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. It
was their plot.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: I suppose there were three reasons why he was killed. Firstly, Bogyoke
Aung San was the leader who could organise and unite the whole country
so they were afraid of the whole of Burma uniting. This was the main
reason. Secondly, Bogyoke Aung San could reunite with the Communist
Party of Burma. They were worried about that too. And finally, they
supposed that they could handle Burma more easily if they removed him.
These were the reasons why he was killed. I better give my opinions and
some evidence why I say that the British were involved in this
assassination. First evidence From the very beginning, the British
government had noticed that U Saw was conspiring something. They
even understood that these actions were aimed at Bogyoke. Regarding
this fact I remember two things. First, before the assassination, U Saw’s
house was kept under police surveillance. One of my relatives who was
then 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 their
findings daily and thought surveillance had begun even before he was
put on duty. The second thing is that during 1960’s or 1970’s on one
Martyr’s Day anniversary, one of the Burmese newspapers published an
article written by a retired police officer who was then a station master in
Mayangon police station which handles affairs in that quarter of Ady
Road where U Saw’s house was located. He wrote that their police
station had reported all their findings of the activities concerning U
Saw’s house and compound long before the assassination. They
concluded 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 two
points we can conclude that, although the British government had
noticed that U Saw was engaged in illegal activities aimed at someone in
particular, they had never taken action to prevent them nor any
precaution. It was a very obvious fact. Second evidence (a) The following
facts 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 Ammunitions
Supply Department. Vivian issued 200 Brenguns to U Saw. On 24.6.47
under the guidance of Vivian and U Saw, Ba Nyunt, a prominent follower
of U Saw and his group wearing police uniforms had received
 Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) Recommended Article:

ammunitions from No 226, Burma Ordinance Depot (BOD) without

difficulty. (b) On 10.7.47 the same group (Ba Nyunt, etc.) had received a
second issue of ammunitions from Vivian from Mingaladon. And on 21-
7-47 when a pond near U Saw’s house was searched, 170 Brenguns and
100 Stenguns were discovered in airtight boxes underwater. (c) This
issue of arms and ammunitions provided clear evidence that the British
were involved in the assassination. The amount was so large that it could
have armed six infantry battalions (half of the total battalions of the
Burma 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, but
also had other implications afterwards. With this amount of arms U Saw
could manage to kill Bogyoke and then revolt to seize power. By
supplying arms in this way, the British could bring Burma into turmoil
and into civil war. Third evidence (a) Actually U Saw had been collecting
arms since 1946 and got in touch with Maj. C.H.H. Young, a British
commander from No(1) BEME in Rangoon. From him, U Saw received
many 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 and
known as "dumdum". Mong Pawn Saohpa, who was not seriously injured
at the time, died later from these bullets. (d) U Saw got these arms
illegally from these two British majors prior to the assassination. This
was also a very obvious fact that British were involved. These two pieces
of evidence (the second and third) were also very obvious facts proving
their involvement in this assassination. U Kin Oung, the son of U Tun
Hla Aung (deceased) who was Deputy Police Commissioner during the
investigation of the assassination, had written a book "Who killed Aung
San", 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 the
rumours that the British government was involved, the pro-British U Nu
government had arranged to announce the following notice. "The British
Colonial government was not involved in this assassination and we,
together with the British government, are trying very hard to discover a
real culprit in the case". (b) But this notice was never released because of
a report in the newspapers on 28-7-47. The report said that, "when
Bogyoke Aung San and the group went to London in January ’47 to sign
the ‘Aung San-Attlee Agreement’, U Saw and Thakin Ba Sein refused to
sign. U Saw, with the aim to disintegrate the AFPFL, remained in
England and received five hundred thousand pounds. Some of the
 Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) Recommended Article:

capitalists from England gave large amounts of money to U Saw." (c)

Because of these various reports about British involvement, it is clear
that even U Nu’s government (who did not want to confront the British
and 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, were
also killed and only two cabinet members escaped.) So this was not only
revenge, but beneficial for the new government and new cabinet
members also. It’s very clear evidence. (b) U Saw hoped that after this
assassination, the governor would ask him to form a new government.
Kin Oung’s book reveals when U Saw was arrested, a seal bearing, "U
Saw, Prime Minister" was found in his house. Most of the newspapers
and BBC reported this fact. Then, who opened the way for U Saw to have
such expectations? Wasn’t this a very big motive for U Saw to kill? Sixth
evidence (a) Frederick Henry, U Saw’s lawyer from England was
suddenly assassinated in his room. (b) F. Collins, a British private
detective, after the assassination was also found dead and all of his
papers were lost. Only from Kin Oung’s book do we know that they were
killed. We never knew it earlier which makes it an interesting case. These
two victims knew of the basic facts of the case, so they were killed to
prevent a further leak. The killers were afraid some true facts of the case
would leak. That’s why, they seemed to have killed these people. (c)
These facts also arouse the suspicion that British were involved in the
assassination. Seventh evidence It was said that after U Saw was
sentenced to death, he tried to contact British officials, to help him
escape. He approached U San Tin, "Prison-in-charge", and offered a
large 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 collect
money and surprisingly found out that many British officials were
connected 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 time
for issuing arms. Vivian wrote back to U Saw saying, "We can arrange
everything for you. Why didn’t you contact a long man?" (b) The second
person U Saw had contacted and asked for money was Mr. John Stewart
Benglen from the British Counsel of Rangoon. (He was a British
Diplomat, so politically more important). He was shocked to receive the
letter which he destroyed and then ordered the police officer away.
Afterwards, on 22nd, 23rd, August, U Saw sent some letters again to
Benglen not only asking for money but also threatening him. Benglen
never received these because after receiving the first letter from U Saw,
he prepared to leave Burma. He left his house shifting to the Strand
 Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) Recommended Article:

Hotel. While he was preparing his departure, U Tun Hla Aung asked U
Kyaw Nyein, then the Home Minister, to arrest Benglen. U Kyaw Nyein
reported 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
Saw’s letter. Benglen was so frightened and said that as a diplomat, he
could not be arrested. On this, Kin Oung wrote, "In fact Mr. Benglen
definitely knew how he was involved in the assassination of Bogyoke." U
Tun 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 was
the person who issued arms and ammunition to U Saw, so he was the
most important person involved in the assassination. Benglen was also
important as he was a diplomat. When Maj. Young was arrested and
interrogated, it was found out that the connection between U Saw and
Benglen was very much more than normal. From the fact that in a case of
emergency, U Saw asked for money from these two important persons,
we can conclude that the British were involved in the assassination. The
last evidence When Karens withdrew from Insein in May 1949, Vivian
followed them from Insein Jail. Until 1950, he was together with Saw Ba
Oo Gyi near Kawkareik.

Although Burmese authorities had said that he was killed, actually he

had escaped back to England through Thailand in the middle of 1950
and only in about 1980 did he expire. This reflected the involvement of
the British. Because of this, I’m convinced that the British were involved
in the assassination of Bogyoke. As mentioned before, the fact that
Vivian, Young and Dane had issued U Saw arms are obvious indicators of
their involvement. The issue of arms and ammunitions not only
encouraged the assassination, but also U Saw’s rise to power. In fact,
Burma under Aung San and AFPFL leadership, was becoming organi-sed
and united. From that point of view, I believe that the British were
involved in the assassination — moreover in the subsequent occurrence
of civil war.

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