6. Evidence of Certain Witnesses

6.1 I shall now consider the evidence of some witnesses whose importance lies not in the intrinsic worth of what they had to say, but in the enthusiasm and persistence with which they pressed their claim to be heard. Let me say, at once, that all of them displayed a total disregard for truth, and their main objective in coming before the Commission seemed to be to satisfy a desire for self aggrandizement. I would have dismissed this evidence on the short ground that even a cursory examination of it is sufficient to reject it, but because Counsel, while arguing the matter, devoted considerable time and energy to what these witnesses had said, I deem it necessary to deal with it in some detail.

6.2 The first witness I shall take up is Uttam Chand Malhotra (Witness No. 16) who, it will be remembered, gave shelter to Bose at Kabul in 1941, when after escaping from his home in Calcutta, he arrived in Kabul after a long and hazardous journey.

6.3 Malhotra came to see me first, in my office, on August 20, 1970, soon after the appointment of the Commission had been notified. He identified himself as the person who had given shelter to Bose in his house in Kabul in 1941, and had helped him to escape to Germany. He said that he represented the Netaji Swagat Committee, which had been formed to welcome Bose when he should choose to make a public appearance Malhotra began by saying that Bose had not died after sustaining injuries in an air-crash, on August 18, 1945, but was very much alive and was now living in the Shaulmari Ashram near Sylhet. He went on to assure me that he would conduct me to Shaulmari and place my hand in Netaji's hand. In this he was supported by another person who accompanied him as the representative of another committee. This was an astonishing statement, and I asked Malhotra why Bose did not make a public appearance at once, thereby resolve all doubts and immediately put a stop to the Commission's deliberations instead of remaining unmanifested and, in consequence, throwing a cloud over the entire issue and encouraging baseless conjecture and wholly unsubstantiated theories. To this question, Shri Malhotra could give no reply beyond saying that the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram would make himself manifest when he considered the time opportune.

6.7 To resume Malhotra's narrative, he was now introduced to Shri Niharendu Dutt Majumdar, Advocate, and when he put the matter to him, Shri Majumdar emphatically maintained that the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram was not Netaji. In Malhotra's words, "then we started the discussion and Mr. Niharendu Dutta Majumdar told me that those people, Mr. Satya Gupta and company, who were saying that the Sadhu Baba of Shaulmari Ashram were Netaji, were lying." Shri Majumdar brought the issue to a conclusion by insisting that Malhotra seek an interview with the Baba, and drawing up an application, asked Malhotra to sign it. This application, addressed to the Baba of Shaulmari Ashram, was endorsed by Shri Majumdar to facilitated Malhotra's obtaining an interview. It may be mentioned that Shri Majumdar was the Legal Adviser of the. Ashram, and therefore, not only knew the Sadhu personally but had considerable influence with him. His endorsement of Malhotra's application would therefore ensure Malhotra's early interview with the Baba.

1. Despite his denials, Dwijendra Nath Bose had in fact seen the Sadhu of Shaulmari and exclaimed "Ranga Kaka". Of this fact he was assured by Rattan Maheshwari;
2. Shri Dwijendra Nath Bose was served with eggs at the Ashram, and this was clear proof of the fact that the founder of the Ashram was Netaji, because only Netaji could know that his nephew, Dwijendra Nath Bose, liked eggs;
3. Although Shri Majumdar had categorically stated that Satya Gupta and Roy were lying when they said that the Sadhu was Netaji, Shri Majumdar had not publicly denounced Gupta and Roy;
4. At a meeting at which Shri Malhotra threw a challenge regarding the identity of the Shaulmari Baba, saying "if anybody knows regarding the Shaulmari affair and knows that the Sadhu there is not Netaji, I will request him - I give him full time - to come and narrate to the people what is the actual thing at the Shaulmari Ashram". No one in the course of next three hours came forward to say that the Shaulmari Sadhu was not Netaji.
5. In the course of his interview, the Baba told Malhotra: "You know the people of Bengal believe me to be Netaji, I wanted to give you an opportunity of seeing me so that I could tell you who, in reality, I am. This has become a strange kind of mystery." But the Sadhu was never credited with having made an open admission or confession of being Netaji.
6. The Baba, according to Malhotra, had invited a number of prominent persons including Mr. Nehru, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Mr. J. P. Narayan, Dr. B. C. Roy and Mrs. C. R. Das to visit him at the Shaulmari Ashram, but none of them had done so because they did not want to expose themselves to the danger of having to say publicly, what they at heart, believed, viz. Bose was alive and was residing in the Shaulmari Ashram. Baba had, therefore, closed his doors to them now and would not entertain them even if they came.
7. In the course of the interview, the Sadhu referred to Malhotra's article when Bose was Ziauddin. On this Malhotra said: "Baba, how you have remembered me from the last 1946 to 1962." The Sadhu laughed and did not give a reply.
8. In the course of the same interview, Malhotra said to the Sadhu that people who visited him in the Ashram remained silent when they came out, and because of their silence, people thought that the Sadhu was Netaji. To this, the Sadhu replied: "They may think so. If people think, what can I do?"
9. Subhas Chandra Bose in his childhood had a nurse named Sharda and this was the reason why the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram had adopted the name Shardanand.

