 to 1957 and before that as the prime inister of Bengal from 1946 to 1947. It was under his watch that the notorious ‘Direct Action’ day took place in 1946, when Calcutta bathed in blood.

Hindutva ideologues also attack Netaji for apparently cold-shouldering Hindi and choosing ‘Hindustani’, a mixture of Hindi and Urdu spoken in daily life in a large part of the country:

“‘Azad Hind’, the official daily newspaper of the ‘Provisional Government of Free India’, was published from Singapore, in five languages. English, Tamil, Malayalam, Gujarati, and Urdu in Roman script as Bose had fancied. No Hindi…

“The motto he coined for the ‘Azad Hind Fauj’ was also pure Farsi in Roman script, “Ittefaq, Itmad, Qurbani” (Unity, Faith and Sacrifice). The provisional government he set up was officially titled ‘Arzi Huqumat-i-Azad Hind’, in pure Persian. No Hindi.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Members of the Azad Hind Fauj. Phoro: Unknown authorUnknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“The decorations of the Azad Hind Fauj were, ‘Sher-i-Hind’, ‘Sardar-i-Jang’, ‘Vir-e-Hind’, ‘Shahid-e-Bharat’, ‘Tamgha-e-bahaduro’…

“Never in his addresses would he end with the ‘Vande Matram!’ or ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ as was the tradition even within Congress, but instead with secular ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ in Farsi. Not even ‘Jai Hind’, with which he is incorrectly credited by his hagiographers. One should see his official broadcasts from Azad Hind Radio as are recorded, most of which he concludes with not ‘Jai Hind’, but ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ and ‘Azad Hind Zindabad’.”

How will Bhagwat pay tribute to Netaji?

Now, it will be interesting to see how Bhagwat as chief of the Sangh accommodates or skirts the supposed Urduphile and Islamophile nature of Netaji, and pays real tribute to him by asking his Swayamsevaks to implement Netaji’s concept of India as a sovereign, secular and democratic republic.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

Why Netaji’s Daughter and Most of His Family Are Giving the Unveiling of His Statue Today a Miss

The last-minute invitation for the unveiling which apparently is an add-on to the inauguration of the new Central Vista programme and the lack of heed paid to choosing a relevant date, appear to be the reasons.

Only one event comes to mind related to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and September 8.

This is the day in 1945 when the Japanese army handed over the mortal remains of Netaji to S.A. Ayer, who was publicity and propaganda minister of the Azad Hind government. Lieutenant Colonel Takakura also handed over recovered Indian National Army treasures to M. Ramamurty, head of the Indian Independence League at the entrance of the Imperial Headquarters, Tokyo. 

The INA treasures. Photo: By arrangement.

It is the same date in 2022 which Prime Minister Narendra Modi has chosen to unveil a jade black granite statue of Netaji installed under the cupola designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens for a milk white marble statue of King George V, near India Gate in 1917. 

The decision to unveil Netaji’s statue on September 8 appears to be a sudden one. No one, not even the members of the High Level Central Committee to oversee the 125th year of Netaji’s birth anniversary programmes, knew about it till September 2, 2022.

No one knew till then that the unveiling is being linked with the inauguration of the revamped Central Vista Avenue (now renamed Kartavya Path). No one has found any – or no one has explained any – connection of the date with any event of the INA either. 

Sudden declarations appear to have become the norm of the present dispensation. Who knew more than two days before January 23, 2022, that the government would be putting up a Netaji statue (a hologram image initially) at the India Gate premises?

Chandra Kumar Bose, Netaji’s grandnephew, in his letter to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the issue, on September 3, 2022, suggested that the ideal date for unveiling the statue would be October 21, Azad Hind Day, or Netaji’s next birthday on January 23, 2023.

Also read: The Problem With the Bose Hologram

“Eighth September neither has any relevance nor any significance to Netaji,” he wrote.

He further informed that he has spoken to both Anita Bose Pfaff, Netaji’s daughter and Ardhendu Bose, Netaji’s nephew, and “they also feel the same”.

Anita Bose Pfaff had, in January last, said that she was very pleased about the decision to have her father’s statue erected at the canopy near India Gate, at such a prominent location, “replacing, with some elapsed time, the statue of his erstwhile opponent King George V”. There is “no doubt the present government has honoured my father and the INA more than previous national government,” she had added.

It is learnt that she was earlier given an “advance information” on July 14 that she would be getting an invitation for the event of unveiling of the statue (then) slated for August 15. However, no invitation came in. It was a journalist who told her that there would be no unveiling on the 15th. 

That today’s programme would happen became known to her thanks to a hint on the last days of August from an individual. Going by her earlier experience she had no reason to be certain that the event would take place. Later, the Consul General of Munich contacted her and the official invitation came on September 3, via e-mail. She did not decline the invitation but the risk involved in such short-notice travel by a woman of nearly 80 years of age to a completely contrasting climate is significant.

In short, Netaji’s daughter and majority of the Bose family are giving the unveiling programme a miss.

The last-minute invitation for the unveiling which apparently is an add-on to the inauguration of the new Central Vista programme and no heed paid to choosing a relevant date, appear to be the reasons.

It is understood that Anita had planned to meet Prime Minister Modi on this occasion and submit certain proposals. She told reporters in a statement that she would like to discuss the conditions and procedures for bringing in her father’s remains to India. But Modi has perhaps prior engagements on September 8 and 9.

Also read: ‘Netaji’s Remains Should at Least Touch the Soil of India,’ Says Daughter Anita Pfaff

1995

Anita Bose has been trying to bring her father’s remains from Japan for nearly the past three decades. During the build-up for Netaji’s birth centenary celebration (1997), when Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was planning to bring the remains against all opposition from his political rivals, Anita had suggested taking the remains to Germany if no agreement is found in India among the political parties (especially with stiff opposition from the Left). But this option did not find favour with the Indian and Japanese governments.

With the change of the Indian government in 1996, the proposal of bringing the remains in the birth centenary year were shelved. 

