Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Subhas Bose traveled under the name of Mohammad Ziauddin and in the guise of an insurance salesman. They first went to Barari, where Asoke, Sarat Bose’s eldest son lived with his family. Next morning, he left on foot and a little later Asoke picked him up in a car and took him to Gomoh for the train to Delhi, from where he took the Frontier Mail to Pashawar. When he reached Peshawar on January 19, Akbar Shah, a Forward Block leader met him at the station and put him up at the house of Abad Khan. The latter had long experience of secret journeys through the tribal territories. Abad briefed Subhas Chandra for a few days about Pathan manners, customs and habits.
   On January 26, 1941 Subhas, accompanied by three guides, left for the border of Afridi tribal territory in a car. Near the actual tribal border, they started their trek, scaling mountains, parts of which were covered with snow. On January 30, they set out for Kabul in a tonga and then changed to a truck on the way, reaching Kabul on January 31. He stayed in a Serai near the Lahori Gate, in most inhospitable surroundings. His destination was Central Europe but efforts to go via Moscow took nearly two months to arrange between the Soviet, German and the Italian governments through their officials in Kabul. It was a very frustrating time for Subhas Chandra. At the initial stage of these contacts, he had to confide to the Italians and Germans his plan to set up a Free India Government in Europe and form an Indian Liberation Army with the Indian prisoners-of- war captured by the Germans and the Italians. On March 17, Subhas Chandra left in a car for the Soviet frontier accompanied by three Germans. They crossed the Afghan frontier and drove along until they reached Samarkand. From there they traveled by rail to Moscow, and then went by plane to Berlin reaching there on April 2, 1941.
   Subhas Bose first sought German assistance to secure India’s Independence. After waiting uncertainly for a number of days, he secured an interview with Hitler through the German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop. I have read in one of Bose’s biographies that Hitler was not sympathetic- in fact he told Bose that the British rule of India had a beneficial and modernizing influence on the country and its inward looking society. Hitler had particularly mentioned that the caste system was India’s handicap. Hitler praised the construction by the British of the infrastructure in India, particularly the railways which unified the country and increased trade and commerce.
   Frustrated, Subhas Bose went to Japan in 1943 with German assistance. He was transferred from a German to a Japanese submarine in high (and rough) seas near Madagascar (now Zanzibar) in the Indian Ocean under the most dangerous conditions. He reached Tokyo and received Japanese support to form the INA. In 1943, we were temporarily in Jalpaiguri at my Grandfather’s house due to Japanese air attacks on Calcutta and the resultant panic. We used to secretly listen to Subhas Bose’s patriotic and emotional speeches in Hindi starting with “Bhaiyon aor Baheno-Jai Hind”. His was a call to arms to drive out the British from India. The program, beamed over the Azad Hind Radio from Japan and later Burma, would always end with the INA’s marching song “aghey kadam barahe ja, khushi ka geet gaye ja- chalo chalo, Delhi chalo.” This was very inspiring to me as a ten year old student and to most Indians.
   Many years later, I was fortunate to meet two senior members of the INA- Brigadier Raja Habibur Rehman who was the chief of staff of Subhas Bose and Colonel M.Z.Kayani, whom Bose had reportedly selected as INA chief in case of his death. They were colleagues of mine while I was serving as a Deputy Secretary in the President’s Secretariat (1967-69) in Rawalpindi. Their past association with the INA and reverence for Bose had not gone very well with the vast majority of the Pakistani elite and army officers. My interest in the INA and their role in it allowed them to open up with their personal stories and frustrations. We became friends. Rehman was then the Political Agent in Gilgit. He had several times invited me to visit him in the remote Gilgit region and see the spectacular sights there. He was a good person but according to General Ayub Khan who was his minister for a little while, Rehman “was his own boss and unable to work under anybody.” Kayani was a joint secretary in the Cabinet Division sitting in the same building as I. SubhasBose had recruited these officers along with many other officers and soldiers from the British Indian personnel captured by the Japanese during the battle with the British in Singapore, Malaysia and Burma.
