Shifts in therapeutic practices and decline of medicinal cannabis in Indian North-Eastern Frontier (1826–1925)

Article type: Research Article

Keywords: Cannabis, Medicinal cannabis, Hemp, India, Northeast Frontier

Authors: Gita Bania ⚬

Affiliations: grid.18048.350000 0000 9951 5557Department of History, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India

License: © The Author(s) 2022 CC BY 4.0 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Article links: DOI: 10.1186/s42238-022-00159-4  |  PubMed: 36171626  |  PMC: PMC9520865

Relevance: Relevant: mentioned in keywords or abstract

Full text: PDF (899 KB)

Introduction

The advent of the British East India Company to the Brahmaputra Valley materialized after signing the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826, soon after the Second Anglo-Burmese War. Within a decade of annexing Assam, the Company spread its roots to engulf the entire North-Eastern Frontier. After annexation, the colonizers introduced various institutions such as knowledge, science, technology, and medicine to gain a strong hold over their colonized subjects (Arnold ref. 1993; Goswami ref. 2012). Colonial medicine in India developed in the nineteenth and twentieth century with the help of intensive explorations, investigation, research and study of topography, climate, and disease. It initially started to uphold the health of the European military. However, later on, colonial medicine spread to the native gentry, forming a means of direct intervention with the social, cultural, and material lives of the native population (Arnold ref. 2000).

Colonial medical intervention in the North-Eastern Frontier was initially met with strict resistance and unacceptance. This was due to the natives’ reliance on indigenous therapeutics such as Ayurveda, Unani, and Folk medicine that used various herbal plants like cannabis (Chopra and Chopra ref. 2009; Abrol ref. 2006). As a result, various Acts were passed that curbed valuable plants like nux vomica, datura, opium, and cannabis by portraying them as “dangerous drugs” and forming a constant governmental check on the plants (Karmakar ref. 2007; The Poisons Act, 1919-Indian Kanoon ref. n.d.; Memorandum on Excise Administration in India so far as it is concerned with Hemp Drugs ref. 1906; Mills and James ref. 2003). This paper mainly deals with the British policies on medicinal cannabis and its subsequent impact on the native physicians, which caused contradictory responses and subtle resistance in the colonial North-Eastern Frontier.

After the Russian Hemp Blockade of 1807, the desire for hemp led to the influx of research undertaken by the East India Company’s Botanists, Surgeons, and Scientists (Davey ref. 2012; Mills ref. 2003). Cannabis was also provided to Messrs. Squire & Sons, Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists, London, for medicinal and experimental purposes (Messrs. Squire, and Sons, London for Medical and Experimental Purposes ref. 1902; Remission of-which it was intended to forward to Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists ref. 1897). Various scientists’ successful experiments and research identified Indian cannabis as the fiber-producing European hemp. These researches also revealed the significance of cannabis for medicines, fibers, and intoxicants, which assumed an important place in domestic and international markets (Transactions of the Agriculture and Horticulture Society of India ref. 1839). The colonizers thereby took into their interest by dominating the cultivation, production, and trade of cannabis, connecting the remotest markets to the international ones.

Scientists Wood, Spivey, and Easterfield discovered one active ingredient of cannabis, which they named “cannabinol”in 1896 (Mills ref. 2003). It was further confirmed by C.R Marshall, Professor of Medicine at the University of Cambridge, in 1903. He revealed that the substance could be further broken down, possessing no power to intoxicate. The discovery of the active ingredient of cannabis contributed to the cause of British Pharmacopeia. Cannabis was exported from British India to various Pharmaceutical Industries like Messrs. Squire & Sons, Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists. By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, cannabis was included in Piso’s Cure Pharmaceuticals, One Day Cough Cure Pharmaceuticals, and Sears Roebuck Catalogues. Sajous’s Analytic Cyclopedia of Practical Medicine (1924) summarized cannabis’s use for treating migraines, gonorrhea, inflammation, tetanus, rheumatism, and many more ailments (Messrs. Squire, and Sons, London for Medical and Experimental Purposes ref. 1902; Remission of-which it was intended to forward to Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists ref. 1897; Hand et al. ref. 2016).