1998

In 1998, Anita met then Prime Minister I.K. Gujral on January 25. She followed it up with her letter dated February 24, 1998:

“I request the GOI to make arrangements to have the ashes of my father returned from Tokyo to his homeland, especially to Delhi, which after all was the goal of his INA campaign. The ashes should be immersed in the Ganges or parts of the ashes in different rivers of India. I am quite willing to participate with my husband and my children in the process of transferring the ashes – paying respect to the customs. For example, according to Japanese rites, a male descendent should physically carry the ashes, my sons could do so.”

“It is furthermore my sincerest wish that all political parties of India could join together in this effort, irrespective of their political programme.”

Gujral could not proceed with Anita’s request. He resigned in less than a month after the meeting as the Congress party withdrew support from him. This was the fourth time since Jawaharlal Nehru, that an attempt to bring back Netaji’s remains had failed. 

A stalemate followed after the setting up of the Mukherjee Commission in 1999.

File photo of Anita Pfaff, daughter of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, with Pranab Mukherjee, then President of India, in 2013. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

2006

After the Mukherjee Commission Report was rejected, communication on the issue between India and Japan resumed.

Members of the Japanese-Indian Association in Tokyo, Professor Kazuo Azuma and former Ambassador Eijiro Noda, approached Anita and asked if she was willing to take charge of her father’s remains.

She reiterated through her letter dated December 10, 2006:

“I would receive my father’s remains, as I had offered to do more than ten years ago already. Should the Government of India feel unable to officially receive my father’s remains from Japan, I shall take them to India myself, performing the necessary and appropriate rites.” She also “would like to have a DNA test done…in order to hopefully convince some people (including a number of my relatives) who do not believe that my father died following the plane crash…”

It is learnt that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh exchanged letter with Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori, in 2006, regarding transfer of the remains to India.

2007

Through her letter dated June 8, 2007, Anita wrote to Manmohan Singh: “It would be of interest to me to know if and how the Government of India intends to be involved in the return of my father’s remains.”

She also hoped that the transfer of Netaji’s remains would be concluded the same year, i.e. 2007, on the 60th year of India’s Independence and the year of Netaji’s 110th birthday.

This was followed by Anita thanking the Chief Priest of the Renkoji Temple, through her letter dated July 16, 2007:

“I would be willing to take charge of my father’s, Subhas Chandra Bose’s, remains after which you and your late father have looked in such exemplary fashion for so many years. Let me express my great regard and gratitude to you and your family for your dedication to the task.”

“I had decided to attempt to have a DNA test of my father’s remains performed, if technologically at all possible. Originally I had considered such a test unnecessary and inappropriate.” 

Also read: Modi Once Promised to Bring Netaji Home. It’s Time to Redeem That Pledge.

Netaji was a devout Hindu but no ‘shraddha’ has been performed for his soul for its pilgrimage from the lower to the higher realms. 

No investigation, no inquiry, not even the rejected Mukherjee Commission said Netaji is still alive.

So, it is incumbent upon Anita as the only child and legal heir of Bose to perform the ritual ceremony as per Hindu rites and family tradition. To perform the ceremony, she does not require permission from the government. This would be her private and personal affair.

She should be given access to the remains that she trusts to be her father’s for this purpose too.

2016

In 2016, Anita reiterated to the world’s largest circulated daily, Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, “I want to bring back his remains to India, which is now an independent nation. Indian independence was his (her father’s) ardent wish.”

2017

The following year, in October 2017, on an occasion in London, she expressed her fervent desire that the remains be transferred to India. Her sentiment being, it was her father’s ambition to return to an independent India, and since it did not happen, his remains should at least touch Indian soil. Also, as per the Bengali Hindu tradition, they should be immersed in the Ganga.  

On October 23, 2017, she said:

“Despite overwhelming evidences in favour of death in plane crash, some people serve their own purpose by lingering with death ‘mystery’. Through their mystery stories they have done enough damage to the valour and courage of Netaji.”

2021

In a TV interview on January 23, 2021, she said:

“As far as I am concerned we are not in the dark as far as his last days are concerned. I think some people are just not satisfied with the declassification of his papers because they expect something else to be found which wasn’t there. If we went ahead with the DNA …we might be able to convince those who are rational about their thoughts in these things one way or another. Let’s look at the outcome if the DNA can be extracted.”

In her bid to take forward her plans, Anita and two of her cousins, Professor Dwarka Nath Bose and Ardhendu Bose, wrote to Modi in 2016 and 2019 on bringing in the remains and conducting a DNA test, if feasible. 

Also read: Despite Appropriating Netaji, the BJP Continues to Disregard his Secular, Pluralist Worldview

Prime Minister Modi

According to newspaper reports of May 2015, Modi was in favour of a DNA test of the remains at Renkoji temple.

A newspaper clipping recording the handing over of Netaji’s sword.

A year earlier in March 2014, before becoming the Prime Minister, he assured the countrymen that he would bring Netaji’s remains to India if voted to power, which no other government had done till then. In a letter to Balasaheb Deshmukh, founder of the ‘Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Indo-Japan Organisation’, dated December 5, 2013, Modi as Chief Minister of Gujarat, expressed his profound happiness at the initiative they are taking to honour the priest who for generations had been taking care of the ashes of Netaji at the Renkoji Temple.

Not only Modi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister from 1998 to 2004, too expressed his readiness in 2000, to bring Netaji’s remains to India. But bringing of the remains has not happened so far. 

With great expectations Netaji enthusiasts and countrymen trust that Modi will do the same in bringing the mortal remains of Netaji from Japan and end the devilish mystery. If DNA can be extracted from the relics, well and good, but that should not in any way become an impediment to bringing the remains. 

When we have accepted Netaji’s sword in 1967 without any forensic test and without even Japan’s participation; when we have accepted INA treasures in 1952 without any cross verification, then there should not be any reticence to accept Netaji’s remains – which has official acceptance of both countries. It is now our turn to give the tallest freedom fighter his long-overdue place of honour in his motherland. 

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

Modi Once Promised to Bring Netaji Home. It’s Time to Redeem That Pledge.

Every Indian will surely agree with the appeal made by Subhas Chandra Bose’s daughter that her father’s remains be moved from the Renkoji Temple in Tokyo to a suitable place in his homeland.

The biggest critic of Narendra Modi cannot deny the fact that no other prime minister has done as much as he has to honour Netaji.

