by Anuj Dhar
Kodesia’s version on this point is unreliable because a record left by Amiya Nath Bose, supported by the records released under the RTI Act, show Shastri continuing with the official line on Bose’s death.
On 7 August 1964, Amiya Nath Bose sent Prime Minister Shastri a letter with copies of his correspondence with Nehru. It pointed up the late Prime Minister’s remark that something should be done to “finalise the question of Netaji’s death”. Amiya asked Shastri to take appropriate steps. On August 12 Shastri wrote back that he would look into the matter. “Unfortunately Shri Shastri did not take any further steps in this matter,” Amiya noted when he heard nothing from the PM. But at the official level, Shastri had actually taken up the matter with Bengal Chief Minister Prafulla Chandra Sen through a Top Secret letter dated 2 September 1964.
Forwarding copy of the letter Nehru had written to Amiya, the Prime Minister commented: “I am afraid Shri Bose’s conclusion that Panditji had agreed to his suggestion for a judicial inquiry is not borne by this letter.” He added: “I really do not know what further can be done about this matter.” [15] Do nothing, Sen advised Shastri in his reply:
Amiya’s personal notes reveal that he again wrote to Shastri on 7 May, 1965 drawing his attention to newspaper stories reporting Dr Satyanarayan Sinha’s claim that there was no air crash in Taipei on the day of Bose’s supposed fatal disaster.
On the 31st of May, 1965 I sent him a telegram requesting him to reply to my letter. On the 6th of July, 1965 I sent him a further reminder and demanded an immediate appointment of a commission of inquiry. Unfortunately I have not been favoured with any reply. [16]
# 4: Dr Radhakrishnan, Vijya Lakshmi Pandit knew about Netaji but kept mum
The allegation that both Vijya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s talented younger sister and free India’s first representative to the USSR and her successor Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan knew about Bose’s existence in that country has continued unabated right up to our times.
Regarding Vijya Lakshmi, the theory goes that after her return from Moscow she made a statement that she had “some information which if disclosed would electrify India and the resultant happiness would be greater than what the people had experienced on 15 August 1947”. Rai Singh Yadav, a former Director of the erstwhile Information Service of India under the MEA, told me that he had once asked Ambassador Pandit about this “important statement” but she sidestepped the issue.
Yadav had more details about the allegation pertaining to Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. His friend Ram Rahul had heard from Babajan Gouffrav, a member of the Soviet Politburo during Stalin’s time that “Netaji had crossed over to the Soviet Union somewhere on the Soviet-Manchurian border, where he was taken into custody by the Soviet Frontier Guards”. Rai Singh’s account was deemed important enough to be splashed across a page by Hindustan Times in January 2000.
According to Babajan Gouffrav, India’s Ambassador in Moscow Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was allowed to see Netaji somewhere in the Soviet Union on the condition that the ambassador would not talk and mutely converse in any manner with Netaji. After this strange meeting, Ambassador Radhakrishnan informed Prime Minister Nehru about Netaji’s presence in the Soviet Union. This fact came to be known and speculations were rife in New Delhi about the ways and means of securing the release of Netaji from Soviet custody, but nothing was done at the official level to secure Netaji’s release. [17]
In talks with me, late Rai Singh added that when Dr Radhakrishnan returned to India, Prime Minister Nehru proposed his name as India’s first Vice-President in a Cabinet meeting. This, according to Rai Singh, was not approved by Abul Kalam Azad and others because Radhakrishnan had no credentials as a freedom fighter, though he was an internationally-renowned philosopher. He had been knighted by the British for his excellence in this field but “was not even bracketed with such colourless leaders of little influence as Tej Bahdur Sapru & MR Jayakar”. He had watched the freedom struggle “from far beyond India’s shores, and if, it roused any feeling of nationalism in him he did not exhibit them openly”. [18]
“Nehru went out of the way to promote Radhakrishnan and Azad did not approve of it,” Singh continued. He related a jibe attributed to the Maulana by a Congressman: Kya hum sab mar gaye hain? Ye Sir Sarvepalli kahan se aa gaye hamare vice-president banne ke liye?! “Are we all dead? From where does this Sir Sarvepalli come to be our Vice-President?!”
