What do you think?
Rate this book
Your Prime Minister isDead
When Lalita Shastri saw her husband’s body, it did not appear he had been dead only a few hours. His face was dark bluish and swollen. The body was bloated and it bore strange cut marks. The sheets, pillows and the clothes were all soaked in blood. As the family members raised doubts, suddenly sandal paste was smeared on Lal Bahadur Shastri’s face. And yet, the controversy whether or not India’s second prime minister’s death was really due to a heart attack, couldn’t be contained. Allegations of the KGB’s, the CIA’s or an insider’s hand in the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri emerged in time
In this first-ever comprehensive study of the enduring Shastri death mystery, Anuj Dhar puts together a disturbing narrative going against the official version. Dhar’s bestselling book "India’s biggest cover-up" inspired declassification of the Subhas Chandra Bose files and hit web series "Bose: Dead/Alive
In this first-ever comprehensive study of the enduring Shastri death mystery, Anuj Dhar puts together a disturbing narrative going against the official version. Dhar’s bestselling book "India’s biggest cover-up" inspired declassification of the Subhas Chandra Bose files and hit web series "Bose: Dead/Alive
380 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2019
69 people are currently reading
1089 people want to read
About the author
Anuj Dhar
16 books120 followersAnuj Dhar is an Indian author and former journalist. Dhar has published several books on the death of Subhas Chandra Bose which (according to official and academic views) occurred on 18 August 1945, when a Japanese plane carrying him crashed in Japanese-occupied Taiwan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
May 19, 2022
This book, and the accompanying 'The Tashkent Files', have revolutionised the way we Indians look at the death of Shastri— the greatest Prime Minister we had but lost. For a long time, Shastri’s death has been lamented as a loss to the nation since he could have taken the country to a completely different direction. But this book consolidated all thoughts into the following set of questions:
1. Had Shastri been murdered?
2. If so, then who could have killed him?
3. What was the reason behind the murder, in that case?
4. Why did successive governments try their best to suppress the prospect of a proper fact-finding inquiry?
On the basis of this book, then the answers to above-mentioned questions would be:
1. The probability of Shastri being murdered, by administering poison, is very-very high.
2. Not the Americans (at least officially), nor the Russians (again, at least officially) had anything to gain from unlikely death of Shastri. But the possibilities of one of the agencies going rogue and removing Shastri in a covert operation can't be ruled out.
3. This is absolute wilderness, even now, where all sorts of theories roam about freely. Stopping Indian nuclear program, preventing a move against Pakistani positions, putting a lid over information being leaked about Netaji's life in the gulags which Shastri had acquired— any of these could have been the reason.
4. The answer is simple: those in the establishment apprehended that having an inquiry would open such a can of worms that the situation— both home and away— would be destabilised.
As a result, this book refrains from providing any conclusive answers to these questions. It only tells us, what might have happened with Shastri that night. Also, it provides for a roadmap for a proper inquiry into the matter.
The writing is very lucid. Analysis is comprehensive. In short, if you wish to know all about the controversies raging around Shastri’s death, this is the best book.
My only objection towards the book is that it unnecessarily adds the mysteries surrounding Netaji's fate and the attempted cover-up, to this book. Those parts were not necessary at all.
Otherwise, recommended wholeheartedly.
1. Had Shastri been murdered?
2. If so, then who could have killed him?
3. What was the reason behind the murder, in that case?
4. Why did successive governments try their best to suppress the prospect of a proper fact-finding inquiry?
On the basis of this book, then the answers to above-mentioned questions would be:
1. The probability of Shastri being murdered, by administering poison, is very-very high.
2. Not the Americans (at least officially), nor the Russians (again, at least officially) had anything to gain from unlikely death of Shastri. But the possibilities of one of the agencies going rogue and removing Shastri in a covert operation can't be ruled out.
3. This is absolute wilderness, even now, where all sorts of theories roam about freely. Stopping Indian nuclear program, preventing a move against Pakistani positions, putting a lid over information being leaked about Netaji's life in the gulags which Shastri had acquired— any of these could have been the reason.
4. The answer is simple: those in the establishment apprehended that having an inquiry would open such a can of worms that the situation— both home and away— would be destabilised.
As a result, this book refrains from providing any conclusive answers to these questions. It only tells us, what might have happened with Shastri that night. Also, it provides for a roadmap for a proper inquiry into the matter.
The writing is very lucid. Analysis is comprehensive. In short, if you wish to know all about the controversies raging around Shastri’s death, this is the best book.
My only objection towards the book is that it unnecessarily adds the mysteries surrounding Netaji's fate and the attempted cover-up, to this book. Those parts were not necessary at all.
Otherwise, recommended wholeheartedly.
October 4, 2018
Some many things wrong with this book that I don't know where to start. The author has combined a bunch of rhetoric and conspiracy theories to club together a book. I honestly feel that the sole purpose of the book is to promote an upcoming movie project that the author is involved in, and to promote his earlier book(s). On the flimsiest of grounds, the author has made a reference to his earlier books, and spent about 20% of this book on a subject that is not entirely relevant. The fact that he gives a free reign to his political biases is hardly useful.
I suppose it would give a kick to conspiracy-lovers, but this is not how serious, objective academic works are written. The best thing about this book is that it was short.
I suppose it would give a kick to conspiracy-lovers, but this is not how serious, objective academic works are written. The best thing about this book is that it was short.
April 1, 2019
Typically modern contemporary history (or for that matter even medieval history) has been written by historians dyed in leftist ideology. In such an environment any book discussing one of the mysterious death of the last century is a welcome change. However this book leaves much to be desired. After a Few initial chapters, the author goes off track into covering aspects like Netaji's death(or was it disappearance). While there may be some linkages but he delves so much into it that it appears he has some compulsion to fill some pages. I wouldn't blame the author because like many other mysteries of modern India, this is also one hushed chapter. However in that case this book could have been a long form write-up ( something which Caravan specialises) instead of a full grown book.
October 4, 2018
Firstly, I am a huge fan of Mr. Anuj Dhar's investigative journalism and activism directed towards unraveling the mystery behind Netaji Bose's fate, and as a writer I have found him equally adept with his books being fast, full of facts and engrossing. Having said that, this latest work on the demise of Lal Bahadur Shastri felt a little rushed. Yes, there were moments when the reader is shocked when major discrepancies are revealed, saddened and angered at the apathy of the Indian Government's reaction towards their own Prime Minister's death. But overall the book doesn't offer any conclusive ending. And, for me too many pages got devoted to the Netaji mystery when the focus squarely strayed away from Shastriji.
Though the book had shortcomings but reading it would make an Indian realise that something fishy happened during that night in Tashkent and as Indians we all must demand answers to those lingering questions.
Though the book had shortcomings but reading it would make an Indian realise that something fishy happened during that night in Tashkent and as Indians we all must demand answers to those lingering questions.
July 3, 2025
it could be better if the writer viewpoint was unbiased..
June 5, 2019
The book is based on Parliamentary action taken after his death and conspiracy theory behind death of Late prime minister Lal Bahadur shastri.
Anuj dhar covered all possibility that might had happened in Tashkent.
Writer book efforts to get new 4 forensic report, which are included in book.
85% interesting 10% story about what happened in Tashkent and 5% quite slow.
Anuj dhar covered all possibility that might had happened in Tashkent.
Writer book efforts to get new 4 forensic report, which are included in book.
85% interesting 10% story about what happened in Tashkent and 5% quite slow.
October 2, 2018
Good in parts. But the author meanders and takes up several pages and chapters about the mystery surrounding the death of Netaji S C Bose purportedly drawing parallels! Seems pages have been taken from another book by the author and added here to “ lengthen “ this book
November 2, 2020
The untimely death of India’s second Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shashtri on that cold January night of 1966, while he was on a diplomatic summit at Tashkent is still a mystery in India. This tragic event has invited more than it share of conspiracy theories over the past four decades. As the author repeatedly raises the question, it is inconceivable as to why successive Indian governments over the years have shied away from getting to the root of the mystery, once and for all, so that the controversy surrounding this death can be settled and the nation can move on. It is this unwillingness of the successive dispensations to probe the matter that fuels the conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the Prime Minister in the first place.
Lal Bahadur Shastri took over as the second Prime Minister of India following the demise of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964. Nehru could not recover from the military drubbing that the Chinese thrust upon India in 1962 and it dimmed the halo which he had created around himself as the architect of modern India. It is well documented that the ineptitude and the hubris that epitomised the Nehru regime was the cause of his downfall. Contrary to the carefully built-up image of being an astute statesman, Nehru was roundly outplayed by Chou en Lai and Mao De Zong of China at his own game. Nehru was gullible enough to fall into the trap set up by the Chinese who assured him of ever-lasting friendship and the commitment to never engage in a full-blown military action ever. This was what prompted the Nehru government to go ahead with the "forward policy" which finally culminated in a devastating and humiliating military defeat at the hands of the Chinese.
