by Anuj Dhar
Finally, in a meeting convened by Home Minister LK Advani in March 1999, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Brajesh Mishra, Attorney General Soli Sorabjee and Home Secretary Kamal Pande, it was decided to comply with the court’s order. The Government consequently notified on 14 April 1999 that “the central government is of the opinion that it is necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry for the purpose of making an in-depth inquiry into a definitive matter of public importance”.
On Chief Justice of India’s recommendation, 66-year-old Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, former judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of Bombay and Lucknow High Courts was appointed its chairman. The setting up of new commission was booed by the bulk of intellectuals and some leading English newspapers of Bengal. The matter described as “very sensitive and important” by the Internal Security Division director in a confidential letter dated 11 April 2000 to a future head of the Research and Analysis Wing was rubbished by a bunch of know-alls. On 28 March 2000, a disparagingly titled editorial in the Telegraph scoffed:
The important question is why a commission is at all necessary. The findings of the Shah Nawaz Khan Commission [sic] and the GD Khosla Commission are gathering dust. A good historian, provided he is given free access to those findings and other evidence, written and oral, and is then allowed to express his opinions without fear or influence, will easily solve the mystery. A commission is not only a waste of money but in India also a convenient way to fudge the truth.
The unvarnished truth according to the enlightened writer of the editorial “Much ado about nothing” was that “the accepted version is that he died of burn injuries sustained in a plane crash in Taiwan in August 1945 and that his remains are kept in the Renkoji temple in Japan”.
The Statesman editorial on the same day lampooned the new commission: “Interesting times lie ahead of the commission’s members. They will have to travel abroad. To Japan, to Singapore, possibly the entire Far East. To Russia where, according to one school of thought, the leader was put through the Stalinist version of welcome. Why not Germany as well, to reconstruct the submarine ride....” It even asked “why is scarce public money being spent on a subject that has not been illuminated by any new evidence”.
That the new inquiry was a drag on public exchequer was also the message in the derisive comments from some reputed historians. “Waste of time”, Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Dr Harbans Mukhia said. “Why don’t we accept that the man is dead and that he died more than 50 years back.” [11] “Sheer waste of time and money”, historian Salil Ghosh opined. “At the end of the inquiry, the public should have the right to know about the money and time wasted.” [12] Delhi University historian Dr Sumit Sarkar thought that “any such inquiry would be a waste of time”. He felt that the subject was “so boring and unimportant” that he did “not even feel like reacting to it”. [13]
The tirade was going to impact the public. On 23 August 2001, NDTV reported a protest against the Justice Mukherjee’s inquiry in Kolkata. “The protesters say they’re sure nothing’s ever going to come out of the investigation and it’s time to stop wasting government money on it.” [14]
A year into the new commission’s inquiry, it was evident that it would throw up some surprises at least. There were a few shockers at the start. The first among these was the commission’s brush with the Government’s obsession with secrecy. In a note sent to the commission in July 2000, the PMO requested the commission not to publish the contents of the Top Secret files.
Unfolding at the same time was the startling case of the most famous INA veteran alive. Head of INA’s women wing and a Communist leader of repute, Colonel Lakshmi Sehgal gave one statement after another in favour of her belief in Bose’s death in Taiwan. Such a conviction warranted that she give her side of the story to the new commission, especially since she hadn’t made it to the Shah Nawaz Khan and GD Khosla panels.
Actually, Dr Sehgal was all set to give even the Mukherjee Commission a miss. But it so happened that the commission noted her assertion in the Anandabazar Patrika of 4 December 2000 that the Renkoji remains were of Bose’s and summoned her. Dr Sehgal declined to appear, saying she was not “keeping good health”. The commission then made it easier for the octogenarian icon by arranging for a hearing near her residence. She couldn’t refuse this time. Overall, her health was not that bad. She still treated scores of patients who lined up each day in her clinic in Kanpur. Afterwards, she ran for the President’s office. If her opponent was not the legendary Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, she might have even won.
On 4 June 2001, in the government circuit house in Kanpur, Lakshmi Sehgal took oath to “tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but truth, and not to conceal anything”. She resolutely defended her conviction during the examination by the commission’s Secretary PK Sengupta, a former state law secretary, and some deponents. Sehgal came up with some nice bytes: “We had no information then that he (Bose) would go to Manchuria.” “The matter of his disappearance has now become a myth.” She became tense when Bose mystery researcher VP Saini began putting questions to her as a deponent. Saini produced an old VHS tape containing a recording of his interview of hers eight years earlier. “Please tell us whether this is the video recording of the interview?” Saini asked her. Sehgal did not find it amusing that the tape should be played publicly on a video player brought at the venue by Saini. “Yes!” she said in a subdued tone as her visuals flickered on the TV screen.
Saini asked Sehgal to verify if he had indeed sought her guidance “to unfold the mystery shrouding the disappearance of Netaji” and had suggested that “the reason for Netaji’s not returning to India might be that he was under arrest in Russia”. “To that, you replied that there were some comrades of yours, especially Abid Hasan, who was personal secretary of Netaji, who had a feeling for a long time that Netaji had been arrested and he was in prison in Russia. Am I correct?”
