SHRI E. AHAMMED (CONTD.): In one recent case, it was found that the British jail authorities provided very good treatment to a disabled Indian prisoner. They take care of that part of prisoners also. That is why I specially mentioned it. The British High Commission in Delhi also has informed the Government that there is no discrimination against Indians in their jails. The Consuls periodically visit the U.K. jails to render Consul assistance to Indian prisoners. So, if any Member has any valuable information, with respect to the discrimination meted out to any Indian prisoner, we will definitely take up the matter with the respective Government, not only in the U.K., but in all the places.

The Indian Mission abroad have been monitoring the number of Indians jailed in the countries of their jurisdiction. Whenever necessary, our Missions approach the local authorities for expediting the judicial proceedings. But, it is a very difficult process. In different countries, there are different judicial systems. An hon. Member mentioned about the judicial system in Saudi Arabia. They have their own judicial system which is their exclusive and sovereign right. We would not be able to interfere in everything. Whenever there is any drug-related case, the Saudi Arabian authorities will not entertain even an appeal. Even now there are people who have been sentenced to death. They are waiting for such a situation. But they have made it abundantly clear that in the drug-related cases, even an appeal will not be entertained. That is the law of that country. So, many a time, I am sorry to say, there are some Indians who have been cheated by their own fellow citizens in certain circumstances.

In the Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait we have made a system--twice a week, in the Indian Mission, there will be a free legal assistance and that is arranged by our Mission. Nobody need to pay any fees to the lawyer who comes there and help them about the cases related to immigration, passport and other issues. This is being given in the Gulf countries. But, we were not able to provide this service in all the countries because there are people living in far off places; but, in the Gulf countries, Indians are concentrated in many places. So, it would be very easy for them to have access to our Embassies and Missions. So, these are the things.

Sir, my friend has also mentioned about the Purulia matter. Sir, that is a case which has already been decided. But, at the same time, the Indian Mission cannot interfere in the judicial system of any country. If there is a judicial verdict by a court of law in a place like England, they will have to face it. We are not able to do much over there. At the same time, we have one agreement with the British Government that has been signed by our Home Minister when Jack Straw visited this country last year. As per that agreement, if any prisoner of Indian nationality would like to come back to India to undergo the remaining period of his prison term, he can very well apply for it. For that, firstly, he has to establish that he is an Indian national. Then, in India his petition will be received and sufficient inquiry will be done whether he is an Indian national and whether the crime for which he has been punished is also a crime in the Indian jurisprudence. Then, again, after all these formalities, after serving at least six months of term over there, he can very well come over here. (Contd. by kls/5o)


SHRI E. AHAMMED (CONTD): But, Sir, I would like to say that even today there is not even one single Indian prisoner in Britain has applied for that. Maybe, for them it is better to undergo the imprisonment there rather than coming to their home. Nobody has applied so far. If anybody will apply, definitely, we will have to do that. But nobody has come. But in the meantime, my friend, Bagrodiaji, has mentioned about some people who are in American jail and some people also in London. But they are the immigration offenders. They are not to be treated as ordinary prisoners who committed some other crime.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: In the disguise of terrorism, I have mentioned that. ...(Interruptions)... They are in New York. Please ask your Mission. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI E. AHAMMED: I will look into it. ...(Interruptions)... Now, the information received is that in the US jails there are only 18 Indian prisoners. But those people who will be taken and will be given shelter in the camp for their immigration offence, it will not be treated as the prisoners who committed some crime and who have been convicted by the court and undergoing their imprisonment term. They will not be treated like that. They will be treated as immigration offenders and for immigration offence here in India also we have entered into a treaty, have a Memorandum Understanding with Britain. I think during the last Government's time, that is, the NDA Government, the then Home Minister had also signed a Memorandum of Understanding that if the British Government will inform that there is a prisoner who claims to be an Indian, the details will be given to our High Commission. Our High Commission will transmit it to India and the State Government and we will make an inquiry. Once it is established that he is an Indian, it will again be communicated to the British Government through our High Commission. Then he will be deported. We have also deported 78 Indians in 2004, and 141 Indians in 2005. In 2006 we have deported 202 Indians. These are not to be supposed known as criminals or sentenced by a court of law in Britain. They are only immigration offenders who will be taken into custody by the police while seeing that they are overstaying, they do not have passport or visa, they do not have the valid document, etc.