Right from the day he took over as the head of the government in 2014, he has been making efforts in bringing Netaji to the forefront of collective admiration. The latest is the installation of a 23-feet high black granite statue under a cupola on the eastern side of the India Gate at New Delhi, which is going to come up soon.

A statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose will be installed beneath the canopy at India Gate. Photo: Author provided

Modi’s admiration for Netaji is not recent or sudden.

He took interest when he was the chief minister of Gujarat and in a letter of appreciation to Balasaheb Deshmukh, founder of the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Indo-Japan Organisation, on December 5, 2013, expressed his profound happiness at the initiative they were taking to honour the priest Reverend Mochizuki, who for generations had been taking care of the remains of Netaji at the Renkoji Temple.

Modi’s letter to Balasaheb Deshmukh. Photo: Author provided

Later, in March 2014, he assured prospective voters that he would bring Netaji’s remains to India if voted to power, which previous governments failed to do (see clippings below).

Earlier, Modi had kept his promise and brought home the ashes of freedom fighter Shyamji Krishna Verma from Geneva in August 2003. They had been lying in Switzerland – unattended for 73 years after the revolutionary’s death.

News clippings of Modi assuring he’ll bring back Netaji’s remains to India if voted to power.

Declassification of Netaji’s files

In May 2013, during his visit to Kolkata, he accepted from Netaji’s grandnephew, Chandra Kumar Bose, who is also founder of ‘The Open Platform for Netaji’, a request for declassification of Netaji’s files to resolve the mystery surrounding his death and disappearance, in the event of him becoming the prime minister.

Image 5. Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Netaji’s grandnephew, Chandra Kumar Bose, in Kolkata. Photo: Author provided

After becoming the prime minister, he invited the Bose family members to his residence on October 14, 2015.

There, he announced that the declassification of all the ‘Netaji files’ would begin on January 23, 2016, Netaji’s next birthday.

All the 304 files were thus declassified. These files were released online for easy access to all. The government, thus, announced in parliament on March 2, 2016 that all files related to Netaji stand declassified.

Prime Minister Modi with the Bose family, on October 14, 2015. Photo: Author provided

Modi reminded the nation through a tweet next year on Netaji’s birthday, “Files relating to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose are available on http://www.netajipapers.gov.in. Honoured that our Government got the opportunity to declassify files relating to Netaji Bose & fulfil a popular demand pending for decades.”

Also read: Still Hidden After All These Years, India’s Official History of the INA and Japan’s Netaji Files

Four days later, in his ‘Mann ki Baat’ radio programme, he again reminded the audience that his government has fulfilled the task of making public all Netaji files. In 2020, he reiterated the same in Kolkata during his speech on January 11 at the Old Currency Building. To drive home the point to all those still doubting his commitment, in 2021, on the occasion of inaugurating Netaji’s year-long 125th birthday celebration on January 23 at Victoria Memorial in Kolkata, he gave the same information; and yet again in 2022, on January 23 at India Gate while unveiling a hologram image of Netaji near India Gate.

These 304 files form part of the total number of 2,324 Netaji files now accessible in the National Archives of India.

In 1997, 990 Ministry of Defence files and in 2012, 1,030 Ministry of Home Affairs files were declassified. But most significantly, in 2016, Modi declassified the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office), Ministry of External Affairs and Cabinet Secretariat files which had till then remained hidden from the public.

The grand celebrations

Modi’s contribution extended far beyond declassification. On the occasion of 75 years of the formation of Azad Hind government, on October 21, 2018, Modi hoisted the tricolour at Red Fort, a feat never done before. For the first time in India’s history, the national flag was hoisted on a day other than on our Independence Day, August 15. At the same time, he inaugurated a refurbished Netaji and INA Museum at Red Fort.

The same year on December 30, to mark the 75th anniversary of hoisting of the tricolour on Indian soil, at the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, he paid floral tributes at the statue of Netaji at Marina Park and raised the Indian flag at Port Blair. And, on this occasion, he  renamed the Havelock Island as Swaraj Dweep, Neil Island as Shaeed Dweep and Ross Island as Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Dweep. He released a commemorative ‘Rs 75’ coin, a stamp and a First Day Cover.

The special postage stamp, First Day Cover and a commemorative coin were also issued to mark the beginning of the 125th birth anniversary of Netaji on January 23, 2021.

Modi decided to celebrate Netaji’s 125th birth anniversary in a big way. He constituted an 85-member high-level committee comprising of present and past prime ministers, Union and state ministers, governors and chief ministers, members of parliament, Indian National Army freedom fighters, Netaji’s daughter, his family members, authors, historians, sports and film personalities.

Also read: Despite Appropriating Netaji, the BJP Continues to Disregard His Secular, Pluralist Worldview 

In 2021, the government declared that from now on Netaji’s birthday shall be observed as ‘Parakram Divas’.

In 2022, Modi stated that from this year, Republic Day celebrations will start from January 23 to include Netaji’s birth anniversary. The prime minister introduced a national award, ‘Subhas Chandra Bose Aapada Prabhandan Puraskar’ and conferred the same for the years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 in an investiture ceremony held by the Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

We are now about to see the installation of the granite statue of Netaji near India Gate. There were some criticism on the miniature mock-up that was made public in January last year. It is good know now that the cultural ministry has paid heed to public opinion.

It has been reported (see Bengali report below) that some rectifications have been made to the previous design of the Netaji statue. The sword, as was seen at the left hand of the leader in the hologram replica, has been removed. The cross belt in the military uniform of the Supreme Commander of the INA also has been eliminated. The details of Netaji’s face, spectacles and cap are now in focus.

Image 7. A news clipping on the Netaji statue corrections.

The next logical step

There is no doubt that no other prime minister has honoured Netaji the way Modi has. Netaji enthusiasts and citizens trust that Modi will fulfil his promise on bringing the mortal remains of Netaji from Japan and end the devilish mystery.

His government has already declared in a reply to an RTI (Right to Information) query on May 30, 2017 that “after considering the reports of Shah Nawaz Committee, Justice G.D. Khosla Commission and Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry, the government has come to the conclusion that Netaji had died in the plane crash on 18.8.1945.”

It also clarified that “Gumnami Baba/Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhas.”

A screenshot of the RTI query saying that “Gumnami Baba/Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhas.”