Understandably, the nation was in a state of flux with sagging morale when Lal Bahadur Shastri took over the mantle of the chief executive of the country. He was an immensely liked, down to earth and humble person. However, Shastri found himself at loggerheads with a lot of vested interests who were beholden to the Nehru regime and the first family. By all accounts, Shastri was successful in keeping such elements at bay, albeit at the cost of alienating a lot of influential people. Particularly delicate was the question of how to deal with Indira Gandhi. The seeds of dynastic politics had already been sown even during the Nehru years and there were a lot of congressmen who thought that Indira should take over the top job. But they knew fully well that that could never happen as long as Shastri was alive and at the helm of affairs. Indira Gandhi was given a fairly minor portfolio as the Minister for Information and Broadcasting in the Shastri Ministry.
The Indo-Pak war of 1965 saw a decisive military victory for the Indian Army with the Indian forces almost reaching up to Lahore. But, it was at this juncture that something surprising happened, the background of which we might never know because of the untimely death of Shastri. The Soviets, in a bid to outplay the American influence in the subcontinent, cajoled Shastri to attend an Indo-Pak summit at Tashkent (capital of the present-day Uzbekistan which was earlier a part of the erstwhile Soviet Union). The accord reached at this summit was particularly weighed against India. It involved the complete withdrawal of the Indian forces and a vacation of the strategic Haji Pir Pass which the Indian Military had managed to capture at a very high military cost. The compulsion for the Indian side to agree to this downright one-sided proposition is something which we will never get to know.
It was on the night that the accord was signed that Shastri met his untimely death. As per all accounts, Shastri was hale and hearty on that day (even though he was supposed to have had some form of coronary artery disease earlier) and he did not seem to be in any kind of stress- either mental or physical. Anuj Dhar gives a vivid account of the events that happened in the Russian dacha where Shastri was staying on that fateful day. The Indian contingent was staying in a hotel nearby, whereas Shastri was put up in a dacha along with his staff including his physician Dr Chugh. Understandably, the prime minister’s staff came under severe scrutiny following his untimely death. Fingers were pointed at his personal assistant, his cook and the efficiency of Dr Chugh in dealing with the medical emergency was questioned.
Of particular concern was the lackadaisical attitude of the Indian Government in dealing with the death of its Prime Minister in a foreign land. Surprisingly, a post-mortem examination was not agreed to by the Indian government despite the Soviets offering to get it done before the body was despatched to India. Instead, there was haste in transporting the mortal remains back to India which involved the embalming of the body. The embalming process made sure that any toxicological and forensic examination of the body at a later date was going to be inconclusive. The haste shown in disposing of the mortal remains was something which raised more than a few eyebrows.
The Soviets wanted to avoid the impression of foul play on their part in this sordid saga. It later came to light that the Soviets had post haste arrested a cook of Soviet origin on the suspicion of having a role in the death. But then again nothing of this was shared with the Indian Government and nor did the Indian authorities seem to be particularly interested in probing the matter further. T N Kaul who was an acolyte of the late Nehru was the Indian Ambassador to the Soviet Union and he was also present in Tashkent at that time. It later came to light that Kaul’s personal cook was also involved in preparing food for Shastri, even though there was no requirement for him to be added onto the staff of the Prime Minister. Kaul also seemed to be distant and uninterested in the death of the Prime Minister and his autobiography has made all but a cursory mention of the tragedy despite having had a ringside view of the events on that January night of 1966.
Further pointers were indicating that there was more than what met the eye in the tragedy. Shastri’s kin vehemently pointed out that the late Prime Minister's diary and a thermos flask in which he always used to keep water at his bedside was missing from his personal effects when the same was returned to them in India. It has been documented from eye witness accounts that the late Prime Minister expressed difficulty in breathing and collapsed soon after he consumed water from the flask in question. Was the water in the flask laced with some poison? Inside a spectacle case returned to the family was a terse note by the late Prime Minister in Hindi stating- “I have been betrayed”. Betrayed by whom and how- we will never know. Surprisingly the government of the day showed no interest in following up these vital leads.
It turns out that two death certificates were made and the cause of death purportedly varied in both. The initial one was signed by eight doctors whereas only six doctors authenticated the final certificate. It was also noticed that the senior Soviet doctor who had attended to the emergency had failed to sign the second and final death certificate which understandably fuelled the theory of a conspiracy at hand. Shastri's wife brought up the issue of severe discolouration that she noticed on the face of the mortal remains which was brushed aside by the authorities and the cremation rushed through. It was also noticed that the body had inexplicably bloated despite the embalming that was done in Tashkent. This was later attributed to an incorrect embalming process which in itself is difficult to account for since the mortal remains were of an important personage as the Prime Minister of one of the largest nations in the world.
The Opposition of that time did try to corner the government in the Parliament over the controversy. But the dispensation was very cagey and seemed to be interested in bringing an early closure to the issue.
One of the favoured conspiracy theories was that the Indian Government wanted to have Shastri out of the way to pave way for the dynasty to take over. This was precisely what happened and it is a moot question as to whether the task was done with the active connivance of the Soviets or not. Dhar says that a more probable scenario was that the Soviet government as such might not have been involved except for the active intervention of the Russian secret service, the KGB. Another theory propounded, albeit less probable, was that Shastri was killed off by the Soviet dispensation to engender sympathy amongst the Indian masses so that the unequal treaty that he signed at Tashkent would be accepted by them.
Anuj Dhar then delves into another unexplained controversy of modern Indian history- that of the purported death or disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in 1946. There have been so many different theories surrounding the disappearance of Netaji. The official account was that he was killed in an air crash in Taiwan at the close of the Second World War. There were accounts that he was taken prisoner by the Soviets and later killed by them at the behest of the Nehru regime. There is also an account which says that Netaji was all the while in India disguised as an ascetic waiting for an opportune moment to come out of hiding. It seems that Shastri had given more than just an indication that he knew a lot more of the Netaji affair and was planning to disclose something important on the issue on his return to India from Tashkent. So, were there some vested interests who did not want this revelation to be made and hence decided to silence the messenger? We will never know….
Anuj Dhar’s book is an enthralling account of the two enduring mysteries in the modern Indian political history- the tragic and untimely death of Shastri and the as yet unexplained disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It will be an understatement to say that the history and trajectory of the Indian state would have been vastly different had both these personalities been there to guide the destiny of the country. It is vitally important for the country to know the truth regarding the twin tragedies.
Dhar’s book has its drawbacks though. Understandably, he does not have much to develop his story on. His repeated attempts of delve into classified documents utilising the Right to Information Act have been largely unsuccessful on account of the contention of successive governments that disclosure of such details is not in the long term interests of the Nation, especially concerning its relations with foreign powers. Towards the end of the narration, Dhar makes an impassioned plea to the present dispensation to make all the relevant documents public so that the matter can be finally laid to rest and the people who are interested in the issue can have final closure.
Even though Your Prime Minister is Dead is a fine piece of investigative journalism, it lacks focus in parts, mainly because of the digression on to the Bose controversy. Of course, both the issues are interlinked, but there could have been more clarity in the discussion.
This book is definitely to be read by all aficionados of modern Indian history and by all patriots who care for the course the country is taking. It is important to identify those characters who mar a country’s future by unholy, corrupt and self-serving acts of self aggrandisement-just so that they can be kept away from the centres of power. This is something which can be done only in a democracy and only one in which its citizens are aware and enlightened.
Lal Bahadur Shastri took over as the second Prime Minister of India following the demise of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964. Nehru could not recover from the military drubbing that the Chinese thrust upon India in 1962 and it dimmed the halo which he had created around himself as the architect of modern India. It is well documented that the ineptitude and the hubris that epitomised the Nehru regime was the cause of his downfall. Contrary to the carefully built-up image of being an astute statesman, Nehru was roundly outplayed by Chou en Lai and Mao De Zong of China at his own game. Nehru was gullible enough to fall into the trap set up by the Chinese who assured him of ever-lasting friendship and the commitment to never engage in a full-blown military action ever. This was what prompted the Nehru government to go ahead with the "forward policy" which finally culminated in a devastating and humiliating military defeat at the hands of the Chinese.
Understandably, the nation was in a state of flux with sagging morale when Lal Bahadur Shastri took over the mantle of the chief executive of the country. He was an immensely liked, down to earth and humble person. However, Shastri found himself at loggerheads with a lot of vested interests who were beholden to the Nehru regime and the first family. By all accounts, Shastri was successful in keeping such elements at bay, albeit at the cost of alienating a lot of influential people. Particularly delicate was the question of how to deal with Indira Gandhi. The seeds of dynastic politics had already been sown even during the Nehru years and there were a lot of congressmen who thought that Indira should take over the top job. But they knew fully well that that could never happen as long as Shastri was alive and at the helm of affairs. Indira Gandhi was given a fairly minor portfolio as the Minister for Information and Broadcasting in the Shastri Ministry.
