382
What is known as ganja or ' sé chauk' is
smuggled into Burma from India viâ the post or by
steamer by natives of India.
In 1891, 351 tolas of ganja were seized, of which
300 tolas came from India. In 1892, 67½ from
Shan States and India. In 1893, 10,780 tolas
from Shan States and India, of which 9,897 tolas
came from India, but none from Burma, as far as
known.
3. The hemp plant was found cultivated to a
small extent in some parts of the Madaya and
Pyniulwin townships of this district in 1891, but
measures were at once taken, and there is at the pre-
sent time no hemp grown at all.
4. By one name, ganja or sé chauk.
5. I am not aware of any special conditions.
In places where it was grown the rainfall ranged
from 30 to 50 inches per annum, and elevation
from about 300 feet to 3,600 above sea level.
7. None known here.
19. Ganja so called, or sé chauk, used to be used
for medicinal purposes only in this district. Except
by natives of India.
35. (a) Yes, as in Burma.
(c)By the existing excise law.
(d)I cannot say. The Burmese do not con-
sume any of these drugs pure and simple, but the
ganja with ingredients for medicine.
(e) I cannot say
.
(f ) Probably.
54. Not in Burma as far as my own experience
goes.
Oral evidence.
I have been in the Burma Commission for twenty-
two years. I have served in the Tenasserim, Ir-
rawaddy, and Pegu Divisions of Lower Burma, and
have been in Mandalay (Upper Burma) since 1891.
I remember the prohibition of 1873. I was
then in the Tenasserim Division in the Amherst
district. There was no ganja shop there. So I
know nothing about the effects of the prohibition.
In 1882 I was in the Hangawaddy district
(Rangoon) ; but I cannot say anything about the
effect of the amendment of the law, inasmuch as
eases of illegal possession did not, so far as I
remember, come under my notice.
Soon after I took charge of Mandalay district
in 1891 my attention was drawn to the subject.
I have no recollection of cases before that. In
1891 I found that hemp was grown in gardens,
compounds, and cleared yards round houses in this
district. There was no extensive cultivation by
any individual : no field cultivation, but individuals
had plants, I was told, planted for their own use.
It was reported to me by local officers, because excise
was being specially looked after in connection with
opium smuggling. It was the measures taken
i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d e t e c t i o n o f o p i u m s m u g g l i n g
which was believed to be common, which brought
this ganja cultivation to light. It was not genera
or over an extended area ;. but I cannot say that
was not formal cultivation. I believe it was gene
rally for medicinal purposes for man and beast
but it may have been used for smoking. I issued
order, under the cognizance of the Commissioner,
warning the people that this was illegal, and that
those who cultivated the drug would be prosecuted
A few prosecutions did follow, one or two cases,
a s a n e x a m p l e . I b e l i e v e t h i s w a s t h e f i r s t a c t i o n o f
the kind taken in this district after the extension of
the Excise Act to Upper Burma in 1888. I do not
think that the correspondence with the Commission-
er would throw light on the amount of cultivation.
I know of no prohibition of cultivation under
Burmese rule, and I have been told by Burmese
officials that cultivation went on then. I believe
that there is now no cultivation in this district.
I have made enquiries, and the reports of all my
officers show that the cultivation does not exist.
I have not myself seen the plant growing. I
should not recognize it.
The figures given in my paper (answer No. 1)
regarding seizures refer to my own district only.
They are taken from the records of prosecutions or
of cases of ganja seized without discovery of the
offender. I cannot explain the increase in 1893.
But of the 10,780 tolas for that year, over 7,000
tolas were found in a box which came from India.
It was discovered by the customs officials, who
warned us. The consignee was a native of India,
and a petty trader. I understand that he got the
drug to sell. The figures I have given in my
paper are figures for seizures. They show the
cases that have come to light. There were pro
bably many cases that did not come to light. I
think that such a large amount of smuggling
would not indicate that all was to be used locally.
The importers might hope to dispose of the drug
over all Upper Burma. I do not think they
would expect to create a demand. There is a demand
among sepoys, military police, and other natives of
India. There were some other seizures in 1893,
amounting in one case to 300 tolas and many
small items, and totalling altogether 10,180 from
India. Other cases were of military police re
turning from duty in the Shan States. I cannot
give any special reason for the great activity in
1893. But it may have been due to the fact that
troops and military police were on duty more in
1891 and 1892, and centred here more in 1893.
There has been special establishment off and on
since 1891 ; but it has been largely reduced last
year. We have still one Superintendent, one
Inspector, and eight Sergeants. The Sergeants are
stationed where there are police. The reason of
the reduction was to spread the establishment over
a larger area, as its concentration in this district
was held not to produce good results.
The boundary of the Shan States against Manda
lay is a very easy one for smuggling. It is jungle,
in parts uninhabited. This applies more or less to
all the eastern boundaries.
The cases of smuggling through the post, which
have come to light, have been consignments to
military men, not to the general public. There
are only five Burmans in respect to whom any
seizure has been made during the last three years.
All the rest are natives of India. In the case
of postal consignments, detection has been by the
postal authorities.
The practice here is for the post office authorities,
when they suspect a parcel, to give intimation
to the Revenue Officers before delivery.
As far as my experience goes, the general opinion
of Burmans in respect to prohibition is one of in-
difference. I have heard a Burman official declare
that he thought the prohibition was hard on the
. poorer people using the drug medicinally, chiefly
for cattle and ponies, not so much for human
beings. But generally the attitude is not of
indifference.