Netaji’s daughter, professor Anita Bose Pfaff, in her recent press statement on Independence Day said, it is time for the remains of her father to be brought back to India and that DNA testing – if scientifically feasible – can help allay the fears of sceptics who still question the circumstances of his death in 1945.

Three successive generations of chief priests of Renkoji temple – in a show of great affection and loyalty towards Netaji – have devotedly looked after the urn containing his remains for all these years. Such devotion has already been recognised by Modi. It is now our turn to give the tallest freedom fighter his long-overdue place of honour in his motherland.

Netaji’s ambition was to return to an independent India. Circumstances did not let it happen. The best way to honour his wishes in this 125th birth anniversary year is to allow him to complete his journey and thus fulfil his dream of “Delhi Chalo”.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

The Location of Netaji’s Statue Should Have Been Better Chosen

Narendra Modi speaks of transparency but there was no deliberation with experts or any public consultation before this obviously ad hoc decision to place Subhas Chandra Bose under the canopy at India Gate was taken.

In the early morning of August 13, 1965, some dozen members of the newly formed ‘Samyukta Socialist Party’, a breakaway group from the ‘Praja Socialist Party’ of India, crept through the deserted avenues of New Delhi carrying hammers, chisels, ladders and buckets of tar, towards the towering white marble statue of King George V under a cupola, 150 metres away on the eastern side of the India Gate.

The Gate was built by the British as a memorial to 90,000 soldiers of the British Indian Army who died abroad in the Great War (WW1) and in the Afghan ‘War of Independence’. The India Gate complex was part of the work of the Imperial War Graves Commission which came into existence in December 1917.

The Socialists scaled the statue of the king, hacked off a part of the nose, ear and crown, and poured tar over the sculpture. They ended their campaign by hanging a portrait of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. In the process, there was a brief scuffle with two policemen on duty. It took three years for the King’s statue to be removed.

This was not the first time that the statue of the King Emperor was vandalised. On the night of January 3, 1943, amidst the Quit India movement, some Indian National Congress leaders scaled the statue, smashed its nose and draped it with a large black cloth inscribed ‘Death to the tyrant’.

Fifty-seven years on, the mission of the Socialists appears to be succeeding. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced that a granite statue of Netaji would be placed under the imposing sandstone cupola designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens.

This is the second time a Netaji statue is being placed in the Capital on a pedestal built for a British ruler.

Earlier, in 1975, a statue of Subhas Chandra Bose was installed at Edward Park (now called Netaji Park) near the Jama Masjid and Red Fort, on an abandoned pedestal where once stood an imposing equestrian statue of King Edward VII. This means Netaji now replaces two British monarchs from their places in the national capital. One wonders why Netaji could not be given a pedestal specifically designed for his statue on a piece of land in New Delhi as a symbol of India’s “indebtedness” to him. Why such misery of space just for him?

Also read: If Statues Could Speak: What Netaji and Sardar Patel Would Tell Narendra Modi

Following the action of the Samyukta Socialist Party, the government mooted, in February 1966, the idea of installing a Gandhi statue under the canopy near India Gate in place of the King George V statue. The distinguished sculptor, Ram Sutar, began work on the statue. His design was approved by the government in 1979. But that government collapsed. The project went to the back burner.

On November 23, 1981, the government informed parliament that “Various aspects such as the site, shape and size of the statue have been under consideration of the Government. A final decision on the matter is expected to be reached soon.” But in reality nothing moved. Sutar was still working on the statue. He was given no target date of completion. Controversy erupted every time a location was suggested for installing the Gandhi statue.

Eleven years later, a meeting of the Union cabinet held in July 1992 passed a proposal to install the statue at India Gate, “leaving the exact location to be decided by the Minister of Urban Development in consultation with others”. In 1994, the Cabinet decided to develop the area around India Gate as ‘August Kranti Udyan’ and install the Mahatma Gandhi statue somewhere in it. They also said that there were many alternative proposals for the exact spot of the statue. Finally, in 1995, a Group of Ministers, on directions of the Union cabinet, reconsidered the matter and recommended that the statue be installed under the canopy.

There were protests from historians, town planners and architects that the India Gate precinct is a part of the original layout of Rajpath and should not be tampered with. They felt the canopy should remain empty as a “symbol of the end of the Raj” and that it was not appropriate to install any single leader’s statue. Conversely, a proposal to demolish the canopy did not find favour with the planners either.

In response to a writ petition, the Delhi high court passed an interim order in July 1995 “restraining the government from altering/removing/ demolishing the canopy at India Gate complex”.

An RTI filed before the Central Public Works Department in 2008 led to the CPWD denying that the Mahatma’s statue was to be installed in the empty canopy.

The Ministry of Urban Development, in reply to a question in parliament in 2009, clarified that there was a decade-old plan in the ministry to install a statue of Mahatma Gandhi at India Gate. The plan, however, had been put in cold storage following a writ petition on the matter (though the high court had disposed of the matter in March 2005). The minister added that the matter has not been taken up since 2005 – “there is no immediate demand or proposal to install a Gandhi statue at the India Gate”, he said. The status quo was maintained since then.

Also read: Modi’s Portrayal of Netaji as a Hindu Militarist Does the Secular, Socialist Bose a Disservice

Following a controversy over the rejection of a West Bengal tableau on Netaji for the 73rd Republic Day parade, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sudden announcement on installing a Netaji statue at the earlier disputed and presently abandoned canopy near India Gate was seen by many as a politically diversionary tactic.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose saluting in Singapore (left); image of proposed Netaji statue tweeted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi (right)

Many find that the posture of the salute – as seen in images circulated by the government – is not correct and not befitting the supreme commander as seen in photos of Netaji taking a salute in Singapore, Tokyo or even earlier in Germany.

A traffic policeman in Bombay, 1945. Photo: Pinterest/Shrikant Patil

The statue’s location under the canopy also begs the question: from whom is he taking the salute? He is facing India Gate, a war memorial for Indian soldiers killed in World War I, but the Amar Jawan Jyoti has been moved away to a location that will be behind him, at the National War Memorial. Rashtrapati Bhavan, too, is more than 3 km away, so the Netaji statue cannot be connected to it either. To avoid these controversies, many feel any change at this heritage precinct should have been done only after due deliberations and proper public consultations, including with experts.

