383
8. Evidence of MAJOR W. F. H. GREY, Deputy Commissioner, Toungoo.
1. Personal observation and the reports of subor
dinates.
3. Prome and Shwebo. It is not abundant in
either.
4. The Burmese name is
bing.
7. No.
12. I have heard that it is sometimes cultivated
in toungyas in the Prome district, but the practice
is uncommon.
41. I am informed that fishermen believe that
by the use of ganja their powers of diving and
remaining under water can be increased, and that,
in spite of the prohibitions, it is occasionally used
by them with this object.
67. No.
I have no information whatever with regard to
the questions left unanswered.
9. Evidence of MR. A. M. B. IRWIN, Deput y Commi ssi oner, Tharrawaddy.
1. Only police reports of prosecutions for pos
sessing ganja.
2. I have never come across charas. Ganja is
called by Burmans " sè chauk," which means
" dry drug" or " dry tobacco." In Akyab it is
called ginza. The specimens I have seen may have
been ganja or may have been bhang, I do not
know. The Burmans make no distinction.
3. I do not know of any.
14. Not that I know of.
19. I do not know.
22. From Bengal, I believe.
25. Pretty stationary, I think.
26, I do not know.
27, I believe ganja is largely consumed in
Burma by natives of India. I know it is in
Akyab. I think the prohibition of possession has
very little effect. So far as I am aware, Burmans
never took kindly to hemp drugs.
35. It is consumed illicitly, and prohibition can,
I think, never be wholly successful.
43. I think so.
51. I never detected any connection between
them.
53. No ; I know of no case.
Oral evidence.
Question 1.—I h a v e b e e n s e v e n t e e n y e a r s i n t h e
Civil Service. I joined the service in 1876 and
came to Burma in 1877. I have served in all divi
sions of Lower Buma and not in Upper Burma at
all.
Question 27 .—I have served two years in Akyab,
and my written answer is based on that experience
and facts which came to my notice from 1881 to
1883 in Rangoon. I have come across no instance of
consumption of the hemp drug by Burmans, even the
Arakanese. The Arakanese regard themselves as
a distinct race and hate the Burmans. The police
reports I refer to in written answer to question No.
1 are the first and final reports of offences. I have
not dealt with any cases of smuggling or illegal
possession since I have been District Magistrate.
I recollect that cases of smuggling did occur on
British India ships coming to Akyab. I have
no information about smuggling by native craft,
though it is possible it occurs. I cannot recollect any
facts connected with the smuggling into Rangoon.
I have general recollection of prosecutions in the
Shwegyin district before I went to Rangoon. In
Akyab certainly ganja can be bought in the bazar.
I have never made practical test of the fact, nor do
I know the price the drug sells at.
I do not think my statement that prohibition of
possession has very little effect is too strong as
regards Arakan, where my experience is most re
cent. I am not so sure that the same statement
would apply to Rangoon ; but I think it is probably
true there also. It is true, I believe, that the Indian
population in Burma is increasing. My answer to
question 25 may be read as applying to the habit
and the proportion of consumers, and not to the
total consumption.
I think that the working of the prohibition is a
means of oppression by the police and a cause of
corruption among them. The Assistant Commis
sioner of Akyab, who has to deal with the prosecu
tions, used to class a great many cases as intention
ally false, which means that the cases were got up
by the informers or the police or excise officers.
Question 59.— I do not think the present prohi
bition causes any discontent, and that, therefore, it
would be unwise to withdraw it without very strong
reasons, The Burmese certainly do not feel any
discontent, and I think the people of India can
get the drug when they want it. This is not
satisfactory, it is true. But I cannot make any
definite recommendation regarding changing the
system, because I have not formed any opinion re
garding the harmful effects of the drug. If it
were proved that the drug were more harmful
than opium, I should probably be in favour of
maintaining the present prohibition at all costs.
But if it is not sufficiently harmful to justify total
prohibition, I would advise what I proposed for
opium before the Opium Commission, viz., that
possession should only be permitted to licensed
individuals without distinction of race, and that
part of the revenue should be raised by such
licenses. The remainder of the revenue would be
raised as before, that is to say, in the case of opium
by the fee for the right of selling and the fixed
duty on the drug, and in the case of ganja by the
right of selling only. The right of sale should be
granted on fixed fees, and not by auction. If it
were feasible to fix the price of ganja as the price of
opium is fixed, my proposal would not be affected.
A point, however, to be kept in view would be the
equalisation of the wholesale price in different prov
inces. Experience shows that in the case of opium
differences of price are an inducement to smuggling.
I do not think it is likely that the Burmans would
ever take to ganja, for they have not taken advan
tage of the opportunities, such as they are, which
have already presented themselves, though they
have taken to liquor and opium readily enough.
Amongst the best class of Burmans there are some
consumers of liquor and opium. Total abstinence
is not in practice a very strong sentiment, though
the religious injunction is very strict.