Yogi Adityanath’s note shows UP Govt has rejected Sahai Commission’s claim that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji
The recently released Sahai Commission Report on the identity of Gumnaami Baba, widely believed to be Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose living in disguise
BY Chandrachur Ghose & Anuj Dhar
The UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has rejected the claim made in a report by Justice Vishnu Sahai (Retd) that Gumnami Baba urf Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The Chief Minister has done so in signed Action Taken Report (ATR) that we have accessed. Copy of the ATR is attached at the end.
The CM writes (in Hindi) that the commission was not able to ascertain the identity of the mostly unseen holy man, who lived in several parts of UP from 1950s till 1985 (when Netaji would have been 88 years old). The ATR also includes a few other points that have been characterised as अनुमान in the commission’s report, most notably that Gumnami Baba was a follower of Netaji.
अनुमान means either a guess, conjecture or presumption. The Commission’s conclusion that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji does not figure in the ATR signed by the Chief Minister, which details the state government’s stand on the commission report as per law.
We, Chandrachur Ghose and Anuj Dhar, who have meticulously researched this matter for nearly two decades and have always shared our findings with media, welcome this rejection by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath of Justice (rtd.) Sahai’s claim Gumnami Baba was not Subhas Chandra Bose.
We hold that Gumnami Baba/Bhagwanji was Netaji and we have detailed our case in our book Conundrum: Subhas Bose’s Life After Death.
https://www.amazon.in/Conundrum-Chandrachur-Ghose-Anuj-Dhar/dp/9386473577
Our view is that the primary purpose of setting up the inquiry commission following a 2013 order of the Allahabad High Court was defeated since the Sahai commission did not conduct any proper inquiry. Instead of conducting his own investigation for which the commission was appointed, Justice Sahai has overwhelmingly depended on the report of another commission of inquiry that functioned over a decade ago, and which was rejected by the Central Government.
Justice Sahai’s अनुमान that Gumnami Baba was a follower of Netaji is totally wrong. It has been sought to be established by him, citing a letter in Bengali written by ‘Bulbul’ from Kolkata on 16 October 1980. Sahai writes in his report that the letter reading, ‘when will you come to my
place. We will be very happy if you visit on the birthday of Netaji’ made it clear that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji.
We can confirm that ‘Bulbul’ is Kolkata based Suhita Bhattacharya, who was a minor when she wrote this letter in 1980 at the behest of her freedom fighter father. Late Santosh Bhattacharya, an associate of Netaji, was one of the 5 Bengali followers of Gumnami Baba who used to secretly visit him, especially on his birthday on 23rd January (Netaji birth anniversary).
They all were convinced that he was Netaji. Three of these followers (who were then living) deposed before Justice MK Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry (1999-2005) that the man was Netaji indeed. Suhita Bhattacharya was subsequently told by her father as much.
Rather than inquiring the matter himself and identifying who Gumnami Baba really was, Sahai left the entire onus of proving it on those who appeared before him, especially those who stated that the Baba was Netaji. His stock response in his report is that the handwriting and DNA tests performed at the instance of Justice MK Mukherjee were negative and as such he was not Netaji.
In view of Justice Sahai’s uncritical acceptance the of DNA & handwriting tests conducted by the Mukherjee Commission, upon which grave allegation of fraudulence have been raised, the functioning of the commission at taxpayers’ expense appears to have been wholly unnecessary.
Rather than treating his commission as fresh investigation, in the spirit of the High Court order, Justice Sahai selectively used portions of Mukherjee’s report to dismiss the Netaji link. It is to be noted that Mukherjee’s report was rejected by the Central Government in 2006.
With regard to handwriting and DNA tests performed by sarkari experts at the instance of Mukherjee Commission, in our written statement to Justice Sahai, we provided reasons that these tests were fudged. A simple verification would have shown our allegation to be right and would have removed the main foundation of Justice Sahai’s rejection of all witnesses who claimed that Gumnami Baba and Netaji was the same person.
The commission with all its resources provided by the government could have easily conducted fresh handwriting and DNA examination. The very fact we, with all the meagre means available to us as individuals fighting against all odds, could organise handwriting tests by top American expert Curt Baggett and Indian expert Ashok Kashyap shows that Justice Sahai did not carry out an “inquiry” but wrote his report on the basis of preconceived notions.
Both Baggett and Kashyap gave most detailed report to us, stating that Gumnami Baba was Netaji, in strike contrast to perfunctory, clearly shoddy, reports given by sarkari experts who are evading media.
In our book, and in our statement to the commission, we have cited clear proof that the finding of Gumnamai Baba negative DNA test was leaked months before the test was completed.
Sahai Commission did not even deem it fit to examine this open and shut case proving that all was not right with the DNA test.
The commission exercised none of the wide-ranging powers accorded to a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act – to summon relevant persons and examine them on oath, requisitioning official records, including from the intelligence department, or examination of relevant documents. The commission did so despite our specific request in our written submission to Justice Sahai.
The most crucial evidence linking Gumnami Baba to Netaji, that is his connection with former revolutionaries, was completely ignored by Justice Sahai, who relied upon the letter of a teenager
to try and prove that Gumnami Baba a was mere follower of Netaji. That claim now stands nullified.
The Action Taken Report signed by the UP CM appears on next two pages.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156416062266557&id=674271556
Leading handwriting experts from US & India confirm that both Netaji and Gumnaami Baba were one and the same person. Now it’s only a matter of time before the current Government officially acknowledges it! Till today, previous Governments simply evaded the issue through farce and biased Commissions, including the recently tabled Sahai Commission which was appointed by the previous UP government!
Bulbul (Suhita Bhattacharya)’s letter to press refuting the claim made by Justice Sahai in his report
Bulbul outbursts! Bubble bursts!
Why did the Commission not examine the crucial witness, broadly on the basis of whose letter the judgement was arrived at as follows:-
In concluding paras of the commission’s report, Justice Sahai has noted that he came across evidence demolishing the claims of those affirming that Gumnami Baba was Netaji when he inspected documents in the district treasury in office of the district magistrate Faizabad (now Ayodhya) on June 22, 2017.
Sahai said there was a letter in Bengali written by Bulbul from Kolkata on October 16, 1980. Sahai said the letter from Bulbul reading, ‘when will you come to my place. We will be very happy if you visit on the birthday of Netaji’ made it clear that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji.
(Hindustan Times, December 20, 2019)