The Indo-Pak war of 1965 saw a decisive military victory for the Indian Army with the Indian forces almost reaching up to Lahore. But, it was at this juncture that something surprising happened, the background of which we might never know because of the untimely death of Shastri. The Soviets, in a bid to outplay the American influence in the subcontinent, cajoled Shastri to attend an Indo-Pak summit at Tashkent (capital of the present-day Uzbekistan which was earlier a part of the erstwhile Soviet Union). The accord reached at this summit was particularly weighed against India. It involved the complete withdrawal of the Indian forces and a vacation of the strategic Haji Pir Pass which the Indian Military had managed to capture at a very high military cost. The compulsion for the Indian side to agree to this downright one-sided proposition is something which we will never get to know.
It was on the night that the accord was signed that Shastri met his untimely death. As per all accounts, Shastri was hale and hearty on that day (even though he was supposed to have had some form of coronary artery disease earlier) and he did not seem to be in any kind of stress- either mental or physical. Anuj Dhar gives a vivid account of the events that happened in the Russian dacha where Shastri was staying on that fateful day. The Indian contingent was staying in a hotel nearby, whereas Shastri was put up in a dacha along with his staff including his physician Dr Chugh. Understandably, the prime minister’s staff came under severe scrutiny following his untimely death. Fingers were pointed at his personal assistant, his cook and the efficiency of Dr Chugh in dealing with the medical emergency was questioned.
Of particular concern was the lackadaisical attitude of the Indian Government in dealing with the death of its Prime Minister in a foreign land. Surprisingly, a post-mortem examination was not agreed to by the Indian government despite the Soviets offering to get it done before the body was despatched to India. Instead, there was haste in transporting the mortal remains back to India which involved the embalming of the body. The embalming process made sure that any toxicological and forensic examination of the body at a later date was going to be inconclusive. The haste shown in disposing of the mortal remains was something which raised more than a few eyebrows.
The Soviets wanted to avoid the impression of foul play on their part in this sordid saga. It later came to light that the Soviets had post haste arrested a cook of Soviet origin on the suspicion of having a role in the death. But then again nothing of this was shared with the Indian Government and nor did the Indian authorities seem to be particularly interested in probing the matter further. T N Kaul who was an acolyte of the late Nehru was the Indian Ambassador to the Soviet Union and he was also present in Tashkent at that time. It later came to light that Kaul’s personal cook was also involved in preparing food for Shastri, even though there was no requirement for him to be added onto the staff of the Prime Minister. Kaul also seemed to be distant and uninterested in the death of the Prime Minister and his autobiography has made all but a cursory mention of the tragedy despite having had a ringside view of the events on that January night of 1966.
Further pointers were indicating that there was more than what met the eye in the tragedy. Shastri’s kin vehemently pointed out that the late Prime Minister's diary and a thermos flask in which he always used to keep water at his bedside was missing from his personal effects when the same was returned to them in India. It has been documented from eye witness accounts that the late Prime Minister expressed difficulty in breathing and collapsed soon after he consumed water from the flask in question. Was the water in the flask laced with some poison? Inside a spectacle case returned to the family was a terse note by the late Prime Minister in Hindi stating- “I have been betrayed”. Betrayed by whom and how- we will never know. Surprisingly the government of the day showed no interest in following up these vital leads.
It turns out that two death certificates were made and the cause of death purportedly varied in both. The initial one was signed by eight doctors whereas only six doctors authenticated the final certificate. It was also noticed that the senior Soviet doctor who had attended to the emergency had failed to sign the second and final death certificate which understandably fuelled the theory of a conspiracy at hand. Shastri's wife brought up the issue of severe discolouration that she noticed on the face of the mortal remains which was brushed aside by the authorities and the cremation rushed through. It was also noticed that the body had inexplicably bloated despite the embalming that was done in Tashkent. This was later attributed to an incorrect embalming process which in itself is difficult to account for since the mortal remains were of an important personage as the Prime Minister of one of the largest nations in the world.
The Opposition of that time did try to corner the government in the Parliament over the controversy. But the dispensation was very cagey and seemed to be interested in bringing an early closure to the issue.
One of the favoured conspiracy theories was that the Indian Government wanted to have Shastri out of the way to pave way for the dynasty to take over. This was precisely what happened and it is a moot question as to whether the task was done with the active connivance of the Soviets or not. Dhar says that a more probable scenario was that the Soviet government as such might not have been involved except for the active intervention of the Russian secret service, the KGB. Another theory propounded, albeit less probable, was that Shastri was killed off by the Soviet dispensation to engender sympathy amongst the Indian masses so that the unequal treaty that he signed at Tashkent would be accepted by them.
Anuj Dhar then delves into another unexplained controversy of modern Indian history- that of the purported death or disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in 1946. There have been so many different theories surrounding the disappearance of Netaji. The official account was that he was killed in an air crash in Taiwan at the close of the Second World War. There were accounts that he was taken prisoner by the Soviets and later killed by them at the behest of the Nehru regime. There is also an account which says that Netaji was all the while in India disguised as an ascetic waiting for an opportune moment to come out of hiding. It seems that Shastri had given more than just an indication that he knew a lot more of the Netaji affair and was planning to disclose something important on the issue on his return to India from Tashkent. So, were there some vested interests who did not want this revelation to be made and hence decided to silence the messenger? We will never know….
Anuj Dhar’s book is an enthralling account of the two enduring mysteries in the modern Indian political history- the tragic and untimely death of Shastri and the as yet unexplained disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It will be an understatement to say that the history and trajectory of the Indian state would have been vastly different had both these personalities been there to guide the destiny of the country. It is vitally important for the country to know the truth regarding the twin tragedies.
Dhar’s book has its drawbacks though. Understandably, he does not have much to develop his story on. His repeated attempts of delve into classified documents utilising the Right to Information Act have been largely unsuccessful on account of the contention of successive governments that disclosure of such details is not in the long term interests of the Nation, especially concerning its relations with foreign powers. Towards the end of the narration, Dhar makes an impassioned plea to the present dispensation to make all the relevant documents public so that the matter can be finally laid to rest and the people who are interested in the issue can have final closure.
Even though Your Prime Minister is Dead is a fine piece of investigative journalism, it lacks focus in parts, mainly because of the digression on to the Bose controversy. Of course, both the issues are interlinked, but there could have been more clarity in the discussion.
This book is definitely to be read by all aficionados of modern Indian history and by all patriots who care for the course the country is taking. It is important to identify those characters who mar a country’s future by unholy, corrupt and self-serving acts of self aggrandisement-just so that they can be kept away from the centres of power. This is something which can be done only in a democracy and only one in which its citizens are aware and enlightened.
May 12, 2021
Anuj Dhar is a very famous writer, on Alt Balaji if you have seen a web series on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, you will know that a very important part of this web series is based on his book India's Biggest Cover-Up.
One of his books, Your Prime Minister is Dead, is based on the death of the Former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. This book does not answer how Former PM Shastri died, but it is written in much detail who could be behind his death.
These are the four conspiracy theories that something you can debate on all day long but will not come to any one conclusion. Who assassinated the Lal Bahadur Shastri?
Was it the Russian intelligence agency behind his death or Was it the CIA's hit job or Did the late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi behind the assassination. These conspiracy theories still surrounds the PM's death. However his sudden demise may remain a secret and the successive govts did not even set-up an enquiry commission on his mysterious death.
Overall, this book is a commendable effort to shed light on some new pages of history. One thing I didn't understand if the book is all about Shastri Ji then what is the point of bringing in the story of Subhas Chandra Bose in the middle of it, but if you are fond of history and want to read something new, you can definitely read this book once.
One of his books, Your Prime Minister is Dead, is based on the death of the Former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. This book does not answer how Former PM Shastri died, but it is written in much detail who could be behind his death.
These are the four conspiracy theories that something you can debate on all day long but will not come to any one conclusion. Who assassinated the Lal Bahadur Shastri?
Was it the Russian intelligence agency behind his death or Was it the CIA's hit job or Did the late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi behind the assassination. These conspiracy theories still surrounds the PM's death. However his sudden demise may remain a secret and the successive govts did not even set-up an enquiry commission on his mysterious death.
Overall, this book is a commendable effort to shed light on some new pages of history. One thing I didn't understand if the book is all about Shastri Ji then what is the point of bringing in the story of Subhas Chandra Bose in the middle of it, but if you are fond of history and want to read something new, you can definitely read this book once.
December 6, 2022
THE Book if you want to read about the death of our former Prime Minister, thoroughly researched and written in a compelling way.
Gave it 3 stars because as factual and gripping the first half of the book is, the second half becomes more opinionated when it comes to the involvement of the Indira Gandhi Government which were the one's actively ignoring all the raised questions.
Gave it 3 stars because as factual and gripping the first half of the book is, the second half becomes more opinionated when it comes to the involvement of the Indira Gandhi Government which were the one's actively ignoring all the raised questions.
June 18, 2019
This book is really captivating. The facts that came out, were out of bound. No one actually knows what Happened with our former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, and this book might help you to reach at some conclusion.
August 11, 2025
Anuj Dhar’s *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* and Vivek Agnihotri’s *Who Killed Shastri?: The Tashkent Files* are two of the most visible contemporary works to revisit the circumstances of Lal Bahadur Shastri’s sudden death in Tashkent on 11 January 1966.
Both challenge the official line — that Shastri died of a heart attack in his sleep — but they do so in strikingly different ways, with divergent narrative styles, evidentiary strategies, and intended audiences. Read together, they form an illuminating, if uneasy, pair: Dhar’s book is a lean, document-driven investigation written by someone whose craft has been honed in the trenches of RTI petitions and archival combing; Agnihotri’s is more of a narrative-political provocation, designed to feed into and be fed by a cinematic retelling.
In *Your Prime Minister Is Dead*, Dhar applies the same investigative instincts and archival tenacity he brought to his Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose research, but here the subject is Shastri’s last hours. His point of entry is deceptively simple: if the prime minister of a newly independent nation dies abroad, under contested circumstances, hours after a high-stakes negotiation, the government’s duty is to ensure maximum transparency. What he finds is a conspicuous absence of such transparency.
Dhar’s narrative moves briskly from the accepted story — a sudden heart attack — to the troubling anomalies: the lack of a post-mortem, the hurried funeral arrangements, contradictions between eyewitness accounts, the curious silence in Parliament, and repeated refusals to release documents even decades later. He draws heavily on contemporary press coverage, family members’ recollections, diplomatic cables, and the fruits of his own RTI applications. These RTI skirmishes become part of the story, giving readers an inside view of how officialdom stonewalls, delays, or redacts, and underscoring Dhar’s broader theme that secrecy is not a relic of the Cold War but a living reflex in Indian governance.
What’s notable about Dhar’s approach here is its restraint. While he is clearly skeptical of the official version, he does not insist on a definitive alternative. There is no “smoking gun” document; instead, the case is built on patterns of obfuscation, unexplained procedural lapses, and the weight of unanswered questions.
In this sense, it is a cousin to his Bose-related works such as *The Bose Deception* and *Government Doesn’t Want You to Know This*, where the thrust is not that one has all the answers but that the official answers fail basic scrutiny. This gives *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* a sustained, tight focus. There is no sprawling geopolitical subplot or narrative detour — the frame is narrow, but the scrutiny is intense.
Agnihotri’s *Who Killed Shastri?: The Tashkent Files*, by contrast, is both a research compilation and a piece of narrative scaffolding for his feature film *The Tashkent Files*. This dual purpose shapes the book in ways that make it quite different from Dhar’s. While it, too, questions the absence of a post-mortem and raises the possibility of poisoning, it casts a much wider net in terms of speculative theories.
Intelligence agencies, political rivalries, Cold War intrigues — all appear in its pages, sometimes supported by documentary fragments, sometimes more as narrative possibilities than as carefully sourced propositions. The book is consciously theatrical, designed to dramatise rather than simply document. The tone is often that of a prosecutor addressing a jury, laying out not just evidence but possible motives and scenarios, even if those cannot be conclusively proven.
Where Dhar’s evidentiary chain is often painstaking — presenting a cable, parsing its language, cross-referencing it with other accounts — Agnihotri’s is more associative, moving between possibilities with an eye to maintaining narrative suspense.
The result is a book that may be more immediately gripping to a general reader with no prior exposure to the Shastri case, but one that also risks leaving the critical reader hungry for tighter sourcing. The advantage of Agnihotri’s approach is that it refuses to narrow the frame too soon; the disadvantage is that in keeping all options on the table, the weight of each is less precisely calibrated.
Another key difference is in the handling of witnesses and testimony. Dhar foregrounds the accounts of Shastri’s family, particularly their early doubts and unanswered questions. He cross-checks these with the recollections of officials present in Tashkent and with archival records. The family’s testimony is important not because it is conclusive — eyewitness memory decades later is always a complicated evidentiary category — but because it shows that skepticism about the heart attack narrative was contemporaneous, not a later invention.
Agnihotri also draws on family voices, but in his narrative they sometimes serve more as catalysts for exploring larger conspiracy hypotheses than as starting points for meticulous fact-checking. This is not a flaw per se — it matches the book’s cinematic DNA — but it means the reader gets a more impressionistic sense of the evidence.
Both books share certain critical touchstones: the refusal to conduct a post-mortem in India; the secrecy around medical reports; the speed with which Shastri’s body was brought home and cremated; the minimal Parliamentary discussion; and the continued withholding of files under “national security” exemptions.
Both also note the broader political stakes — that Shastri’s death came at a delicate moment, just after a war and at the dawn of a new regional balance of power, with superpower involvement in the background. Where they diverge is in the narrative use of these stakes: Dhar uses them to underline why transparency was and is essential; Agnihotri uses them to fuel speculation about possible culprits and motives.
In terms of style, Dhar’s prose is brisk but not breathless. Years of dealing with RTI replies, half-releases, and archival silences have taught him to value small but verifiable gains, and that ethos informs the book. Each piece of evidence is allowed to stand in its own right before being linked to the next, so the reader can follow the chain. This is similar to the method he and Chandrachur Ghose used in *The Bose Deception*, where a large part of the persuasive force came from the reader’s exposure to the documents themselves. Agnihotri, on the other hand, is building toward a cinematic rhythm: peaks of revelation, pauses for reflection, and an undercurrent of “what if?” designed to keep the reader turning pages. His background as a filmmaker is palpable in the scene-setting, the use of cliffhangers, and the willingness to dramatise uncertainty.
When it comes to the question of responsibility or culpability, Dhar is careful. He does not accuse any individual or agency outright of causing Shastri’s death, though he does not shy from noting which entities would have had both motive and means in theory. His primary indictment is of the institutional culture that withholds information and thereby erodes trust. In this way, the book doubles as a primer on why state secrecy is corrosive to democratic legitimacy. Agnihotri is more willing to keep certain theories in active play — including direct foul play by intelligence services — without closing them off. This openness is part of the book’s appeal to readers who come seeking a conspiracy narrative, but it can also dilute the distinction between what is evidenced and what is hypothesised.
One area where Dhar’s book is stronger is in showing the continuity of secrecy practices across different historical controversies. By explicitly linking the Shastri case to the Netaji Bose files — both marked by delayed or partial releases, RTI evasions, and selective declassification — Dhar situates Shastri’s death in a pattern of state behaviour. This comparative frame widens the significance of the case: it’s not just about one suspicious death, but about the default setting of opacity in matters touching on high politics. Agnihotri’s focus is more tightly on Shastri, the geopolitical moment, and the dramatis personae of the mid-1960s; this makes for a more contained narrative but also limits the systemic critique.
The evidentiary ceilings of both books are worth noting. Neither has unearthed a definitive document or forensic finding that proves foul play; both are constrained by the very secrecy they criticise. Dhar turns this into part of his argument: the absence of transparent evidence is itself a problem that must be solved before the substantive question can be answered. Agnihotri turns it into part of his narrative drive: the gaps in the record are openings for inquiry, suspicion, and in the cinematic register, suspense. This means that the conclusions of both books are necessarily provisional. They leave the reader with sharpened questions rather than definitive answers, though the tone in Agnihotri’s can be more declarative in its suspicion.
For readers deciding between them, the choice may come down to appetite for different kinds of engagement. Those who value a steady accumulation of documented facts, a focus on verifiable inconsistencies, and a clear distinction between evidence and hypothesis will find Dhar’s book more satisfying. Those who prefer a wider canvassing of possibilities, a readiness to entertain multiple speculative scenarios, and a narrative rhythm that mirrors political thrillers will gravitate toward Agnihotri’s. Ideally, reading them in tandem offers both: Dhar for the disciplined investigative through-line, Agnihotri for the broader spectrum of possibilities and dramatised stakes.
The reception of the two books also reflects their differing aims. Dhar’s has circulated strongly among readers of political history and investigative non-fiction, as well as among transparency activists familiar with RTI battles. Agnihotri’s has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with *The Tashkent Files* film, benefiting from and contributing to the film’s visibility. This has meant a wider popular reach, though at the cost of being read by some primarily as an adjunct to the movie rather than as a standalone work of research.
Beyond their individual qualities, both contribute to an important reframing of Shastri’s death in the public imagination. For decades, the event was treated as a closed case, a sad but unremarkable incident in the annals of Indian politics. By marshalling evidence, testimony, and persistent questions, Dhar and Agnihotri have moved it into the category of unresolved political mysteries that demand re-examination. In doing so, they have also nudged open a broader conversation about the right to know, the culture of secrecy, and the ways in which historical truth is shaped not only by what is recorded but by what is withheld.