A few witnesses appearing before the Khosla Commission revived the allegations against Vijya Lakshmi Pandit and Dr Radhakrishan. Both the former President and Ambassador Pandit were made aware of them. “The last time I met Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was in Darjeeling in the summer of 1940,” [19] Radhakrishnan affirmed in his affidavit. Vijya Lakshmi stated in hers that she never met Bose after he left India in 1941. There was some argument before the commission whether the circumstances warranted personal appearance of the two and their cross-examination. The commission’s counsel TR Bhasin himself on 6 July 1972 “reiterated his demand to summon former President S Radhakrishnan, Mrs Vijya Lakshmi Pandit and others as witnesses before the commission”. “Radhakrishnan to be examined,” the Times of India reported on 24 December 1972.
In his final report Khosla justified not summoning and examining the two personally because “Dr Radhakrishnan was too ill to be examined orally”. He said there was “no reason whatsoever for disbelieving” Vijya Lakshmi Pandit’s affidavit.
It is far more reliable and acceptable than the evidence of a host of witnesses who have made incredible statements about encounters with Bose at different times and at different places. [20]
The explanation sounds fine to me but somehow it doesn’t square with “chairman” Khosla’s own announcement on the record of the proceeding dated 24 July 1973 showing his verbatim discussion with the commission secretary:
Despite Khosla’s assertion on the record that “Mrs Pandit will come on the 26 th”, she never did and he never complained.
# 5: INA treasure was appropriated by Nehru
In a dark damp corner of the basement of New Delhi's National Museum lies “safe No 48”. Official secrecy could lead you into believing that it is the proverbial mystery wrapped inside an enigma. The “mystery” is a locked grey steel box wrapped in an enigmatic Diplomatic Bag carrying a seal of the NGO Section of the External Affairs Ministry at two places. What lies inside this box is unknowable, for it is still a state secret. All one knows is that this is the “INA treasure”. No more details are available officially. According to a classified note, the “contents of this box have been entered in the General Accession Register of the National Museum on two pages, but these have also been sealed”. And if by chance one gets clearance to flip through this register, one would see this written right on the top on the two pages classified as “Top Secret”:
The contents of this page are to be treated under the Official Secrets Act and any person divulging them would be punishable under the same act.
In the early 1980s, a journalist from Kolkata tried to know the contents of the box and the result was File No 17/DG/83—opened by the Intelligence Bureau on him. Such is the secrecy that even the Director General of the museum in the past did not know about the contents of the box and how it landed in the museum basement. In 1994, following a demand, the then DG Ashok Vajpayee was constrained to request Vivek Katju, Joint Secretary (Administration) at the MEA, to throw some light about the box kept in Vajpayee’s custody.
I think our Government needs to get a life! There is no big secret about this box and consequently no need for dangling the threat of punishment under an archaic Raj-era legislation. All that the box contains is some burnt metal and jewellery which M Ramamurti had handed over to the Indian Mission in Tokyo on 24 September 1951.
Well, is that all there is to the INA treasure issue, or is there something else which makes the Government so secretive and jittery about a boxful of burnt metals, jewellery and residual ash?
Responding to Kamath and others in the
Lok Sabha on 2 August 1955, Nehru had dismissed rumours that “a large quantity of gold, jewellery and precious gems were handed over to one Mr Ramamurti in Tokyo by SA Ayer after the reportedly fatal air crash”.
I do not know about the large quantity, but something was handed over to us and that was presumably the lot to which the honourable member refers. It is not of any great intrinsic value. They were a few gold ornaments and a few odd things rather burnt and twisted up and we have kept them as a matter of sentiment and history, to be kept in a museum perhaps.
The PM also informed the House that in 1945 he had enquired in Singapore about INA properties. “With great difficulty” he could lay his hands on about one and a half lakhs of rupees and “formed a trust with this money to help Indian students there”.
The troubling part is that as per a note kept in Secret file No F 23(150)/51-PM, the papers which contained the information the Prime Minister used to furnish the above answers were unceremoniously destroyed just before the Khosla Commission was formed. The knowledge vacuum created as a result of this has been filled by several charges attempting to explain the “true” story about the missing INA treasure.
The first one sounds genuine for it comes from Dr Subramanian Swamy. I don’t quite understand it; when I speak to some people about the Netaji mystery they somehow bring out the “waste of money” aspect. Talk to the same lot about Dr Swamy’s unparalleled service to the nation in exposing of the billion-rupee fraud in the telecom sector, and they hardly sound appreciative and start finding fault in him for one thing or another. To those who admire the Janata Party leader, if you think Swamy was marvellous as he exposed the telecom scam, here’s a blast from the past. In February 1978, Swamy told mediapersons that:
* Some time in August 1952, the Japanese government communicated to Prime Minister Nehru that it was in possession of some trunks containing gold and diamond ornaments belonging to the INA and wanted to return it. RK Nehru carried the message to the PM.
* Prime Minister then ordered an ICS officer, who was on tour in the US to study agricultural extension programmes, to proceed to Tokyo “for further studies”. The officer reached Tokyo. After a lapse of two months, in November 1952, the PM sent him a coded cipher-cable. Decoded, it read: “You should depart from Tokyo direct to Delhi with two trunks sealed and handed over to you by the Indian ambassador at the airport. Upon arrival in Delhi please bring direct to my residence and hand it to me personally, repeat, to me personally.”
* The ICS officer left by BOAC flight to Delhi with the trunks but the plane developed engine trouble in Hong Kong. At the airport there, the officer contacted the Governor-General who then made special security arrangements for the trunks. Later, the Governor-General sent a cable to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London about "two mysterious sealed trunks" on the way to India.
* When the BOAC flight finally landed in Delhi airport, RK Nehru was waiting there in the tarmac in his official car. As this officer alighted from the plane, RK Nehru demanded the custody of the trunks. The officer refused, showing him the copy of the cipher telegram in which the PM had said, “hand it to me personally”.
* The officer was made to sit in the official car, and without going through customs formality, he was brought to the Teen Murti House. He was then ushered into the Prime Minister’s private study where he was waiting. Nehru ordered the seal of the trunks to be broken and trunks opened.
Hindustan Times quoted Dr Swamy further charging that
it was then, for the first time, the officer saw what the trunks contained—gold and diamond ornaments. The worth of those at that time was approximately Rs 2 crore and Rs 20 crore at the current [1978] prices. All these ornaments were subsequently melted in Allahabad and credited to Mr Jawaharlal Nehru’s personal account. Not a word of Mr Bose’s treasure was ever heard of again.
Swamy went on to demand a suggestive course of action to unravel the truth: “Seal all files of cipher telegrams maintained in the Indian Embassy at Tokyo and the External Affairs Ministry”, “forthwith record the statement of Mr RK Nehru” and the ICS officer. He also told media that “there was widespread suspicion in the country that Mr Nehru was intensely jealous of Netaji and had tried to stall a proper inquiry into his death”.
Swamy’s extraordinary 1978 charge gets some backing from the Government. Because to an extent it tallies with the official narrative in records that are classified till date. The person who brought the treasure to India was KR Damle and as Swamy claimed, he indeed passed through the customs without any check. On 8 November 1952, Ambassador Rauf sent two Top Secret/Most immediate telegrams to New Delhi. The first said:
Damle bringing stuff and copy of list by Pan American Airways flight No 3 leaving 9th reaching Delhi 10th evening. Kindly instruct customs authorities for customs exemption.
The second made the request that “if necessary please insure stuff worth Rs 90,000 carried in steel attaché case weighing approximately 35 lbs as insurance not possible this end”.
Two days later, Deputy Secretary Leilamani Naidu left a Top Secret note, recording that she had “sent a note yesterday to Mr Rajaram Rao, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance (RD), asking whether the INA treasure, which Mr Damle is bringing with him could be exempted from the customs examination and duty”. Who says that the wheels of bureaucracy don’t move fast? On November 10 a Top Secret/Most immediate letter from AK Mukarji of Revenue Control Board landed on the table of NC Mehta, the Collector of Central Excise:
A steel attaché case containing gold ornaments and dust and broken pieces is being brought by Mr Damle, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture from Tokyo. ...The steel attaché case in question and the contents thereof may be released without customs examination under the note and pass procedure.
In the meanwhile, Ambassador Rauf himself continued to send frantic Top Secret grams—all for something as expensive as Rs 90,000/- only and something the PM would say made “poor show”!
“Damle arriving Delhi Pan American Airways flight No 3 Tuesday 0005 hours,” New Delhi was told on November 10.
And, proving Swamy right was a cable sent by the man of the moment. Damle got stuck in Hong Kong and made use of Government of India Overseas Communication Service.
Plane delayed. Arriving eleventh night same time. Arrange customs facilities—Damle.
Hong Kong was the place where, according to Dr Swamy's claim, Damle was spotted with "two" trunks. The government records, however, speak of only one. After the "goods" reached New Delhi, the Embassy in Tokyo was notified on November 13.
No 27627. Top Secret. For RAUF. Your telegram No 137 November 10th. Goods arrived November 12th.
On November 15 Naidu wrote to anxious Rauf vide a Top Secret letter that “Damle’s arrival was delayed and we therefore received the case of valuables only on the 12th”. She reassured him again on November 20. This time saying that “the gold sent through Mr Damle has been safely received”.
So it boils down to this: How many trunks were actually brought in? Swamy claimed there were two and government records, one. It better be one, because if there were two, then there is already a suspicious detail on the file backing Swamy’s account that the “treasure” was handed over to the Prime Minister. According to the Ministry of External Affairs version, "under the instructions of the then Prime Minister the treasure box was 'brought to India and delivered to the Ministry of External Affairs' and remained there temporarily". But the take of the Prime Minister's Office, as per a noting made by a Secretary to PM Morarji Desai, was that "the box was bought to India under instructions of the then Prime Minister 'and handed over to him immediately on arrival, and was retained by the Ministry of External Affairs temporarily'". Take your pick.
Some two months after Damle’s arrival, the Indian Embassy in Tokyo was told to transfer to India the cash portion of the INA treasure—the 20,000 yens which had survived the loot of Ramamurti and Ayer. The strange thing about it was that despite the sum bei
ng equivalent to just Rs 265 or so, the matter was initiated at the level of the Prime Minister and treated as Top Secret.
When there was no response from the ambassador, he was sent another Top Secret reminder:
The ambassador finally replied in May 1953 that the amount was “credited to Government and entered in our Cash Account under the head ‘Tokyo-Suspense-Miscellaneous receipts from India (Adjustable in India)’”.
With such intriguing details on record, the controversy regarding the INA treasure requires further clarity so that Nehru’s name can be cleared from the charges. Because, Dr Swamy’s account is not the only one sullying it in this connection.
Bhagwanji levelled charges against Ramamurti, SA Ayer and Nehru. According to a noting made by Pabitra Mohan Roy during his talks with the holy man some time in the early 1960s,
Minister Ayer was to follow the bomber with treasure. But he went to Tokyo handed over the treasure to Ramamurti. Disposed of some, encashed part of jewels with help of Br military of Tokyo and Jap foreign officials. JN knows it. Murti gave ‘J’ only small fraction of fabulous wealth. No treasure was burnt. It is a fabrication. Imperial Jap Army, British men, India Govt and party men all involved. That is why no action was taken.
This would of course be dismissed by all “right thinking people” who won’t brook any talk of Bose in the guise of a holy man. But I wonder what would they say to something deemed intelligent by Hindustan Times, something far more horrendous in its implication. Under the sub-head “Find the money,” and citing Dr Purabi Roy’s research and the paper’s own insight, the HT reported in 2001 that huge money “seized from the INA by the British army was handed over to Mountbatten and a Congress leader”.