In March 1946 allegations that Aung San had committed a war crime while working with the Japanese, the public execution of a Muslim headman in Thaton, were published in newspapers across Burma, India, and Britain. These allegations were likely made public by Tun Ok, a political rival, who claimed to have witnessed the event. Governor Dorman-Smith was not sure whether, or how, Aung San should arrested for the crime. Montbatten sent a telegram strongly arguing against arresting Aung San, while several security officials worried that arresting him would lead to a rebellion or a mutiny within the Burmese army. Lieutenant-General Harold Briggs, the most senior military officer then in Burma, warned that arresting Aung San would lower world opinion of the British administration, especially in Asia. He also argued that the main goals of the British administration in Burma were economic recovery, increasing rice production to meet global shortages, and preparing the country for self-government, and that arresting Aung San would undermine those goals. An influential director of public relations, Reverend George Appleton, argued that the Burmese people did not naturally think in terms of "justice or reason", but more in terms of "personalities and relationships", and so would not naturally understand or accept Aung San's arrest. In the end, since public opinion seemed against arresting Aung San, and since the British army was unavailable in the event that it led to a disturbance, Dorman-Smith and his administration decided against arresting Aung San. In April 1946 Dorman-Smith changed his mind about whether Aung San should be arrested after receiving a petition from the murdered headman's widow, but was directly told not to act by Sir Pethwick-Lawrence, the secretary of state for India and Burma, who was then negotiating Indian independence with its leaders and did not want any disturbance to jeopardize these talks. On 7 May 1946 Dorman-Smith declared a general amnesty for war crimes committed during WWII.