My very senior colleague and friend, Voraji, has mentioned that there was a discussion in the British Parliament. Of course, Sir, recently there was a discussion, which has been reported in the House of Commons, and it was reportedly clarified by the British Prime Minister that the foreign prisoners would be deported to their country of origin irrespective of the nature of crime. According to the British Prison Service there is reportedly no plan to accommodate the priosoners and offenders also. However, if the prisoners are found to be eligible for open condition as part of eventual release, they would be moved to open jail subject to availability of that condition. This is the information given to us by the British Government. They will only be telling, on completion of the term of their conviction period, they will never be released by them. But many a time for expediting the judicial system our Mission approaches the appropriate authorities, I would say, whether it is a court or whether other agencies, I cannot say. But one thing more I would like to say here also on a number of things we have already asked for information from the British High Commission, as well as the British Government through our Embassy. According to the British Prison Service they point out that there is no plan to accommodate the prisoners in open jail. Like that eventual release will also be then according to the terms and conditions of the British present law. (Contd by 5P)


SHRI E. AHAMMED (CONTD.): They said there is absolutely no discrimination on our Indian prisoners and also the British High Commission in Delhi is also informed that they will be able to inform about the details by September this year. We have asked for many things and they have also mentioned one thing. The Privacy Law prevailing now in England will not permit them to give the details to anybody. But, at the same time, Government to Government will definitely give us provision but there are 142 jails in Britain. Out of these jails, they will have to make the checks and ascertain how many Indians are there and what is their terms of their imprisonment in respect of each and every one, in whatever jails they are. They wanted more time and they will definitely provide us but on the condition that we shall also not publish because according to their system they will not say who is there in the jail, what is the crime committed by him, what is the imprisonment, for what he has been convicted and for what offence. It is very much privy to that Government. However, they have agreed they will furnish the details to our Government for which we will have to wait. Here, my friend mentioned Purulia. Purulia does not come into the picture at all and only because of such a release, which has been done in the circumstances of the case, we cannot simply ask for the reciprocity of releasing of our people also. For one or two people, we cannot say that all the persons have to be released. There is absolutely no basis for such an argument. I would only assure the hon. Members, I am only thanking them for raising such an important issue. I would assure them each and every point that has been raised will definitely be looked into and whenever any Member has any such thing so far as the Indian prisoners are concerned or their problems are concerned or their welfare is concerned, I request them to furnish the details to our Ministry. We are only happy to do whatever possible for our people. Thank you. (Ends)



THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI SURESH PACHOURI): Sir, with your kind permission, on behalf of my senior colleague, Shri Sis Ram Ola, I beg to lay a statement on the status of the implementation of recommendations contained in the Twelfth Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Coal and Steel.                               (Ends)



THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI SURESH PACHOURI): Sir, with your kind permission, on behalf of my senior colleague, Shri Priyaranjan Dasmunsi, I beg to lay a statement on the status of the implementation of recommendations contained in the Twenty-fourth Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Technology.                                       (Ends)



THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI SURESH PACHOURI): Sir, with your kind permission, on behalf of my colleague, Shri Shakeel Ahmad, I beg to lay a statement on the status of the implementation of recommendations contained in the Twentieth, Twenty-second and Twenty-eighth Reports of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Technology.                                       (Ends)


ֳ֬ ( ָ֕ ״) : 17 և, 2006 ֳ ֙ ָ ֋ ֕ ֮ ף֟ ֲֵ Ӳ׬֟ ִֵٟ ֕ ӓ ֵ ן־ ָ . ֹ ֕ ֓ ָ



DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Hon. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I am thankful to you that after a long wait; this very important issue has been taken up for discussion. Sir, we are at the critical juncture of a momentous decision making process, the outcome of which will have a great impact on our history of freedom movement. If this decision is biased and motivated the truth will be buried and history will be distorted. The future generation will not forgive us for that. It is exactly the same that is happening today in respect of the Report of Justice Mukherjee Commission of Enquiry regarding the alleged disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

(Contd. by NBR/5Q)


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): After more than five years of laborious inquiry in India and abroad, critically examining hundreds of witnesses and deponents and minutely scrutinising a large number of files and documents, Justice Mukherjee, has come to some startling conclusions like:

1.    Netaji did not die in the plane crash, as alleged; and

2.    The ashes in the Renkoji Temple of Japan were not of Netaji's.


Unfortunately, the Congress led Government is still inclined to stick to its earlier preconceived biased stand and has summarily rejected the aforesaid findings of the Mukherjee Commission without assigning any reason therefor. It appears, whether an attempt is being made to hide the truth.

