On June 9, 1946 one of the most momentous occurrences in 20th Century Thai history took place when King Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII), the elder brother of the current King Bhomipol (Rama IX) of Thailand, was found dead in Bangkok. Despite the fact that most of King Ananda’s reign had taken place while he was being educated abroad in Switzerland and while he was a minor under various regents, his death was clearly a matter of considerable delicacy for the Thai monarchy. Though people tend to think of the Thai monarchy as a bastion of stability in present times, during the first half of the 20th century Thai monarchs did not fare well, including the overthrow of Thailand’s absolute monarchy on December 10, 1932 (a day ‘celebrated’ even today as Constitution Day, even if no one in Thailand has been able to provide me an explanation of this day or the Constitutional nature of the Thai monarchy).

Not surprisingly, the subject of the death of King Ananda Mahidol of Thailand is strang verboten even in college and graduate level history courses in Thailand. Naturally, that means I am going to talk about it today, even though facts on the case are extremely difficult to come by. It must be strongly emphasized how dangerous and fatal this particular area of study can be for a historian. One historian, a South African named Rayne Kruger attempted to provide an explanation of King Ananda’s death in a work called The Devil’s Discus, in which he blamed the death on suicide due to a broken relationship in Switzerland [1], but the main weakness of this theory is that the identity of the girl cannot be proven even now, and it is thought by many that this explanation was made up to avoid the real explanation of his death. Despite this attempt to provide a less-explosive explanation for King Ananda’s death, the book The Devil’s Discus was promptly banned in Thailand upon its publication and Rayne Kruger himself was permanently denied re-entry into Thailand.

From here matters get considerably murkier. Three palace attendants, after a trial lasting six years, were executed for the crime of killing King Ananda even though they were almost certainly innocent, and even though Thailand’s current King Bhomipol knew they were almost certainly innocent, but stood by and did nothing to save the unfortunate palace servants [2]. Given the evidence that exists, it seems impossible that King Ananda died of an accident, and yet none of the theories floated for an assassin seem to hold much water. The fact that the case cannot even be discussed openly suggests the worst sort of solution may be true, and a State Department cable from a mid-20th century Thai Prime Minister suggests that responsibility for King Ananda’s death may be laid at the feet of his younger brother, even if the case cannot be proven [3], and even though it would fatal to even attempt to make such a case at the present time.

It is sad that the young King Ananda did not have the chance to enjoy a long reign on the throne of Thailand. By all accounts he appears to have been a young person of high intellect and also high principles, and he had not been able to visit Thailand at all during World War II, and only rarely before that. Witness this quote from King Ananda Mahidol about Thailand: “If all Thai people know they are owners of the nation and each one discharges their duties accordingly and according to right principles, then the difficulties of the nation will pass away.” Indeed, I find little to disagree with him either in his genuinely republican principles of considering the Thai people as owners of the nation as well as the necessity and difficulty of discharging one’s proper responsibilities according to right principles (though there are always disagreements about what those right principles are).

It has been reported that King Bhomipol will preside over the establishment of a monument for his assassinated elder brother today, and that there will be a permanent historical exhibition established near the monument to provide some historical context about his reign [4]. It like likely that the extremely controversial and contentious debate over his death will not be a large part of that exhibition, but rather that his studies and knowledge will be focused on so as to bring him glory in the eyes of those who read the exhibition without troubling them over dangerous musings about how that young man whose entire reign was conducted under regencies died the death of a dog by being assassinated while he lied in his bed while circumstances were made to look as if it was an accident or a suicide.

Whatever one believes about his death, the fact that it was almost certainly a murder, even if it cannot be proven at this time who precisely pulled the trigger, ought to lead us to reflect on the fragility of power. Orderly succession is threatened by the greed and lust for power, and wherever there is power an honestly principled person like King Ananda appears to have been will be threatened by those who wish to gratify their own selfish lusts at the expense of the common folk. In this present evil world the debased theory that might makes right is all to common, and to that principle we owe the death of King Ananda on this day in 1946. Let us at least reflect a little bit about his life and its implications on the passing and illusory nature of power and glory.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil%27s_Discus

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananda_Mahidol#Aftermath

[3] http://thaipoliticalprisoners.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/stanton-1948.pdf

[4] http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/His-Majesty-to-inaugurate-monument-to-his-late-bro-30183810.html