The three categories of cannabis research were viz. on its medicinal potentiality, fiber production, and the preservation and elevation of cannabis intoxicants. This was followed by various taxations, licenses, and druggist permits (Medicinal Properties of Ganja and Other Hemp Drugs ref. 1872; Procedures Regarding the Preservation of Ganja ref. 1920; Mills ref. 2003). British India served as a supplier of raw materials exporting cannabis to various British and US Pharmaceutical Industries. British, once gaining control over the North-Eastern frontier easily traded cannabis to China, Tibet, and Burma (Bhuyan ref. 1933). Cannabis trade with China was boosted after the 1911 Chinese Revolution, which banned the consumption of opium, resulting in a fillip in hemp drug (cannabis) consumption (Warf ref. 2014). British ambitions on cannabis were achieved by making it a governmental possession. Such policies pushed back cannabis use in the indigenous therapeutics of the North-Eastern Frontier. Indigenous therapeutics, which showed signs of decay in contact with the emerging colonial medicine.

Prior to British rule, various works of literature, ancient texts, and medicinal compendium confirmed the therapeutic use of cannabis throughout India (Khanikar ref. 2011; Karpakal ref. 2017; Grierson ref. 1894; Evidence Given Before the Committee Appointed to Enquire into Certain Aspects of Opium and Ganja Consumption ref. 1913; Report of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into Certain Aspects of Opium and Ganja Consumption ref. 1913). Cannabis has been used as a medicinal herb in Ayurveda to treat ailments like indigestion, pain, skin diseases, sexual debility, and chronic diarrhea. For the first time, it was mentioned in the Atharvaveda as “one of the five sacred plants on the planet Earth.” Sushruta Samhita also mentioned cannabis as a remedy for diarrhea, catarrh, and fever from phlegm and bile. The medicinal potentiality of cannabis is also evident from a reference in Vārttikā and Aṣṭādhyāyi of Pāṇini (Karpakal ref. 2017; Grierson ref. 1894). However, during the colonial period (1757–1947), we find several pieces of literature on cannabis partially depicting it as an “intoxicant drug” linked with “oriental degeneracy, madness and crime” (Mills ref. 2003; Herer ref. 2006). Oriental degeneracy in this context implies degeneracy of colonial Asian countries including British India. Cannabis was addressed as “Indian hemp” in many literatures. It denoted that the “degraded” practice of cannabis intoxication originated from India (Fankhauser ref. 2008).

The first European to make a compilation of the Indian materia medica was D’Orta in his book “Coloquios dos simples e drogas he cousas medicinais da India”. This work described that bangue (cannabis) was consumed by the Indians for venereal acts, and used by the armies’ officers and soldiers for instant refreshment and sleep. Another work on cannabis in The Natural History of India by Christoval Acosta described the use of cannabis for enhancing appetite and treating insomnia. Robert James, the author of Medicinal History, also mentioned similar accounts of cannabis with the same stories of “soldiers, sex and sleep.” All these texts revealed a repeated trend of duplicate accounts, which, however, lacked proper knowledge of the medicinal use of cannabis before the 19th century (Mills ref. 2003). Finally, a halt to this trend was brought by Ainslie’s work of Materia Medica of Hindoostan. He described medicinal cannabis for treating piles and diarrhea, and also as a painkiller. However, the most descriptive and significant account of cannabis was provided by W.B O’ Shaughnessy Professor of Materia Medica, Medical College of Calcutta, in his work On the Preparations of Indian Hemp or Gunjah (cannabis indica). His work describes the history of “Indian hemp,” its use, botanical characteristic, chemical and medicinal properties, and its production, including its various derivatives (O’Shaughnessy ref. 1843). The report of Shaughnessy led to an influx of research and experiments conducted by several scientists, chemists, and pharmacologists on medicinal cannabis.

Moreover, the works of scientist W.Ley, Dr. Prain (Curator of Herbarium, Royal Botanic Garden, Sibpur), Mr. Jenks, Chemical Examiner for Customs and Excise, Bengal, requires special mention, which contributed further to the medicinal and intoxicant research on cannabis during the colonial period (Report of the Cultivation and Use of Ganja ref. 1893; Ley ref. 1843).

