There was no post mortem of Shastri’s body nor was his death properly investigated.
Shastri’s doctor RN Chugh was hit by a truck when he was going to testify in front of the Raj Narayan Committee.
Shastri’s domestic servant Ramnath also came to testify. He met Lalitha Shastri just before the testimony. After leaving the place when he was going to Parliament, he was also hit by a car. Ramnath had to be amputated in the accident and his memory was gone forever. He also died later.
The servant who told that they did not let him cook that night also died in a road accident.
In the year 1965, India defeated Pakistan in the war. After which in the year 1966, there was an agreement between India and Pakistan, which is known as the Tashkent Agreement. The agreement was signed in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, Shastri Ji died on the same night after a heart attack there, but the main reason for this is not yet known. When Shastri Ji’s body was brought to India, his body was blue, and there were some marks of cut, which shows that he was killed rather than died of a heart attack.
Shastri Ji’s doctor RN Chugh had said that he had no heart disease, after which he died in a road accident.
Lal Bahadur Shastri Ji last spoke to his daughter on the phone, at that time he said that he had done dinner and was going to sleep. However after his death, the cook was also arrested, but due to lack of evidence, he was released.
It is said that on the night of Shastriji’s death, food for Shastriji was not prepared by his personal servant Ramnath, but by John Mohammad, the cook of the Indian Ambassador, TN Kaul in Soviet.
After some time, that servant Ramnath died in a road accident, it appears that Shastriji’s death was hatched in a conspiracy, and those who had little knowledge about it were killed one by one.
For the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri ji, RTI was also done many times but no satisfactory answer could be given.
After the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri, there was a wave of mourning all over the country. Not only this, there was a wave of mourning in foreign countries as well. Because Shastri’s accidental death took place in another country. That too on an occasion when an important document was signed. His body was not taken post-mortem when he was brought to India. Due to which the real cause of his death has not been found out to date.
The controversy over former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri’s mystery has deepened once again. The Rajnarayan Committee was formed to investigate the cause of his death, but the investigation remained incomplete due to the mysterious death of Shastri’s doctor. Shastri’s domestic servant, who was present in Tashkent, also fell victim to the accident. When Shastri’s body was brought to India, some personal things of Shastri were also missing in the material that came along. Lal Bahadur Shastri’s son Anil Shastri said that he used to keep a red diary. In this, he used to write his routine. After his death on 11 January 1966, the diary did not come to India.
Apart from this, he also kept a thermos, in which he used to drink water or milk at night. That thermos also did not come back from Tashkent. The examination of Thermos could clearly reveal whether or not he was killed by poisoning.
A leader close to the Shastri family had said that when Shastri’s body was brought from Tashkent, his wife Lalita Shastri received a torn paper from his cover of an eyeglass. It is believed that the torn paper was of the same red diary. Only after receiving that paper did Lalita Shastri raise suspicion of poisoning Shastri.
When Indira Gandhi proposed that Shastri be cremated in Allahabad, Lalita Shastri had strongly protested. Indira Gandhi did not want the slogan of Jai Jawan Jai Kisan in Delhi. Finally, Shastri was cremated in Delhi after Lalila Shastri’s protest.
Shastri’s body was neither post mortem nor was his death properly investigated. Although the Raj Narayan Committee was formed during the Janata Party government, now its records are not available.
DISCLAIMER: This article reflects author’s view point. Goa Chronicle may or may not subscribe to views of the author