   Colonel M.Z. Kayani used to be called ‘Tiger Kayani’ in the INA (he had given me a book by the same title narrating his bravery and military successes.) It was the first INA Division commanded by Kayani that took part in the assault on Imphal in March1944. On the 18 th March 1944, the Azad Hind Fouz, fighting along the Japanese forces, crossed into India. But the march on Delhi was halted by a pre-mature monsoon and Anglo-American bombardment. In July 1944, Subhas made a radio appeal to Gandhi saying “India’s last war of independence has begun. Troops of the Azad Hind Fauz are now fighting bravely on the soil of India—-Father of our nation, in this holy war for India’s independence we ask for your blessings and good wishes.” Gandhi chose to ignore it. Kayani had high praise for Bose. Kayani, based on his personal experience during the difficult period of war, shortages and privations, told me that Subhas Bose treated Hindus and Muslims the same way. The INA members, officers and troops of all castes and religions ate from the same kitchen. It was Kayani’s firm belief that if Bose returned to India after the war, he would have peacefully and fairly settled the Hindu-Muslim issue and there would not have been any need for the partition of India.
   On August 18, 1945, Habibur Rehman was accompanying Netaji Subhas Bose on his last journey in a Japanese military aircraft from Taipeh in Formosa (now Taiwan) to Tokyo.
   I was thus able to obtain a first hand account of the tragic end of Subhas Bose from Habibur Rehman. The small Japanese military plane in which Bose was seated in the front and Rehman in the back seat crashed and caught fire on the runway while taking off. Rehman did not allege that the Japanese had sabotaged the plane though I have a suspicion that it was possible. Bose had fallen from favor and military and food supplies to the INA at the time were being drastically reduced by the Japanese who were themselves suffering shortages and losing the war. Also, the Japanese did not have confidence anymore in the INA as a credible fighting force against the British. Habibur Rehman and Subhas Bose were injured and severely burnt. They were treated in the Japanese Army Field Hospital in Taipeh. Even though Bose had third degree burns on seventy percent of his body and in terrible pain, he fondly enquired from Habibur Rehman (who had lesser injuries) lying by his side about the latter’s condition by saying ‘Raja Sahab, apko ziada chot to nahi lagi’? (Hope, you were not hurt too badly?). Brig. Rehman had many nice things to say about Bose’s charming manners, leadership qualities, deep patriotism and non-communal approach in which he was uncompromising. Bose died of his injuries in the hospital, and cremated in Taipeh. It was Brig. Rehman who, after his recovery, carried Bose’s ashes to Tokyo where it was kept for many years in a Buddhist temple. The ashes were brought back after many years to India under intense Indian public pressure.
   Let me add a footnote to this story. Soon after the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, Rehman and Kayani were mobilised by the Pakistani authorities to lead tribal militias and other irregular forces from Pakistan to go into Kashmir at the time of the Maharaja Hari Singh’s unilateral accession to India. The Pakistani forces suffered military setbacks and India occupied most of Kashmir. Rehman and Kayani were then given senior civilian positions in the Government under contract. Interestingly, their INA colleague Major Shahnawaj Khan had joined the Indian Army and fought on the Indian side in Kashmir, later rising to the rank of a Brigadier. That was the beginning of the Kashmir conflict, which unfortunately continues till today and threatens war between India and Pakistan from time to time. (Concluded)
   M Azizul Jalil writes from Washington