6.9 It is scarcely necessary to discuss the logical soundness or the probative value of the 9 reasons given by Malhotra for coming to the conclusion that the Sadhu was, in fact, Netaji. While Malhotra's statement that he quite definitely recognised Bose in the person of Swami Shardanandji would be a piece of relevant and admissible evidence, the inferences he made from the various circumstances, narrated by him, amount, at most, to an opinion formed on extraneous material and on the conduct of other persons. Such opinion has no probative value, and is inadmissible in evidence. I have already dealt with one of the points enumerated above, viz. Malhotra's reaction to Dwijendra Nath Bose's statement that he had been served with eggs for his breakfast at the Ashram. The other points need not be noticed as the reasoning advanced by Malhotra is wholly illogical and unconvincing. A word may, however, be said about the public meeting addressed by Malhotra at Falakata. When cross-examined by Shri Majumdar, Malhotra admitted that at the very first public meeting which he addressed, after his visit to the Ashram, he told his audience that he was not at all sure of the identity of the Baba, and therefore, could not say that the Baba was, in fact, Netaji. He explained this statement in the following manner: "Baba told me that he was going for tapasya for one month. I thought this, his tapasya should not be interrupted. For this reason, I stated at the Falakata meeting that my eyes might have given me a wrong impression." Malhotra admitted that at this meeting he had said that the Sadhu did not look the same person as Netaji.

6.10 Malhotra paid two more visits to the Ashram but on neither occasion was he admitted to an audience by the Sadhu, and therefore, the only time he saw the Sadhu personally was on the 30th and 31st July, 1962, and after these meetings he publicly expressed his doubts about the Baba being Netaji. What, then made him change his view? Certainly not any direct or personal information received by him.

6.11 There are one or two other witnesses who corroborated Malhotra's evidence regarding the identity of the Sadhu of the Shaulmari Ashram. They are Hira Lal Dixit, Sajjan Lal and Namwar Upadhyay. It is only necessary to give a few extracts from the evidence of these witnesses to show how palpably false and unreliable their evidence is. Said Hira Lal Dixit: "I went to Shaulmari Ashram on the 17th of January, 1965, and I had darshan of a Sadhu there. I know that he is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. I went to Shaulmari Ashram without permission. I was arrested and a garland of shoes was put round my neck. I was then beaten and produced before the Sadhu. He told me that I had done a wrong in proclaiming him to be Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, because he was on the list of war criminals. I was then beaten and put into jail. I have spoken at two thousand meetings and proclaimed that Shri Shardanand, the Sadhu at Shaulmari Ashram is indeed Netaji...I stayed with Netaji for half an hour in Shaulmari Ashram. I talked to him. He did not admit that he was Subhas Chandra Bose then. He said that he had not been born in Janaki Nath Bose's house, because I knew that he was born in Cuttack. I know for certain that the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram was Netaji. I talked to him for half an hour. The man who attended Mr. Nehru's funeral and was near his dead body was Subhas Chandra Bose. I saw this in the newsreel."

6.12 With regard to the Sadhu standing near Shri Nehru's bier, the matter was investigated by the Commission, and we have the testimony of Shri Lokesh Chandra and Shri Vira Dhammavara, a Cambodian monk. The evidence of these two witnesses is that the bald and bare-headed monk seen standing in the picture near Shri Nehru's bier was no other than Shri Vira Dhammavara. The rest of the statement quoted above has only to be rejected as completely false. It may be mentioned here that Shri Dixit is the person who wrote or compiled a book in which Malhotra's theory has been propounded, and Malhotra's interview with the Sadhu of Shaulmari Ashram has been described in somewhat picturesque terms.

6.13 The story of Shri Sajjan Lal (Witness No. 14) is somewhat similar to the story narrated by Hira Lal Dixit. He began his statement by saying that he had never met Netaji in the flesh and had not known him personally. He had, however, seen his photographs. On hearing that the Baba of Shaulmari Ashram was no other than Netaji, he went to interview him. "On 1-10-1964, my wife, my children and I went to Shaulmari Ashram. I met Netaji there. He was known as Shardanandji in Shaulmari Ashram. I remained at the Ashram for 29 hours. I talked to Netaji for about three quarters of an hour during my visit. I paid homage to him, and so did my wife. The Sadhu asked me about our health and then asked me if I was in the same chakkar (mental aberration) as Malhotra. I said, yes, and then he said to his Secretary, Ramani Ranjan, that this boy, meaning me, appeared to be a villain and that Malhotra will learn the lesson of his life...The Sadhu did not deny that he was Netaji, I suggested that he should interview Mr. Uma Shankar Trivedi. He said that no one should come to see him without permission; otherwise they would be disappointed...On the following day I was turned out of the Ashram. I had no further occasion either to go to Shaulmari Ashram or to meet Netaji personally myself, but I have been telling everyone that the Shaulmari Ashram Sadhu is in fact Netaji."

