Revolution Betrayed: The Legacy of the Khana Ratsadon

Sittisorn Iewwongcharoen, Thailand

Thailand — officially the Kingdom of Thailand in its modern form — had been birthed during the Siamese Revolution in 1932. The kingdom, which had remained an absolute monarchy for centuries, adopted its first constitution under the guidance of the Khana Ratsadon or People’s Party. However, today, the Khana Ratsadon and the Revolution have almost been forgotten, with even history textbooks omitting the Revolution entirely (Prachathai English, 2017). This raises the question—Who were the Khana Ratsadon? What were the consequences of the revolution? And why are their legacies being stamped out by the government?

Before 1932, Thailand, then known as Siam, was ruled under an absolute monarchy, accompanied by the Sakdina system. Sakdina was basically feudalism, based on Hindu-Buddhist beliefs and, as described by activist Chit Phumisak, was a class system that divided people based on land ownership. This sort of rule lasted for centuries, starting during the Sukothai Kingdom in the 1200s until the early Rattanakosin Kingdom during the late 1700s. Siam’s rulers would centralize the kingdom and abandon feudalism during the reign of King Chulalongkorn or Rama V. His rule brought great reforms to Siam, including railways, modern education, telegraphs, and the abolishment of slavery (Brittanica). He would be succeeded by his son King Vajiravudh or Rama VI, and him by his younger brother, King Prajadhipok or Rama VII in 1926. By this time, Siam had massive economic problems. King Rama VI spent money lavishly and after his death, the Great Depression hit Siam, causing problems for Rama VII. Furthermore, the emerging middle class was demanding political reform, and many students who studied abroad in Europe began to question the absolutist rule of the king. King Rama VII’s failure to adhere to reforms culminated in the Siamese revolution in 1932 (Brittanica).

In 1927, seven students met at a hotel in Paris to formally establish a group known as the Khana Ratsadon. All were students studying abroad, therefore they were exposed to ideals of democracy and they began to oppose the absolutist rule back in Siam. The seven students included: Prayoon Pamornmontri, Plaek Khittasangka, Thatsanai Mitphakdi, Tua Laphanukrom, Jarun Singhaseni, Naep Phahonyothin and Pridi Bhanomyong. When they returned to Siam, the Khana Ratsadon expanded, and managed to secure key allies in the military, who were called the “Four Musketeers”. The Four Musketeers would become the leaders of the military faction of the Khana Ratsadon, headed by Phraya Phahonphonphayuhasena or Phot Phahonyothin, while the civilian faction would be led by Pridi Bhanomyong.

By 1932, the group had grown to over 100 members, and decided the time was right to seize power. On the 24th of June 1932, the Khana Ratsadon sprung into action. King Rama VII at this time was residing at the Klai Kangwon palace in Hua Hin (ironically, “Klai Kangwon” means “far from worries”) and had left Bangkok in the hands of Prince Paribatra Sukhumbhandu. Military troops aligned with the Khana Ratsadon captured Prince Paribatra, while others seized telegraph offices and government buildings, including the Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall. Soon, the king returned to Bangkok and allowed the Khana Ratsadon to implement their constitution, which was written by Pridi Bhanomyong. The Khana Ratsadon had against all odds, managed to pull off a successful and peaceful revolution (Lohatepanont, 2017). The Khana Ratsadon invited Phraya Manopakorn Nithithada, a member of the Privy Council, to serve as the nation’s first prime minister. However, Pridi controversially suggested an economic plan to improve the country known as the “Yellow Dossier”. This plan called for the nationalization of property, social security and other left-wing policies. Pridi was subsequently accused of being a communist, with even the King remarking “I do not know whether Stalin was inspired by Luang Pradit (Pridi) or if Luang Pradit was inspired by Stalin” (Fuwongcharoen, 2020). With the government divided over the issue, Phraya Manopakorn dissolved the parliament, thus declaring a self-coup. This was followed by a law that aimed to arrest supposed communists within the kingdom, forcing Pridi into exile in France. However, the members of the Khana Ratsadon were furious with Manopakorn and launched a coup led by Phraya Phahon. The new administration quickly reversed many of Phraya Manopakorn’s actions and, most crucially, invited Pridi back to Siam. Angered by this, royalist reactionaries then began a countercoup led by Prince Boworadet, a relative of the King. His forces managed to march all the way to Bangkok from their headquarters in Korat, Northeastern Thailand. However, at the outskirts of the capital, they were defeated by Plaek Khittasangkha, also known as Luang Phibunsongkhram. The rebellion greatly strained relations between the King and the Khana Ratsadon, as rumors circulated of the King’s alleged support for the rebellion. As a result, King Rama VII announced his abdication, but without an heir, his nephew, Prince Ananda Mahidol, was crowned as Rama VIII of Siam in 1935.