Some six weeks after the fatal bombings on the London transport services, Bangladesh was rocked by hundreds of bombs. The terror and worry inflicted on the two communities was similar. I experienced both. The London bombings on July 7 were fewer but deadlier — over 50 dead. The Bangladesh bombs of August 17 wreaked less damage — either by design or fate we still do not know — but the sheer number was overwhelming. The incident details and the casualties of both bombings are now common knowledge but the aftermath to the twin terrors in the two countries differed considerably.
   The difference between responses was significant in almost all sections of society — from leaders to the media. A closer analysis reveals how we differ as cultures and ultimately as democracies. Let us take it from the top and look at the response of the two prime ministers first.
   
   The leaders
   Begum Khaleda Zia was en route to a conference in Beijing when the first bombs struck. Far from turning the plane around she continued with the visit interrupted only by a brief statement. Ultimately, common sense prevailed and she returned from China two days early but in effect it was already a day too late. Tony Blair’s response could not have been more different. He too was attending an international meeting, but not just a bilateral affair. He was at the G8 conference in Edinburgh in the company of the most powerful rulers on the planet. And this was not just any other G8 conference either. As a result of Live8 – the global concerts orchestrated by Sir Bob Geldof the previous weekend, this G8 conference was being scrutinised by most of the world. To make matters worse Blair was the host of the conference. Having stated on the day that the bombs would have no effect on the conference itself, Blair still flew down to London the next day to offer comfort to victims and stern words for the bombers. Although his foreign policies are still blamed by a majority of Londoners as the cause of the bombs, mostly everyone welcomed his presence.
   
   The heirs
   England has a long established monarchy whereas we merely have a fledging dynasty but heirs everywhere have a role to play. Prince Charles and his new wife Camilla were at Paddington Hospital on the afternoon of the bombings to visit some of the injured and offer solace to the relatives of the dead. Our nearest equivalent, Tarique Rahman, took off with his family for three days to Cox’s Bazaar. How much kudos he could have gained by stepping into his mother’s absent shoes and taking responsibility is anybody’s guess.
   
   The ministers
   Moving down a ruling notch we should compare ministers’ statements during the aftermath. Much has already been made of the contrasting statements by two ministers of the ruling government as to the identity of the perpetrators. The best possible scenario now is that one of the ministers is completely wrong, the worst, that both are. Of course no minister here will be eating his words let alone resigning when the truth emerges. In the UK, far from naming any culprit without evidence, the nearest any minister got to finger pointing was the foreign minister’s (Jack Straw) remark that the bombings ‘had the hallmarks of al-Qaeda’. He like the rest of the British cabinet kept his opinions to himself and the investigations to the police. Even after a video released by al-Qaeda claiming a hand in the bombings, the police are still unsure of the role that al-Qaeda played in the London bombings. When all is uncovered you can be assured that no British minister will be eating his words.
   
   The mayors
   Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London was in Singapore the day of the London bombings. He was there celebrating the previous day’s announcement of London as the Olympic hosts in 2012. He made a moving statement from Singapore about the vitality that comes from the mixed community that is London and hoped that there would be no recriminations against the Muslim community. He then got on the first plane back to London and a week later organised a moving two minute silence across the city in tribute to the victims as well as setting up a fund for their relatives. Looking further back it was Rudy Guiliani, the mayor of New York, that galvanised the entire USA after the 9/11 attacks winning him Time Magazine’s Man of the Year award.
   Over 20 bombs exploded in Dhaka in some of the city’s prime locations yet the mayor has not been seen at any of the bomb sites nor has he organised a tribute of any kind for the injured. Man of the Year? Perhaps not.
   The opposition
   Michael Howard, the outgoing leader of the Conservative Party called for an inquiry into the bombings. He did not, however, call it for political gain but to find out if ‘lessons could be learned’. He then also praised Tony Blair’s handling of the incident saying ‘We wish to give the government our full support as they face difficult decisions in the future’. And he said all this in parliament. The contrast with our opposition could not be greater. Displaying better insight than any CSI team, Sheikh Hasina blamed the BNP for the bombs on the non-forensic evidence that the PM had left the country an hour earlier. She then called a hartal to protest the bombs ignoring the reality that a hartal would cause more disruption to normal life than 500 bombs.
   
   The investigation
   The London Metropolitan Police is loved and trusted by people the world over. A common sight in London is for tourists to have their picture taken next to a London bobby, the affectionate name accorded by the public. Even the gunning down of the innocent Brazilian is seen as a tragic mistake made by policemen unused to carrying weapons. So when Londoners and the world looked for answers they were satisfied when the police responded. Who wasn’t impressed with the three senior uniformed policemen who gave daily press conferences on the search for bodies and the search for further terrorists? No politicians were allowed on to the platform to capitalise on the situation. Journalists were left in no doubt who was in charge of the investigation as the policemen on the podium never once had to refer to someone higher up before answering a question. It was a prefect picture of democracy in action fuelled by empowerment.
   The British arrested no one for seven days. The Bangladeshi police arrested 150 people in the first 24 hours. It was difficult to calculate who was really in charge of the investigation here as no one stood still long enough – let alone sit in front of the world’s press. The media quickly descended on the home minister Babar for statements which were deemed more news-worthy rather than accurate and seemingly never prepared. Indeed the harassed minister even gave a statement to television from inside a lift furnishing Bangladesh with a further entry in the Guinness Book of Records for the Worlds Smallest Press Briefing Room.
   