More recent works on cannabis have been aptly provided by Jack Herer, James H. Mills, Bradley J. Borougerdi, Manfred Fankhauser, Robin Room et al., Dana Zarhin, and Sharon R. Sznitman, John Collins, Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli et al., and Matt Stolick (Borougerdi ref. 2018; Room et al. ref. 2010; Zarhin et al. ref. 2020; Collins ref. 2020; Zemouli et al. ref. 2019; Stolick ref. 2009). However, Mills’ works stand out to give a historical context of cannabis by placing it in the economic, political, and policies of the British Indian Empire (Mills ref. 2003, ref. 2000, ref. 2004). Poonam Bala has provided another seminal work on the medical history of Bengal. Her work lays out the encounter between colonial medicine and the indigenous medical practices, which mainly led to the depreciation of the latter in due course of time (Bala ref. 1991). The cause of reviving indigenous therapeutics was eventually taken up by the nationalists who viewed its link with the cultures of India’s past. However, the nationalist’s zeal for reviving indigenous medicine did not touch medicines like cannabis, which the colonizers portrayed as a “dangerous drug.” This raises an impediment question regarding what led to such discrimination and contradictory responses from the natives relating to cannabis and its subsequent decline in the indigenous therapeutics of the frontier?

Cannabis and British policies

Britain’s initial search for hemp (a male derivative of cannabis) in India began after the Russian Hemp Blockade in 1807. Russia was bound by the Treaty of Tilsit, banning all Anglo-Russian trade. This led to the influx of researchers, surveyors, scientists, and botanists to Indian colonies searching for cannabis. Their explorations emphasized Indian cannabis as the fiber-producing European hemp (Transactions of the Agriculture and Horticulture Society of India ref. 1839; Mills ref. 2003; Davey ref. 2012). The three categories of research were viz. cannabis fiber production, medicinal research, and the preservation and elevation of cannabis intoxicants. The colonial bioprospection of cannabis was successfully conducted by Robert Hooke, Ainslie, W.B O’ Shaughnessy, W.Ley, R. Rowan Lees, Jacques Joseph Moreau, Wood, Spivey, and Easterfield (O’Shaughnessy ref. 1843; Ley ref. 1843; Mills ref. 2003; Logan ref. 1974; Lees ref. 1895). Bioprospection is the observations, explorations, and study of valuable tropical plants, and herbs mainly aimed for large scale plantation for greater commercial profits (Chakrabarti ref. 2014, 34). The contributions of the researchers and scientists included cannabis in the British Pharmaceutical Codex 1934 (Small ref. 2017; Waring ref. 1885; British Pharmaceutical Codex ref. 1934). Although such research gave a fillip to the British Pharmaceutical Industries, it pushed back the use of cannabis in the indigenous therapeutics of the frontier by placing cannabis under the strict governmental gaze. This was coupled with various taxations, the introduction of licenses and druggist permits, and the imposition of criminal charges on the offenders (Memorandum on Excise Administration in India so far as it is concerned with Hemp Drugs ref. 1926; Evidence of Witnesses from Bengal and Assam taken before the Indian Hemp Drug Commission ref. 1894). The sale of hemp drugs required special licenses in Assam, which were issued by the Naugaon Ganja Cultivators Cooperative Society Limited in Rajshahi. Licenses were obtained by auction for a period of one year. Apart from these, retail and wholesale licenses and three druggist permits were issued between 1912 and 1913 in Sylhet, Kamrup, and Sibsagar (in Assam, India) for medical preparations. Druggist permits exceeded in the subsequent years, from 1923 to 24 and 1924 to 25 from nine to seventeen (Memorandum on Excise Administration in India so far as it is concerned with Hemp Drugs ref. 1926). However, before British control, medicinal cannabis was either locally grown or easily accessible in the daily and periodic “hats” (markets) in Assam and even in the yearly fairs, like Jonbeel Mela (Goswami ref. 2012). Moreover, India served as a supplier of raw materials exporting cannabis to various British and US Pharmaceutical Industries like Messrs. Squire & Sons, Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists, William Ransom & Sons Ltd., and Parke Davis & Co. (Hand et al. ref. 2016, Messrs. Squire, and Sons, London for Medical and Experimental Purposes ref. 1902; Remission of-which it was intended to forward to Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists ref. 1897).