I may cite another glaring example in this respect. Only yesterday i.e., 23rd August, I received a written answer from the hon. Home Minister in response to my question:

Whether Government are providing any maintenance allowance or other financial assistance to the Renkoji Temple in Japan where the so-called ashes of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose are kept;

If so, from which date or year this allowance is being paid and what amount of money is paid per month or year; and

What is the total amount of money paid so far?


Sir, the hon. Minister did not deny this financial assistance. But, simply replied, 'Facts are being ascertained.' Such a reply, Sir, is a shocking surprise to me. In view of this, let us try to ascertain some facts. As it is known to all, Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry is the third one. The first inquiry Committee was set up in 1956, under the Chairmanship of Shah Nawaz Khan, when Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister. People could not accept the Japanese and British Report of Jetaji's alleged death in a plane crash at Taihoku on 18th August, 1945. Hence, immediately, after Independence, people started demanding an Inquiry to know what exactly happened to their most respectable leader, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, after his mysterious disappearance in August, 1945. When the then Government was not agreeing to respond to the people's demand, people themselves took initiative to form a non-official Inquiry Committee, headed by the famous international jurist, Dr. Radha Vinod Pal. In view of this public move and pressure, the Government, at last, constituted an Inquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Shah Nawaz Khan, after nine years of Independence. This Shah Nawaz Committee of 1956 hurriedly completed the inquiry and submitted its Report that Netaji had died in the alleged plane crash. But the third member of this Committee, Suresh Chandra Bose, elder brother of Subhas Chandra Bose, submitted his dissenting note saying that there was no such plane crash. But the Government accepted the majority view of Netaji's alleged death.

Obviously, the public reaction was critical against the Shah Nawaz Committee Report, highlighting its many discrepancies. Hence, there was a demand for another inquiry which the Government conceded to after a long 14 years. At that time, the Government was also headed by Congress with Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister. The very fact that the same Congress Government constituted the second inquiry Commission, headed by Justice Khosla in 1970. (CONTD. BY USY "5R")


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): ....clearly indicated that the Government was convinced of the discrepancies of the first Committee, which was negated by the formation of the second enquiry commission. The Khosla Commission submitted its report in 1974 with the same findings that Netaji died in the alleged plane crash. This report was, again, challenged by many experts, knowledgeable men with valid arguments and facts. This opposing version was collaborated by no less a person than Late Shri Morarji Desai, the then Prime Minister of India. He made a statement on the Floor of Parliament on August 28, 1978, "Reasonable doubts have been cast and the correctness of the conclusion reached on the two report on various important contradictions in the testimony of witnesses have been noticed. Some further contemporary official documentary records have also become available; in the light of those doubts and contradictions and those records the Government finds it difficult that earlier conclusions are decisive."

A question has been raised by the hon. Home Minister in his reply to the Lok Sabha on 7th August, 2006, ""Why had the then Prime Minister, Morarji Desai, not constituted another inquiry which he could have done without difficulty"? It should be remembered in this respect that Morarji Desai had to leave his office shortly after his aforesaid statement. Perhaps, he did not get enough time to constitute another inquiry commission. Nevertheless, peoples' demand for fresh inquiry to find out the truth continued unabetted. Meanwhile, two other relevant incidents strengthened the peoples' demand. Firstly, the Calcutta High Court directed the Government of India for a vigorous inquiry in accordance with law, if necessary, by appointing a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of bringing an end to this controversy. Secondly, a Motion was adopted on 24th December, 1998 by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly wherein a demand had been made for a fresh inquiry into the matter to remove the mystery regarding the whereabouts of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

Moreover, the then Central Government was of the opinion that it was necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an in-depth inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely, the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in 1945.

In the backdrop of all these facts, incidents and public findings, the one-man Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry was appointed on May 14, 1999. The NDA Government was then at the Centre. Thereafter, Justice Mukherjee Commission, after an exhaustive inquiry, submitted its report on 8th November, 2005 with some startling new findings, as stated before.