There is also an intertextual dimension: Dhar’s Shastri investigation gains a certain gravity from his prior work on Bose, where decades of official secrecy have demonstrably concealed significant historical truths. Readers who know his Netaji books may approach *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* with a predisposition to see patterns of state behaviour, making the parallels more salient. Agnihotri’s Shastri book, tied as it is to a fictionalised film, invites a different kind of reading — one where the blending of fact and dramatization is not a flaw but part of the experience. This can make it more accessible to those new to the subject, but potentially more frustrating to those looking for documentary closure.
Ultimately, both books insist on the same baseline: the official story is inadequate and the documentary record incomplete. Where they differ is in method and tone. Dhar’s is an investigation with the precision of a dossier — tight scope, high evidentiary discipline, and an activist’s demand for transparency. Agnihotri’s is a narrative brief — wider in its cast of suspects and scenarios, designed to provoke curiosity and keep the mystery alive in the public sphere. In a political culture where historical controversies are often prematurely declared settled, the coexistence of both approaches may be a strength: one keeps the pressure on institutions to release and account for facts; the other keeps the issue alive in popular conversation.
It is telling that neither book ends with a sense of closure. Dhar leaves the reader with a sharpened awareness of what is missing, along with a call — explicit and implicit — for continued pressure on the state to open its archives. Agnihotri ends with the mystery intact, the questions multiplied, and the dramatic stakes heightened. In both cases, the unsolved nature of the case is not a failure of the author but a measure of the problem itself: that half a century after a prime minister died under questionable circumstances, the Indian public is still not in possession of the full truth.
Reading *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* alongside *Who Killed Shastri?* is less a matter of choosing between rival accounts and more a matter of experiencing two different investigative temperaments applied to the same mystery. One is a scalpel, the other a spotlight. One works by steady accumulation and cross-verification, the other by casting a wide beam over the entire landscape of possibility.
Both illuminate, in their own ways, the darkened room that is the historical record of Shastri’s death — and both, perhaps most importantly, keep the door from being shut.
Both challenge the official line — that Shastri died of a heart attack in his sleep — but they do so in strikingly different ways, with divergent narrative styles, evidentiary strategies, and intended audiences. Read together, they form an illuminating, if uneasy, pair: Dhar’s book is a lean, document-driven investigation written by someone whose craft has been honed in the trenches of RTI petitions and archival combing; Agnihotri’s is more of a narrative-political provocation, designed to feed into and be fed by a cinematic retelling.
In *Your Prime Minister Is Dead*, Dhar applies the same investigative instincts and archival tenacity he brought to his Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose research, but here the subject is Shastri’s last hours. His point of entry is deceptively simple: if the prime minister of a newly independent nation dies abroad, under contested circumstances, hours after a high-stakes negotiation, the government’s duty is to ensure maximum transparency. What he finds is a conspicuous absence of such transparency.
Dhar’s narrative moves briskly from the accepted story — a sudden heart attack — to the troubling anomalies: the lack of a post-mortem, the hurried funeral arrangements, contradictions between eyewitness accounts, the curious silence in Parliament, and repeated refusals to release documents even decades later. He draws heavily on contemporary press coverage, family members’ recollections, diplomatic cables, and the fruits of his own RTI applications. These RTI skirmishes become part of the story, giving readers an inside view of how officialdom stonewalls, delays, or redacts, and underscoring Dhar’s broader theme that secrecy is not a relic of the Cold War but a living reflex in Indian governance.
What’s notable about Dhar’s approach here is its restraint. While he is clearly skeptical of the official version, he does not insist on a definitive alternative. There is no “smoking gun” document; instead, the case is built on patterns of obfuscation, unexplained procedural lapses, and the weight of unanswered questions.
In this sense, it is a cousin to his Bose-related works such as *The Bose Deception* and *Government Doesn’t Want You to Know This*, where the thrust is not that one has all the answers but that the official answers fail basic scrutiny. This gives *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* a sustained, tight focus. There is no sprawling geopolitical subplot or narrative detour — the frame is narrow, but the scrutiny is intense.
Agnihotri’s *Who Killed Shastri?: The Tashkent Files*, by contrast, is both a research compilation and a piece of narrative scaffolding for his feature film *The Tashkent Files*. This dual purpose shapes the book in ways that make it quite different from Dhar’s. While it, too, questions the absence of a post-mortem and raises the possibility of poisoning, it casts a much wider net in terms of speculative theories.
Intelligence agencies, political rivalries, Cold War intrigues — all appear in its pages, sometimes supported by documentary fragments, sometimes more as narrative possibilities than as carefully sourced propositions. The book is consciously theatrical, designed to dramatise rather than simply document. The tone is often that of a prosecutor addressing a jury, laying out not just evidence but possible motives and scenarios, even if those cannot be conclusively proven.
Where Dhar’s evidentiary chain is often painstaking — presenting a cable, parsing its language, cross-referencing it with other accounts — Agnihotri’s is more associative, moving between possibilities with an eye to maintaining narrative suspense.
The result is a book that may be more immediately gripping to a general reader with no prior exposure to the Shastri case, but one that also risks leaving the critical reader hungry for tighter sourcing. The advantage of Agnihotri’s approach is that it refuses to narrow the frame too soon; the disadvantage is that in keeping all options on the table, the weight of each is less precisely calibrated.
Another key difference is in the handling of witnesses and testimony. Dhar foregrounds the accounts of Shastri’s family, particularly their early doubts and unanswered questions. He cross-checks these with the recollections of officials present in Tashkent and with archival records. The family’s testimony is important not because it is conclusive — eyewitness memory decades later is always a complicated evidentiary category — but because it shows that skepticism about the heart attack narrative was contemporaneous, not a later invention.
Agnihotri also draws on family voices, but in his narrative they sometimes serve more as catalysts for exploring larger conspiracy hypotheses than as starting points for meticulous fact-checking. This is not a flaw per se — it matches the book’s cinematic DNA — but it means the reader gets a more impressionistic sense of the evidence.
Both books share certain critical touchstones: the refusal to conduct a post-mortem in India; the secrecy around medical reports; the speed with which Shastri’s body was brought home and cremated; the minimal Parliamentary discussion; and the continued withholding of files under “national security” exemptions.
Both also note the broader political stakes — that Shastri’s death came at a delicate moment, just after a war and at the dawn of a new regional balance of power, with superpower involvement in the background. Where they diverge is in the narrative use of these stakes: Dhar uses them to underline why transparency was and is essential; Agnihotri uses them to fuel speculation about possible culprits and motives.
In terms of style, Dhar’s prose is brisk but not breathless. Years of dealing with RTI replies, half-releases, and archival silences have taught him to value small but verifiable gains, and that ethos informs the book. Each piece of evidence is allowed to stand in its own right before being linked to the next, so the reader can follow the chain. This is similar to the method he and Chandrachur Ghose used in *The Bose Deception*, where a large part of the persuasive force came from the reader’s exposure to the documents themselves. Agnihotri, on the other hand, is building toward a cinematic rhythm: peaks of revelation, pauses for reflection, and an undercurrent of “what if?” designed to keep the reader turning pages. His background as a filmmaker is palpable in the scene-setting, the use of cliffhangers, and the willingness to dramatise uncertainty.
When it comes to the question of responsibility or culpability, Dhar is careful. He does not accuse any individual or agency outright of causing Shastri’s death, though he does not shy from noting which entities would have had both motive and means in theory. His primary indictment is of the institutional culture that withholds information and thereby erodes trust. In this way, the book doubles as a primer on why state secrecy is corrosive to democratic legitimacy. Agnihotri is more willing to keep certain theories in active play — including direct foul play by intelligence services — without closing them off. This openness is part of the book’s appeal to readers who come seeking a conspiracy narrative, but it can also dilute the distinction between what is evidenced and what is hypothesised.
One area where Dhar’s book is stronger is in showing the continuity of secrecy practices across different historical controversies. By explicitly linking the Shastri case to the Netaji Bose files — both marked by delayed or partial releases, RTI evasions, and selective declassification — Dhar situates Shastri’s death in a pattern of state behaviour. This comparative frame widens the significance of the case: it’s not just about one suspicious death, but about the default setting of opacity in matters touching on high politics. Agnihotri’s focus is more tightly on Shastri, the geopolitical moment, and the dramatis personae of the mid-1960s; this makes for a more contained narrative but also limits the systemic critique.
The evidentiary ceilings of both books are worth noting. Neither has unearthed a definitive document or forensic finding that proves foul play; both are constrained by the very secrecy they criticise. Dhar turns this into part of his argument: the absence of transparent evidence is itself a problem that must be solved before the substantive question can be answered. Agnihotri turns it into part of his narrative drive: the gaps in the record are openings for inquiry, suspicion, and in the cinematic register, suspense. This means that the conclusions of both books are necessarily provisional. They leave the reader with sharpened questions rather than definitive answers, though the tone in Agnihotri’s can be more declarative in its suspicion.