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a hitched issue arose regarding cannabis consumption causing insanity and crime. This was followed by the Indian Hemp Drug Commission survey, 1893–1894 (now IHDC) (Mills ref. 2003; Marijuana and Health ref. 1971). As the lunatic asylums were filled up by all ganja smokers, it compelled the Government to establish the Indian Hemp Drug Commission (IHDC) to investigate the issue (Shamir and Hacker ref. 2001; Indian Hemp Drug Commission ref. 1894; Final Report of the Royal Commission on Opium ref. 1895; Mills ref. 2006). The relation of cannabis consumption with crime was viewed to be caused by the loss of control under intoxication leading to unlawful acts. The IHDC stated that excessive intoxication of hemp caused insanity. In criminal cases, the natural causes were unknown (Report of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission 1893-94 ref. 1894). However, IHDC had its limitations. Out of fifty-seven medical practitioners, only six were Ayurvedic specialists, and most of the witnesses were Company’s officers or employers, which limited its reliability (Basu ref. 2000). IHDC also ignored the socio-cultural and religious significance of cannabis throughout India. Instead, it mainly focused on “cannabis, madness, and crime.”

As the British, towards the end of the nineteenth century, successfully carried on a flourishing trade of exporting opium and hemp drugs to China, Tibet, Burma, Egypt, the US, and South African countries, it became a matter of great condemnation in the international circles, resulting in the League of Nation’s Advisory Council on Opium. The “League of Nations” was followed by two opium conferences of 1924–1925.

Although the main focus was on opium, cannabis exploded into the agenda in the Second Opium Conference under Egyptian pressure as imposed by EL Guindy (Egyptian delegate), backed by the US and China. These countries demanded the trade of opium and hemp drugs to be outlawed. Britain thereby agreed to halt the hemp trade to the dissented nations unless on the provision of a certificate for industrial and medicinal use. However, Britain did not ban hemp drugs but made it a complete governmental possession. As a result, there was a considerable decline in the indigenous therapeutic use of cannabis and its derivatives (Mills and James ref. 2003).

Native responses toward ban of cannabis

The indigenous medical practitioners despised the dominance of colonial medicine. In this connection, they provided subtle resistance to the colonial medical intervention by trying to revive declining herbs like cannabis in the indigenous therapeutics of the frontier. In this connection, several vernacular works on medicine were published (Gait ref. 2010; Barooah ref. 1978; Das ref. 2010; Khanikar ref. 2011; Katoki ref. 2009; Sonovāl ref. 2013).

As the indigenous therapeutics were viewed to be linked with the “cultures of the past,” the cause of revival of the indigenous therapeutics was taken up by the nationalists. Moreover, during the Swadeshi Movement in 1905, the agenda of using national goods and boycotting foreign products took shape in the frontier. As a result, the consumption of ganja reduced considerably (Trivedi ref. 1995; Assam Congress Opium Enquiry Committee ref. 1925). The Swadeshi Movement and the Non-Cooperation Movement led to the decline of ganja consumption. It decreased to 0.26 tolas (3.032 g) in the Brahmaputra Valley in 1905–1906, and during the Non-Cooperation Movement, it further dropped down from 632 maunds 29 seers (23,588.894 kg) in 1920 to 452 maunds 18 seers (16,870.53 kg) in 1921–1922 and 1923–1924, the consumption further decreased to 344 maunds (12839.52 kg), which were 45.7% less than in 1920–1921 (Assam Congress Opium Enquiry Committee ref. 1925; Report of the Indian Excise Committee (1905-06) ref. 1907; Deshpande ref. 2009).