While reacting to this Report, consisting of a total number of 671 pages in three volumes, the Government have simply, in one sentence, stated in their 'Action Taken Report' (ATR), "Have not agreed with the findings that -- (a) Netaji did not die in the plane crash; and (b) the ashes in the Renkoji Temple were not of Netaji." (Contd. by 5s -- VP)


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): But, Sir, why? Why have the Government grossly rejected the Commission's findings without assigning any reasons or arguments in support of their action? Is it the rational way of exploring historical facts of great national interest? I am sorry to say that this shows the Government's casual approach to the issue, their predetermined, biased attitude, along with their utter neglect, lack of interest and disrespect for the great son of India, whom Gandhiji once acclaimed as 'the patriot of patriots'. Apparently, it seems that the Government is not prepared to accept the fact that the decades long myth of Netaji's death in plane crash, which the Congress and its Government have so long maintained with motherly affection, has now been exploded. The hon. Minister of Home Affairs has said in his recent reply on August 7, 2006 in the Lok Sabha, "In matters of such inquiries, the oral evidence given by the witnesses, and, more so, the eye witnesses, is equally more reliable than any documentary evidence." But, Sir, is it a rational approach? If we go through the proceedings of the Commission, we will find a lot of oral evidences where the deponents have or are reported to have said many fantastic stories like 'Netaji is spending his days here and there secretly, roaming as a sadhu in hilly areas, seen as an Army Officer in China', and so on. Are we to believe all these stories? In contrast to this, Justice Mukherjee took the position of rejecting all such hearsays and beliefs without having any supporting documents. Circumstantial evidence was more important. In this respect, we may refer to pages 47-48 of Volume I of Justice Mukherjee Commission's Report where he dealt with statements given by hon. Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Shri K. Natwar Singh and Dr. Yashimi who treated Netaji for his injuries. Justice Mukherjee explained that their statements were only based on beliefs and two earlier inquiry reports etc., whereas the doctor's statement had many contradictions. (Time-bell). Sir, I am raising this issue as a ...(Interruptions)...

ֳ֬ ( ָ֕ ״) : ׻֋ ֤ ִֵ פ 15 ״֮֙ ֤ ֋

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE: Sir, a little more time may be granted. But, on the other hand, Justice Mukherjee, in search of documents, has discovered one pertinent fact which disproves the myth of plane crash. The fact is this that the Government of Taiwan and the Taipei City Government admitted before the Chairman of the Commission that they had no document as proof of the fact that there was any plane accident at the mentioned time.

Justice Mukherjee Commission further stated in its Report, Volume I, Page 53, that "Shri Tarakeswar Pal, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the Government of India, fairly submitted that there were glaring discrepancies in the adduced evidence regarding the accident as also the date and time of death, news of death, death certificate and cremation of Netaji." We may quote further from the Mukherjee Commission's Report, Volume I, Pages 59-60, "From the records made available to this Commission, it is seen that after August 23, 1945 when the news of Netaji's death was broadcast, and prior to the appointment of the Shah Nawaz Committee by the Government of India on April 5, 1956, quite a number of inquiries were held at the behest of the British and the American intelligence authorities to ascertain the truth.

(Contd. By PK/5T)


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.) 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."

Question has been raised by hon. Shri Shivraj Patilji - "Enough time was available for it, that is Mukherjee Commission, to get the necessary documents. Nearly more than four years were at its disposal. Why were the documents not got from the previous Government?" True, adequate documents were not available from the NDA Government, neither those were available from the UPA Government, after 2004. If we carefully go through the Mukherjee Commission's Report, we will find enough evidence as to how the Commission was denied many, many important files and documents as were asked for. It was reported, either they were destroyed or not available.

Sir, I would like to say a few more words about hon. Shivraj Patilji's reply dated 7th August, 2006, in the Lok Sabha. We are sorry to note that he has referred to Netaji's famous INA, the Indian National Army, as his 'Force of Independence' which is not correct.

Secondly, he has raised the question whether we are respecting Netaji by keeping this dispute alive, or, whether we are disrespecting other great leaders. This is not a matter of respecting or disrespecting. The basic idea is to search the truth following the path of history. If we fail to do that, the new generation will not forgive us. Were we not interested to know how the last end of Sri Chaitanya came? Did we not have the interest to know the last days of Sri Sankaracharyaji? It is natural, and it is logical to search the truth. It is not logical to maintain that the so-called ashes kept at Renkoji temple in Japan are of Netaji, when that has not been proved. Who knows whether those pieces of burnt bones were of an animal or others?

