Article published on the MissionNetaji website, 15 March, 2007
(follow the link to reach the page)
(follow the link to reach the page)
..........................................................................................................................................
Apart from the question of alleged death in air crash, the other questions Justice Mukherjee Commission (JMC) attempted to answer to were:
1. Are the ashes kept in Renkoji temple ashes of Netaji?
2. Has he died in any other manner? If so, when and how?
3. Is Netaji still alive? If so, where is he?
To the first question, JMC categorically stated that the ashes are not of Netaji. As both the Taihoku air crash and the Renkoji ashes are parts of the same story, rejection of the former led to the rejection of the latter as well. After this rejection by a commission of inquiry, Government will not dare to propose bringing in the Renkoji ashes any more, in spite of its disagreement with the JMC report. And, here started another dilemma for the Government: whether to keep on paying for the ashes or to dispose them off somehow!
To the third question also, JMC answered in the negative. It reasoned that in answering the question ‘probability,’ rather than ‘possibility’, played the decisive role. While, for a mortal being, living beyond 100 years is possible and established, it’s more probable that a man will die before that age, given the average Indian life span of about 70 years. It needs mere common sense to say that neither ‘probability’ nor ‘possibility’ can replace evidence, either material or circumstantial. And no such evidences were put forward in support of the conclusive remark. Rather, all the death theories placed before the commission had been rejected. Moreover, when the life concerned is of Netaji (or of any other revolutionist fighter-leader), average life and death parameters do hardly apply. This is not to say that Netaji is alive but to reiterate the absence of conclusive proof in support of either death or living existence. In absence of concrete evidence or conclusive proof, one can, at best, make an assumption.
There exist a few stories about his coming back to the country in the disguise of a monk. The commission didn’t neglect any of them and investigated all such cases. The commission dealt with the comeback stories while examining the different versions related to the death of the leader. Apart from ‘death in air crash’ version, the commission examined four other versions of his death, all four talking about death on Indian soil. (Interestingly, the versions received by the commission didn’t include a death-in-Russia story.) While the commission dismissed three of the four, it could not really dismiss the one that talked about death in Faizabad. It could not accept the Faizabad death theory either. The death-in-Faizabad story concerns one Bhawanji alias Gumnami Baba alias Dasnami Sanyasi. Evidences suggest that some renowned people from Bengal used to pay clandestine visits to the sage and write letters to him. Notable among them were Pabitra Mohan Roy (INA secret service chief), Samar Guha (a professor and MP), Sunil Krishna Gupta (brother of Dinesh Gupta) and Lila Roy (Netaji’s one-time co-activist). A number of persons who deposed before the Justice Mukherjee Commission claimed that Bhawanji was none other than Netaji. A few of them had seen Netaji before 1945 and also met Bhawanji. While the JMC found no apparent reasons for not acting on or relying upon evidences of such witnesses, it could not make any conclusive statement as ‘other formidable facts and circumstances’ come in its way of accepting such evidences. The two apparent and strong evidences that go against the hypothesis are the ones dealing with the handwriting analysis and the DNA test on the teeth. But the reports that came from Government organizations on the handwritings as well as the DNA tests can always be doubted. Notable is the fact that a noted handwriting expert, Shri B Lal, an Ex-Government Examiner of Questioned Document, opined firmly that the handwritings of Gumnami Baba are indeed those of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. On reading the commission’s report one would wonder whether JMC was about to accept, relying on the reliable oral and documentary evidences, that Gumnami Baba was indeed Netaji, had there been no Government reports on the handwritings and the DNA testing. (Notable, though is the point that mere establishment of Gumnami Baba’s identity doesn’t necessarily prove the death-in-Faizabad theory.) It is for the future to give a final verdict on the question and we have to wait to see whether the supporting oral and documentary evidences can overtake the disapproving Government reports.
15 March, 2007
1. Are the ashes kept in Renkoji temple ashes of Netaji?
2. Has he died in any other manner? If so, when and how?
3. Is Netaji still alive? If so, where is he?
To the first question, JMC categorically stated that the ashes are not of Netaji. As both the Taihoku air crash and the Renkoji ashes are parts of the same story, rejection of the former led to the rejection of the latter as well. After this rejection by a commission of inquiry, Government will not dare to propose bringing in the Renkoji ashes any more, in spite of its disagreement with the JMC report. And, here started another dilemma for the Government: whether to keep on paying for the ashes or to dispose them off somehow!
To the third question also, JMC answered in the negative. It reasoned that in answering the question ‘probability,’ rather than ‘possibility’, played the decisive role. While, for a mortal being, living beyond 100 years is possible and established, it’s more probable that a man will die before that age, given the average Indian life span of about 70 years. It needs mere common sense to say that neither ‘probability’ nor ‘possibility’ can replace evidence, either material or circumstantial. And no such evidences were put forward in support of the conclusive remark. Rather, all the death theories placed before the commission had been rejected. Moreover, when the life concerned is of Netaji (or of any other revolutionist fighter-leader), average life and death parameters do hardly apply. This is not to say that Netaji is alive but to reiterate the absence of conclusive proof in support of either death or living existence. In absence of concrete evidence or conclusive proof, one can, at best, make an assumption.
There exist a few stories about his coming back to the country in the disguise of a monk. The commission didn’t neglect any of them and investigated all such cases. The commission dealt with the comeback stories while examining the different versions related to the death of the leader. Apart from ‘death in air crash’ version, the commission examined four other versions of his death, all four talking about death on Indian soil. (Interestingly, the versions received by the commission didn’t include a death-in-Russia story.) While the commission dismissed three of the four, it could not really dismiss the one that talked about death in Faizabad. It could not accept the Faizabad death theory either. The death-in-Faizabad story concerns one Bhawanji alias Gumnami Baba alias Dasnami Sanyasi. Evidences suggest that some renowned people from Bengal used to pay clandestine visits to the sage and write letters to him. Notable among them were Pabitra Mohan Roy (INA secret service chief), Samar Guha (a professor and MP), Sunil Krishna Gupta (brother of Dinesh Gupta) and Lila Roy (Netaji’s one-time co-activist). A number of persons who deposed before the Justice Mukherjee Commission claimed that Bhawanji was none other than Netaji. A few of them had seen Netaji before 1945 and also met Bhawanji. While the JMC found no apparent reasons for not acting on or relying upon evidences of such witnesses, it could not make any conclusive statement as ‘other formidable facts and circumstances’ come in its way of accepting such evidences. The two apparent and strong evidences that go against the hypothesis are the ones dealing with the handwriting analysis and the DNA test on the teeth. But the reports that came from Government organizations on the handwritings as well as the DNA tests can always be doubted. Notable is the fact that a noted handwriting expert, Shri B Lal, an Ex-Government Examiner of Questioned Document, opined firmly that the handwritings of Gumnami Baba are indeed those of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. On reading the commission’s report one would wonder whether JMC was about to accept, relying on the reliable oral and documentary evidences, that Gumnami Baba was indeed Netaji, had there been no Government reports on the handwritings and the DNA testing. (Notable, though is the point that mere establishment of Gumnami Baba’s identity doesn’t necessarily prove the death-in-Faizabad theory.) It is for the future to give a final verdict on the question and we have to wait to see whether the supporting oral and documentary evidences can overtake the disapproving Government reports.
15 March, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment