Government Resolution Appointing the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893

The following article contains:

• The Government Resolution appointing the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1893-94
• My analysis of the Resolution

The Government Resolution

Following is the resolution by the British Government which set in motion the appointment of the Indian Hemp Commission and its subsequent report in 1893-94.

No. 2792-Ex., dated 3rd July 1893. Resolution by the Government of India, Finance and Commerce Department.

READ— Despatch from Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, No. 36 (Revenue), dated 16th March 1893, forwarding a copy of a question asked in the House of Commons, and of the answer given thereto by the Under-Secretary of State, regarding the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the production and consumption of hemp drugs in India. Read also— Correspondence ending with Despatch from the Secretary of State, No. 99 (Revenue), dated 20th October 1892, regarding the consumption of ganja in India.

RESOLUTION.—In the despatch recited in the preamble, Her Majesty's Secretary of State informed the Government of India that, in answer to a question put in the House of Commons, he had expressed his willingness to request the Government of India to appoint a Commission to enquire into the cultivation of the hemp plant in Bengal, the preparation of drugs from it, the trade in those drugs, the effect of their consumption upon the social and moral condition of the people, and the desirability of prohibiting the growth of the plant and the sale of ganja and allied drugs. In accordance with the announcement thus made, Lord Kimberley requested the Government of India to appoint a Commission for the purposes stated, and to issue such instructions as would ensure that the enquiry should be thorough and complete. His Lordship is of opinion that the investigation can hardly be confined to Bengal, but should extend to the whole of India, and that the Commission should be instructed to ascertain to what extent the existence of the hemp plant all over India affects the practical difficulty of checking or stopping the consumption of ganja, as distinguished from other narcotic drugs prepared from the hemp plant, and whether there is ground for the statement that bhang is less injurious than ganja to consumers.

2. In accordance with these instructions, His Excellency the Governor-General in Council has been pleased to appoint a Commission to conduct the enquiry desired by the Secretary of State. The following gentlemen are appointed to form the Commission:—

President:
The Honourable W. Mackworth Young, M.A., C.S.I., First Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
Members: 1. Mr. H. T. Ommaney, Collector, Panch Mahals, Bombay. 2. Mr. A. H. L. Fraser, M.A., Commissioner, Chattisgarh Division, Central Provinces. 3. Surgeon-Major C. J. H. Warden, Professor of Chemistry, Medical College, and Chemical Examiner to Government, Calcutta, Officiating Medical Storekeeper to Government, Calcutta. 4. Raja Soshi Sikhareswar Roy, of Tahirpore, Bengal. 5. Kanwar Harnam Singh, Ahluwalia, C.I.E., Punjab. 6. Lala Nihal Chund, of Mozaffarnagar, North-Western Provinces.

3. His Excellency the Governor-General in Council desires that the enquiry should be thorough and searching, but he leaves to the Commission full discretion to determine the best means of securing that result. Certain instructions are given in the following paragraphs; but these are not intended to be exhaustive, and the Commission have full authority to take up any branch of enquiry which in their opinion is likely to elucidate the subject and to aid the Government of India and the Secretary of State in deciding on the policy to be adopted in regard to hemp drugs.

4. It is desirable that the Commission should visit and take evidence in all or most of the Provinces of India: there are political objections to their holding sittings in Native States, but any information similar to that required regarding British India, which can be obtained regarding Native States, should be included in the Report.

5. The Commission should ascertain with as much precision as possible the extent to which the hemp plant is cultivated in each of the provinces of India in which it is grown. They should collect full information as to the manner in which the plant is cultivated for the production of drugs, and the methods of preparing the manufactured drug from the raw product, whether of the wild or the domesticated plant. Little is known at present as to the extent to which the wild plant can be used for the preparation of drugs, whether in the milder or the more noxious forms. This point has an important bearing on the possibility of introducing restrictive measures, and will require careful investigation. Full particulars should be obtained regarding all the different forms of the drug which are commonly used, especially ganja, charas, and bhang; and regarding the classes of the people by whom, and the extent to which, each is used. The physical and other effects of the use of hemp-drugs should be thoroughly investigated, each variety of the drug being separately treated so far as that can be conveniently done. In conducting this branch of the enquiry, the Commissioners should avail themselves freely of the evidence of medical experts. They should endeavour to ascertain what proportion of the population habitually consumes hemp-drugs, and should thoroughly examine the testimony in support of the commonly received opinion that the use of hemp-drugs is a frequent cause of lunacy. They should ascertain whether, and in what form, the consumption of the drugs is either harmless or even beneficial, as has occasionally been maintained.