The famous film director, Shri Shyam Benegal is sitting here. He made his remarkable film, "Bose - the forgotten hero", in which he has not included this so-called plane crash. I would appeal to the good sense of the hon. Members of the Congress Party and the UPA Government to assess once more with an unbiased mind this great issue of national importance and accept the much-awaited logical findings of the Mukherjee Commission. If the Government fails to do it, I am afraid, the people will be inclined to believe that the Congress party has not yet come out of the chapter of their old traditional opposition to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, as was evident during the thirties of the last Century, particularly, during the Tripuri Congress episode of 1939. Merely by putting statues and portraits in the Parliament or elsewhere will not do the needful. It is necessary to pay all due respect to this great son and revolutionary leader of the country in proper historical perspective. (Contd. by 5U/PB)


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): I am thankful that Shri Shivraj Patilji has acknowledged Netaji Subhash as the pioneer of national planning in India, mention of which was not made in Nehruji's 'Discovery of India'. Incidentally, inquiry should be made as to why and how the book on "Planning & Subhash Chandra" by Madhu Dandavate, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission was suddenly withdrawn from the market. In conclusion, we demand that : (i) the ATR of the Government, be scrapped; (ii) Mukherjee Commission findings be accepted; (iii) the Japanese Government be immediately informed that the Government of India has nothing to do with the so-called ashes of Netaji kept at the Renkoji Temple; and (iv) all financial assistance to Renkoji Temple be stopped immediately.

For ascertaining what happened to Netaji since his disappearance in August 1945, we are prepared to accept the recommendation of the Mukherjee Commission that "the Central Government can proceed on the basis that he is dead but did not die in the plane crash, as alleged."

We would like to know it for the sake of truth and history, which are, obviously having a lot of political significance.

But, at the same time, we clearly say that Netaji's selfless sacrifice and patriotism, his ideals and political philosophy, his struggle against imperialism, his ceaseless fight for the freedom of the country, his novel idea of socialistic reconstruction of the country are still very important and relevant for the country. That is why, we urge upon the people to "Rebuild India in Netaji's way". Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL): We would like to know, in what fashion, we can respect Subhash Chandra Boseji's memory. If whatever we have done is not sufficient, we would also like to know from the hon. Members what else is required to be done.

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE: We request you to at least accept this historical truth. With a free and open mind, once more, you can go into all the records of the Mukherjee Commission's findings: There was no plane crash and the question of his death in a plane crash does not arise, and the ashes kept at Renkoji Temple were not of Netaji. For the sake of history, for the sake of next generation, we should accept it. Sir, it will not go against you. ...(Interruptions)... But due to absence of many of the documents, it is true that the Mukherjee Commission could not say what happened to him afterwards. ....(Interruptions)...

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: It is your view that we are not respecting Subhash Chandra Bose's memory. ...(Interruptions)...

0 ֮ (ָ Ϥ) : ֳ֬ , ֯ ֳָ ֮֯ ֯ ׾ֵ ָ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ִֵ פ ֲ ׮־ ֯ ׾ֵ , ׻֋ ִֵ-ߴ ׮֬׸ և ִ ֟ ֮ ֋ ™ ֻ ֮֕ן Ͽ , ׻ ן Ӳ׬֟, þ֬߮֟ ן Ӳ׬֟ Ͽ ן ָ ӟָֻ , , ™ ֯ ֹ ֵ֟, ִ ֟ ։ , ֓ 1978 ֻ֟߮ Ϭ֮ ӡ ָ և , ִֵ ֤ ֤õ , ֟ þָ , ־֕ Ù ֻ ߿֮ ֤ ֣ ִ֮ ֋ , ו֮ ָ֬ ָ ֮֮ ד֟ ֟ ֕ ӟ օ 5/ ָ


0 ֮ (֟) : ֤ ֛ , ָ - "Shri Morarji Desai, the then Prime Minister of India, during the course of his reply to the discussion on August 28, 1978, had stated that while the majority report of the Shahnawaz Committee and the Khosla Commission had held the report of Netaji's death as true, but, in view of the reasonable doubts being cast on the correctness of the conclusions of the two reports and because various important contradictions in the testimony of witnesses were found and some further contemporary official documentary records have become available, the Government found it difficult to accept that the earlier conclusions were decisive. Thus, doubts on the veracity of these two reports existed, according to me, even in 1978'. ӡ , ָָ ϤԮ

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL): Why did you not yourself give those documents?...(interruptions)....