Cannabis was looked down upon by the “elites.” Gandhi’s idea of village Swaraj was that “if more land is available, it will grow useful money crops excluding ganja, opium and the like” (Prabhu and Rao ref. 1967). Such an idea of the partial portrayal of cannabis got embedded in the minds of the frontier elites. This led to inconsistent frictions between the sectional and the general interests. Sectional interests were represented by the elites standing against cannabis, and general interests were represented by the natives of the frontier raising subtle resistances against the control and restriction of cannabis. Moreover, IHDC revealed reports of cannabis being used as a weapon of caste discrimination. The Hindu caste system has four custer viz. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. However, at the village and local level, these four castes are further divided into smaller sub-castes known as jati (Khatoon ref. 1995). The consumption of cannabis was linked with the lower castes (Sudras and outcastes), and the upper castes (Brahmin) claimed to vehemently despise cannabis use. A member of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission stated the following:

There can be no other agency in bringing to light the history of a lunatic than the police, because ganja-smokers are generally men of low-caste and of bad character, with whom the high officers cannot be in touch. The habit of ganja smoking is looked down, and therefore those who use ganja smoke it secretly, trying their best to conceal the fact from their elders and their society. (Report of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission 1893-94 ref. 1894, 413).

Such a rift in response from the natives of the frontier was due to the elites’ inclination towards westernization, which infused a negative impression on cannabis. However, prior to British rule, cannabis was used by all castes (Shivaharidas ref. 2012). This evidently, ignored the unabated struggles and resistances of the natives under the British rule.

Conclusion

Such a shift and degeneration of indigenous medicinal cannabis was due to the decline of indigenous therapeutic practices, primarily due to the lack of initiatives undertaken by the British Government. Although both the indigenous and the modern therapeutics were patronized differently, British preferred the development of colonial medicine, providing a blow to the indigenous medical practices. Moreover, at the initial stage, British followed a policy of recruiting both Indian and European scholars to amass the indigenous medicinal knowledge, which later contributed to the cause of British Pharmacopeia. They also did not provide any registration or recommendation to any indigenous medical practices. These policies of amassed knowledge boosted the colonizers’ intervention, which mainly resulted in their monopoly over Indian drugs and trade (Arnold ref. 2000). Secondly, the decline of indigenous therapeutics could not be solely imposed on the colonizers. Degeneration of the indigenous medical practices could be traced back to the ancient period, when medicine was claimed to be practiced by the lower caste of the society. However, due to the rigidity of the caste system, the Brahmanas were viewed as the bearers of “knowledge” with their grip over therapeutic practices. They did not allow any relevant enquiry or systematic development in the indigenous therapeutics. This is reflected in their codification of Ayurveda revealing, the dominance of religion and superstitions (Bala ref. 1991). Thirdly, there was no uniform medical system due to various foreign interventions. During the medieval period, India came to be dominated by the Unani system of medicine. The Muslim royalty only recognized hakeems brought from Persia, viewing the conservative nature of ancient medicine. Hakeem is a Unani physician. Unani is a system of medicine derived from medieval Muslim physicians from Byzantine Greece. Similarly, in the Brahmaputra Valley, the Ahom royalty’s trust for the Muslim healers and Ayurvedic vaidyas (Ayurvedic medical practitioner) was predominantly less as they gave more importance to Folk-medicine. Thus, these changes, interventions, and the dominance of external factors over indigenous therapeutics ultimately led to the over-powering of the pre-modern by the modern medical practices under British rule.

Moreover, the contradictory response of the natives regarding the ban on cannabis was mainly due to the elites’ acceptance of British “modernity.” The elites tried to form their brand of “Indian modernity” through the selective incorporation in indigenous knowledge and traditions. Their prime objective regarding the native medical practices was to provide a more scientific base detached from the dominance of religion and superstitions. However, by denouncing cannabis, they demonstrated “selective appropriation” in the indigenous medical systems.

The general use, cultivation, and “smuggling” of cannabis were also evident in British colonies of America, China, Africa, Sri Lanka, and Burma. By global standards, cannabis regulations in Africa were early and rigorous, targeting specific socio-economic and cultural groups (Hand et al. ref. 2016). In Sri Lanka, the Opium and Bhang Ordinance, enacted by the British authority in 1867, limited the selling of cannabis to licensed sellers only. The import of bhang, also known as ganja, was prohibited in 1897. The British government introduced the Indian Hemp Ordinance in 1905. In 1907, producing, importing, or distributing cannabis was punishable by a 100-rupee fine and 6 months in prison. Despite these restrictions and control on cannabis, people continued its use. We can also find many medicinal books published during the same period. In Sri Lanka, the medicinal significance of cannabis has been included in various books (Weliange ref. 2018).