Ananda’s reign marked another significant shift in Siam. In 1938, the ailing Phraya Phahon would resign, allowing his protégé, Plaek Phibunsongkhram to rise to the position of prime minister. Plaek deeply admired Mussolini and his fascist policies in Italy, and decided to heavily promote Thai nationalism. Plaek’s most influential policies were the 12 Ratthaniyom or Cultural Mandates. Each mandate specified a certain aspect of Siamese society that would be reshaped by Plaek’s nationalist ideals. They included: specifications on proper clothing, lyrics for the new national anthem (still in use today), usage of the Thai language, and perhaps most crucially, renaming Siam to Thailand (Royal Gazette, 1939). These mandates allowed Plaek to build up a cult of personality, with people calling him “Than Phu Nam” or supreme leader. Another notable feature of Plaek’s nationalist campaign was Sinophobia. Despite having Chinese ancestry himself, Plaek promoted a campaign of “Economic Nationalism” against Chinese immigrants. Under Plaek’s campaign Chinese people were barred from several jobs and had their businesses shut down, while Thai citizens were encouraged to buy Thai-made products (Fuwongcharoen, 2020).

Plaek’s nationalism eventually led Thailand into a war with France in 1940. Exploiting the French surrender to Germany in June, Plaek ordered a Thai invasion of French Indochina in an attempt to retake territory lost to France in 1893. Despite initial success, the Thais lost the crucial naval battle at Koh Chang, prompting Japanese intervention. Japan, who had their own ambitions in Indochina, mediated a peace between Thailand and France, with the French ceding several territories to Thailand and the Thais paying reparations to France. While not meeting his goals, Plaek celebrated the victory and exploited it for propaganda purposes. Siem Reap province in Cambodia, which was incorporated into Thailand was renamed to Phibunsongkhram province, a massive victory monument was constructed in Bangkok and Plaek promoted himself to the rank of field marshal (Fuwongcharoen, 2020). Plaek’s victory was short-lived as on the 8th of December 1941, Japan launched an invasion of Thailand. Plaek called for a ceasefire, and allowed Japanese troops to pass Thailand into Burma and Malaya. Seeing Japanese successes in their campaign in Southeast Asia, Plaek declared war on the U.S. and Britain in January 1942. Thailand’s entry into the war saw the country occupy parts of Malaya and the Shan State in Burma with Japanese assistance. But as the war went on, it became evident that the Japanese would lose, leading to Plaek distancing himself from Japan. Allied bombing raids in Bangkok and poor performance caused morale to plummet, and the final straw came when Plaek proposed to relocate the capital to Phetchabun province. During the course of the war, a secret resistance group known as the Seri Thai, or Free Thai was formed. Led by Pridi Bhanomyong, who was acting as regent, and Seni Pramoj, who was ambassador to the United States, they worked to oppose Plaek’s dictatorship and tried to negotiate secretly with the Allies. With Plaek’s erroneous plans to relocate the capital, the Seri Thai pounced into action and managed to oust Plaek with a vote of no confidence (Prakitnonthakan, 1997). Khuang Aphaiwong, who was seen as a moderate figure, rose to the position of prime minister and served until the end of the war. While Britain aimed to punish Thailand as an Axis power, Seni and Pridi managed to negotiate with the United States, with Pridi claiming that Plaek’s declaration of war was null and void. In addition, the United States saw Thailand as a potential ally in the region and apart from returning seized territories and paying minor reparations, Thailand left the war relatively unscathed.

Postwar, Thailand returned more or less to a state of normalcy. After several civilian prime ministers, in 1946 Pridi Bhanomyong rose to the position of prime minister. Pridi’s leadership brought about an important change, which was a new constitution. The 1946 constitution was considered the most democratic constitution (Pridi Bhanomyong, 1972) up until the 1997 constitution. The constitution allowed for an elected House of Representatives and, importantly, an elected Senate, with the only other constitution that allowed this being the 1997 constitution. Pridi also made economic reforms which began to enact policies similar to those in the “Yellow Dossier” (Fuwongcharoen, 2020). However, not everyone was pleased with Pridi’s policies. Conservatives such as Seni Pramoj and Khuang Aphaiwong formed the Democrat Party as an opposition group against the Khana Ratsadon government.

