As this enquiry is of a semi-judicial nature, and which has been in a way expressed by the Prime Minister in his letter dated 14-4-56, in reply to a reference made by me to him in my letters dated 2-4-56 and 14-4-56, it is my humble opinion, that our position is somewhat akin to that of judicial officers. I am aggrieved to state that the Chairman\\'s attitude and conduct at times, far from maintaining a judicial approach, has been similar to that of a zealous partisan and worse than that of the most unscrupulous prosecutor. With the intention of manipulating the evidence, so as to make it easy to lead to the finding that the plane crashed and that Netaji died, to which conclusion, Shri S. A. Iyer, witness No. 6, has arrived at in his book "Unto Him, A Witness", the Chairman, considering that to be an authoritative book, regarding the subject matter of this enquiry, put leading questions to some witnesses from relevant portions of that book and at times allowed a few of them to peruse the book during their examination. Whenever any witness made a statement that did not fit in with his opinion, he would make a suggestion to him as to whether he remembered it definitely, as the incident took place about eleven years ago or would put other questions or suggestions to him to confuse him and to make him modify his answer or change his definite statement to a vague one. Another unimaginable conduct of his was that when a statement made by a witness did not suit his purpose, he would modify it, while dictating it to the Stenographer. Objections were invariably raised by me and at times it was a daily occurrence.
The climax was reached on the 1st June, 1956 in Tokyo, when Mr. M. Miyoshi, named above, stated that Netaji\\'s coffin was placed on one stool, which the Chairman deliberately dictated to the Stenographer as two, because two stools had been stated by other witnesses. When I raised my objections and demanded the Chairman to inform me whether the witness had stated one stool or two stools, he evaded a reply and eventually explained that as an eight feet long coffin, in his opinion, could not rest on one stool, he dictated two instead of one. As stated above, such conduct cannot be readily imagined. This sort of conduct on the part of the Chairman compelled me to make notes at times of the statements of the witnesses separately and to compare the same with the draft copy of the statements submitted by the Stenographer. I fully realise the seriousness of these allegations, but I assure my readers that there has not been the slightest deviation from truth.
When I have been compelled to go so far, I would like to note for the information of my readers, a much less damaging statement, but probably a more interesting one in some other respect. When on the 9th June, 1956, during our sitting in Calcutta, Shri Dwijendra Nath Bose, witness No. 22, started stating about Netaji\\'s wrist watch, the Chairman stopped him from proceeding further, on the ground that this witness was not entitled to make any statement about Netaji\\'s wrist watch as Shri S. M. Goswami, witness No. 16, had already made statements regarding that watch. As the witness was taken aback at the Chairman\\'s objections and insisted on continuing with his deposition, our colleague, Shri S. N. Maitra, came to the Chairman\\'s rescue and explained to him, as one would do to a child, by saying, that if a red shirt was hung up against a wall, a person could state that it was so, another could say it was green and not red, a third could come and say it was white and not red and so on, and so this witness should not be prevented from speaking about that wrist watch. This, I am certain, is something unique in the annals of all judicial proceedings and exhibits the Chairman\\'s colossal ignorance in the matter of holding enquiries. There has not been the slightest deviation from truth in this matter either. This remark of mine and the similar one at the end of the last paragraph, I have been compelled to make, as these facts cannot be readily believed.
Another point, that should be considered, is our failure in. visiting Taihoku. In my first interview with the Prime Minister on the 2nd April, 1956, along with the Chairman, I pressed this point and told him that I would not consider it to be a satisfactory enquiry, unless we visited that place, made a local inspection and examined the local people there. The Prime Minister was pleased to reply that it was not possible or necessary to do so, for the following main reasons, (1), because no diplomatic relations existed between the Formosan and our Governments, (2), because, in all probability, that aerodrome with its runway, buildings etc. no longer existed, (3), because, the Hospital, being a Japanese Military one, had probably been demolished, (4), because, the Hospital and the Aerodrome staff, being Japanese, were no longer there and, they, being at present somewhere in Japan, it would suffice, if we went and examined them there, i. e., in Japan. I pressed this point in vain with our Ambassadors at Bangkok and Tokyo. Before finishing our work in Tokyo, and on my query, the Chairman told me that our visit to Taihoku could not be arranged, but he was, however, trying to bring to Tokyo, the Formosan nurse, who was said to have attended on Netaji.
On the 13th July, 1956, during our sittings in New Delhi, I was taken aback, when the Chairman told me that the Japanese Foreign office had arranged for our visit to Taihoku. On asking him, whether our Ambassador in Japan stood in the way of our going there, he replied that it was not so, but that our Prime Minister did not approve of it. This omission on the part of the Committee to visit Taihoku in Formosa, was also stated by Shri Amiyanath Bose, when we visited their house on 9-6-56, for inspecting the rectangular wrist watch there, and it was to the effect that the Chairman had told him that the Japanese Government had arranged for our visit to Taihoku. He enquired of the Chairman in our presence and hearing, as to the reasons why the Committee did not go there and avail themselves of the opportunity thus offered to us, and said, that it would be admitted on all hands, that a local enquiry would be exceedingly beneficial for a correct adjudication of the subject-matter of this enquiry, and an omission thereof would, on the other hand, leave a gap and void that could never be replaced. The Chairman gave no reply. It was for this and for the other statements of Shri Bose and which appeared in the newspapers on the following day, that I requested the Chairman to record the statements of Shri Bose as a witness, which he declined to do, as I have stated elsewhere. I fail to understand why our visit there, to which great importance is attached and which was evidently secured after great difficulty and opposition, was not allowed. If this be correct, it may naturally lead one to suspect that such a visit would probably reveal certain points, which would tend to change the whole aspect of the findings of my colleagues.