   The media
   On the morning of the bombs in London the media became the eyes and ears of the public and the government. Repeated warnings were given out on the TV and radio not to travel unless it was an emergency. Programmes on all stations were cancelled to make way for breaking news. Even when they returned to normal programming the pop-music stations only played sombre songs. The police also used the media to appeal for witnesses and even requested any pictures taken by camera phone at the incident locations to be sent in. Hundreds responded.
   The British media also showed commendable restraint by never showing a body during the whole period. Rather than show pictures of dead victims they preferred to research and show pictures of the victims when they were alive. The media here have never exhibited such restraint and the police have yet to use the media to aid the investigation.
   
   The people
   Lastly we come to the people. They are the victims of terrorists and policies alike. In London, after a break of one day to evaluate the situation, Londoners went back to work. Much has been made of the gritty determination shown by Londoners comparing the attitude to the times of the Blitz in World War II. In reality most Londoners have big mortgages and monthly car payments and staying away from work is not an alternative.
   In Dhaka too people retuned to work the following day although with an air of bemusement rather than determination. There was almost a sense of civic pride that Bangladeshis could organise a bombing campaign so punctually and widespread yet keep the casualties low.
   Whatever the reaction the people in both communities have responded commendably and similarly to the terrorists’ explosions. No mass panic, no vigilantes and no absenteeism. Other sectors of our society have reacted differently to their British counterparts. It is a pity that we did not take advantage of the one thing that we had over London – the opportunity to learn from their experience.
   The writer is director, Democracywatch.
   E-mail: shumit@boltblue.com

Russell and Einstein had clearly understood the futility of demanding the elimination of modern weapons under the circumstances. Those pacifists, who are tiring themselves by shouting on the streets demanding elimination of these weapons, should instead work on the fronts urged by Russell and Einstein, which is to promote the idea of thinking the entire human race as one, irrespective of cultural, national, ideological, political and religious differences. Let us consider all human beings as brothers and sisters and this indeed is our true identity. All the plethora of divisions, which exist amongst us, were created by human beings only in the course of our history, often unnecessarily, to serve self-interest of small number of people. And there also lied the genesis of Einstein’s political vision which urged for establishing federalist world government. Einstein also abhorred nationalism or patriotism which has been the cause of the greatest human tragedy in the history of mankind. He wrote about patriotism:
   ‘Nationalism (patriotism) is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of mankind.’ ‘Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism – how passionately I hate them!’
   Thus Einstein had realised that only through the creation of a world government, the world could be rescued from the curse of the devastating instinct called nationalism or patriotism. If people can forget their religious, ideological, cultural as well as national identity and put more emphasis in valuing human lives whichever geographical location or racial group they belong too, there is every possibility that human kind can create a sense of belonging to one human family and to one nation under a world government. Such a situation will definitely help avert devastating conflicts. That may truly be a world what Russell and Einstein termed ‘paradise’ in this life, where all the people on earth would enjoy similar kind of governance, human rights, justice and prosperity. In that kind of world only, nobody would need weapons of mass destruction nor would their existence pose a great threat to the human race. Until a significant progress is being made in pushing our world towards unification as a single human family (like the EU) from all sorts of existing divisions, the existence of modern weapons would continue to exist, so would the threat of extermination of the human race by these weapons. Einstein said, ‘Mankind’s desire for peace can be realised only by the creation of a world government.’ On the 60th anniversary of the end of the world’s most devastating conflict (WWII), the world community needs to contemplate hard on this. Shouting for the elimination of destructive modern weapons alone is not going to bear any fruit. (Concluded)