6. Full information should be compiled regarding the administrative arrangements in force in each province for controlling the growth of the plant, the manufacture and sale of the drugs, and their importation from other provinces or from Native States, and for imposing duties on cultivation and sale. It is understood that charas is imported into the Punjab on a considerable scale from foreign territory, and the question of the importation of hemp-drugs generally from foreign territory should receive the special attention of the Commission. The various systems employed for taxing the drug or the cultivation of the plant should be reviewed, with especial reference to the comparative incidence of this taxation in different parts of India, and to the comparative efficacy of the taxation imposed in restricting consumption, whether by the mere weight of the tax, or by the method and stage of imposition. It is known that the rates vary considerably in different provinces, but the precise effect of the variations is not fully understood. In this connection the Commissioners should notice any case in which the proximity of a Native State affects the production or consumption of the drug in British territory.

7. There are two points connected with the subject-matter of the enquiry which call for special investigation. The first of these is the danger lest prohibition, or restrictive measures of a stringent character, may give rise to serious discontent, and be resented by the people as an unjustifiable interference with long-established social customs. In some parts of India the use of hemp-drugs is, it is believed, common among fakirs and ascetics held in veneration by large classes of the population. In Bengal it has been stated that an infusion of the leaves of the plant is commonly offered to every guest and member of the family on the last day of the Durga Pujah: it has no ill effects, and its use is not considered reprehensible in any way. The Governor-General in Council desires that the Commissioners will endeavour to ascertain to what extent these and similar customs prevail in Bengal and other parts of India, and how far the use of hemp drugs forms a part of social, or possibly religious, ceremonial or observance, and they should, if possible, take the evidence of witnesses drawn from the classes among whom the use of hemp-drugs is chiefly prevalent. The Commissioners should state their opinion whether the prohibition of the use of hemp-drugs or any restrictive measures which they may deem practicable would be likely to give rise to political discontent in any parts of India or among any classes of the population. It is believed that in some parts of the country bhang is, in a special degree, the poor man's narcotic, and the possible unpopularity of a measure which would deprive the very poorest of the population of the use of a narcotic to which they have always been accustomed should not be overlooked.

8. Another point to which the attention of the Commissioners should be directed is the probability or possibility, that if the use of hemp-drugs is prohibited, those who would otherwise continue to use them may be driven to have recourse to alcohol, or to other stimulants or narcotics which may be more deleterious.

9. Finally, the Governor-General in Council requests that the Commissioners, if they should be of opinion that the prohibition of the consumption of any hemp-drug should not, or could not, be enforced, will indicate, for the consideration of the Government of India, any reforms and improvements which their investigations may lead them to recommend in the existing arrangements of each province for controlling the cultivation of the hemp plant, and the manufacture, sale, and taxation of hemp-drugs. In framing their recommendations regard should, of course, be had to the considerations which have been stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Resolution. Absolute prohibition, or repressive measures of a stringent nature, may involve inquisitorial proceedings of an unpopular character, and afford opportunities for the levy of blackmail; and in framing regulations for the prohibition or for the restriction of the use of hemp-drugs these considerations should be borne in mind. If the Commission should be of opinion that the cultivation of the hemp plant for the production of drugs, or the consumption of any hemp drug, should be absolutely prohibited, it will be their duty to state the regulations which should be adopted for this purpose.

10. All Local Governments and Administrations have been requested to render every assistance to the Commission, to collect and place at its disposal whatever information may be available, and to make to the Commission any suggestions regarding the enquiry which local knowledge and experience may suggest.

11. The Governor-General in Council directs that the Commission shall assemble in Calcutta on the 1st August 1893.

J. F. FINLAY, Secretary to the Government of India

My analysis of the resolution

Following is my analysis of the Government Resolution

The Government Resolution itself acknowledges beforehand various important points such as:

• ganja was widely used by religious persons who were held in great reverence by people
• bhang (actually ganja) was widely used by the poor as an intoxicant
• little is known by the British government about the plant, as stated in point 5, yet it is desirous of prohibiting it
• a review of the system of taxation of the plant was one of the key objectives
• as stated in point 7, any measures at restricting the usage of the plant could lead to disruption of long-established customs in the country leading to discontent among large sections of society
• the study was to be carried out to the largest scale possible both within British territories and Native States
• there was the risk that prohibition of the hemp plant could lead to the rise of use of alcohol and other more potentially harmful drugs
• if outright prohibition was not recommended by the commission, it should suggest ways to improve administration of the plant at the very least.

