CO885-(11-12) — Page 294

219

TUBLIC

RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

C.O.882/12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

36

Again, according to Section 72 of the Government of India Act the estimated annual expenditure and revenue of the Province has to be laid before the Legislative Council each year. While a pro forma account showing, the receipts and expenditure from opium revenue could be incorporated in the Budget, it would not, without legis- lation, be possible to secure that opium revenue should be entirely devoted to the classes of expenditure contemplated. It would always be open to the Legislative Council to refuse to vote expenditure which Government proposes to finance from opium revenue, and it is not considered to be practical politics to restrict the power of the Legislative Council in this direction. Moreover, it will be difficult to find schemes in the present normal expenditure of the province which could be properly debited to the full extent of the surplus against opium revenue, and at present and as far as can be seen for many years to come, the Provincial budget cannot be made independent of the opium revenue.

Suggestion (18). League of Nations Central Bureau in the Far East for Opium Smoking Affairs. The Government of India agree with the Government of Burma in doubting whether the expenditure involved in the maintenance of such a Bureau will be commensurate with the advantages to be gained; and neither Government is in a position to undertake to contribute towards its cost.

Suggestion (19). Annual Reports to the League of Nations. This recommendation is accepted.

Suggestion (20) relates to the revision of The Hague International Opium Con- vention and the Geneva Opium Agreement of 1925.

Hague Convention.

The proposals of the Commission appear to be only proposals to amplify or supersede The Hague Convention in form to the extent to which it has already been amplified or superseded in effect of the Geneva Agreement. Having been a party to the latter Agreement, India can have no objection to such proposals.

Geneva Agreement.

Article Clause 3. The proposal cannot be accepted without qualification, since the Government of Burma is not prepared to go further in the direction of establishing I complete Government monopoly of retail sales of opium than is indicated in the remarks against suggestion (9) in the preceding paragraph of this letter.

Article II. As already stated in answer to suggestion (12), the minimum age in A uniform minimum of 21 Burma is 25 for Burmans and 21 for non-Burmans. throughout the Far East would be suitable for Burma, provided that Governments were at liberty, if they thought fit, to raise that minimum age for any or all classes within their own jurisdiction.

Article III. As already stated against suggestion (13), the Government of Burma has not as yet decided to introduce regular smoking establishments. It may be assumed that if at a later stage they should so decide, they would not fix for the purpose a lower minimum age than that fixed for the purpose of Article II.

Article IV. No undertaking can be given that the number of shops for the retail sale of opium in Burma will be increased; but there could be no objection to the deletion of the Article, thus leaving the number of shops to the unfettered discretion of each Government concerned.

Article V. Please see remarks on suggestion (15) and the last sentence of those on suggestion (13).

Article VI. As India has adhered to the Geneva Convention, she must accept any suggestion that the Agreement should be tightened up so as to agree with the Convention.

Article VII. As indicated in remarks on suggestion (4) this proposal must be definitely opposed.

Article VIII. The proposal is accepted, subject to financial considerations, see remarks on suggestion (5).

Article IX. The proposal is accepted. The Government of India has already, incorporated the required legislative provision in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.

Article X. The proposal is accepted on the understanding that it is recognized that estimates of the number of illicit smokers must be largely conjectural.

4. One important point raised elsewhere in the report of the Commission must be mentioned. The Commission take the view that opium eating is more harmful

37

than opium smoking. The Government of India do not propose to embark on a dis- cussion of this controversial point, but must point out that, whatever the medical view may now be, opium/smoking is the greater social evil, for experience in Burma is that new addicts are almost invariably recruited by smoking and not by eating.

5. The Government of India have already communicated demi-officially their proposals for the representation of India at the Bangkok Conference.

I have, &c.,

C. 83014/31 [No. 76B].

SIR,

A. H. LLOYD,

Joint Secretary to the Government of India

No. 25.

INDIA OFFICE to THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. (Copy received in Colonial Office, 10th August, 1931.)

India Office, Whitehall, London, S.W.1, 8th August, 1931.

League of Nations Commission of Inquiry into Opium Smoking in the Far East.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th June,* regarding the Report of the Ekstrand Committee on Opium Smoking in the Far East.

The Secretary of State understands that the British, Dutch, and French Govern- ments (and probably others) are not likely to send any reply to the League of Nations letter of the 28th February and he considers that it would be advisable to follow the

same course.

The observations in your letter require consideration, however, as regards their suitability as the basis of the brief of the delegate of India (Mr. Marshall) to the Bangkok Conference. For this purpose they appear to the Secretary of State to ve in general entirely suitable but to require amplification and amendment in regard to the following particulars.

As regards Suggestion (3)—Limitation and control of poppy cultivation by inter- national action--the Government of India are said in your letter to presume that this suggestion relates only to cultivation in Burma and not to cultivation in India. It might possibly have been desirable to adopt this attitude in replying to the League of Nations if a reply had been sent to them, but it seems clear that the suggestion was in fact intended to refer to cultivation in all countries and the fact must be faced that before long a proposal to hold a conference on limitation and control of cultivation in all countries is likely to be put before the Governments concerned. If and when this happens it seems clearly impossible for India to refuse to take part in the conference if all the other Governments concerned profess willingness to have it. The question of the attitude to be taken up by the representative of India at such a conference need not be considered now.

The matter does not appear one that ought to be discussed at all at Bangkok, but if it is in fact so discussed it seems necessary that the-representative of India should take the line suggested in the preceding paragraph, namely, that if all the other countries concerned agree to the proposed conference India will participate.

As regards Suggestion (4) Measures to combat the demand for opium for smoking purposes the Secretary of State agrees with the observations of the Government of India. He observes, however, that "Suggestion (4) "' includes the sentence existing demand for (opium) should be regarded as illegitimate except for medical and scientific purposes.'

In dealing with this suggestion Mr. Marshall should make

the

it clear that the acceptance of this sentence by the Government of India is subject to the understanding (conveyed by the heading of the Suggestion") that it refers only to opium for smoking.

In regard to Suggestion (8)--Reduction of Retail Prices of Government opium— the Secretary of State agrees with the observations of the Government of India. The Government of India will, however, no doubt agree with him when the suggestion comes under discussion it will be necessary for their representative to object to the

* No. 24.