6.14 Namwar Upadhyay (Witness No. 22) also admitted to a rude rebuff from the Shaulmari Ashram. He said he wrote to the Ashram asking for an interview, and he received a letter in reply "telling me that if I had no connection with Shri Uttam Chand Malhotra, I would be allowed to visit the Ashram." At the interview, he asked the Sadhu what was the truth in the rumour that he was Netaji. "I also asked him why he did not disclose his identity if the rumour was false. Babaji replied: 'That is not my principle.' The Sadhu asked the witness to prepare a list of 100 persons who were familiar with Netaji so that they could come to identify him and proclaim to the world the truth of the matter. The witness, however, could not compose the list, and so the matter did not proceed further. Despite this request of the Sadhu, the witness did not publicize what had taken place at the interview. He said: "I spoke about the identity of Netaji and Shardanandji only to my intimate friends, but said nothing about it to outsiders or politicians. I spoke to everyone and said that Sharadanandji was Netaji. I used to speak about the matter everyday. I used to speak the truth to everyone whom I considered to be a man good at heart. If a bad man asked me about the matter, I would not deny the identity of Shardanandji but would reply in a negative way that I respected Shardanandji even more than Netaji and placed him higher than Netaji. People understood whatever they liked from this answer and it was not my desire to explain the matter further". Upadhyay's conduct is inexplicable in view of the importance of the matter and the witness's anxiety not only to find out the truth but to advertise it by preparing a list of 100 important persons who could identify the Sadhu and then proclaim his identity.

6.15 The evidence regarding the identity of Shaulmari Baba with Netaji has no probative value whatever and does not merit any contradiction. Contradiction, in ample measure, is however, provided by a number of witnesses. Shri Niharendu Dutt Majumdar, who knew Netaji well and who saw the Sadhu of the Shaulmari Ashram upon several occasions, has categorically stated on oath that the Sadhu is definitely not Netaji. I shall presently discuss Shri Dutt Majumdar's evidence on the point in greater detail. Shri Dwijendra Nath Bose, Netaji's nephew, has made a statement to the same effect. Questions were asked in Parliament on more than one occasion, and it was authoritatively stated that the Baba of Shaulmari Ashram was not Netaji. A criminal case was brought against Malhotra and Dixit under sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 500 and 239A of the Indian Penal Code by the Ashram, represented by the Personnel Assistant to the Secretary of the Ashram and by the Personal Assistant himself. In the complaint, it was stated that the two respondents, i.e. Uttam Chand Malhotra and Hiralal Dixit had been falsely stating that the Sadhu of the Shaulmari Ashram was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and they had forged documents to support their false statement. On one occasion, the Secretary of the Ashram referred to Malhotra and his supporters as "rabidly immoral persons, out to defraud people monetarily and politically by taking recourse to utterly false, cooked up and concocted propaganda." On general considerations alone, it is impossible to believe the story that Bose would remain in hiding for such a long time in an Ashram, be visited and seen by a number of persons, and yet succeed in keeping his identity enveloped in the mist of doubt. Mr. Samar Guha and Mr. Surendra Mohan Ghosal both of whom know Netaji well, have clearly stated that the Sadhu was not Netaji. Indeed, the harassment to which the Sadhu was subjected by Uttam Chand Malhotra and his supporters made the Sadhu institute criminal cases against them and finally close up the Ashram and escape to an unknown place where he could not be followed and intimidated.

6.16 The identity of the Baba of the Shaulmari Ashram was mooted for the first time on September 29, 1961, when Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, a school teacher, wrote a letter to Mr. Nehru, in the course of which he said that the founder of the Shaulmari Ashram had spread rumours that he was Subhas. In the letter, Jaiswal stated that there was an air of mystery and intrigue about the Ashram. The Sadhu was a chain-smoker and smoked imported cigarettes. He was a linguist, being familiar with Russian, Chinese, German and other languages. He went on to say that the Ashram, in his view, was a centre of some foreign conspirators who were secretly working there.