The resolution seems to be intent, beforehand itself, on prohibiting the hemp plant and its products ganja, charas and bhang and seems to be stating in various places the desirability to do the same irrespective of the report that the Hemp Commission would eventually produce and the public opinion regarding the subject. We see in the Resolution, the statement 'the desirability of prohibiting the growth of the plant and the sale of ganja and allied drugs.' We also see the statement that 'The Commission should ascertain, with as much precision as possible, the extent to which the hemp plant is cultivated in each of the provinces of India in which it is grown. They should collect full information as to the manner in which the plant is cultivated for the production of drugs and the methods of preparing the manufactured drug from the raw product, whether of the wild of the domesticated plant. Little is known at present as to the extent to which the wild plant can be used for the preparation of drugs, whether in the milder or the more noxious forms. This point has an important bearing on the possibility of introducing restrictive measures, and will require careful investigation.'

The British government appears to have already decided to focus on ganja specifically for prohibitive measures and seem to have formed the opinion that bhang is less harmful than ganja. We can see this from the statement 'and that the Commission should be instructed to ascertain to what extent the existence of the hemp plant all over India affects the practical difficulty of checking or stopping the consumption of ganja, as distinguished from other narcotic drugs prepared from the hemp plant, and whether there is ground for the statement that bhang is less injurious than ganja to consumers.' This shows that the Indian upper-classes and upper-castes - specifically from North India - had been working closely with the British government officials to create the propaganda that bhang-drinking was beneficial whereas ganja-smoking was harmful, that the upper-classes and upper-castes drank bhang, while the lower-castes and lower-classes smoked ganja, that criminals smoked ganja, that ganja caused physical and moral harms, that ganja caused insanity, etc. We see particular emphasis being placed on studying the myth that ganja caused insanity from the statement in the Resolution that 'They should endeavour to ascertain what proportion of the population habitually consumes hemp-drugs, and should thoroughly examine the testimony in support of the commonly received opinion that the use of hemp-drugs is a frequent cause of lunacy.' Much of this bias in favor of bhang and against ganja was already prevalent among the upper-castes of Bengal before the advent of the British. The fact that these upper-castes were nearly as ignorant of cannabis as the British colonists themselves can be inferred from this, because bhang is nothing but the cannabis plant - including its flowers and resin - consumed as a beverage whereas ganja is the same cannabis plant - including its flowers and resin - smoked, the only difference being in the manner of consumption.

We again see the ignorance of the administration in the statement 'It is believed that in some parts of the country bhang is, in a special degree, the poor man's narcotic, and the possible unpopularity of a measure which would deprive the very poorest of the population of the use of a narcotic to which they have always been accustomed should not be overlooked.' It was not bhang that was the poor man's narcotic, it was ganja. The primary reason why ganja was the poor man's narcotic and not bhang is because the preparation of bhang, i.e., cannabis as a beverage, involved the addition of ingredients like spices, nuts, milk, sugar, etc., which were generally beyond the means of the lower classes and castes. It also involved the availability of equipment to pound and filter the ingredients and vessels to pour the beverage into and drink from. Ganja, i.e., cannabis smoked, was far more affordable and practical for the poor man than bhang, because he could do without the expensive ingredients, vessels, etc. There was also the question of time. Bhang-drinking was taken up by the upper-castes and upper-classes who had the leisure of time to prepare their beverage. For the poor man involved in his daily toil, either in a rich man's field, or carrying the rich man's burden, the only time he could spare himself was to quickly load a chillum with cannabis and smoke it. This method of cannabis consumption came to be labelled ganja, projecting the image that it was a different drug from bhang, when in both cases it was the same cannabis plant, the difference being only regarding the method of consumption. The earlier inhabitants of India, the Dravidians - who migrated southwards and eastwards with the advent of the Aryan communities - primarily smoked cannabis and called it ganja. The later arrivals, the Aryan communities, primarily drank cannabis as a beverage and called it bhang. In the caste-system that the Aryans brought along, the Dravidian communities got slotted into the categories of lower-castes and lower-classes, while the Aryan communities designated themselves as the upper-classes and upper-castes. Thus, ganja became an evil, harmful drug to be prohibited, while bhang became the medicinal, healthy drug that should not be interfered with as it showed the superior intelligence of the Aryan communities over the Dravidian communities.