For readers deciding between them, the choice may come down to appetite for different kinds of engagement. Those who value a steady accumulation of documented facts, a focus on verifiable inconsistencies, and a clear distinction between evidence and hypothesis will find Dhar’s book more satisfying. Those who prefer a wider canvassing of possibilities, a readiness to entertain multiple speculative scenarios, and a narrative rhythm that mirrors political thrillers will gravitate toward Agnihotri’s. Ideally, reading them in tandem offers both: Dhar for the disciplined investigative through-line, Agnihotri for the broader spectrum of possibilities and dramatised stakes.
The reception of the two books also reflects their differing aims. Dhar’s has circulated strongly among readers of political history and investigative non-fiction, as well as among transparency activists familiar with RTI battles. Agnihotri’s has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with *The Tashkent Files* film, benefiting from and contributing to the film’s visibility. This has meant a wider popular reach, though at the cost of being read by some primarily as an adjunct to the movie rather than as a standalone work of research.
Beyond their individual qualities, both contribute to an important reframing of Shastri’s death in the public imagination. For decades, the event was treated as a closed case, a sad but unremarkable incident in the annals of Indian politics. By marshalling evidence, testimony, and persistent questions, Dhar and Agnihotri have moved it into the category of unresolved political mysteries that demand re-examination. In doing so, they have also nudged open a broader conversation about the right to know, the culture of secrecy, and the ways in which historical truth is shaped not only by what is recorded but by what is withheld.
There is also an intertextual dimension: Dhar’s Shastri investigation gains a certain gravity from his prior work on Bose, where decades of official secrecy have demonstrably concealed significant historical truths. Readers who know his Netaji books may approach *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* with a predisposition to see patterns of state behaviour, making the parallels more salient. Agnihotri’s Shastri book, tied as it is to a fictionalised film, invites a different kind of reading — one where the blending of fact and dramatization is not a flaw but part of the experience. This can make it more accessible to those new to the subject, but potentially more frustrating to those looking for documentary closure.
Ultimately, both books insist on the same baseline: the official story is inadequate and the documentary record incomplete. Where they differ is in method and tone. Dhar’s is an investigation with the precision of a dossier — tight scope, high evidentiary discipline, and an activist’s demand for transparency. Agnihotri’s is a narrative brief — wider in its cast of suspects and scenarios, designed to provoke curiosity and keep the mystery alive in the public sphere. In a political culture where historical controversies are often prematurely declared settled, the coexistence of both approaches may be a strength: one keeps the pressure on institutions to release and account for facts; the other keeps the issue alive in popular conversation.
It is telling that neither book ends with a sense of closure. Dhar leaves the reader with a sharpened awareness of what is missing, along with a call — explicit and implicit — for continued pressure on the state to open its archives. Agnihotri ends with the mystery intact, the questions multiplied, and the dramatic stakes heightened. In both cases, the unsolved nature of the case is not a failure of the author but a measure of the problem itself: that half a century after a prime minister died under questionable circumstances, the Indian public is still not in possession of the full truth.
Reading *Your Prime Minister Is Dead* alongside *Who Killed Shastri?* is less a matter of choosing between rival accounts and more a matter of experiencing two different investigative temperaments applied to the same mystery. One is a scalpel, the other a spotlight. One works by steady accumulation and cross-verification, the other by casting a wide beam over the entire landscape of possibility.
Both illuminate, in their own ways, the darkened room that is the historical record of Shastri’s death — and both, perhaps most importantly, keep the door from being shut.
April 12, 2019
This books covers all three angles & theories on what might have happened on that fateful night. The three angles are CIA, KGB or someone from Indian government. The amount of callousness shown by the Indian government in the whole episode reeks to something really murky.
The book seems to have taken note of all available information that can be available to anyone.
Liked the way how the book was concluded with a clear action plan.
It’s high time that the muddle around the mysterious death of our former PM be cleared soon.
The book seems to have taken note of all available information that can be available to anyone.
Liked the way how the book was concluded with a clear action plan.
It’s high time that the muddle around the mysterious death of our former PM be cleared soon.
November 11, 2019
Good read but clubbing much of Netaji took the book off track
Also, would have liked to understand Pakistan side (if it was possible) considering they got the most out of Tashkent
But a book serves a good landscape how biased political will is
Also, would have liked to understand Pakistan side (if it was possible) considering they got the most out of Tashkent
But a book serves a good landscape how biased political will is
July 16, 2020
simple facts put in just the right manner
February 17, 2023
Having read 'Conundrum' before, this apparently seems like a let down. On reflection, that's possibly because of the lack of resources and the insufficient and inadequate responses to RTIs filed. The author in his works on Netaji shows his strive towards knowing the truth, seen in the massive elaborate research and presentation of facts, that formed the backbone of the Investigative Netaji Commission. While the intent remains true in this book as well, the presentation of facts gets muddled somewhere in multiple digressions, which might be wholesomely relevant but whose details could have been done without. Personally, the chapter on Netaji seemed at some level a window to his more famous works.
Having said that, through this book he tries to find explanations behind the political mystery of the death of arguably India's finest Prime Minister in a foreign soil, through the eyes of the then political scenario at home post Nehru-ian India, India's relationship with the USA and erstwhile USSR, and the strategic roles of Intelligence agencies and political journalism.
A star for his research and importantly, for finding it important to share.
Having said that, through this book he tries to find explanations behind the political mystery of the death of arguably India's finest Prime Minister in a foreign soil, through the eyes of the then political scenario at home post Nehru-ian India, India's relationship with the USA and erstwhile USSR, and the strategic roles of Intelligence agencies and political journalism.
A star for his research and importantly, for finding it important to share.
October 23, 2018
It’s a good collection of all possible theories, if his death was unnatural. Explains all angles and consolidates all open questions - and there are several indeed. Wonder if the truth will ever come out. Have seen several YouTube videos of the author as well and I continue to be impressed with the thoroughness of his research on Bose and Shastri ji. He also outlines the steps to get to the truth if there is a willing government....
This book makes me wonder what’s stopping the current BJP government to dig the truth behind these two mysteries of great Indian heroes. Modi can claim the legacy of Bose and Shastri also just like he did for Patel.... if he brings the truth out. Just this weekend he hoisted the national flag at Red Fort to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Azad hind fauj. Wonder if he will disclose something closer to the election....
The most fascinating possibility explored in this book was that Shastri ji may have been planning to bring Bose back in public post his return to India... wow! Imagine the possibilities if that had happened back then....
Eagerly waiting for the movie...
This book makes me wonder what’s stopping the current BJP government to dig the truth behind these two mysteries of great Indian heroes. Modi can claim the legacy of Bose and Shastri also just like he did for Patel.... if he brings the truth out. Just this weekend he hoisted the national flag at Red Fort to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Azad hind fauj. Wonder if he will disclose something closer to the election....
The most fascinating possibility explored in this book was that Shastri ji may have been planning to bring Bose back in public post his return to India... wow! Imagine the possibilities if that had happened back then....
Eagerly waiting for the movie...
January 17, 2019
A well researched book about the sudden death of PM Lal Bahadur Shastri in Russia. The author outlines the various political issues of the time arguing the possibilities of murders by CIA, KGB and even Indians. The possibility of Netaji Subhash Chander Bose disappearnce being linked to Shastrjis death is another angle dealt with.
November 14, 2018
Covers an important chapter in post-1947 history of India, which is relegated to the dustbin of history. However, lifts the cover of an incident which has massively impacted the nation and hopefully, paves the way for more revelations into this episode.
July 11, 2019
Anuj raises some valid questions, which were left unanswered by the Government Of India, particularly by the Indira Gandhi Government.
February 19, 2022
Review
Book - " Your Prime Minister is Dead "
Author - " Anuj Dhar "
Genre - " Non- fiction , Investigative Journalism "
This is my first book by the author Anuj Dhar. It deals with the sudden demise of Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966 in Taskent. The Prime minister of India " Lal Bahadur Shastri " along with the President of Pakistan " Muhammad Ayub Khan " went to discuss and come to terms with respect to finding a resolution to the issue of India - Pakistan 1965 war. The Taskent declaration was mediated by the Erstwhile USSR premier " Aleksey Kosygin ".The objective of the declaration was to withdraw all armed forces and restore diplomatic and economic relations between India and Pakistan.
As there was no talk of the resolution of the border issue, no war pact or renunciation of the gurellia warfare, this pact was not popular in India.
Coming back to the book , the author tried to raise several issues related to sudden death of the PM immediately after the signing of the declaration.
He gave a detailed analysis of what prespired on the day of the death of the PM. He raised several points and theories raised during the time and thereafter in the press and the parliament with respect to the death.
Few are -
1) The missing signature of Dr.Chung in the Death report of the PM whose signature was present initially.
2)The discoloration of the body the bloating of the body due to embalming and the puncture small hole and oozing of blood and a mark on his abdomen with a plaster.
3) The non performance of the autopsy.
4) The seeemily lack of interest on part of the government to investigate and reveal the documents and reports pertaining to the death of the PM.
The author himself has debunked many of the assumptions stated above with his research and analysis.
