Who Really Killed Aung San

8/9/2019 Who Really Killed Aung San

1/4

Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) Recommended Article:

Q: Who do you think really killed Bogyoke Aung San?

A: Who really killed Bogyoke Aung San was the British government. Itwas their plot.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: I suppose there were three reasons why he was killed. Firstly, BogyokeAung San was the leader who could organise and unite the whole countryso they were afraid of the whole of Burma uniting. This was the mainreason. Secondly, Bogyoke Aung San could reunite with the CommunistParty of Burma. They were worried about that too. And finally, theysupposed that they could handle Burma more easily if they removed him.These were the reasons why he was killed. I better give my opinions andsome evidence why I say that the British were involved in thisassassination. First evidence From the very beginning, the Britishgovernment had noticed that U Saw was conspiring something. Theyeven understood that these actions were aimed at Bogyoke. Regardingthis fact I remember two things. First, before the assassination, U Sawshouse was kept under police surveillance. One of my relatives who wasthen a police officer, told me that he was on duty from a nearby house a

week before the assassination. He said that they had to report theirfindings daily and thought surveillance had begun even before he was

put on duty. The second thing is that during 1960s or 1970s on oneMartyrs Day anniversary, one of the Burmese newspapers published anarticle written by a retired police officer who was then a station master inMayangon police station which handles affairs in that quarter of AdyRoad where U Saws house was located. He wrote that their policestation had reported all their findings of the activities concerning USaws house and compound long before the assassination. Theyconcluded that a plot was being planned that would soon materialize.

Yet, there was no order to arrest them or any other action to prevent

these plans. He wrote that he could not understand why. From these twopoints we can conclude that, although the British government hadnoticed that U Saw was engaged in illegal activities aimed at someone inparticular, they had never taken action to prevent them nor anyprecaution. It was a very obvious fact. Second evidence (a) The followingfacts came from the media at the time of the assassination. Captain

Vivian, a British Army officer, was transferred to the police department just before this incident. He worked for the Arms and AmmunitionsSupply Department. Vivian issued 200 Brenguns to U Saw. On 24.6.47under the guidance of Vivian and U Saw, Ba Nyunt, a prominent followerof U Saw and his group wearing police uniforms had received


2/4


ammunitions from No 226, Burma Ordinance Depot (BOD) withoutdifficulty. (b) On 10.7.47 the same group (Ba Nyunt, etc.) had received asecond issue of ammunitions from Vivian from Mingaladon. And on 21-7-47 when a pond near U Saws house was searched, 170 Brenguns and

100 Stenguns were discovered in airtight boxes underwater. (c) Thisissue of arms and ammunitions provided clear evidence that the Britishwere involved in the assassination. The amount was so large that it couldhave armed six infantry battalions (half of the total battalions of theBurma Army at that time). These arms were not bought by U Saw but

were issued by Vivian without the knowledge of upper authorities. Capt.Vivian had no personal profit motive also, so it is a very obvious fact. (d)This issue of arms not only encouraged the assassination of Bogyoke, butalso had other implications afterwards. With this amount of arms U Sawcould manage to kill Bogyoke and then revolt to seize power. Bysupplying arms in this way, the British could bring Burma into turmoiland into civil war. Third evidence (a) Actually U Saw had been collectingarms since 1946 and got in touch with Maj. C.H.H. Young, a Britishcommander from No(1) BEME in Rangoon. From him, U Saw receivedmany rifles, pistols and some ammunitions. (b) Similarly, from Maj.Lance Dane (also a British) he received arms and ammunitions. (c)

According to newspapers, the bullets fired at Bogyoke were poisoned andknown as "dumdum". Mong Pawn Saohpa, who was not seriously injuredat the time, died later from these bullets. (d) U Saw got these arms

illegally from these two British majors prior to the assassination. Thiswas also a very obvious fact that British were involved. These two piecesof evidence (the second and third) were also very obvious facts provingtheir involvement in this assassination. U Kin Oung, the son of U TunHla Aung (deceased) who was Deputy Police Commissioner during theinvestigation of the assassination, had written a book "Who killed AungSan", and some of the main facts were broadcasted on BBC in 1993.

