89
offered to him by the latter, or allow his ganja
—
an article naturally liable to speedy deterioration
—
to decay. Then again, if the quantity of ganja
produced in a particular year, being in excess of
the requirements of that year, is not purchased by
the ganja contractor, he (the cultivator) is not
at liberty to dispose of it by selling to any
customer he may happen to find. Special legis
-
lation having thus reduced the number of his
customers to a minimum, the cultivator is debarred
from securing to the full extent the benefits of
free competition and of the natural law of demand
and supply. This is rather unfair, and requires,
I think, an alteration in the present system, so
as to improve the position of the cultivator. My
idea is that it would be more reasonable to make
the ganja-farmer suffer for such disadvantages than
the poor cultivator. This can be done, I think,
by the following arrangements, which I therefore
most respectfully beg to suggest for the considera
-
tion of the Commission.
Individual cultivation of ganja should alt
o -
gether be stopped. No cultivator should be allo
w -
ed to cultivate ganja on his own account. The
right of selling (retail) ganja should be sold on
the condition that the purchaser (ganja-farmer)
will have to make his own arrangements for the
production of the supply of ganja required for
the annual consumption of the district or province
for which he has obtained license. The right of
retailing ganja should be put to auction and made
final in the month of May or June instead of in
the month of July as at present, so as to give the
ganja contractor sufficient time, before the sowing
of hemp plants commences, to make arrangements
with individual cultivators to raise ganja for him
sufficient for the year's consumption. He should
apply for and obtain from the Collector the
necessary number of permits for the cultivation
of hemp in the names of such cultivators as would
agree to raise the crops for him. He may, if
necessary, advance money to the cultivators on the
one hand, or bind them by such securities as may
be deemed necessary on the other, in order to
ensure the production of the required quantity,
and will he responsible for the purchase of the
whole quantity produced for him at the rates
agreed upon between him and the cultivators.
By this arrangement the cultivators will be
quite free to propose their own terms to the con
-
tractor, and to refuse to cultivate the hemp plant
for him in case they are not accepted by him. On
t he ot her hand, t he cont ract or
w i l l b e a t f u l l l i b e r -
ty to ask such cultivators to grow ganja for him
as would agree to sell it to him at the lowest prices,
or to cultivate it himself if he thinks such culti
-
vation more profitable. Thus the law of free co
m -
petition will have its full scope; the ganja con
-
tractor will be careful not to carry the hemp plant
cultivation to any unnecessarily large extent, and.
some of the land thus set free will be more usefully
employed by the production of ordinary crops.
Moreover, the rights of cultivating and selling
ganja being combined in one and the same person,
there will be less room for smuggling, and the
license-fees may probably bring in a larger revenue
to Government.
6 1 . C h a r a s i s n o t p r o d u c e d i n t h i s p a r t .
62. There is no separate cultivation of the hemp
plant for the excessive production of bhang.
63. I have already expressed, in answer to ques
-
tion No, 60, my views with regard to the whole
-
sale price,e . g
. , t h e
p r i c e a t w h i c h t h e g a n j a f a r m e r
buys ganja from the cultivator who produces it.
I a m h u m b l y o f o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e t a i l p r i c e ,e
. g .
,
the price at which the farmer sells ganja to the
customers, is also objectionable. The selling
price, is not officially fixed under the present
system. The farmer is left to himself to fix any
arbitrary price he likes. He having secured the
monopoly of the sale of these drugs in a parti
-
cular locality, the consumers therein have no alter
-
native but to purchase them from him at any
price he may choose to set upon them. Thus it
sometimes happens that the farmer makes large
profits by selling the drugs very dear, the whole
burden of these enormous profits falling on the
poor consumers. Here, too, the natural law of
demand and supply does not operate freely. I am
therefore respectfully of opinion that the price
at which a ganja farmer should sell ganja, etc.,
to the consumers should be officially fixed for
each district or locality according to its circum
-
stances. This suggestion may be objected to on
the ground that a farmer may stiffer loss if in a
particular year less quantity is sold than was esti
-
mated at the time he purchased the farm. True,
it is quite probable that such a contingency may
occur; but the farmer must be prepared to take
h i s c h a n c e a s i n t h e c a s e o f o t h e r c o n t r a c t s , s u c h
as that of toddy, country liquor, tolls, etc. In the
case of tolls, for instance, the fees to be levied on
conveyances are fixed, and the contractor is left
to take his chance. He is not at liberty to in
-
crease the rates of fees, because he finds that the
number of articles passing by his toll-bar is not
sufficient to recoup the amount he has paid to
Government. In the same manner I think the
selling price of ganja may be regulated. It is
true that there have been no complaints; but
this is no reason why feasible improvements
should not be
made.
I shall illustrate by an example. Take Poona
district and the town of Bombay. The quantity
consumed during 1892-93 is respectively 248 and
345 maunds. The Poona farmer has paid
Rs. 17,050 as the license-fee, while the Bombay
man has paid Rs. 39,500; so that the Bombay man
had to pay to Government Rs. 45.7 per maund
more than the Poona man
=(39500/345—17050/248)
as license-fees: add to these
the duty of 8 annas per maund paid for transport
-
ing the ganja to Bombay from other districts,
the conveyance charges of ganga from Poona and
Bombay, which would be about Rs. 2 a maund,
and the establishment charges, which will be
higher in Bombay than in Peona, amounting to,
sav, about Rs. 10 a maund. Thus i t may be seen
that the Bombay farmer has to pay about Rs. 60
more per maund than the Poona man. Now let
us see what is the difference between the selling
pr i ces in t he t wo pl aces. The ret ai l sal e pri ce i n
the Poona district is Rs. 120 a maund, while that
in the town of Bombay is Rs. 285 a maund. The
extra expenditure that the Bombay former is
required to incur is Rs. 60 a maund, as shown
above. Deducting this from Rs. 285, still there is
a profit of his. 105 a maund to the Bombay man
(Rs. 225-120, the selling price in the Poona dis
-
trict,= 105). Thus the Bombay man gets about
Rs. 100 per maund more t han t he Poona man,
and this amount finds its way into the pocket of
the farmer.
If the figures on which I have made my cal
-
culations be reliable, my inferences would be
quite correct.
Then again, I am of opinion that the prices
officially reported are not the real prices. In pra c -
tice the ganja, contractors charge a much higher
rate. In the Poona district, for instance, the
vol. vii. P