Panel report on Gumnami Baba should be rejected: Writer duo

LUCKNOW Two writers who support the theory that Gumnami Baba was freedom-fighter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose have strongly contested Justice (retired) Vishnu Sahai

LUCKNOW Two writers who support the theory that Gumnami Baba was freedom-fighter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose have strongly contested Justice (retired) Vishnu Sahai Commission’s conclusion that Gumnami Baba was not Bose.

HT Image

They feel the commission did not examine the available evidence scientifically. In a statement, Chandrachur Ghose and Anuj Dhar, the writers of the 2019 book ‘Conundrum: Subhas Bose’s life after death’, said, “The commission’s report should be rejected as it fails to meet the main objective of setting up the inquiry. Instead of identifying Gumnami Baba, the report has taken an easy escape route through a frivolous assertion.”

While concluding that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji, the commission had given 11 points about his personality that includes an observation pointing to Gumnami Baba as the Indian National Army leader’s follower.

“From items recovered from the part of Ram Bhawan (Faizabad, now Ayodhya), where Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji lived till his death, it cannot be ascertained that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose……. He (Gumnami Baba) was a follower of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. But he changed his residence when people started saying he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,” Justice Sahai observed in the concluding part of the commission’s report tabled in Hindi in the state assembly here on December 19.

Both Ghose and Dhar appeared before the commission to make their point that relying on documentary, eyewitness and forensic evidence, they concluded that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji. Names of both Dhar and Ghose are mentioned in the commission’s report as commission’s witness (CW) 3 and CW 4. The commission has noted that in all there were 45 witnesses and out of them 34 appeared personally while 10 made their point through affidavits, giving valid reasons for not appearing before the panel.

About the commission’s observation that Gumnami Baba was Netaji’s follower, both Ghose and Dhar said, “The suggestion that Gumnami Baba was a follower of Netaji flies in the face of facts. In the 30 years that he was in India secretly, Gumnami Baba maintained contact with several Netaji aides and others, including the then RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh) chief. There is no evidence in the letters that have survived that they treated him like a follower of Netaji, in fact they were reverential about him and dropped clear hints that they thought he was Netaji….Gumnami Baba forbade people to refer to his real identity and that’s why they avoided references, but reading their letters one can easily make out what they thought of his real identity,” they said.

The commission, in its report, however, pointed out that it examined all the available evidence with utmost care.

“To know the truth, I cross examined the witnesses. While evaluating them, I always had in mind that the witnesses were testifying about the incidents that took place about 31 or 32 years ago. (Gumnami Baba died on September 16, 1985. In fact, some of these testimonies were about the incidents that took place 60 to 65 years ago…. This is common knowledge that human memory gets blurred with a period of time and when witnesses are asked to recollect 31 to 65-year-old facts, then they are tempted to fill the gaps with their own imagination. This is why I evaluated the affidavits with utmost care,” justice Sahai observed in the report.

About Dhar’s conclusion that Gumnami Baba was Netaji, the commission noted the conclusions were based on positive report of handwriting experts and his interaction with persons who knew Gumnami Baba. The commission also observed that Ghose reached the conclusion that Gumnami Baba was Netaji on the basis of research work that pointed towards a strong probability that Gumnami Baba was Netaji. The commission, however, did not find the observations of the two writers and the material provided by them as sufficient ground to conclude that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

To this, Dhar countered the commission’s observations and said that he, along with Ghose, had given a representation alleging that DNA reports and handwriting reports (as quoted in Mukherjee Commission’s report) that point out that Gumnami Baba and Netaji were not same persons had been fudged.

“The commission should have gone for fresh DNA tests and handwriting examination in view of our allegations. But the commission did not pay heed to this,” said Dhar.

“We two individuals (Chandrachur Ghose and Anuj Dhar) with limited means, were able to get Gumnami Baba’s handwriting tested by two leading experts in the US and India, who opined that Gumnami Baba and Subhas Chandra Bose were the same person. But the commission did not even consider this idea,” said Dhar.

When contacted, justice Sahai said he would not like to comment beyond what has been observed in the commission’s report.