Many nations have already taken the required actions to solve the war on cannabis, but India is still in a time-warp. This calls for understanding the relevance of government regulations on cannabis and the general masses’ interests to break off this ageless bigotry.

References

1. YP Abrol. Traditional System of Medicine, 2006
2. D Arnold. Colonizing the Body- State, Medicine and Epidemic Disease in the Nineteenth Century India, 1993
3. D Arnold. The Cambridge History of India- Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India, 2000
4. Assam Congress Opium Enquiry Committee. Assam: Art Press; 1925. p. 55.
5. P Bala. Imperialism and Medicine in Bengal-A Socio-Historical Perspective, 1991
6. PD Barooah. Assam District Gazetteer: Nowgong District, 1978
7. RA Basu. Cannabis and Madness: Evidence from the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Bengal 1894. Stud Hist, 2000. [DOI]
8. KS Bhuyan. Tunghungia Buranji- A History of Assam (1681-1826 A.D), 1933
9. JB Borougerdi. Commodifying Cannabis A Cultural History of a Complex Plant in the Atlantic World, 2018
10. British Pharmaceutical Codex. London: Counter Press; 1934. Available from: http://ia801609.us.archive.org/1/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.210881/2015.210881.The-British.pdf
11. P Chakrabarti. Medicine and Empiret 1600-1960, 2014
12. RN Chopra, IC Chopra. Glossary of Indian Medicinal Plants, 2009
13. JA Collins. Brief History of Cannabis and the Drug Conventions. AJIL Unbound, 2020. [DOI]
14. RR Das. Folk Medicine and Traditional Markets a Study in Assam. [thesis on the internet], 2010
15. J Davey. The Transformation of British Naval Strategy: Seapower and Supply in Northern Europe 1808-1812, 2012
16. A Deshpande. An Historical Overview of Opium Cultivation and Changing State Attitudes towards the Crop in India 1878 -2000 A.D. Stud Hist, 2009. [DOI]
17. Evidence Given Before the Committee Appointed to Enquire into Certain Aspects of Opium and Ganja ConsumptionExcise/Opium191345
18. Evidence of Witnesses from Bengal and Assam taken before the Indian Hemp Drug Commission. Vol. IV. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing Press; 1894. p. 143, 530, 531, 536, 556, 583. Assam State Archives (ASA).
19. M Fankhauser. Cannabis as medicine in Europe in the 19th century. A Cannabis Reader: Global Issues and Local Experiences, 2008
20. Final Report of the Royal Commission on Opium: Part- II, Historical Appendices, Royal Commission on Opium, Vol. VII. Historical Appendices Together with an Index of Witnesses and Subjects, and a Glossary of Indian Terms Used in the Evidence and Appendices. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode Printers; 1895. Available from https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/18732.
21. E Gait. A History of Assam, 2010
22. P Goswami. The History of Assam-From Yandaboo to Partition (1826-1947), 2012
23. GA Grierson. The Indian Hemp Plant in Sanskrit and Hindi Literature. Indian Antiquary, 1894
24. A Hand. History of Medicinal Cannabis, 2016
25. J Herer. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 2006
26. Indian Hemp Drug CommissionEnquiry as to the Connection Between Hemp Drugs and Insanity. Vol. II1894SimlaGovernment Central Printing Office63,65,66
27. NR Karmakar. Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 2007
28. S Karpakal. Cannabis-One of the Sacred Plant in Atharva Veda. LinkedIn, 2017
29. KR Katoki. Ahom Rajatat Chikitsha Sewa (Pratham Buranji), 2009
30. G Khanikar. Book on Traditional Herbal Medicine for Various Disease, 2011
31. A Khatoon. Caste System in India. [dissertation on the internet], 1995
32. RC Lees. Cannabis Sativa Seu Indica: Indian Hemp. Br Med J, 1895. [DOI]
33. W Ley. Observations on the Cannabis indica, or Indian hemp. Provincial Med J Retrospect Med Sci, 1843
34. Logan JF. The Age of Intoxication. Yale Fr Stud. 1974;(50):81–94.
