( 4 )
Race or caste.
9. The reports do not indicate that any race or caste of Natives
is specially liable in leprosy. In
one report a statement is made
that Hindus are more liable (Burdwan) ; in another that Muhammadans
(Nuddea) ; and in another that they are equally liable (Purnea) ; one,
(Bancoorah) that Natives of Aryan descent are less subject than
aboriginal tribes; in another (Sonthal Pergunnahs) that Bengalis
(Aryans) are more subject than Sonthals (aborigines). In Jalpaiguri
the disease is said to be more prevalent amone? the Mechs of the
Terrai, a mongrel race half Aryan and half aboriginal, than among
Aryans, while in Chittagong "up-country men" form the majority of
lepers. Without multiplying illustrations of the contradictions which
different reports evince, suffice it to state that the evidence contained in
them will not bear comparison or analysis. The inquiry with regard to
the etiological influence of race and caste, if any, is so delicate and
difficult that the evidence ought to be very searching and exact.
Thus the reports agree in stating that leprosy prevails to excess in
low Hindu castes (Bowries, Jalias, &c.,) and among the poorer
sections of the Muhammadan population ; but the numerical prepon-
derance of these classes is not taken into account, nor does it appear
that the condition of the same or similar castes elsewhere has been
studied or considered. Moreover, there are traces of the influence
of caste prejudices in the papers, noteably in the memorandum
contributed to Dr. Stewart by the Hindu Deputy Magistrate in the
report of Surgeon Russick Lall Dutt, Civil Surgeon of Bancoorah,
and in the report on the District of Hooghly which, though signed
by Surgeon W. H. Gregg, has evidently been composed mainly on
information derived from a Hindu Assistant Surgeon.
Hereditary transmission.
10. The concensus of opinion on the subject of heredity is re-
markable. Hereditary predisposition
is allowed by all the reporters, who
discuss the subject, to be one of the main factors of the disease. In
some cases opinions are supported by figures. Surgeon Z. A. Ahmed
(Sonthal Pergunnahs) found that of 59 cases personally investigated
by him, hereditary transmission could be traced in 30—a high per-
centage. Dr. Picachy, of Purneah, details 10 cases, in one of which
there is a history of hereditary descent. Dr. Joubert (Burdwan
found that 13 out of 80 cases treated in the Leper Asylum)
acknowledged an ancestral taint. Surgeon R. T. Wright (Jessore)
states that 54 out of 619 cases inherited the disease, but
the statement is given on information furnished by the Police.
Surgeon W. D. Stewart (Cuttack) gives details of eight cases, in six
of which he elicited a family taint. Dr. Ghose, of Rungpur, person-
ally investigated 378 cases, in eleven of which there was a hereditary
history. These figures are few and vague, but they go to support
a conclusion which is now unchallenged, namely, that in a large pro-
portion of cases of leprosy a family history can be discovered. The
proportion, depending in most cases on the testimony of the sufferers,
is likely to be understated, and probably a searching inquiry would
increase it. The reports do not afford any detailed information
on the manner of transmission whether, for example, as surmised by
Drs. Lewis and Cunningham in their report on leprosy in Kumaon,
transmission is more frequent in the female than the male line.
Alleged heredity in a leprous locality is subject to the fallacy that
the causes of the disease, whatever they are, are operative upon
persons related as well as on persons not related. And to establish
the influence of heredity it would be necessary to take this considera-
tion fully into account, and even admitting the causative influence of