So the following evidence will be from those facts. Fourth evidence (a)

About a week after the assassinations on July 25th, because of therumours that the British government was involved, the pro-British U Nugovernment had arranged to announce the following notice. "The BritishColonial government was not involved in this assassination and we,together with the British government, are trying very hard to discover areal culprit in the case". (b) But this notice was never released because ofa report in the newspapers on 28-7-47. The report said that, "whenBogyoke Aung San and the group went to London in January 47 to signthe Aung San-Attlee Agreement, U Saw and Thakin Ba Sein refused tosign. U Saw, with the aim to disintegrate the AFPFL, remained inEngland and received five hundred thousand pounds. Some of the


3/4


capitalists from England gave large amounts of money to U Saw." (c)Because of these various reports about British involvement, it is clearthat even U Nus government (who did not want to confront the Britishand wanted to protect them from various rumours) dared not announce

the notice. Fifth evidence (a) Firstly, if U Saw was only seeking revenge,he should aim only at Bogyoke. But why did he kill the whole cabinet?(Seven other cabinet members, one secretary and one bodyguard, werealso killed and only two cabinet members escaped.) So this was not onlyrevenge, but beneficial for the new government and new cabinetmembers also. Its very clear evidence. (b) U Saw hoped that after thisassassination, the governor would ask him to form a new government.Kin Oungs book reveals when U Saw was arrested, a seal bearing, "USaw, Prime Minister" was found in his house. Most of the newspapersand BBC reported this fact. Then, who opened the way for U Saw to havesuch expectations? Wasnt this a very big motive for U Saw to kill? Sixthevidence (a) Frederick Henry, U Saws lawyer from England wassuddenly assassinated in his room. (b) F. Collins, a British privatedetective, after the assassination was also found dead and all of hispapers were lost. Only from Kin Oungs book do we know that they werekilled. We never knew it earlier which makes it an interesting case. Thesetwo victims knew of the basic facts of the case, so they were killed toprevent a further leak. The killers were afraid some true facts of the case

would leak. Thats why, they seemed to have killed these people. (c)

These facts also arouse the suspicion that British were involved in theassassination. Seventh evidence It was said that after U Saw wassentenced to death, he tried to contact British officials, to help himescape. He approached U San Tin, "Prison-in-charge", and offered alarge amount of money. U San Tin discussed this with U Tun Hla Aung,and arranged a plan to help him. From then on, U Saw tried to collectmoney and surprisingly found out that many British officials wereconnected to U Saw. In those letters, they had used code names and

words. (a) The first person whom U Saw asked for money was Capt.

Vivian. U Saw did not know that Vivian had been arrested at that timefor issuing arms. Vivian wrote back to U Saw saying, "We can arrangeeverything for you. Why didnt you contact a long man?" (b) The secondperson U Saw had contacted and asked for money was Mr. John StewartBenglen from the British Counsel of Rangoon. (He was a BritishDiplomat, so politically more important). He was shocked to receive theletter which he destroyed and then ordered the police officer away.

Afterwards, on 22nd, 23rd, August, U Saw sent some letters again toBenglen not only asking for money but also threatening him. Benglennever received these because after receiving the first letter from U Saw,he prepared to leave Burma. He left his house shifting to the Strand


4/4


Hotel. While he was preparing his departure, U Tun Hla Aung asked UKyaw Nyein, then the Home Minister, to arrest Benglen. U Kyaw Nyeinreported to the Governor who asked for further evidence. The next day,U Tun Hla Aung went to Benglen, (before he left) and showed him U

Saws letter. Benglen was so frightened and said that as a diplomat, hecould not be arrested. On this, Kin Oung wrote, "In fact Mr. Benglendefinitely knew how he was involved in the assassination of Bogyoke." UTun Hla Aung only asked him to leave Burma for good. From that day(4-9-47) onwards, there were no clues to his whereabouts. (c) Vivian wasthe person who issued arms and ammunition to U Saw, so he was themost important person involved in the assassination. Benglen was alsoimportant as he was a diplomat. When Maj. Young was arrested andinterrogated, it was found out that the connection between U Saw andBenglen was very much more than normal. From the fact that in a case ofemergency, U Saw asked for money from these two important persons,

we can conclude that the British were involved in the assassination. Thelast evidence When Karens withdrew from Insein in May 1949, Vivianfollowed them from Insein Jail. Until 1950, he was together with Saw BaOo Gyi near Kawkareik.

Although Burmese authorities had said that he was killed, actually hehad escaped back to England through Thailand in the middle of 1950and only in about 1980 did he expire. This reflected the involvement of

the British. Because of this, Im convinced that the British were involvedin the assassination of Bogyoke. As mentioned before, the fact that

Vivian, Young and Dane had issued U Saw arms are obvious indicators oftheir involvement. The issue of arms and ammunitions not onlyencouraged the assassination, but also U Saws rise to power. In fact,Burma under Aung San and AFPFL leadership, was becoming organi-sedand united. From that point of view, I believe that the British wereinvolved in the assassination moreover in the subsequent occurrenceof civil war.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=719&page=3
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=719&page=3http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=719&page=3

Documents

Who Really Killed Aung San