37
14. Evidence of MR. G. STEVENSON, Magistrate and Collector of Cuttack.
Oral evidence.
I have been in the service since 1872, and in
this district as Collector since November 1890.
I have no concern with the Tributary Mahals
All Collectors in this division are ex-officio
Assistant Superintendents of the Gurjat States;
but the Commissioner being here, I have nothing
to do with them.
I have ordered a copy of Mr. Kanti Bhusan
Sen's report on the ganja across the Gurjat
Border to be sent to the Commission with my
forwarding letter. I have no knowledge of the
cultivation across the border such as would enable
me to give evidence that would be of use to the
Commission. The plant grows—an odd plant
here and there—in this district, principally to-
wards the hills. I believe that these plants are
sometimes found in this district apart from habit-
ations; but the cases that come to light are cases
of plants grown in the enclosures. The amount
grown in this district may be left out of ac-
count in regard to any measures taken in respect
to ganja, it is so small. An order requiring that
it should cease could easily be carried out. But
there is much jungle land to the north of Cuttack
along the frontier in this district, and there the
cultivation of a few plants would be difficult of
detection.
I know the manufactured Gurjat ganja. It
is simply the plant dried. It is grown every-
where in the Gurjat States for consumption. I
believe it is more grown near the border to supply
our territory. It is also grown in detached
Gurjat villages surrounded by our territory. This
has also been waved in the face of our excise
officers since the three-mile prohibition was with-
drawn by the Board. I think the limit of three
miles from the border was taken from the old
three-mile rule for excise shops. Of course the
difficulty is in enforcing the prohibition. The
arrangement was political. The Rajas have neither
the will nor the power to enforce prohibition in
their wild tracts. I believe the three-mile limit
was chosen that we might have our eye on the
matter and enforce the prohibition; but this had
to be by reference to the Superintendent and the
Raja. I have never had to do with any Tributary
State myself; but I make this statement regarding
their will and power to enforce prohibition from
what I know of this part of the country.
* Vide No. 165-T., dated 19th
October 1878.
† No. E. 1 G/2 4, dated 6th
September 1889, para. 10.
I think the three-mile rule was imposed in
1878* and abolished† in
1889. So far as I remem-
ber, the rule was abolished
(1) because of the diffi-
culty of enforcing it, and (2) because it was
believed by the Government that Gurjat ganja
was drunk, not smoked, and was less deleterious
than the Rajshahi ganja. It was thought to be
better not to discourage the Gurjat ganja. It was
a mistake to suppose that Gurjat ganja was not
smoked. It is smoked. I believe the Govern-
ment have admitted this. So far as I hear, there
is no systematic cultivation of ganja across the
border. I have heard that the male plants are
not exterminated, nor are the flowering tops separ-
ately collected. The part of the plant used is
only the upper part of the plant. I should say
that the statement made in answer 9 by Kanti
Bhusan Sen is quite correct. This upper part of
the plant is the Gurjat ganja that is smoked.
This is distinct from the siddhi or bhang, which
is licitly imported from Gurjat. As to the com-
parative effects of Gurjat and Rajshahi ganja, I
am not in a position to give an opinion. I
believe, however, that the Government of Ben-
gal has reconsidered its view that the Gurjat is
less deleterious than the Rajshahi. I have not
sufficient ground for any opinion of my own.
Mr. Kanti Bhusan Sen's statement regarding
the licit use of Gurjat ganja in this district is no
doubt correct. He has the figures. But it may
be noted that the 8 maunds minimum referred to
by him was only in force from 1891 to August
1893. Importation of Gurjat ganja was entirely
prohibited by Government order at page 546 of
Calcutta Gazette, dated 21st June 1882. It was
again allowed (1) in the case of siddhi by order at
page 756 of Calcutta Gazette, dated 23rd July
1890; (2) in the case of Gurjat ganja by order at
page 1200 of Calcutta Gazette, dated 17th Decem-
ber 1890. From this time to 1892 the maximum
amount that could legally be possessed without
license was 20 tolas. By Board's orders of 13th
April 1892, this was reduced to 5 tolas. As to
illicit use, it is impossible to give accurate informa-
tion. Nothing is known, except from the cases
that come to light. There are no data on which
we can estimate the illicit consumption, except
that the consumption of licit ganja is on the
decrease. Unless ganja is being given up for any
reason, that would indicate that illicit consump-
tion was on the increase, I know of no reason
why people should give up ganja. The price
of liquor is higher, and caste prejudices are against
liquor. Although the price of ganja has recently
been considerably raised by taxation, it is still
much cheaper as an intoxicant than liquor, i. e.,
having regard to its intoxicating quality. Un-
less we are to encourage smuggling, I think
that in this district the rate for Rajshahi ganja,
though lower than in other divisions of the pro-
vince, is as high as can be. It has reached the
limit, unless pressure can be put on Native States
to control their own ganja effectively, or we can
do it for them. If they could do this, there
would be no reason for differential rates. These
States constitute the difficulty. I have recently,
in my report above referred to, made proposals on
this matter, to which, I understand, the Commis-
sioner has taken objection on political grounds.
We have been trying in vain to ascertain the
cause of the falling off in the consumption of
excise ganja. We have failed to find out the
reason of this or what the people have taken to
instead. The consumption of liquor was falling
off too. We have re-established outstills along
the frontier, because we found Gurjat liquor was
competing successfully with ours.