With the tape playing before her, Sehgal had no escape route. “Yes, this is correct. I said so during the interview.” It was not a case of a slip of tongue. Throughout the recorded interview, Sehgal sounded quite positive that there was more than a good chance of Bose having been alive after August 1945. She even gave Saini what she described as a “lead”. She recalled that at the end of the WWII, she was examined by American intelligence personnel who told her that “they followed a person whose physical description answered to that of Netaji up to the Russian border”. This was a big letdown. Dr Sehgal should have shared this with the people long ago.
In the tape she also came across as a believer in a most atrocious conspiracy theory. She referred to some alleged message of Nehru to Mountbatten that Bose “should not be allowed to return to India until the process of partition of the country was completed”. She subscribed to Saini’s theory that “there was an international conspiracy to keep Netaji out of India”, and added that “India was a party to that conspiracy”. Having said all that, she couldn't have but felt that “there should be further investigation to put a finality to the matter”. [15] Putting it other way, Dr Lakshmi Sehgal committed perjury before the Mukherjee Commission.
The inquiry of Justice Mukherjee commenced when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister and ended when Dr Manmohan Singh was gracing the top position. The difference between the two eras of these highly respected leaders was rhetorically explained to me by a commission official in this way—“During Atalji’s time we got some files, but Sardarji gave us nothing.” This sweeping demarcation got blurry many times. At the start of the inquiry itself, Justice Mukherjee felt dismayed when the government-controlled electronic media did not give publicity to the new inquiry. He had to bring it to the notice of then Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley.
The Vajpayee government’s half-hearted assistance to the commission greatly disappointed all those who had pinned hopes on the BJP-led government. Its approach, rather dilemma, was best summed up in a report in the Pioneer. Deepak Sharma, now a reputed TV journal
ist, quoted a senior government official saying, “Whatever is relevant will be shown to the commission. But beyond a point, the files cannot be made public. It is too explosive.” [16] The same Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had in 1972 opposed Indira government’s decision to bar the Khosla Commission from visiting Taiwan remained passive when his own government did virtually the same to the Mukherjee Commission. While Justice Khosla’s visit to Taiwan became possible after pressure was mounted by Guha, Vajpayee and others, Justice Mukherjee’s inquiry in Taiwan followed his own efforts, with a little help from yours truly.
It was way back on 5 October 2001 that the Mukhrjee Commission first approached the Ministry of External Affairs to seek relevant information from Taiwan. In November 2002, the MEA was requested to “persuade the Government of Japan to get from the Government of Taiwan the original register of cremation permits for the period from 18.08.1945 to 21.08.1945”. [17] In June 2003 the MEA told the commission that no “relevant” documents are available in Taiwan. This was the same month when I beseeched the Republic of China (Taiwan) Government on behalf of all Indians to state facts about Bose’s reported death in their country. Within days, Taipei Mayor Dr Ying Jo Ma’s office responded that “according to the historical documents in Taipei city archives, there is no such record of a plane crash in Taipei on that day”.
ROC Minister of Transportation and Communications Lin Ling-San emailed me following my subsequent appeal to President Chen Shui-bian. According to the minister, a thorough analysis of the records left by the Japanese showed that there had been only one major air crash during that period. An American C-47 transporter carrying about 26 released POWs had crashed near Mount Trident in Taitung area around 200 nautical miles away from Taipei. That was in September 1945. There was “no evidence” to show that any plane carrying Subhas Bose had ever crashed in or around Taipei between August 14 and October 25 of 1945.
I immediately informed the commission and advised its officials to contact the Taipei Economic and Cultural Centre in New Delhi. One official complained bitterly that the Government had not even bothered to tell them that such an office existed in the national capital.
In September 2003 there were two developments. On September 23 the MEA informed the commission that “after repeated reminders and follow-up by our Mission in Tokyo the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded in the matter (of obtaining original documents relating to the alleged cremation of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose)”. The Japanese communication read:
We have tried our best to find out in our old files a copy of the documents (relating [to] cremation permits') required by Justice Mukherjee. However, we are not able to find it so far. You may understand how difficult it is to find out nearly half a century old documents. [18]
Secondly, on September 24 the MEA called for “full details of the communication received from the Taiwanese side” with the request “that any information required to be obtained from Taiwan may be referred to the ministry”. The MEA told the commission that “we do not recognise ‘Republic of China’ or ‘Taiwan’ and hence we do not have any official dealing with them”. It was Indira Gandhi’s days redux. In 2003 a foreign newspaper reported about India’s secret military ties with Taiwan. Thinking about Guha’s claim about similar ties in the 1970s, I wondered how in the world that squared with “no official dealing with them” policy.
Soon it transpired that the MEA was miffed with the Mukherjee Commission for contacting the Taiwanese authorities on its own and asked for an explanation. On 11 November 2003 the commission detailed the circumstances that had compelled it “to directly approach the authorities concerned in Taiwan” [19] notwithstanding the MEA’s objection.
The main circumstance was my contacting the Taiwan government over a tabooed subject. I thanked my lucky stars that I was not living in the 1970s or 50s—the heydays of the Congress party’s hegemony. The intelligence sleuths back then did not have too many terrorists to chase, so they had plenty of time to go after people who did what the Government did not like.