Speaking personally, Netaji in that posture, saluting, standing on a pedestal under a cupola, draws a strong resemblance with a traffic policeman standing on a covered kiosk at a road intersection. My strong dislike is the roof over Netaji’s head. His stature and height are immense. He should not look caged within four pillars and a roof above.

Netaji is a key personality in the Indian freedom struggle and the location of his statue should have been decided after considering various aspects and with due care. Some have argued that it does not behove giving him the space earlier occupied by a British ruler, that too which was a memorial built after the king’s death. In other words, that such a location is not suitable for a great hero. No wonder Delhites did not allow Gandhi’s statue to come up at that site either. But surprisingly this time, the people are silent. The opinion of the Delhi Urban Art Commission appears to be under control. Perhaps, Vijay Chowk could have been a better location.

Modi is heard talking about transparency in government functioning. Had that been put into practice here, these dissonant concerns could have been avoided.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

Still Hidden After All These Years, India’s Official History of the INA and Japan’s Netaji Files

What is the reason every prime minister – from Nehru to Narendra Modi – has not allowed the officially commissioned history of the Indian National Army to be published?

Soon after independence, in 1949, Prime Minister Nehru commissioned the noted historian Pratul Chandra Gupta to write a history of the Indian National Army (INA) and its military operations in the northeast of India to project Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA in a fitting light. This was to have been the first ‘official history’ of the INA.

Nehru provided Gupta with 950 classified INA files created by the British government. (These files, along with 40 Ministry of Defence files, were eventually declassified for public access by the United Front government in 1997. That was the first set of declassification of Netaji and INA files.)

Historian Pratul Chandra Gupta (1910-1990). Photo: https://boundlessoceanofpolitics.co.in

For three years, Gupta researched extensively and produced a 490-page manuscript titled “A History of the Indian National Army 1942-1945”. But Nehru did not clear the book for publication.

At the time, some of his critics accused Nehru (and the Congress party) of thereby undermining the INA’s role and obscuring its – and Bose’s – contribution to India’s independence. Had that been Nehru’s intent, however, he would not have commissioned Gupta to write the book in the first place. Nor would the Congress government have honoured Gupta with Padma Bhusan in 1975.

But this begs the question: What is there in Gupta’s book that made Nehru, and every subsequent prime minister, withhold its publication?

In 2011 the Manmohan Singh government gave Major General (Retd) Prabir Chakrabarty and historian Purabi Roy access to Gupta’s manuscript for a comprehensive study. But it is now known what came out of this exercise.

‘INA in military operation’

Gupta died in 1990 but a 2016 Times of India news report citing Purabi Ray provides us with some information about what the manuscript contains.

Bose believed India could be liberated only through organised military intervention and that movements like civil disobedience would only have a limited impact. He also knew and understood Europe very well, which helped him garner support for the INA, but his dealings with the Japanese might have been a different matter.

Gupta’s account, apparently, sheds light on a number of uncomfortable issues that flowed from his Japanese strategy:

1. Bose used his charisma to get close to Japan’s Hideki Tojo and convinced him to join the INA operation in Northeast India. But the Japanese involvement remained partial and selective.

2. The Japanese were in two minds about joining the war. It was going to be a logistically impossible war to fight and the Japanese realised that.

3. It was the Japanese army that led the charge in Manipur and at the battle of Kohima and not the INA. The INA played second fiddle.

4. The Japanese army withdrew from the battlefield soon after, leaving the INA to take on the British Indian army. As a result, the INA suffered heavy casualties.

5. The valiant war waged by the INA did not follow a well thought-out strategy.

6. Bose probably never discussed his military strategy even with INA seniors.

Gupta also brought out how Bose, despite his ideological differences with Gandhi and Nehru had immense respect for both of them. He even named his INA regiments after the two Congress stalwarts. This shows that he held them in high esteem.

Gupta’s manuscript did not deal with Netaji’s death/disappearance in 1945, though he expressed doubts about the air crash in his 1985 memoir, Dinguli Mor.

Sukhendu Shekhar Roy, MP, filed a PIL in Delhi High Court in 2018 for immediate publication of the book. Nothing has happened so far, there too. Earlier, the Ministry of Defence refused to make the document public under the Right to Information (RTI) on the plea that it would hurt the “economic interest” of the government.

If that is so, it is not difficult to conclude – from what little has come out about the book in the public domain – that Gupta did not paint the Japanese and the role they played in the way the Government of India would have liked to see. It is likely that successive governments – from Nehru down to Narendra Modi – have thought it prudent not to embarrass Japan, a key economic partner, by publishing Gupta’s book. Perhaps this the reason why protecting the “economic interest” of India is being cited as the reason to block its release.

Over to Japan

Japan was an ally of Britain during World War I. The Japanese wanted to take over German colonies in the Far East to expand their hegemony in Asia. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the US Pacific fleet in Hawaii and simultaneously launched attacks on Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong, all British colonies. Britain immediately declared war on Japan.

As defeat loomed in 1945, Japan sought to revive its old connections with Britain. Some say key Japanese military and intelligence figures were in favour of sacrificing Netaji to appease the British and purchase security for Japan’s royal family.

Netaji’s plan to start a second independence war with the help of Soviet Union was known to Japan. There is no reason to believe what remained of Japanese imperialism would agree to patronise the emergence of an independent India as a permanent Communist ally. There were enough reasons for British and Japanese intelligence agencies to develop a common minimum program against what they believed was Bose’s pro-Communist agenda.

Japan’s refusal to give safe passage to Netaji to escape to the Soviet Union was conveyed to him in June 1945. Instead, they advised “firm determination to display the spirit of live or die together by India and Nippon” in his “fighting for the liberation of India”.

While many Japanese commanders were tried as war criminals and hanged, the Japanese royal family was not touched. Like the United States, Chiang Kai Shek saw some value in Emperor Hirohito as a check against communism. The Japanese military too understood the importance of anti-communism as a survival strategy.

Japan’s secret Bose files

While the United States, Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia have declared that all their secret files on Subhas Chandra Bose have been made public, Japan remains the only country to keep three files on Netaji ‘Secret’ despite several requests made by India for their declassification.