35. Marijuana and HealthA Report to the Congress from the Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Sub Committee on Alcoholism and Narcotics of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare United States Senate1971WashingtonGovernment Printing Office91
36. Medicinal Properties of Ganja and Other Hemp Drugs. Proceedings of the Government of Bengal. Section-IV: Hemp Drugs. Revenue Department. Excise Branch. 1872.
37. Memorandum on Excise Administration in India so far as it is concerned with Hemp Drugs. 3rd ed. Simla: Government Central Printing Office; 1906. p.3.
38. Memorandum on Excise Administration in India so far as it is concerned with Hemp Drugs. 9th ed. Simla: Government of India Press; 1926. p.27, 28.
39. Messrs. Squire & Sons, London for Medical and Experimental Purposes. Finance Department. Separate Revenue. Proceeding: B.139-40. File No: E 1G/2 of May 1902.
40. HJ Mills. Madness, Cannabis and Colonialism: The Native Only Asylums of British India 1857-1900, 2000
41. HJ Mills. Cannabis Britannica-Empire, Trade and Prohibition 1800-1928, 2003
42. HJ Mills. Cannabis in Colonial India, Production, State Intervention and Resistance in the Late Nineteenth Century Bengali Resistance. Dangerous Harvest Drug Plants and The Transformation of Indigenous Landscapes, 2004
43. HJ Mills. Colonialism, Cannabis and the Christians: Mission Medical Knowledge and the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1893–4. Healing Bodies and Saving Souls: Medical Missions in Asia and Africa, 2006
44. WB O’Shaughnessy. On the Preparations of Indian Hemp or Gunjah. Provincial Med J Retrospect Med Sci, 1843
45. RK Prabhu, UR Rao. The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, 1967
46. Procedures Regarding Preservation of Ganja. Proceedings of the Government of Bengal. Finance Department. Excise Branch. 1920. p.18-19.
47. Remission of-which it was intended to forward to Messrs. Burroughs & Wellcome Manufacturing Druggists, London for Manufacturing and Experimenting Purposes. Finance Department. Separate Revenue. Proceeding: B.14-15, File No: E 1G/8 of June 1897.
48. Report of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into Certain Aspects of Opium and Ganja Consumption. Excise/ Opium. 1913.
49. Report of the Cultivation and use of GanjaNational Library of India1893CalcuttaBengal Secretariat Press
50. Report of the Indian Excise Committee (1905-06). Madras: Superintendent Govt. Press; 1907. p. 27.
51. Report of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission 1893-94. Vol. I. Simla: Government Central Printing Office; 1894. p.413.
52. R Room. Cannabis Policy Moving Beyond Stalemate, 2010
53. R Shamir, D Hacker. Colonialism’s Civilizing Mission: The Case of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission. Law Soc Inq, 2001. [DOI]
54. ShivaharidasVedic Use of Cannabis. Scribd2012
55. E Small. Cannabis A Complete Guide, 2017
56. T Sonovāl. Asamar Paramparāgata Loka-Cikitsā: Ek Ksetrabhittik Namunā Sangrah, 2013
57. M Stolick. Otherwise Law Abiding Citizens: A Scientific and Moral Assessment of Cannabis Use, 2009
58. The Poisons Act, 1919-Indian Kanoon. Central Government Act n.d.. Available from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1399304/.
59. Transactions of the Agriculture and Horticulture Society of India. Vol. III. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press; 1839. p.199-200.
60. VR Trivedi. Documents on Assam, 1995
61. B Warf. An Historical Geography of Cannabis. Am Geogr Soc NY, 2014
62. EJ Waring. Remarks on a Few Articles of the Indian Materia Medica. Br Med J, 1885. [DOI]
63. SW Weliange. History of Medicinal Cannabis in Sri Lanka. J Neurol Neurophysiol, 2018. [DOI]
64. D Zarhin, M Negev, S Vulfsons, SR Sznitman. Medical Cannabis as a Contested Medicine: Fighting Over Epistemology and Morality. Sci Technol Hum Values, 2020. [DOI]
65. RK Zemouli. Cannabis &Sustainable Development-Paving the way for the next decade in Cannabis and hemp policies, 2019