176
same conclusion will be forced upon our mind.
We know from the history of cultured plants
that the poppy plant is not a native of
India and that its intoxicant juice was not
known here or in China before the 10th century
A. C. It further tells us that the Arabians first
brought it from Greece, its native place, and cul-
tivated it in Turkey in Asia, and that from thence
the followers of Islam introduced it into the east-
ern countries. It spread along with their religion
and soon became acclimatised in India. The
Muhammadans cherished it exceedingly, because
in it they found a good substitute for alcohol, the
use of which was forbidden to them by their reli-
gion. It found favour with the Chinese for a
similar reason, for their new religion Budhism
more than even Muhammadanism condemned the
use of alcohol. It was under these circumstances
that the Chinese came to be possessed of that un-
surpassed love for opium for which they are well
known. We thus see that the prohibition of
alcohol by religion among the Chinese and the
followers of Islam was followed by recourse to
opium in these two nations. Legislation, like the
commands of religion, may prohibit the use of a
particular intoxicant but it cannot destroy the
passion for intoxicants, and consequently the pro-
hibition of one kind of intoxicant always leads
men to resort to another.
36. Yes; the reply to this question has been
anticipated in the foregoing remarks. This
change in the appetite of intoxication is partly at
least the result of the fashion of imitation.
37. The intoxication of charas is more instan-
taneous but less lasting than that produced by
ganja. Its use is said to be less injurious than
that of ganja. It is said also that its want never
causes any longing or uneasiness.
38. If there be any difference at all, it must be
one of degree and not in kind. Round ganja is
said to contain more resin than the flat variety
(if I may use the term), while the " chur " de-
rived from it during the process of manufacture
and packing is said to be, when recent, more
powerful than the other two forms. It however
soon gets deteriorated by keeping and hence is
generally rejected by good smokers.
39. Taking the same preparation and the same
dose, smoking may be said to be less injurious
than eating or drinking, for the simple reason
that a portion of the active principle is burnt up
and decomposed before it reaches the blood. But
if the effects of smoking one preparation in a
particular dose be compared with the effects of
drinking or eating any other preparation in a
different dose, the result will vary according to
the preparation and the dose. By way of illus-
trating the first statement, I might say that the
effects of smoking a drachm of ganja are less
injurious than the effect of eating or drinking the
same quantity of it, and so also with charas and
bhang. To render the second statement more defi-
nite and complete, I might say that the dose being
the same, the effects of smoking ganja and charas
are worse than the effects of eating or drinking
bhang, and that quite the reverse will be the case
if we compare the effects of smoking a small dose,
say about 10 grains, of ganja or charas with the
effects of drinking or eating a large quantity, say
an ounce of bhang.
40. Bhang is prescribed medicinally by many
native doctors, and both bhang and ganja are
used in the treatment of cattle disease. Ganja is
also prescribed by native doctors but not for
internal use, but only as a fumigation to piles and
inhalation in asthma. In connection with the
use of hemp drugs by native doctors it would not
be out of place if I say a few words regarding
the history of the narcotic and when it came to
be introduced into native medicine. I think it
the more important to do so, because there seems
to prevail a mistaken notionab out this subject.
I find it mentioned by Mr. Hem Chunder Kerr,
for instance, in his report on ganja in 1877, that
the narcotic property of the hemp plant was
known in India as early as 3,000 years ago. He
cites some authorities from the Atharva Veda to
fortify his statement. Led by his statement,
perhaps, the Government of India in their letter
to the Secretary of State for India dated the 9th
August 1892 observe : "In India, on the other
hand, the practice of ganja-smoking has existed
from time immemorial, etc." A similar account is
given by Dr. Watt in his " Dictionary of the Eco-
nomic Products of India", under article Cannabis
sativa. I have studied the question from a his-
torical point of view, and after a careful research
made in that direction by referring to the ancient
medical literature of India and to such Vedic and
post-Vedic passages as seem to refer to the plant,
I have arrived at the conclusion that the narcotic
properties and preparations of hemp, as they are
understood to-day, were not known in India until
a very recent date ; that whatever interpretation
be put on the words bhanga or bhangâ mentioned
in the earlier works from the Atharva Veda down
to the institutes of Manu, or the Ayurveda of
Sushrut, one thing is certain, that even if the
word did really refer to the true hemp plant, the
latter was only cultivated for its fibre ; charas and
ganja were not known at all, and the hemp plant
that was cultivated did not yield bhang, the nar-
cotic principle developed in its leaves and capsules
being too scanty to be noticed by the people as it
is in the hemp plant of Europe to-day. The facts
upon which I have based this conclusion are as
follows :—
(1) The most ancient medical works in San-
skrit ; Charak, Sushrut and Vagbhat, do not make
any allusion to it either as a medicine or as a
poison. This is the more remarkable when we see,
that even its cognate poison dhatura, is mentioned
by Sashrut in the treatment of hydrophobia and
by Vagbhat among narcotic poisons. Mr. Hem
Chandra Kerr says that in Sushrut " the plant is
described as a medicine for the accumulation of
phlegm in the larynx and for some other diseases."
But this is incorrect, for no such word occurs in
Sushrut as a medicine for accumulation of phlegm
in the larynx. The only place where the word
bhanga is mentioned is in the treatment of oph-
thalmia, and there from the context it is doubtful
if time reading is correct. For most probably the
correct reading here is bhringa and not bhang,
the former being a small annual weed of the
c o m ¬ p o s i t æ
( E c l i p t a p r o s t r a t a
of Graham) very fre
¬quently occurring in prescriptions for eye-diseases.
Such mi spri nt s as ' bhang ' for ' bri ng ' are of very
frequent occurrence in Calcutta editions of
Sanskrit books. If Sushrut had known the
Indian hemp of to-day, he would surely have
prescribed it in such complaints as chronic
d i a r ¬ r h œ a , d y s p e p s i a , t e t a n u s , e t c . , i n w h i c h i t i s f o u n d
prescribed by later works on medicine, rather
than in ophthalmia. Similarly, if it was known
in those days, it would have been noticed by him
as well as by Charak, who preceded him, or, at any
rate, by Vagbhat, who followed him, along with
the other narcotics. This omission of Indian
hemp by these three ancient authors in their