On March 9, 2017, India’s external affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj, informed parliament that the Japanese government has said ‘Secret’ documents are declassified as per their policies after the prescribed time period based on “an internal review mechanism”. No exception can be made for India.

This may well be construed as an indication of Japan’s dubious role in the death/disappearance of Netaji. This possibility was pointed out by the INA’s civil administrative wing, the Indian Independence League (IIL), in their investigative report of 1953.

When we lay the two issues side by side – Pratul Gupta’s hidden book and the Japanese ‘secret’ files – it is reasonable to surmise that Tokyo is the cause of all cover-ups by both sides on Netaji.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

The Tale of Netaji’s Missing Treasures and the Nehru Govt’s Refusal To Recover Them

Before he got on the flight that crashed and killed him, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose took boxes with treasures weighing between 75-90 kg with him from Bangkok to Saigon. Only a portion of this treasure was ever recovered.

“For war you need three things: money, money, and money”.

Netaji had no intention to depend on the Japanese for the Indian National Army (INA) finances in its war against the British. He collected resources from Indian residents in Southeast Asia. And they came in thousands. Regular collection drives were made and large funds were collected and kept with the Netaji Fund Committee under the minister of revenue of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind.

After Japan’s surrender ended World War II, at 8 am on August 16, 1945, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, from Singapore, cabled Debnath Das, the general secretary of the Indian Independence League (IIL) at Bangkok, to take care of the INA treasures and keep it secretly. The treasures were mostly jewellery, gold bars and gold trinkets, received as donations. Das moved the treasures under the guard of the INA military police to Netaji’s residence just outside the city.

On arriving in Bangkok before noon, Netaji went straight to the IIL headquarters and made arrangements for disbursement of two to three months advance salary for the INA and IIL personnel, donations to Thai-Bharat Cultural lodge and the Indian Association.

Japan’s surrender was not INA’s surrender. In the evening, he called a meeting of all INA and IIL officers at his residence. There, he announced his decision to leave Bangkok for an “adventure into the unknown” with S.A. Ayer, Debnath Das, Colonel Habibur Rahman, Captain Gulzara Singh, Colonel Pritam Singh and Major Abid Hasan, to continue the struggle for freedom and asked them to report at his residence with their belongings early in the morning.

Also read: Netaji Stood for Unity Among All Indians, Something That the BJP Tries To Hide

The treasures

Later that night, he sat with his personal valet Kundan Singh and Abid Hasan with the treasures. Netaji repackaged the treasures in four iron boxes. The boxes, according to Kundan Singh, weighed 2 to 2½ maunds (75-90 kg).

Early on August 17, Netaji and his six associates flew out of Bangkok with the boxes and reached Saigon at around 9 am. At Saigon, they were in trouble as there was no plane for their further journey. The plane that Netaji often used, named ‘Azad Hind’, had been grounded in April 1945 after it was badly damaged.

However, there was one plane, a bomber, en route to Tokyo with some passengers which would touch down at Saigon. Netaji was offered a seat there but he refused as he wanted to travel with his full team. Negotiations with the Japanese continued after the plane arrived, and as a result, Netaji’s companion Habibur Rahman got a seat. Netaji discarded some of his luggage as he wanted to take more companions. He ordered the remaining five to report at the airport with their kit to accompany, in case some more seats become available.

Netaji’s insistence to get more seats continued at the airport. He waited for his car carrying his baggage, much to the annoyance of the Japanese who were in a hurry to leave. When the car arrived, seeing the bags to be exceptionally heavy, Lieutenant Colonel Nonogaki, himself a pilot and co-passenger in the flight, told Netaji, “Either the additional (third) person could accompany him or the boxes.” Netaji went for the boxes. Without any delay, Debnath Das and Pritam Singh catapulted the bags into an almost moving plane. Nonogaki had lifted the boxes and found them to be around 20 kg each.

The next day, August 18, at Taihoku, Formosa (Taiwan), the most unfortunate incident in the INA’s three-year history happened. The bomber crashed at the airfield while taking off at around 2:30 pm, killing Netaji and five other Japanese.

Salvaging the treasures

The INA treasures lay scattered on the ground where the plane fell. Major K. Sakai, officer commanding (OC) of the aerodrome defence and Captain Nakamura, OC of the aerodrome, cordoned off the area and salvaged whatever treasures they could. They were mostly burnt jewellery.

The collected materials “were put into an 18 litre petroleum can”, which weighed around 16 kg, according to Sakai, sealed and brought to the army headquarters. The contents were put in a wooden box by Lieutenant Colonel Shibuya, nailed down and later sent under the custody of Lieutenant Colonel Sakai, along with Bose’s remains, to Tokyo on September 5, 1945. The jewellery boxes were handed over to Ramamurti, IIL president, by Lieutenant Colonel Takakura on September 8, 1945.

In the last week of September 1945, Habibur and Ramamurti opened the box, size 15”x15”x20”, cleaned and weighed the jewellery. The weight was 11 kg, (plus 300 gm of gold brought in by Ayer separately from Saigon). The weight was noted down and signed.

The boxes remained with Ramamurti in Tokyo for six years till September 24, 1951 when it was handed over to the Indian Liaison Mission, after which it was delivered to New Delhi.

What came to India on November 10, 1952 was the same 11 kg of charred jewellery and 300 gm of gold which is now lying in the National Museum’s vault. Nehru remarked, “I saw this ‘treasure’. It made a poor show.” The vault was later opened twice for inspection, the first time in 1956 by the Shahnawaz Khan Enquiry Committee for Kundan Singh to identify the items, and then on October 9, 1978 for inspection by some MPs during Moraraji Desai’s tenure as prime minister. The treasures were weighed and they more or less tallied with the weight Habibur recorded in end-September 1945.

Also read: The Netaji Mystery: Marking the End of Another ‘Baba’ Story

The quantity of treasures

There is no documented record of how much treasure Netaji carried, how much was recovered from the airfield and how much was handed over to Ramamurti at Tokyo. Records are generally destroyed so that they do not fall into enemy hands. But some assessment can be made.