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: That is not the question. 꿓֮ ָ ָָ פ פ, ֯ פ פ, ֛

SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL: Two or three years were available to you. If they were...(interruption)...

0 ֮ : ֯

SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL: If they were available, they should have been given.

0 ֮ : ֯ ï™


SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL: Sir, we were asking for the number of the files and the nature of documents; but nothing was given. They themselves were not in a position to give those documents. They could not do that in two years' time, and they are asking us, 'why you didn't do it'?

0 ֮ : 'why did you not do it?' ֱ ֟ ָ ֮ ו֋ ָ ָָ פ, ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ָ և ֌־ פ , ֤ ֌־ פ , ӱ פ ߕ ֺ ִ֟ , ߕ ֿ , ߿֮ ׸ ֜ ֟ ֟ ӡֵֻ ָ ӡֵֻ , ױ ָ ӡֵֻ ֋ ָ ׸ ֵֻ֟ ֵ ֲֻ , Ù ֋ Ù ? ֤ Ù ? ߴ֟ Ӭ ִ֮ Ù , ֤ , ָ և ִ֮ , ? ־ֻ ָ Ù ֋ ׸֛ ֤ Ù ,

SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL: Why did you not do it?

0 ֮ : ׻֋ ֟ ӳ߸ ӓ ֮ ֯ , ו֮ ָ֬ ָ 1978 Ϭ֮ ӡ , ָ ֕ ֲֻ ָ ׮Ե Ͽ ָָ օ ָ ָָ ִ Ù ֤ Ù ֤ ֯ ߿֮ פ , ֟ ֟ ֟ ָ ֤ ױ ֮ ֛ ֕ ֋?

SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL: Sir, we don't want the country to be misled. I am asking, was the Commission in a position to tell us what kind of documents Shri Morarji Desai was referring to? Could he give us the numbers? Could he give us the name of the document?

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: How could he give that?

SHRI SHIVRAJ PATIL: He did not. And, you expect us to find out that document about which no information has been given! If they were available, you could have done that.

0 ֮ : ִ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ߿֮ ֟օ

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE: There are many references in the report. It has taken so much time. ...(interruptions)...

ֳ֬ ( ָ֕ ״) : ӡ , ֯ ֲ ָ ֮ ׾ß ָ ו֋օ

׿־ָ֕ 0 י : ָ-ָ ״ֻߛ

0 ֮ : և ִָ ߿֮ פ , ״ֻ

׿־ָ֕ 0 י : , ֟

0 ֮ : ָ, ָ ߿֮ ֟ , ָ և ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֬ : 0 , ֟ և, ֜

0 ֮ : ӳ߸ ו֋ ָ և ָ֬ ָ օ

׿־ָ֕ 0 י : ֻօ

0 ֮ : ֻօ ӓ , ӓ ֯ ׻֋ և ֮ ֻ ߿֮ ִ֮ , ׻ ו כ ׸ ו , ִ ֟ և ӲӬ ӟ ָ , ׾ , ִ֮ , ָ ('5x/sch' ָ ָ)


. ֮ (֟): ֣ ֛ ָָ כ׿֋ә ׸ ־ֵ , ֲ ־ֵ ֕ ־֟ ָ ֯ ־ ן ָ֮ ״ֻ, ָ ו֮ ֬ ׾֮ ֻ , ֬ ׾֮ ֻ ֡ כ׿֋ә ׸ , וִ

"In any case, I feel that the whole thing demands a thorough investigation. Statements by individuals made here and there will not convince me as to the truth of the story given out. I have reasons to doubt its correctness."

ָ ֡ , ָ 1953 ִֵ ߕֻ̮ ֈ ־֕ ָ ֟ , ֟ ß ï™ , ָ ֯ š 5, 6 7 ֮ 1944 ־ִָ -

"Netaji foresaw that the Japanese nation would have to surrender and that was only a question of time as the main object of his life was to continue his struggle for the liberation of India and as he could not do the same in those countries in the East where he was then working as they would come under the occupation of the victorious British and American Forces, and as for the same purpose and for the same reason, he could not continue his work also in Japan. He considered Russia to be a convenient and suitable country for his next future activity."

