................................................................................................
................................................................................................
PRISONER OF YAKUTSK
THE SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
MYSTERY FINAL CHAPTER
SHREYAS BHAVE
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
The book was published in 2019, and has therefor no excuse for the lies, nor for pretending that truth about Netaji threatened national security in India. It only demolishes lie about congress and UPA governments who lied.
One picks this up due to an interest in the subject, not realising it's a novel. That's intentional on part of the publisher. Author names it clear in his introduction, if one reads it, soon enough. But the introduction is reasonably interesting. The book on the other hand seems more of a patchwork.
It requires more art and craft to make a patchwork look a seamless whole, and here there's no awareness thereof.
The author seems very young, from the way he assumes a good deal about past facts, extrapolating from his own times, especially when it comes to names, life arrangements, travel and much more.
He's picked the subject for several reasons - unabating interest from India for one, possibilities of setting up a Dan Brown style story for another, exotic locals a reality of the original, and much more.
One has to wonder if he forgot why the deep attachment and reverence of India for Netaji in the first place, the way he confirms to what seem like norm of strictly imposed requirements from publishers - a dollop for prurient interests, here quite unnecessary.
Dan Brown does without it, after all.
Author, though, only had a capability of recognising a good opportunity to stage a Dan Brown, not to carry it to perfection as Dan Brown does The Da Vinci Code, or any of his other works, for that matter.
And really the setting requires more of a Frederick Forsyth.
Author opines, amongst much else, that the Sadhu who appeared in Ayodhya in mid-seventies and was suspected to be Netaji, wasn't, in fact, he; that Netaji died in Russian custody, and the Sadhu who looked like him was one of his several body doubles, who were trained to take on his identity.
There are several flaws in this, as in most thinkings of the author.
For one, he's supposed to have disclosed inadvertently to a disciple, that he'd lived in Siberia. If one does not write it off as a lie, then one has to question why a double of Netaji, too, would be in Siberia, if Netaji’s being in custody in Siberia is correct.
But Netaji being in Soviet custody was information from Stalin disclosed to Jawaharlal Nehru, as per his message to the then PM Attlee; doubting this is the extreme vouching for the congress government stand of six decades and more, despite several obvious lies.
Moreover, there's no reason why another man wouldn't resume his own identity, or at least strenuously refute suspicion of being Netaji, if that were so. Which he never did. Other members of INA and associates of Netaji had no reason to fear Government of India, not for merely their identity.
So in assertion that it was a double, author implies a government plot, and this makes little sense for another man, as it involves a seclusion of well over a decade in poverty. Moreover the Sadhu was reported by everyone who knew him to be of spiritual power, and for such a man to be part of a paltry, base lie by Congress governments is illogical.
There's, moreover, no reason to assume that Netaji must have died in custody, as an abject laborer. He was a valuable prisoner for USSR, someone very useful to keep Jawaharlal Nehru and subsequent power-hungry leaders in line, especially those from his family.
So the flat assertion that the Sadhu was definitely not he but a double, smacks of a siding with those guilty over decades of lying to India, which is in line with his general tone, however hidden at first.
Author begins chapter 21 with a flashback constructed to convey a morale whereby a muslim contract killer, and by association, all islamic warriors, are established by him as on principle refusing to kill women and children.
He also establishes, in the same flashback, a Sikh and by association, also all Hindu people, as exactly the opposite.
This is an out and out lie, on both counts, not only historically throughout, through histories of wars as conducted by Hindus vs those by islamic hordes, but right down to Noakhali and further.
There is much maligning of Hindus especially posr 2002, with a determination to wipe out every trace of the fact that, the whole thing began due to a train filled with Hindu pilgrims having been burnt alive, charred to death at Godhra, as they were returning home, hundreds dead including people of every age and gender.
And the riots, thereafter, weren't one sided, either, contrary to the propaganda against Hindus ever since.
They were supposed to be as much a genocide of Hindus as had been achieved in Kashmir in 1990, West Punjab and NWFP in 1947, and East Bengal between 1946-1971 and present.
So the whole maligning of Hindus, in overdrive from 2002 on, is because the intended genocide of Hindus in Gujarat failed. Instead, lies propaganda took its place ever since.
Pakistan propaganda, until then, was, that Hindus are merely moneymaker, whom Pakistan can nassacre as and when pakis need money and land. After 2002 riots it immediately turned to portraying Hindus as only killers, and muslims as victims.
It's not that they are unaware of having killed Hindus. It's that that's supposed to be merely of course, routine, non sequitur. Deaths of muslims at hands of non-Muslims are a horror as per Muslim law, rest all well.
Author is driven by writing in accord.
................................................................................................
"“Netaji disguised himself as a Caucasian before,” Harman reminded him, “when he escaped from Calcutta.”"
Incorrect, unless Indians are all classified as caucasuan, which was so until a separate classification was applied from India from a racist point of view.
Netaji had dressed as a muslim and specifically as a Pathan.
A racist view predominating in pakistan and very vocal on internet does go on and on about Indians being short, dark and ugly while pakis being tall, white and pretty. Any debate with Arnab on Republic TV which includes paki debaters can dispell the lie, especially if it includes a particular Indian diplomat from Tamilnadu, named Parthasarathi.
................................................................................................