Pridi’s rule as prime minister was cut short, however, by a tragedy. On the 9th of June 1946, King Rama VIII was found dead in his bedroom with a gunshot wound in his head. The assassination of the King was and still is a sensitive and controversial topic in Thailand and to this day, no one is sure about who was the perpetrator. Despite this fact, the Democrat Party seized this opportunity to frame Pridi as the mastermind of the assassination, forcing his resignation and later exile. In his place, Thawan Thamrongnawasawat, one of Pridi’s allies in the navy became prime minister. But the new regime couldn’t last long, as Thawan’s government was plagued with corruption scandals. The most notorious of these scandals was the “Kin Job Kin Siem” scandal, where local politicians embezzled money that was supposed to purchase agricultural equipment for farmers (Fuwongcharoen, 2020). Thawan was overthrown in a coup in 1947, which was orchestrated by none other than Plaek Phibunsongkhram. Plaek’s ally, Marshal Phin Choonhavan got Khuang Aphaiwong to be prime minister hoping that he would be a useful puppet. However, when Khuang tried to have autonomy, the army forced him to resign, and Plaek once again returned to the position of prime minister. Plaek’s second premiership saw parallels to his first, such as the arrest of many of Pridi’s political allies and continued anti-Chinese policies. However, Plaek also made significant changes to his public image. Plaek abandoned fascistic ideals and seemingly embraced democracy, in an effort to court America and Britain. Plaek presented himself as a fervent anti-communist, for example, by sending troops to the Korean War and thus earned the toleration of the American and British governments. Domestically though, Plaek’s rule saw corruption and dubious elections. Plaek would go on to rule for another ten years, facing numerous rebellions including the Manhattan Rebellion by the Navy and the Palace Rebellion by Pridi’s allies. Despite growing unpopularity, Plaek managed to survive each of these rebellions, but encountered a new obstacle, that of the monarchy. Plaek’s uncontested rule greatly distanced Plaek and the new King, Bhumibol Adulyadej or Rama IX, King Anada’s brother. For instance, religious ceremonies conducted in 1957 to celebrate the new year (2500 BE of the Thai calendar) were performed by Plaek instead of the King. Plaek’s protégé, Marshal Sarit Thanarat increasingly aligned himself with the King, something that greatly upset Plaek. This resulted in a power struggle between Plaek and his ally, Police General Phao Sriyanon against Sarit Thanarat and the royalists. Eventually, the downfall of Plaek’s regime came during the elections in 1957. While Plaek’s Seri Manangkasila Party won a majority in parliament, accusations of corruption led to a military coup by Marshal Sarit. Plaek fled Thailand into exile in Japan, never to return to Thailand (Fuwongcharoen, 2020).The rise of Sarit’s authoritarian regime definitively marked the end of the Khana Ratsadon period in Thai history. Instead, it birthed a new era, one where the military and monarchy were closely aligned, rather than at each other’s throats.

Today, roughly 90 years after the 1932 revolution, the legacy of the Khana Ratsadon still remains in Thailand, but it is slowly being suppressed. After the 2014 coup led by General Prayut Chan-o-cha, monuments left by the Khana Ratsadon began to vanish. The monument that celebrated the victory over Boworadet’s rebellion suddenly disappeared without a trace, with the government claiming it was relocated to build a station for the BTS Skytrain (Pridi Banomyong Institute, 2021). A plaque commemorating the revolution, near the Ananta Samakhom throne hall also vanished in 2017 and was replaced by a plaque praising the monarchy (Bangkok Post, 2017). Military camps named after Phraya Phahon and Plaek Phibunsongkhram were renamed to “King Bhumibol Camp” and “Queen Sirikit Camp” respectively by Thailand’s new King Vajiralongkorn or Rama X (BBC Thailand, 2020). Furthermore, Thailand’s education system neglects the revolution completely, with textbooks omitting its significance and importance (Prachathai English, 2017). So, what can we conclude from this? While Prayut’s military regime is gone, it is doubtful that the Khana Ratsadon will be treated in a positive light once again. While they were not perfect, many (mostly civilian) members of the group valued democracy. It is possible that those in power may see these ideals as a threat to their rule, especially since Thailand has seen numerous military personnel rise to power via undemocratic coups. Despite their imperfections, it is still important to remember and learn from the successes and failures of the Khana Ratsadon rather than wiping out their legacy.

Bibliography

“Teaching Thailand’s Forgotten Revolution.” Prachatai English, 24 June 2017, https://prachataienglish.com/node/7229.

 “The 1932 Coup and the Creation of a Constitutional Order.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 21 Feb. 2015, https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/The-1932-coup-and-the-creation-of-a-constitutional-order.

 “Chulalongkorn, King of Siam.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chulalongkorn.

 Fuwongcharoen, Phuri. การเมืองการปกครองไทย: พัฒนาการทางประวัติศาสตร์. Dec. 2020.

 Lohatephanont, Ken. “The Story of Thai Democracy: The 1932 Revolution.” Ken L Mathis, 23 June 1932, https://kenlmathis.com/2017/06/23/the-story-of-thai-democracy-the-1932-revolution/.

 Prakitnonthakan, Chatri. “Phibun and La-Iad in Modern Thai Politics.” July 1997.

 “อนุสาวรีย์พิทักษ์รัฐธรรมนูญ โบราณสถานที่สูญหาย.” Pridi Banomyong Institute, 15 Oct. 2021, https://pridi.or.th/th/content/2021/10/865.

 “You Say You Want a Revolution Plaque — Well It’s Gone.” Bangkok Post, 16 Apr. 2017, https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/1232906/you-say-you-want-a-revolution-plaque-well-its-gone.

 “คณะราษฎร: โปรดเกล้าฯ เปลี่ยนนาม ‘ค่ายพหลโยธิน’ และ ‘ค่ายพิบูลสงคราม’ เป็น ‘ค่ายภูมิพล’ และ ‘ค่ายสิริกิติ์’.” BBC Thailand, 24 Mar. 2020, https://www.bbc.com/thai/thailand-52024179.