The negatives of the book was - The hurried approach which the author took to dismiss the role of CIA's involvement in the death of PM by giving flimpsy and circumstantial evidence. As it was very well know at that time , during the peak of cold war, one can never be sure of anyone.
The author tried to link the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri with that of Subhash Chandra Bose death or disappearance and spent a great deal into the matter which had little to with the subject at hand and again gave mere circumstantial evidence and gossips.
The author spoke about the classified documents not revealed by the past governments but gave no incentive to ask the current government to do the same other than mere recommendations.
He diverted a great deal into different matters often sliding them away with small evidences but kept digging at the past government for its response. There was a biased tone and we wished better from the author to take a unbiased stand when dealing with the death of a tall leader like Lal Bahadur shastri.
He promoted his previous books and movie " The Taskent files " though it could have been a passing reference only.
Overall , the author could have taken a unbiased view and presented his deductions in a more structured and lucid way. There were repetitions and finally there was no conclusive evidence other than few conspiracy theories.
Would like to reader the authors another famous work - " India's biggest cover up "
Hope it wont disappoint me.
Book - " Your Prime Minister is Dead "
Author - " Anuj Dhar "
Genre - " Non- fiction , Investigative Journalism "
This is my first book by the author Anuj Dhar. It deals with the sudden demise of Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966 in Taskent. The Prime minister of India " Lal Bahadur Shastri " along with the President of Pakistan " Muhammad Ayub Khan " went to discuss and come to terms with respect to finding a resolution to the issue of India - Pakistan 1965 war. The Taskent declaration was mediated by the Erstwhile USSR premier " Aleksey Kosygin ".The objective of the declaration was to withdraw all armed forces and restore diplomatic and economic relations between India and Pakistan.
As there was no talk of the resolution of the border issue, no war pact or renunciation of the gurellia warfare, this pact was not popular in India.
Coming back to the book , the author tried to raise several issues related to sudden death of the PM immediately after the signing of the declaration.
He gave a detailed analysis of what prespired on the day of the death of the PM. He raised several points and theories raised during the time and thereafter in the press and the parliament with respect to the death.
Few are -
1) The missing signature of Dr.Chung in the Death report of the PM whose signature was present initially.
2)The discoloration of the body the bloating of the body due to embalming and the puncture small hole and oozing of blood and a mark on his abdomen with a plaster.
3) The non performance of the autopsy.
4) The seeemily lack of interest on part of the government to investigate and reveal the documents and reports pertaining to the death of the PM.
The author himself has debunked many of the assumptions stated above with his research and analysis.
The negatives of the book was - The hurried approach which the author took to dismiss the role of CIA's involvement in the death of PM by giving flimpsy and circumstantial evidence. As it was very well know at that time , during the peak of cold war, one can never be sure of anyone.
The author tried to link the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri with that of Subhash Chandra Bose death or disappearance and spent a great deal into the matter which had little to with the subject at hand and again gave mere circumstantial evidence and gossips.
The author spoke about the classified documents not revealed by the past governments but gave no incentive to ask the current government to do the same other than mere recommendations.
He diverted a great deal into different matters often sliding them away with small evidences but kept digging at the past government for its response. There was a biased tone and we wished better from the author to take a unbiased stand when dealing with the death of a tall leader like Lal Bahadur shastri.
He promoted his previous books and movie " The Taskent files " though it could have been a passing reference only.
Overall , the author could have taken a unbiased view and presented his deductions in a more structured and lucid way. There were repetitions and finally there was no conclusive evidence other than few conspiracy theories.
Would like to reader the authors another famous work - " India's biggest cover up "
Hope it wont disappoint me.
January 17, 2022
Who was Shastri?
Jai Jawan Jai Kishan - One of the two slogans, the other being Jai Hind, that reverberate in our hearts when we talk about our nation, India. It was 1965 when Lal Bahadur Shastri, the second Prime Minister of India, first uttered those words.
What happened to Shastri?
Kosygin of USSR invited the leaders of the two rival nations India and Pakistan, then at war, to come to Taskhent and sign a peace agreement. The date was 11th January, 1965. But to everyone's horror, Shastri was found dead in his hotel room just a few hours after the ceasefire was signed. No one knows the actual reason. Reports stated that he had died of heart attack but many scholars and agencies around the globe refused to accept it as he was physically fit as reported by the medical certificate issued before his departure from India. Even the doubt about the incident being a political assassination could not be ruled out as his body turned blue when arrived in India. His body was cremated without performing any postmortem. So naturally the periphery of conspiracy theories reaches as far as CIA, KGB, Mossad etc.
What is this book about?
Author Anuj Dhar has tried to pen down the conspiracy theories that loomed around this poignant incident and prove the veracity of the same. At times, his political inclination was apparent in his writing and a few words at some point seemed to be insolent. But mostly there are facts garnered from various newspapers, declassified intelligence reports, medical reports and interviews.
Why do many people see propaganda in this book?
Nowadays political polarisation has reached a new level, hitherto unreachable. If you are questioning the left, you are from the right and vice versa. So, without producing any logical arguments pseudo intellectuals disown this book and the facts as well that the book furnished as it points out many a flaws and blemishes apparent on the deeds of the then government as to Shastriji's death.
Recommended.
Jai Jawan Jai Kishan - One of the two slogans, the other being Jai Hind, that reverberate in our hearts when we talk about our nation, India. It was 1965 when Lal Bahadur Shastri, the second Prime Minister of India, first uttered those words.
What happened to Shastri?
Kosygin of USSR invited the leaders of the two rival nations India and Pakistan, then at war, to come to Taskhent and sign a peace agreement. The date was 11th January, 1965. But to everyone's horror, Shastri was found dead in his hotel room just a few hours after the ceasefire was signed. No one knows the actual reason. Reports stated that he had died of heart attack but many scholars and agencies around the globe refused to accept it as he was physically fit as reported by the medical certificate issued before his departure from India. Even the doubt about the incident being a political assassination could not be ruled out as his body turned blue when arrived in India. His body was cremated without performing any postmortem. So naturally the periphery of conspiracy theories reaches as far as CIA, KGB, Mossad etc.
What is this book about?
Author Anuj Dhar has tried to pen down the conspiracy theories that loomed around this poignant incident and prove the veracity of the same. At times, his political inclination was apparent in his writing and a few words at some point seemed to be insolent. But mostly there are facts garnered from various newspapers, declassified intelligence reports, medical reports and interviews.
Why do many people see propaganda in this book?
Nowadays political polarisation has reached a new level, hitherto unreachable. If you are questioning the left, you are from the right and vice versa. So, without producing any logical arguments pseudo intellectuals disown this book and the facts as well that the book furnished as it points out many a flaws and blemishes apparent on the deeds of the then government as to Shastriji's death.
Recommended.
February 11, 2022
11th Jan 1966 was a dreadful day in Indian history, hours after signing the landmark Tashkent Accord, ShashtriJi was found in extreme duress in the middle of the night. Initial reports suggested that he suffered from a massive heart attack in his Dacha (Bungalow). His doctors and the Russian medical team despite their best efforts were not able to save him. On the face, this looks like a straightforward natural death. However as one goes deeper one can find many inconsistencies and baffling questions on the part of Indian beaurocrats and on the Russian Host's role.
A few of the pertinent questions were:
1. Why was Shanshtriji pointing towards a thermos kept in his room at his last moments, this very item was never returned/found again.
2. Shashtriji made a small note and kept it in his eyeglass case which indicated a threat.
3. The body when received in India was swollen, had turned blue, and had a cut near the neck and one on the stomach area, despite postmortem not being performed.
4. Indian government did not request/perform a postmortem despite the Russian side asking for it as a routine process.
5. An additional cook Jan Mohammed who prepared Shashtriji's last meal was a suspect and he went missing thereafter.
6. The main doctor who attended Shashtriji in his last moments was killed in a freak road accident, the truck actually tried twice and succeeded, his usual cook was also involved in an accident, he lost his legs and he swore never to speak again.
Once Vivek Agnihotri' came out with his movie and book, this topic was reignited. The author Anuj Dhar gave a lot of input to the overall research. The author has gone through many RTIs / approached CIA records (they were watching Russian negotiate between two warring neighbors) and has presented a detailed account. His other research project about Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and his disappearance also draws a parallel to this case.
MUST read for all history fans. (Real history is hard to find).
A few of the pertinent questions were:
1. Why was Shanshtriji pointing towards a thermos kept in his room at his last moments, this very item was never returned/found again.
2. Shashtriji made a small note and kept it in his eyeglass case which indicated a threat.
3. The body when received in India was swollen, had turned blue, and had a cut near the neck and one on the stomach area, despite postmortem not being performed.
4. Indian government did not request/perform a postmortem despite the Russian side asking for it as a routine process.
5. An additional cook Jan Mohammed who prepared Shashtriji's last meal was a suspect and he went missing thereafter.
6. The main doctor who attended Shashtriji in his last moments was killed in a freak road accident, the truck actually tried twice and succeeded, his usual cook was also involved in an accident, he lost his legs and he swore never to speak again.