Much to his dislike, Netaji was weighed (65-80 kg) against gold on his birthday in 1945. Dinanath, chairman of the Azad Hind Bank in Rangoon, said 140 lb (64 kg) of gold was taken away when the INA retreated on April 24, 1945. Kundan Singh said the four boxes Netaji took with him from Bangkok weighed 75-90 kg (i.e. 59 to 74 kg ornaments after deducting the weight of the four boxes, 4 kg each). Taking a cue from these three sources which do not vary much and applying the law of averages, we get a rough estimate that Netaji started his journey with nearly 70 kg of treasures.

To reduce baggage load for an overloaded plane, he kept behind some of his luggage in Saigon and took two boxes into the fateful plane. Nonogaki, who lifted the boxes inside the plane, said they weighed around 20 kg each. Minus the weight of two boxes (4 kg/box), the treasures that entered the plane with Netaji weighed 32 kg. Thus, the remaining 38 kg was left behind at Saigon.

The petroleum can weighed 16 kg. Minus the weight of the can (2 kg), the weight of the treasures in it works out to approximately 14 kg, i.e. 3 kg more than the quantity Habibur weighed in end-September 1945 and what came to India in 1952.

Leakage points

The apparent leakage points, therefore, are:

  • Saigon, August 17, 1945 onwards: 38 kg left behind (Ayer deposited just 300 gm of gold in Tokyo). None of the five associates of Netaji who remained back in Saigon till August 20 make any mention of the existence of any valuables;
  • Airfield at Taihoku, August 18: 18 kg lost. Netaji was carrying 32 kg in the plane but the salvaged quantity was 14 kg. Some quantity got melted and merged with the fuselage;
  • at Ramamurti’s residence: 3 kg reduction, between September 8, 1945 and before Habibur weighed the materials as 11 kg.

A staggering 59 kg of treasure was missing. The 3 kg reduction could have been ignored as all values are few-kilogram approximation but for the public uproar in Japan against Ramamurti, suspicion remains.

The box of INA salvaged treasures. Photo: Author provided

Complaints of misappropriation of ‘Netaji collections’

Many Indians and Japanese issued signed statements on the disappearance of the “Netaji collections”. The Indian Liaison Mission at Tokyo, K.K. Chettur, in December 1947 reported to the external affairs ministry about the misappropriation of “Netaji’s collection” by Ramamurti.

The Indian Liaison Mission at Tokyo, K.K. Chettur, in December 1947 reported to the external affairs ministry about the misappropriation of “Netaji’s collection” by Ramamurti. Photo: Author provided

But, to this, the Nehru government’s response was “the Government of India can hardly claim the assets of the IIL as its own and this is, therefore, a matter in which we cannot proceed officially”. (That the matter of ownership has not been resolved yet even after 75 years of independence is demonstrated at the end of this article.)

Then Janata Dal leader Subramanian Swamy on ‘Netaji Treasures’, Hindustan Times, February 9, 1978. Photo: Author provided

The matter resurfaced in 1951 when Chettur reported about the comparative affluence of Ramamurti since 1946, when all other Indian nationals were suffering great hardships in Tokyo; Captain Thairatatte’s farming venture in Sandal and Colonel Figgess, military attache of the British Mission in Tokyo, blossoming out into an Oriental curio expert and collector of object d’art. Chettur also mentioned Ayer’s arrival from Saigon in 1945 with a reported “two big suitcases containing personal effects of Bose” but ultimately adding just 300 gm of gold to the ‘treasures’.

What happened to the 59 kg of INA treasures remains unknown.  

The usual suspect  

In 1978, Subramanian Swamy of then Janata Dal, told the press, claiming “full responsibility and supporting evidence”, that on arrival of INA treasures from Japan in November 1952, Prime Minister Nehru melted all of them in Allahabad and credited them to his personal account.

When it came to providing “supporting evidence”, Swamy did nothing in this regard in the past 43 years nor did he lodge any complaint.

Funds of INA and IIL

The West Bengal government in 1953 passed a resolution asking the Union government to take steps to investigate the fate of the funds left by Netaji and the INA. In response, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru sent a detailed action taken report to the chief minister Dr B.C. Roy on October 18, 1953, the summary of which is as follows:

The money received in Malay (Strait $44,212) was put in a Bank in the name of a Trust ‘Indian Relief Committee’ (IRC) formed by Nehru in 1946. The accrued money was being utilised as scholarships for students of Indian origin in Malay.

Valuables (Strait $147,163) belonging to the INA seized by the Allies were with the Custodian of Enemy Property at Singapore. Pakistan claimed a portion of the asset and it was agreed that the same will be divided at a ratio of 2:1. When the money gets recovered, it will be added to the IRC Fund.

The IIL Fund confiscated by the British in Thailand (Ticals 258,822) was received by the Indian Embassy there in 1950 and deposited in a Bank. The amount was being utilised for educational purposes.

The unspent amount of quarantine charges (Strait $244,270 and Rs 2,512) collected by shipping companies from passengers from Bombay and Calcutta departing for Malaya, were also added to the IRC Fund.

An Indian merchant in Singapore, Hardial Singh, possessed 5.634 kg of gold belonging to the INA. He renounced all claims to the gold and on April 6, 1946 and deposited the gold in Nehru’s name to a Bank which became part of ‘enemy property’. The custodian of enemy property later decided to return the gold. Pakistan’s claim of one-third of all INA assets was met by Nehru in November 1953, agreeing to sell the gold and meet the bilateral arrangement.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s detailed action taken report to West Bengal chief minister Dr. B.C. Roy on October 18, 1953. Photo: author provided

Can the government claim INA and IIL assets as its own?  

The question of whether the moveable properties of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind abroad, the INA, IIL and of Netaji Subhas Bose, could be treated as treasures in favour of the Union of India and taken over by the Indian Treasury was not only lingering in 1947, delaying Nehru’s decision to take possession of the same, but it is still in suspension.

Also read: As Modi, Mamata Battle Over Netaji’s Legacy, a Look at His Thoughts on India and Communalism

In 2016, a PIL (WP 672 of 2016) was filed in the Calcutta high court seeking an order directing the Union government to take over the assets of the INA. The petition was disposed of on January 10, 2020. The court “could foresee that there is a likelihood of claims or disputes that may be raised on behalf of the estate of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose”. Thus, the court gave one year to the government to conclude finally what it proposes to do with the moveable assets of the INA. Nothing has been heard since then.