6.17 The matter was referred to the Intelligence Bureau and enquired into. Several reports on the working of the Ashram were submitted. Of these, the one submitted in June, 1962, traced the history of the Ashram, described its activities and expressed the view that there was nothing suspicious or blameworthy about what was happening in the Ashram, and no political party in West Bengal had shown any interest in the Sadhu's affairs. In the meantime, however, the hare started by Radhey Shyam Jaiswal drew the notice of some imaginative people who began to pursue it and advertise the notion that the Sadhu was in fact Netaji. This stir rapidly assumed the proportions of an agitation, and public meetings began to be convened and addressed by the protagonists of the strange belief. The initial step was taken by Haripada Bose, Joint Secretary of the Ashram, who towards the end of 1961, began to declare that the Sadhu was Netaji in disguise. He was promptly expelled from the Ashram, and printed leaflets were issued by the Ashram authorities, declaring unequivocally that the Sadhu was not Netaji. Haripada Bose was joined by others, including Satya Gupta of the INA, and they addressed public meetings, insisting that the Sadhu was no other than Netaji. The agitation gathered volume and became a threat to law and order, in certain regions of West Bengal. Prohibitory orders, under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had to be issued, and there were some actual breaches of the peace. No less than 20 meetings at different places in the State were convened and addressed by Satya Gupta and his supporters. Uttam Chand Malhotra now entered the scene and began to play a prominent, indeed the most prominent, part in propagating the hypothesis which had been vaguely suggested by Radhey Shyam Jaiswal at the end of September, 1961, barely nine months earlier. In vain did the Ashram authorities protest and issue denials. Investigation by the CID and the Intelligence Bureau absolved the Shaulmari Ashram of any suspicious or clandestine designs. The reports submitted to the Government refuted the allegation that the Sadhu was Netaji in disguise. But these declarations and reports notwithstanding, Uttam Chand Malhotra continued to exploit the gullibility of a section of people who are prone to bestow their emotions on anything extraordinary, anything sensational concerning a great personality, be it no more than a figment of somebody's imagination. In the end, the Sadhu was obliged to leave the Ashram and seek peace elsewhere. But controversy over his identity did not cease with his departure.

6.18 To at least three persons who knew Bose intimately, the notion of the Shaulmari Ashram Sadhu being Netaji appeared so fantastic and so remote from reality that they did not deem it necessary to visit the Ashram and refute Malhotra's contention by personally seeing the Swami and hearing him. Suresh Chandra Bose, Netaji's brother, never visited the Ashram. Sunil Das (Witness No. 169), a political worker and a close associate of Bose for some years (1939-1941), was convinced that the Swami could not possibly be Bose, his political leader and mentor. He paid a visit to the Ashram but did not see the Sadhu. He, however, made enquiries which convinced him that there was no need to seek a personal interview. After collecting all information from various sources which he considered dependable, he came to the conclusion that the Sadhu was not Netaji. Shri H. V. Kamath's evidence, though of a negative nature, goes a little farther than Sunil Das's testimony. The question of the Sadhu's identity was posed to him also, and he was handed a chit which was said to bear the Sadhu's writing. Kamath was also shown a photograph of the Sadhu published in newspapers and magazines. He learnt that Shri Sunil Das, Shri Samar Guha and Smt. Leela Roy had made enquiries, and come to the conclusion that the Sadhu most definitely was not Netaji. He accepted this conclusion, and did not take the trouble to pay a personal visit to the Sadhu, because the procedure for seeking an interview was too irksome. It involved sending a formal application together with three photographs of the applicant. Also, Kamath thought that since Netaji knew him so well, if the Sadhu were indeed Netaji himself, he would not have asked for any photographs of his old political supporter and associate. Kamath said: "I knew Netaji so well and I thought no purpose would be served by supplying the photograph, so I did not send the photograph...I am sorry to say that I did not, I regret to say I did not feel it necessary or persuaded enough to go to the Ashram to have darshan of the Baba." With regard to the Sadhu's photograph, the witness said that though there was some resemblance in one or two facial features, the photograph was definitely not the photograph of Netaji.

6. 19 The motives of Shri Uttam Chand Malhotra are not obscure. He admitted to having organised the Netaji Swagat Committee, for which money was collected by inviting membership of the Committee and by the sale of papers, pamphlets, etc. He admitted that a sum of Rs. 11,000 had been collected, and though he stated that he had spent Rs. 16,000 in furtherance of the work of the Committee, it is difficult to accept the figure as accurate. There is, however, little doubt that Malhotra has been collecting money and, as stated by the Secretary of the Ashram, in an angry letter, Shri Malhotra, no doubt, took advantage of the fact that Bose had stayed in his house on his way to Germany and Malhotra had helped him and played host to him. Malhotra has sought to exploit this old association to the full and has, to a large extent, succeeded in doing so. Thereby he has attained a great deal of notoriety and publicity, and has, possibly, been able to benefit himself financially also.