320 HIS MAJESTY’S OPPONENT
resurrect him testified to his continuing charisma as a unifying and
selfless Indian leader. This popular sentiment, however, came to be ex-
ploited by a handful of people and fringe po lit i cal parties, who used
fraudulent claims about Netaji’s whereabouts to advance their own in-
terests. The self- selected group that typically came forward to depose
before judicial commissions on the question of his death did not repre-
sent the vast populace who celebrated the life and work of India’s
warrior- hero. The strong historical evidence suggests that Netaji died
as a result of the air crash in Taipei on August 18, 1945, while attempt-
ing to continue his fight for India’s freedom at the end of World War II.
Stories of his being spotted in various places after that date lie in the
domain of rumor and speculation, if not willful fabrication. In particu-
lar, there is no evidence to suggest that Netaji succeeded in reaching the
Soviet Union or Soviet- held Manchuria.
An overwhelming majority of Netaji’s closest po lit i cal associates, in-
cluding se nior INA of fi cers and leaders of the Azad Hind movement,
believed Habibur Rahman’s account of Netaji’s mortal end. On the
leader’s birth centenary in 1997, Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon, the sole sur-
viving member of the Red Fort three, made an emotional plea at the
historic fort for Netaji’s remains to be brought back from Japan to In-
dia and for a mausoleum to be built in Delhi. S. A. Ayer, Prem Kumar
Sahgal, Shah Nawaz Khan, Mehboob Ahmed, Debnath Das, Lakshmi
Sahgal, Janaki Athinahappan, and numerous others had expressed the
same view. Prem Kumar Sahgal was one of those who, in the late 1940s,
kept hoping that Netaji had managed to escape. After careful examina-
tion of the evidence, however, he came to accept the fact of the air
crash. Along with his wife, Lakshmi, he strongly advocated that Netaji’s
mortal remains be returned to India. Sarat Chandra Bose and Sisir Ku-
mar Bose, who had learned of the tragedy while in prison, accepted the
news with grief and fortitude. Yet in subsequent years, both allowed
themselves to hope that perhaps their worst fears were unfounded.
Sarat felt especially deep anguish, and found it hard to accept the loss
of his beloved brother. He died on February 20, 1950, long before all
the pertinent evidence was gathered in 1956. Sisir Kumar Bose studied
all the relevant evidence, and in 1965 made his own investigations in
Japan and Taiwan. His doubts were allayed, and he came to the conclu-