ָ ֯ ִִ ן׾׬ֵ , ӲӬ ãׯ֟ , ִֵ ִִ ן ߕ ֮ ֟ ֟ , ֣ כ׿֋ә ׸ ֟ ֟ ֮֟ ֟ ֮֟ ָ ֮֯ ָ ֋, ׸ãן , , ֮ օ ָ ָ ָ ״ֻ֮ ֟ ׮׿֟ ֣ , , ׻֋ ã֮ ָ ֮ ו ֱֻ ֛և ߅ ׿ֵ ֛ , ֣ ֮ ӲӬ , ׻֋ פ ֟ ֋, כ׿֋ә ׸ ׻  ִֵ ֻ֟߮ ß , ִ ׻ Hugh Toye ß "Subhash Chandra Bose - The Springing Tiger" , ֵ֮ ֟ ֟ ֣ ӲӬ օ ֙ ֤ 143 ָ ֟֟

"Before he left Tokyo, Bose asked to be allowed to approach Soviet Russia. He believed that the alliance between Russia and the West would not outlast the war in Europe. He had already lectured INA officers on this and that Russia might, therefore, be willing to sponsor him next."

ָ ָ ֣ ִ֮ ֣ , ״ֿ֮ ֟ כ ָ , ׸ãן ֮ , ִ ָ ֵ ֻ օ ׌ ֤֕ ׻֋ ֛ ָ ֛ , ָ ָ , וִ ָ ֮ ֛ ָ ֮֮ , ָ ӑ , 껵֮ , ֲ ִ֯ ֋ ׻֋ ֲ ֟ ֟ , ר֮ ׌ , ֛ ֟ ִ ֟ ӟ ָ ԙ ױ - ָ ԙ ӟ , ֟ ֛ ϴ ֯ ׸ ״ֻ֟ ֟ 18 ß 1945 ã֮ ָ օ ׸ ֟ ֱ-ֱ , ו ׌ ִ ָ ֵ ֵ ו ֮ , ִ ֯ ֟ ײֻ ï™ ֻ ֟ ß֮ ָָ ֻ ߅ ײי TamSui Formosa 10 և, 1956 Ӥ ֮ ױ ׻ ... 5Y/MCM/KSK ָ ָ


DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI (CONTD): "Dear Department -- ו֮ ֮ ױ Ӥ ׻ -- Reference my telegram 76 of June 27, 1956, to you about Subhas Chandra Bose. We enclose herewith a translated copy of a self-explanatory letter from the Governor of Formosa, dated the 4th July, together with a police report on Bose's death and cremation. Also a copy of the extract in the cremation register in respect of Ichiro Okara, believed to have been the name used for Subhas Chandra Bose. It will be seen that most of the witnesses the Indian authorities requested us to obtain evidence from have either died, disappeared, or nothing, etc, etc. We have also certified, Governor seal and signature, six copies of the translation of the letter, report and cremation certificate together with two copies, in the original Chinese, have been forwarded to Chancellery at New Delhi for transmission to the Indian authorities if you see no objection."

ß֮ ָָ ״ֻ ִֵ ֻ ߿֮ ִ օ ֯ , ִ ֱ ֮֕ ֋ ִ Formosan language ׻ֵ ֮֕ ִ Ichiro Okara כ ׸ Ӥ ֱ-ֱ ֤ ָ ֮ ٙױ ֲ כ Ӥ , ֯ , פ Taipei City Health and Hygiene Bureau certificate :- "Certification of Death: Date of death - 21st August, 1945". Not 18th August, 1945. Seal of the Doctor, etc. "Name - Okara Ichiro ('Okara' literally means, I was told, big warehouse of food, and 'Ichiro' means eldest son). Sex - male. Birth - borne in 33rd year, April 9th (In Japanese language, it was Ming, etc., etc. Occupation - Taiwan Gunshilepu Dikugun Shoktaku. He was the obedient officer of the Taiwan Military Government. Cause of Death - suicide, poison, by sickness, killed or natural death. Nature of sickness - heart attack. Time of sickness - 17th August, 1945. Time of death - August 19th, 4 p.m."