PIL (WP 672 of 2016) in Calcutta high court seeking an order directing the Union government to take over the assets of the INA. Photo: author provided

No inquiry after 76 years can recover the lost treasures nor can the feasibility of identifying the perpetrators be guaranteed. But this all goes to show that the hard earned INA treasures that Netaji collected, in cash and in kind, for the war of independence could not have gone astray had Netaji remained in any part of the world after 1945.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.

Three Classified Files on Netaji’s Death and Japan’s Curious Refusal to Hand Them Over

Japan had always been wary of India’s first investigation into Subhas Chandra Bose’s death. What can be in those files that needs to be kept secret even 76 years after the incident?

The government of India, in 1955, decided to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s death. It needed permission from Japan to conduct the enquiry on their soil and wanted to know whether the proposal was acceptable to them.

While consenting to the proposal, one Nakagawa, the Director of Asian Affairs, added that the “Government of Japan hopes that there would be:

(a) no departure from the main objectives in view and

(b) extraneous enquiries and aside researches would not be made”.

Here the question arises, why was Japan so wary of any “aside researches” (see image below) which may arise in the course of the investigation?

Nakagawa’s assent to India’s Investigation Proposal. Photo: Author provided.

It should also be noted that Nakagawa informed simultaneously that, on their side, the Japanese government was preparing a detailed note containing all the relevant information available about the circumstances relating to Bose’s death and that it would be happy to make the document available to us for transmission to India in confidence. The confidential Japanese report was issued to the Indian government in January, 1956, prior to the setting up of the Shahnawaz Khan-led three-member Enquiry Committee in April of that year.

Doubting Thomases are suspicious of the Japanese government’s motive and smell that Japan was trying subtly to set the framework of India’s investigation through this message.

All these questions arise today because of two very significant observations:

1. Japan is still holding back three files while all other countries have declared that they now have no classified files related to Netaji, and

2. The then-defunct Indian Independence League’s (IIL) seven-year-long investigation based on circumstantial evidence and individual contacts (published in 1953) revealed that the aircraft crash in which Bose had lost his life had not been an accident but an act of sabotage.

According to the IIL, Japanese officials could neither risk shielding Netaji from the Allies if he resurfaced, nor hand him over to them and endanger relations their with India. So, to “save herself from the wrath of both India and the occupation forces”, Japanese officials first diverted the route of Netaji’s plane, separated him from five of his six associates, and let only one travel with him.

The plane crash was deliberate. It was a manipulated crash meant only to cause bodily injuries to the passengers. It was not their intention to see everybody killed.

Also read: How – and Why – ‘Jana Gana Mana’ Became India’s National Anthem

The IIL report said that the Japanese military authorities had earlier been contacted by an Indian leader with a warning that Subhas Bose must not be allowed to come to India. Netaji’s plan A was to get dropped somewhere in Assam or Bengal in order to continue with the struggle. In 1944 he had sent a team of Secret Service personnel who worked for a year, setting up bases in several parts of East India. Going to the USSR was his plan B. 

Soon after Japan’s surrender, General MacArthur contacted Major General Iwaguro, who was once in charge of the liaison department vis-à-vis the IIL. He had earlier been marked by the Japanese high command for having pro-American sentiments. Colonel Kagowa, a senior officer of Hikari Kikan, served as the liaison to enemy forces in connection with the movements of Netaji. Kagowa and General Isoda were instrumental in diverting the course of the plane from Saigon towards Formosa.

Separating Gulzara Singh, Pritam Singh, Abid Hasan and Debnath Das at Saigon was a calculated plan. Extending the facility to Ayar to proceed to Tokyo directly was a predetermined plan. At Formosa, Netaji fell into the group of pro-American Japanese forces who were out to save themselves soon after the fall of Japan. Iwaguro and Colonel Fujiwara were involved in it too.

The Indian Independence League’s Report, Part 1. Photo: Author provided.

Dr Kan King-Yen, Director of Health and Hygiene in Taipei, in September 1946 told Harin Shah – a wartime correspondent who investigated the incident of Netaji’s death in 1945, and documented it in his book Verdict from Formosa: Gallant end of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose – that the Japanese did not want Netaji to proceed to Russia.

They deliberately directed the plane down onto the airfield to kill Netaji. No pictures were published but a small obituary notice appeared in the papers.

The two reports mentioned above, IIL’s and Kan’s, unconnected with each other, squarely put the blame for Netaji’s death on Japan. It is no wonder, then, that Indian governments of all hues have not insisted that Japan release the three secret files on Netaji.

Let’s not forget, years ago, the Congress-led government had warned that declassification would “damage relations with the foreign country”. We all instantly thought of Russia!

The Indian Independence League’s Report, Part 2. Photo: Author provided.

Consequently, upon declassifying all remaining Indian files on Bose and the INA in 2016, the Union government approached all foreign governments to declassify their files on Netaji. Minister Kiren Rijiju informed the parliament on April 29, 2016 that, in response, Austria, Germany, Russia, the UK and the USA had said that all their files on Netaji had been put in the public domain.

Japan was the only country which said that they had five secret files of which they would be declassifying two by the end of the year. That they did, but they made no comment on the release of the remaining three files. 

From the two files released, we found a detailed investigative report describing the plane crash, the subsequent death of Netaji and the handing over of Netaji’s remains and the INA’s treasures in Tokyo. 

The box of INA’s salvaged treasures. Photo: Author provided.

The Indian government pursued the case for the release of the three files. However, on March 9, 2017, the then external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj came back to parliament with a reply from Japan stating that documents were declassified as per their policies after a prescribed time period based on an internal review mechanism. No exception could be made for India.

So, what can be in those files that needs to be kept secret even 76 years after the incident?

It is a standard practice that after every aviation accident, an investigation is conducted to find out the reasons for the crash. The investigation report that Japan submitted in 1956 starts from the time the left propeller of the plane fell off, soon after take-off. It does not deal with what caused the left propeller to fly off.   

Under these circumstances, it is imperative that the remaining three classified files in Japanese custody be made public in order to end all the speculation and controversy related to Netaji’s death.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architecture graduate from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the chief architect of the CPWD. He has studied the Netaji files and related documents in detail.