On November 25, the MEA parroted that the commission “should not send such communications directly to Taiwanese 'government' authorities” for it was “considering alternative options for seeking the assistance of other agencies/organisations for obtaining the requisite documents”. The ministry promised to keep the commission “informed of the progress in this regard”. [20] Thereafter, the commission “stopped communicating directly with the Government of Taiwan and the Mayor of Taipei with the hope that the Ministry of External Affairs would do the needful to enable the commission to obtain the relevant documents and information from Taiwan”. [21] Sensing the sensitivities, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Centre had refused to assist the commission.
When nothing further was heard, the commission on 8 January 2004 sought "a progress report" [22] from the MEA. On March 15, the ministry reverted with “the outcome of efforts made by India-Taipei Association (ITA), a non-government office in Taipei”. There was no outcome. ITA was beating about the bush, making inquiries in the archives. It told the ministry that it “could not get any document” and that “Taiwan’s national archive does not have any record of the air crash”. [23]
Another complication came to fore at this time. On 16 April 2004 Justice Mukherjee informed media that “the MEA was not inclined to fund its visit to Taiwan” and that “the government stand regarding the commission’s Taiwan visit...seemed to be something different than what it was when this commission was set up”. Mukherjee also said that minister Yashwant Sinha “would not be able to meet him before the elections”. [24] It was only on June 25 that Justice Mukherjee was able to meet the minister. The new incumbent, Kunwar Natwar Singh, had earlier appeared before the commission. Singh cleared the visit to Taiwan and delighted commission officials who contrasted his action with the “inaction” of the BJP ministers Sinha and Jaswant Singh.
On 15 October 2004 Justice Mukherjee again informed the reporters that the commission "was ready to place its report on the basis of document available to it, if the Centre did not cooperate with the probe panel". The Home Ministry was coming in the way of its Taiwan visit.
Justice Mukherjee regretted the Union Home Department’s communication of October 12 had made certain highly objectionable queries and, this, in turn, was delaying the inquiry with regard to the proposed visits. Stating that the commission replied to the Home Ministry’s communication on October 14, he said: “It is humiliating for the commission to reply to the queries.” [25]
The Home Ministry’s posturing foretold the Government’s intention to somehow put an end to the commission’s inquiry. In November 2004 Finance Minister P Chidambaram in his resolute voice announced that “no further extension” will be given to the commission beyond May 2005. From this time on, it was a race against time for the commission. Until the last, one did not know if the visit to Taiwan would be possible.
In the end, there was one last hurdle. On 30 December 2004 the commission got a message from the MEA, referring to a stinker of the ITA that “it would be difficult to make arrangements for the visit” because the commission had not “conveyed specific information about the places that the team intends to visit or about the people it wishes to interview”. [26] The commission gave it back to the MEA that it was strange that the ITA should have been asking for “specific information” when it was not done by the Indian missions in the countries the commission had either visited or was planning to visit. The message was understood and Justice Mukherjee visited Taiwan in January 2005. There he held direct consultations with the government officials in Taipei. They testified that the emails sent to me were genuine. But they were not too keen to share all the sources of their information. That’s quite understandable.
On January 27 Justice Mukherjee requested Sean Hsu of Foreign Ministry for cremation register for the period during which Bose had allegedly died. “Mr Hsu was kind enough to assure that he would do the needful within a fortnight”. [27] It was the same
job the Japanese had told the MEA could not be done ever after months because it was very difficult to trace half-a-century old documents.
It hadn’t taken Justice Mukherjee long, given his vast experience, that tracing of the death and cremation records was the most vital aspect of the inquiry. He reviewed some, not all, of the pre-1947 intelligence reports and yet arrived at a view which would have pleased Colonel GD Anderson:
Reports of those inquiries indicate that they based their findings relying solely upon the oral testimony of some witnesses without caring to search for the relevant records of Taihoku airport, the army hospital, Taipei Municipal Bureau of Health and Hygiene and Taipei city crematorium to test the veracity of their assertion and, in case no such record was found, to incorporate that fact in their respective reports. [28]
Fulfilling the promise made by Hsu to Justice Mukherjee, the Taiwan government provided the commission the holy grail of Bose mystery: The 1945 vintage cremation register from the old crematorium of Taipei city. The record was quite comprehensive and meticulous, as you would expect Japanese records to be. Running into 25 big-sized pages, it listed details of about 273 persons—Japanese, Chinese, British—cremated or buried in Taihoku in between 17 and 27 August 1945.
A minute study of the record carried out by an expert recommended by the Japanese consulate in Kolkata showed that neither Subhas Bose, nor General Shidei, nor pilot Warrant Officer Aoyagi, nor associate pilot Major Takizawa had been cremated in Taipei during this period. An entry in the name of Ichiro Okura was very much there incontestably proving his death. Habibur Rahman and the Japanese had obviously been untruthful when they spoke of the cremation of the air crash victims in Taipei. No plane crashed and there was no cremation of the people who supposedly lost their lives as a result of it. The official theory now stood turned on its head.