One of the strategies employed by the British colonists well before the Hemp Commission's study in 1893-94 had been to bully and pressurize any non-British controlled territory adjoining British-territory, if it was found that the cannabis policies of the free territory adversely impacted the repressive cannabis policies of the British-controlled region. Having a non-British-controlled territory adjoining a British territory implementing stringent and repressive cannabis policies was found to cause large headaches for the administration, especially through the smuggling of cannabis into British territory. This was particularly rampant because the cultivation in British territory had been greatly reduced and the price of cannabis had been greatly increased, whereas no such repressive measures had been taken in the adjoining free territory, with high-quality cannabis being available in abundance at far cheaper rates in these native states. The Resolution states that particular attention should be paid to those native states that needed to be pressurized to enable the cannabis regulation in the British-controlled states to be successful. 'It is known that the rates vary considerably in different provinces, but the precise effect of the variations is not fully understood. In this connection the Commissioners should notice any case in which the proximity of a Native State affects the production or consumption of the drug in British territory.' 

Two points that the British administration was particularly interested in regarding imposing prohibition were: (1) whether such a measure would lead to serious discontent among the people. The Resolution states, regarding the first point, that 'The first of these is the danger lest prohibition, or restrictive measures of a stringent character, may give rise to serious discontent, and be resented by the people as an unjustifiable interference with long-established social customs. In some parts of India the use of hemp-drugs is, it is believed, common among fakirs and ascetics held in veneration by large classes of the population.' (2) whether this discontent would materialize into political danger for the British colonists. Regarding the second point, the Resolution states that 'The Commissioners should state their opinion whether the prohibition of the use of hemp-drugs or any restrictive measures which they may deem practicable would be likely to give rise to political discontent in any parts of India or among any classes of the population.' The fact that the colonists were particularly interested in these two aspects shows us that the real intention was to completely prohibit cannabis in India, even before the institution of the Hemp Commission, and that it did not really matter what the Commission stated regarding the importance of cannabis to the people of India. In its findings the Hemp Commission stated, regarding point (1) that, yes, complete prohibition would cause great hardship and discontent to the people, especially the poorest classes that consisted of the spiritual mendicants, working and labouring classes and indigenous communities. Regarding point (2), even though the Commission stated that there would be political danger arising from prohibition, besides discontent and hardship, many of the senior officials in the British administration, especially the Britishers themselves, stated that there was no real political danger because these classes that would be most affected were powerless, peaceful and poor, without organization and leadership, and so unlikely to mount any kind of political threat to the ruling administration consisting of the British colonists and the Indian upper-castes and upper-classes and their legal machinery. I believe that, out of all the information that the British Empire was seeking from the Hemp Commission, this was the most significant piece of information that it sought. It is this information that encouraged the British colonists to continue their oppressive cannabis regulation and even further increase it to the point of complete prohibition despite the report of the Commission regarding the importance of cannabis to the people and the recommendations of the Commission to keep cannabis regulated and not prohibited. 

Point 8 of the Resolution states that 'Another point to which the attention of the Commissioners should be directed is the probability or possibility, that if the use of hemp-drugs is prohibited, those who would otherwise continue to use them may be driven to have recourse to alcohol, or to other stimulants or narcotics which may be more deleterious.' When the Commission examined its witnesses, the majority of witnesses - especially the medical experts, persons of knowledge, and persons of high social standing - stated as one of the main reasons for opposing cannabis prohibition the reason that prohibition would result in the increased use of alcohol, opium and other drugs far more dangerous than cannabis. Even prior to the Hemp Commission's study, it was very clearly evident wherever the British colonists had introduced their repressive regulatory measures regarding cannabis that the consumption of alcohol and opium had sky-rocketed. Numerous witnesses stated that if regulatory measures or prohibition was to be implemented, it was with regard to alcohol and opium that this should be done, and not cannabis which was the least harmful. This was clearly evident in Burma itself where cannabis had been completely prohibited in 1873 to enable the growth of opium and alcohol, leading the British colonists to implement measures like registering users to whom opium could be sold due to the opium epidemic that cannabis prohibition had spawned. All these findings were reinforced in the Hemp Commission's study but were brushed aside since the colonists had already decided to completely prohibit cannabis in India, in order to promote precisely these very dangerous alternative drugs, from which they had already reaped vast benefits and revenue by the time of the institution of the Hemp Commission in 1893-94. The inclusion of this point appears to have been done to portray a semblance of concern for public health, especially when the chief argument being used to prohibit cannabis was that it was being done to protect public health. The real intention was, obviously, looting public wealth at the cost of public health.

In point 9 of the Resolution, we see the statement 'Absolute prohibition, or repressive measures of a stringent nature, may involve inquisitorial proceedings of an unpopular character, and afford opportunities for the levy of blackmail; and in framing regulations for the prohibition or for the restriction of the use of hemp-drugs these considerations should be borne in mind.' By the time of the Hemp Commission's study that was initiated with the above resolution, the people of much of the British-controlled territory had already been subjected to inquisitorial proceedings of an unpopular character and blackmail. The farmers had been bullied into giving up cannabis cultivation by the oppressive Excise Acts that demanded cultivation under license, sale of produce had been restricted to contractors who enjoyed monopoly and vast influence, and legal proceedings and prosecution had been regularly initiated against even poor individuals growing one or two cannabis plants or the possession of cannabis, at the behest of the influential drug contractor and his informants. So, the directive was coming after the horse had already bolted, again appearing to portray a false concern for the people's welfare. 

