Burma: Census of India 1901 Vol. I - Khamkoo

—
—
;
9§ REPORT ON THE CENSUS OF BURMA.
146. The following are the 1901 figures per 100,000 of each sex afflicted in
Upper and Lower Burma and Burma proper, exclud-
General decrease in infirmities in 1901.
with the figures for India as a whole in 1891 :
,
j
ng the Shan Stateg &nd the Ch ;n Hm s> as compared
Insane. Deaf-mutes: Blind. Lepers.
"
"
*
*
*
1
t
t
,
Male. Female.
\
Male. Female.
>
Male. Female. Male. Female.
Lower Burma 55 28 21 13 57 55 49 17
Upper Burma 73 67 50 34 198 222 82 40
Burma ... 62 44 32 22 109 124 61 ,27
India ( 1 891) 33 21 90 59 164 171 68 23
that in
If the returns of the recent census are to be relied on, we may take it
Burma proper leprosy approximates very closely to the mean for India as a whole
that insanity is a good deal more prevalent than in most of the other portions of the
Empire, that in blindness the province falls slightly, and in deaf-mutism very considerably,
below the Imperial average. Now, in themselves the 1901 figures seem
to be more likely to be correct than those of 1891, but, if the facts are truly
stated, we find ourselves confronted by a general decrease in infirmities so notable,
that a full examination of the causes that produced it seems called for. It is
obvious to the meanest capacity that matters cannot actually have altered so
much for the better during the past ten years as the data would appear to show.
The extension of vaccination and a greater readiness to have recourse to hospital
treatment have, we may trust, reduced the scourge of blindness, while segregation
has without doubt arrested the spread of leprosy somewhat, but it cannot be
urged that vaccination and segregation are responsible for more than a fraction
of the difference in the totals for the two enumerations. In a word, the decline
must be more apparent than real, and it remains to consider what causes can have
operated to produce such vastly different returns, and to decide whether on the
whole it is more probable that the figures were unduly inflated in 1891 or that
there were improper omissions ten years later. In so far as there is a marked
falling off in the figures for the later enumeration, the onus probandi clearly rests on
the shoulders of the 1901 Superintendent ; for, while the temptation wilfully to make
incorrect entries is practically nil, the danger of overlooking the infirmities' column
(column 16) is ever present both in the cases of enumeration and abstraction.
As regards abstraction, for which I, and I alone, am responsible, I am not prepared
to say that some portion of the decrease may not be due to the posters having
missed entries in column 16. Placed, as that column is, at the edge of the schedule
and almost hidden on the left-hand page when the book is doubled, it was inevitable
that here and there an entry should evade even the most vigilant eye. In
the administrative volume I am, in offering suggestions for improving abstraction
at the next census, suggesting that the infirmities' column, which is but seldom
filled up and is thus apt to be forgotten and overlooked, should be placed in a
more conspicuous position in the schedule. If this suggestion is adopted an
occasion for possible error will certainly be removed. When first comparing the
infirmities' figures for 190 1 with those for the preceding census, I was inclined,
seeing what I had seen, to think that omissions had occurred on a very large scale
in abstraction. A more careful scrutiny of the figures, however, coupled with an
independent test of the totals for selected areas, convinced me that improper
omissions constituted but a small portion of the decrease as a whole, and that the
marked divergence between the returns of infirmities for the two enumerations
actually existed before the enumeration books reached the Abstraction office. To
ascertain what the motives were that prompted the people to return fewer infirmities
at the recent than at the preceding census, one has but to turn to the 1891.
Report, where they will be found fully indicated by Mr. Eales in connection with
the marked
*****
difference between the Upper and Lower Burma figures for that year.
He writes as follows :
" In Upper Burma lunatic asylums are as yet unknown, hence there is less inclination to
screen the imbecile from the view of the Government official.
" The returns of Upper Burma, where no census was held before, show that in all probability
persons but partially blind were entered as blind.