Sugata Bose Narayanan Gandhi, true it is that Madhuri Bose said so but I am strongly inclined to believing that she must have made the error and not Justice Mukherjee who did extensive research and did not for sure indulge in a mere cursory glance through the facts and figures to arrive at his conclusion.
Madhuri Bose Sugata Bose, Are you sure you have read Justice Mukherjee's Report in full and Habib-ur Rahman's testimony? I have.
Sugata Bose No, Madhuridi, I have read it very sparingly but have articulated my view on a very natural basis on the assumption that Justice Mukherjee who headed the Commission must have gone through the facts and figures very thoroughly and without making such errors as pointed out by you for he was aided ably by assistants well versed in the trade of sifting through information. Hence, my position was what I stated it to be. However, there is a very low possibility still for a human error which I very much doubt though but cannot quite rule out absolutely for the reason stated.
Madhuri Bose You have read only 'in parts' but you said 'I am sure she (i.e me Madhuri) must have made the error and not Justice Mukherjee who did extensive research' !!!
Sugata Bose I have edited my words which were actually unintended in the import that they literally convey but which I meant in the way of 'I feel' or 'I guess' or 'I am strongly inclined to believing', for we often do use the words 'I am sure' in the said sense.
Madhuri Bose I am sorry Sugata Bose that is irresponsible on your part. So you assume I have not gone through 'the facts and figures very thoroughly' before making a judgement? ? I am very disappointed. Be thorough yourself and read everything that is relevant before you challenge others. I am tired of irresponsible persons who are ready to solve the Netaji mystery!
Sugata Bose I cannot imagine that Justice Mukherjee --- who headed the Commission --- and his team were less thorough than you were about the stated study. There are many reasons other than the one stated by you which were contentious points for tilting the scales against the air-crash theory. We are debating about a side issue. I am not being irresponsible at all. I may also ask you to read up a lot on many a controversy about Netaji's life which has cast aspersions on his spotless character and made him appear like an irresponsible person at that. However, I find that despite no dearth of evidence and also an utter lack of evidence as the case may be, there is no effort on many to clear the calumny that has smeared the name of India's holiest patriot. When documents are exhibited, there is no opposition shown to them and, yet, theories about Netaji's status abound. This is unfortunate for the great hero who I worship deserves better.
Madhuri Bose Habib-ur Rahman was the key witness in the air crash story. I am sorry to say that Justice Mukherjee got Habib's evidence completely wrong. This did not help at all to disprove the air crash story. To understand what I am saying and why I am saying so, you need to: (1) Read Habib-ur Rahman's testimony; and (2) Read Justice Mukherjee's Report in full.
Sugata Bose I do not have Habib-ur-Rahman's testimony at my disposal, so I cannot read it for the while but I can surely go through the JMCI Report and the Dissentient Report of Suresh Chandra Bose. There was no air-crash after all. So, how does Habib-ur-Rahman's testimony count at all?
Madhuri Bose Justice Mukherjee used Habib-ur Rahman's testimony to prove that the air crash did not happen. But he misunderstood or mis-read Habib's testimony!
Sugata Bose So, why do you not raise this issue in the media to bring it to everybody's notice and disprove the validity of the JMCI's findings? Also, what are your objections, if any, to the lack of evidence to support the occurrence of the alleged air-crash? What is the evidence that you can cite in favour of the crash other than to say that there were eye-witnesses like Habib-ur-Rahman and others, a line of logic which is flawed if it cannot be proved with documentary evidence or pronounced circumstantial evidence that, after all, the stated air-crash had taken place? It is a cyclically flawed reasoning which will not validate the crash.
No comments:
Post a Comment