Do you accept the official version of the story of the death of Indian PM Shastri in 1966?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,700
SoCal
#1
Do you accept the official version of the story of the death of Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966? The official version is that he died of a heart attack in Tashkent a day after signing the Tashkent Declaration--which officially ended the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. However, there have been conspiracy theories about his death and about the official story of his death being false:

Lal Bahadur Shastri - Wikipedia

Shastri's wife Lalita believed that he was poisoned and CIA operative Robert Crowley claimed that the CIA was responsible for Shastri's death.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on Shastri's death and on the official story behind it? Is the official story of his death true, in your opinion?
 
Oct 2015
1,059
India
#9
Do you accept the official version of the story of the death of Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966? The official version is that he died of a heart attack in Tashkent a day after signing the Tashkent Declaration--which officially ended the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. However, there have been conspiracy theories about his death and about the official story of his death being false:

Lal Bahadur Shastri - Wikipedia

Shastri's wife Lalita believed that he was poisoned and CIA operative Robert Crowley claimed that the CIA was responsible for Shastri's death.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on Shastri's death and on the official story behind it? Is the official story of his death true, in your opinion?
The cause of death of Prime Minister Shastri was not ascertained thru a proper postmortem in India. So the cause is not known. The "official versions" is as sacrosanct as the "conspiracy theories" - no less, no more.

Tashkent was in USSR. In my view the CIA is unlikely to dare a political assassination in territory of its Enemy # 1 (USSR), and that too at such a critical juncture (War Treaty Talks).

Recently released movie (Tashkent Files) on the subject presents much of connected evidence but it gets rather mixed up with the plot of the movie. It is a 'movie' not a 'documentary'.

More later.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2012
7,256
Malaysia
#10
Well, there are certain potent poisons that can trigger a heart attack, right? So, had such a poison been used, then the official version would still have been correct, technically speaking.
 
Likes: Futurist