Once Vivek Agnihotri' came out with his movie and book, this topic was reignited. The author Anuj Dhar gave a lot of input to the overall research. The author has gone through many RTIs / approached CIA records (they were watching Russian negotiate between two warring neighbors) and has presented a detailed account. His other research project about Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and his disappearance also draws a parallel to this case.
MUST read for all history fans. (Real history is hard to find).
May 26, 2025
Anuj Dhar s book reads like a thesis or a wikipedia article. His research into the circumstances surrounding the death of India s second Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri in the midst of a summit at Tashkent in the Soviet Union should have yielded a riveting read. However, although the research is thorough, the writing is extremely dry and it very much could have been written better. Secondly, the author devotes an entire chapter to plug his other book, when honestly that entire chapter was not relevant. As if that was not enough he goes on to plug the movie based on this book, the Tashkent files comparing the director Vivek Agnihotri to Oliver Stone and his JFK film. The book has an appendix with notes from medical experts, which are also used verbatim in his main chapters. Finally, to say that the author is politically unbiased would be an obvious falsification. The conclusions the author draws from all the evidence he has gathered also leaves a lot to be desired. Eventually the book which promised a lot turns out to be nothing. I picked up this book looking forward to a thrilling and exciting read, but unfortunately, the subject matter has been served in a biased and bland manner. The former I can accept, but the latter I can't.
October 13, 2022
This is an interesting book to say the least, tackling one of the most well-discussed topics in Indian political history. The book forms the basis for the movie Tashkent Files.
The research of the author is quite commendable. While the pursuit of the topic remains the main theme, the author goes on different tangents in depth that derails the flow. The overlap of this topic with another famous unsolved mystery of modern times i.e. Bose is dealt with quite some detail in this book. There is definitely a prelude to an upcoming book also.
There are portions that are repeated with the same level of details, which could have been summarized at one place with references.
While the author makes some poignant points, there are some generalizations that border on painting a certain view. Personally, I would have preferred the author to state the facts & his thought process than a general declaration. This dilutes the effort that has gone into making this into a wonderful read & equally invigorating film.
I would still recommend to read to know more about the unfortunate incident from few decades ago
The research of the author is quite commendable. While the pursuit of the topic remains the main theme, the author goes on different tangents in depth that derails the flow. The overlap of this topic with another famous unsolved mystery of modern times i.e. Bose is dealt with quite some detail in this book. There is definitely a prelude to an upcoming book also.
There are portions that are repeated with the same level of details, which could have been summarized at one place with references.
While the author makes some poignant points, there are some generalizations that border on painting a certain view. Personally, I would have preferred the author to state the facts & his thought process than a general declaration. This dilutes the effort that has gone into making this into a wonderful read & equally invigorating film.
I would still recommend to read to know more about the unfortunate incident from few decades ago
May 25, 2019
Having read 'India's Biggest Cover-up' by Dhar I was expecting the similar type of work in this book. But this book disappoint be a bit. The initial momentum developed by author vanishes gradually. Dhar not surprisingly gives a substantial space to NetaJi. If one has read his work on Netaji, this is in vain. Also, there seems to be a lack of extensive research here. If you have read his earlier works, you would finish this book as wanting more. However You cannot blame Dhar for this. The information and documentary material available in public domain about Shatri Ji's death is very limited as compared to the material related to Neta Ji. Apart from that, this book suffers from lack of flow which is usual with books based on research work. Editing is below average through out the book. I am not sure if editors did their job seriously.
Overall, this book leaves you little disappointed in terms of content, and quality of content.
Overall, this book leaves you little disappointed in terms of content, and quality of content.
March 31, 2020
"Your Prime Minister is Dead" is undoubtedly the apex of investigative journalism. I found this book to be well written, well researched, and factual but most importantly, it fits the current Indian political scenario.
The book is an in-depth and multidisciplinary study of the events surrounding Shastriji's sudden demise. The episodes surrounding the death suggested a foul play and the subject matter exposes the casual approach of the ruling party of the time. The author has questioned certain decisions of the political leadership which needs to be answered with sincerity.
In a nutshell, "Your Prime Minister is Dead" is a dazzling piece of non-fiction, a case study that will only become more relevant with the passage of time. It provides a blueprint and a robust base for many types of similar investigations to come. It's more like a call to action for the masses. The onus is on the reader to research more and act.
The book is an in-depth and multidisciplinary study of the events surrounding Shastriji's sudden demise. The episodes surrounding the death suggested a foul play and the subject matter exposes the casual approach of the ruling party of the time. The author has questioned certain decisions of the political leadership which needs to be answered with sincerity.
In a nutshell, "Your Prime Minister is Dead" is a dazzling piece of non-fiction, a case study that will only become more relevant with the passage of time. It provides a blueprint and a robust base for many types of similar investigations to come. It's more like a call to action for the masses. The onus is on the reader to research more and act.
October 29, 2022
His conclusion about Indira Gandhi's involvement is inadequate.
Yes, maybe Teja wasn't the one who did the killing. But they still lied about it. Why would they?
Second, because she wasn't among the top candidates to be chosen for prime minister after shastri's death doesn't show that she might not have been involved. Actually it shows that she might have been because even when she wasn't in top 3, she was the one chosen. That again looks like a conspiracy. And that's the pattern with planning.
It was done by the Indian government itself and the autopsy did happen, Russians know about it. Officialy, they say they denied the autopsy, because if they say there was an autopsy, they would have to present the results of the autopsy or atleast the conclusion of it. They can lie about that too but better planning is reducing one lie. This might be something Russia used to have it's hold over the coming government which shows in what followed.
Yes, maybe Teja wasn't the one who did the killing. But they still lied about it. Why would they?
Second, because she wasn't among the top candidates to be chosen for prime minister after shastri's death doesn't show that she might not have been involved. Actually it shows that she might have been because even when she wasn't in top 3, she was the one chosen. That again looks like a conspiracy. And that's the pattern with planning.
It was done by the Indian government itself and the autopsy did happen, Russians know about it. Officialy, they say they denied the autopsy, because if they say there was an autopsy, they would have to present the results of the autopsy or atleast the conclusion of it. They can lie about that too but better planning is reducing one lie. This might be something Russia used to have it's hold over the coming government which shows in what followed.
July 12, 2020
Just under 3.
After reading Mr Dhar's "India's biggest coverup", I wanted to give this book a try. That book is one of my all-time fav books. I always like his works due to the extensive research he carries before bringing it to public.
However, this book felt to me as a premature attempt with not so extensive research behind it. The book started off very interestingly but somehow in the middle I felt I was lost. I had stopped reading it for a few months as I didnot find the study intriguing. I felt the author kind of drifted apart from the basic plot. Moreover the last two chapters were mostly about Netaji than Shastry ji.
On the whole, this book can be given a try for those who want to know about alternate facts.
After reading Mr Dhar's "India's biggest coverup", I wanted to give this book a try. That book is one of my all-time fav books. I always like his works due to the extensive research he carries before bringing it to public.
However, this book felt to me as a premature attempt with not so extensive research behind it. The book started off very interestingly but somehow in the middle I felt I was lost. I had stopped reading it for a few months as I didnot find the study intriguing. I felt the author kind of drifted apart from the basic plot. Moreover the last two chapters were mostly about Netaji than Shastry ji.
On the whole, this book can be given a try for those who want to know about alternate facts.
April 12, 2019
As @tashkentmovie releases today here are my two cents on Your Prime Minister is Dead by Anuj Dhar; the book on which this movie is based.
In the opening of the book the author manages to generate the curiosity that there was something amiss in Lal Bhadur Shastri’s death by the his posthumous body is handled in India. Shastri ji has died during his visit to Tashkent for signing of a treaty between India and Pakistan after the 1965 war.
However after that book takes a downward turn with no substantial proof but discussion of who raised the conspiracy issue and why that didn’t sustain.
The book is very well researched including national and international sources but it makes little headway into the perceived conspiracy or who at the end was responsible for Shastri Ji’s death.
Author’s attempt to link Shastri and Bose falls flat as there are inconsistencies in his own narrative.
It is a slow read that leaves you dissatisfied.
I give it 2.5/5 for the good research.
In the opening of the book the author manages to generate the curiosity that there was something amiss in Lal Bhadur Shastri’s death by the his posthumous body is handled in India. Shastri ji has died during his visit to Tashkent for signing of a treaty between India and Pakistan after the 1965 war.
However after that book takes a downward turn with no substantial proof but discussion of who raised the conspiracy issue and why that didn’t sustain.
The book is very well researched including national and international sources but it makes little headway into the perceived conspiracy or who at the end was responsible for Shastri Ji’s death.
Author’s attempt to link Shastri and Bose falls flat as there are inconsistencies in his own narrative.
It is a slow read that leaves you dissatisfied.
I give it 2.5/5 for the good research.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews