A VIDEO THAT IS A WINDOW TO THE DISAPPEARANCE DISCOURSE

Solid argument and counter-argument between adversaries in debate. A gripping video with anchor superbly managing rancour tending to come through as proponents of crash-theory pit their wits against the sole opponent to it. Disappearance 'expert' waylaid by articulate anchor as discussion is not allowed to degenerate into diatribe. Persistent questioning by anchor corners 'expert' and exacts submission on a critical and contentious point of discussion while harrying his wits on other issues. Historian gives deliberated and rational answers but sounds hollow, nonetheless, as if not coughing clean on the matter. A matter to note, though, that despite the uncertainty surrounding Netaji's whereabouts post 18 August, 1945, all the panellists are dead certain about their respective positions and there is hardly any room for fresh acceptance of cited evidence on either side. The panellists seem to be possessed of completely closed mind-sets that will allow no further accommodation of fresh data that can upset their stated stances.

Somehow, it seems that Netaji in absence has now become a marketable commodity for books on facile conspiracy theories to be written, political points to be scored and public support for political ends garnered citing the cause of Netaji. Ardent admirers of the hero are rare, devoted disciples rarer still, dedicated researchers almost non-existent while cacophonous concourse abounds. It is, indeed, a sad spectacle today to have to witness this decadence to the whole debate when path-setters earlier have been glorious in their service and sacrifice to the cause of Netaji. Jai Hind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESvQuVcnoJw

Written by Sugata Bose

P.S. : A point to note on hindsight, though, is this and a very pertinent point it is at that one finds the anchor heckling the disappearance 'expert' quite a bit and trying to corner him into submission of the anchor's preferred points. Well, is the anchor being open-minded, impartial and fair? I wonder. It rather seems that the anchor has joined in the fray and is pushing the 'expert' into a tight corner to prove that the latter is wrong in his assertions that Netaji did not die in the air-crash. Rather dubious journalism one must say. The anchor simply keeps heckling and interrupting the flow of what the 'expert' is saying and will not allow him room for either free speech or clarity of thinking in the teeth of tremendous opposition to every phrase that he utters when the anchor is quite comfortable with allowing the three historians on the panel to make their points relatively freely. How on earth does one get to speak when one is not allowed to? What sort of an interview is this and what sort of a panel discussion at that?

However, all things said and done, the 'expert' sadly and badly bungles at many a point when he fails to be accurate about names, dates and references and attempts unsuccessfully and, perhaps, unconsciously, too, on account of shallow homework done, a strange thing for a 'researcher' though, to digress from the moot point into alleyways which is ably prevented, though, by the anchor, a commendable job at that which keeps the vibrancy of the discussion alive and never lets it peter out into an insipid affair.

At the end of it one comes off the programme with a terrible sense of dismay at the fact that the disappearance 'expert' has to glumly submit to the 'judgement' passed on Netaji's disappearance by the anchor as 'death having been caused by air-crash' which is happily accepted and seconded, so to say, by the three historians on the panel, a direct consequence of the apparent ignorance of pertinent historical facts on the part of the 'expert' and his shallow preparedness of what ought to have been a logically tenable case having the capacity to withstand an avalanche of rational queries. Fanciful theories based on hearsay and credulous assumptions full of loopholes do not work in a court of law nor before critical journalism and far greater preparedness through real research, and not stray pickings of data from diverse sources masquerading as one, is necessary to emerge victorious in one's stated assertions.

Before such a fusillade of pointed questions from the anchor and effective rational rebuttals from the historians queuing in opposition, our 'expert' stands humbled in his inability to either state or defend his position about the disappearance of Netaji with concrete evidence. Hence, the tragic outcome of the whole show, the declaration by the anchor, in the absence of any evidence that could have been posited to the contrary in a credible manner to debunk the air-crash theory, that one has to be rational, after all, and, so, accept the hard and rather bitter truth that Netaji did meet with his end the way it has been officially held by the Government of India for the past seven decades, that is, 'death by air-crash'.

After this shameful spectacle of submission before eminent historians by the most trenchant critic of the air-crash theory, one wonders if, at all, shallow intellects have any business to represent the cause of one of the greatest minds that graced the world in the twentieth century and shaped the history of a vast section of humanity. This, certainly, is a point to seriously ponder.