The selection of witnesses was also aimed at eliciting maximum response from the people most likely to support cannabis regulation and prohibition. The Hemp Commission reports states, regarding the selection of witnesses to give evidence before it, that 'Invitation to persons interested to lay their views before the Commission 5. Previous to issuing their series of questions to Local Governments and Administrations for distribution to witnesses, the Commission had intimated to them that they were anxious to receive evidence from well-informed persons and representative associations, whether philanthropic, religious, or social bodies, who desired to see the preparation and sale of ganja and other hemp drugs further restricted or entirely prohibited, and that it was necessary to give such persons and associations the freest opportunity of coming forward and laying their views before the Commission.'  

In its general review of evidence for and against prohibition after its study, the Hemp Commission summarized that 'A general review of the evidence relating to the question of prohibition of ganja and charas brings the Commission to the same conclusion as that which they have framed upon a consideration of the evidence on the ascertained effects alone. The weight of the evidence above abstracted is almost entirely against prohibition. Not only is such a measure unnecessary with reference to the effects, but it is abundantly proved that it is considered unnecessary or impossible by those most competent to form an opinion on general grounds of experience; that it would be strongly resented by religious mendicants, or would be regarded as an interference with religion, or would be likely to become a political danger; and that it might lead to the use of dhatura or other intoxicants worse than ganja. Apart from all this, there is another consideration which has been urged in some quarters with a manifestation of strong feeling, and to which the Commission are disposed to attach some importance, viz., that to repress the hemp drugs in India and to leave alcohol alone would be misunderstood by a large number of persons who believe, and apparently not without reason, that more harm is done in this country by the latter than by the former. The conclusion of the Commission regarding bhang has been given in paragraph 564; under all the circumstances they now unhesitatingly give their verdict against such a violent measure as total prohibition in respect of any of the hemp drugs.'

As was the case finally, even though the Hemp Commission recommended taxing the plant but not prohibition of it, and disproved most myths including the association of cannabis with crime, insanity, physical and moral harms, and the immense benefits that cannabis meant to the people of India, especially the poorest sections of society - the spiritual mendicants, the labouring and working classes, the indigenous communities - and the overwhelming evidence of cannabis' role in India's social, spiritual, economic, medical and economic spheres, the Government went ahead with the implementation of prohibition of the plant in all territories, putting pressure on the ones that refused to cooperate.

Even though the widespread view around the world is that the global prohibition of cannabis began in the US and Canada in the 1920s, the fact of the matter is that by the 1890s the British Government in India and Burma had managed to more or less prohibit the plant, which was such an integral part of Indian social, religious, economic and medical life till that point, making these the first places in the world where the cannabis or hemp plant was prohibited, forming the basis for the subsequent worldwide prohibition of the plant. This action to alter the fundamental fabric of India was widely supported by many from the so-called Indian upper classes and upper castes, far removed from the actual users. The poor classes and the majority of users were mostly unaware of the actions being undertaken or totally powerless until it was too late. The final nail in the coffin was the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1985, but this was only cosmetic, considering the vast damage that had already been done by the British colonists, commencing from around 1850. 

The impact of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's report of 1893-94 cannot be understated, as we can see from the above figure. The misinterpretation of it, or the selective interpretation of it, along with the false myth that ganja causes insanity based on the erroneous data emerging from the lunatic asylums of 19th century India, formed the basis for the shift in public perception - of cannabis as a medicinal herb of great value to one of it being dangerously harmful. This formed the basis of all subsequent prohibition of cannabis, and all the anti-cannabis propaganda that subsequently emerged. Opium, western alcohol, tobacco and the synthetic pharmaceutical industry greatly benefited, as did the colonists of old and the new colonists of today. 

It is strange that Indians demonstrated against the British administration in their struggle for independence on matters such as the indigo dye and salt but remained largely silent on the cannabis plant - an integral part of India's cultural, social, religious and medical traditions, regardless of class caste or religion. This points to the hand of many among the upper castes and upper classes as active participants in the crime of cannabis prohibition.  These accomplices to the British who brought about cannabis prohibition remain very much active today, continuing cannabis prohibition, and even implementing it with greater zeal, more than 75 years after the British left leaving these people in charge of administration of the people of India...