׻Ù ׌֛ , ֛ әÙ ׻Ù וִ ָ ׌֛ ו פ ָ ו֮ ֮֕ ׻ ֵ ׸ -294 ָ , in the Municipality for Cremation, Sl.No.2641 ߠ Name of disease - heart failure ִ, Date of death - 19th. Date of Permission - 21st . Date of cremation - 22nd. ׻Ù On this date, that is, between 21st and 22nd ֲ ֮ , ֲ ֻ ִ ֻ פ and that was he. 19th 21st ִ ִ ֻ ֠ ֻ 17th 18 ß, 1945 ׾֛ ֟ ֟֋ ָ ִ ӟ ֵօ ׾֛ ֟ ָ-ָ ֲ ֵֿ ֲ ָ ֟ ֻ֟߮ Ϭ֮ ӡ 0 ־ ֻ ֲ ־֕ ֻ , ִ֕ פ "death of Netaji is a settled fact". ָ ߅ ֟ ִ֮ և ֟ ֵ, ֲ ִ , ִ ֮ פօ ־֕ ֮ ִֵ ֤õ , ֤ ׻֋ ֟ ִ֮ և ֟ פ ֻ և ӟ 18 ß, 1945 ֵ settled fact ָ ֺ

(5Z ָ ֿ:)


0 ֮ (֟) : ױ ׸ և, ָ , ֤õ , ׮ֵָÙ ӲӬ , Ӥ , ֬ ׾֮ ֻ Ӥ ֻ ָ ׸ ֻ , ߴ֟ פ Ӭ ֱ ׻֮ ֿ ֋ ߕ ֟ , ָ ֮ ׻֋ ָ ߕ ׻֋ ָ 0 ִָ ֕ ߕ ָ֮ ״ֻ, ִ ֟ ן ֟ ֟ , ֌ ֟ ֟ , ׾֛ ִ֮ և , ֟ ֟ ֻ ָ ֕ ӟ ֵօ ָ ֤ ױ Ӥ ߿֮ ֱ-ֱ ֕ ӟ , ׾֛ ״ֻ֟ ױ Ӥ ֟ , ߿֮ ֮ , ױ Ӥ ߿֮ ֮ ֱ-ֱ ֕ ӟ , ׻֋ ֮ ֻ ֟ և ָ פ ָ , ֕ ӟ , ֕ ֵ? ָ ӟ , ֻ ashes , և ? ֟ ߲֮ ֟ ֿ֤ߤ ־ ָ ֣ ӟ ֕ ֻ ֵ ִ ָ ֵ, ֣ ֻ ֵ ߿֮ ï™ ׾ֿ ֕ , ֮ ֕ פֵ? ֯׮ֵ ֕ פֵ, ׾֛ ָ ֵ ֕ օ ָ ֯ ָ ֣ , ֵ ֕ ֮ ֵ֟ ֻ ֮ ? ִ , ָ ֮ , ֮ ׌ ֟ ֮ ֕ þֳ־ , ֮ ֲ ß֮ ֋, ֲ ֙ , ֣ ִֻ ִ֮ ״׻֙ Ԯֻ, ֮ ֛ ӑ ֻ ׌, ֟ ֻ ? He can conceal his real destination

օ ߲֮ ׌ ӟ ׾ß ִֻ , ֲ ִֻ , ׌ ֣֯ , ֻ ֣֯ ו֮ ߿֮ , ו֮ ׸ãןֵ ֕ ֣ , ֮֟ ֕ ֤ ֻ֮ ߲֮ ׌ ӟ ֣ , ߴ֟ ָ, At no cost, even at pain of death, ֟֟, ֕ ֮֟ ׻֋ ָ 껵ָ֮ߕ Ͼע ֮֟ ִ ? ׻֋ ߲֮ ֕ ִ ӟ ֵ, ׻֋ օ ֟ ֮֮ ㆻߠ , ֮ ߛ ߕ ָ ִ֮ և ו֮ ֟ ֟ , ֮ 98 84 , Point No. 4.11.1: Attention has been drawn to the minute of a meeting of India and Burma Committee of British Cabinet, presided over by the Prime Minister Attlee on October 25, 1945. The relevant part of which, reads as under:

Treatment of Indian Civilians renegades: It was generally agreed that the only civilian renegade of importance was Subhas Chandra Bose. This is October 25, 1945, after several months of the so-called plane crash. Then further this says: the relevant minute recorded by the British Cabinet on October 25, 1945 vide Transfer of Power - Volume VI, was kept reserved till discussion of all other related materials on this point. Now that it has been found on a detailed and careful analysis of the materials on record that Netaji did not die in the plane crash, it must be said that the minute reassures the above finding.

(6 ָ ָ)