ccxxxvm 



to rejnci, tlio sealclcss fishes. In tlie Panjiil), lish (cxcepl liy Rnilimius 

 niul a low others) is ahnost equally relished, as will he seen on Uirniny to 

 the rctiims from that Atlniinistration ; hut as we examine to tlio south- 

 wards, as DelUi and theuppcr part of the North-Westcrn Provinces, the 

 Brahmins, higli-castc Hindus, and even the Mussulmen who reside amongst 

 lliem iu rural districts, are less addicted to its use, and mostly refuse it 

 entirely, unless they happen to be living on tiie banks of a large fishing 

 river, as the Jumna. Still in all these districts, unless fiom some peculiar 

 local cause, 50 [)cr cent, of the urban population may be fairly reckoned as 

 not prohil)ited by their religion from eating fish. In Lower Bengal it is 

 largely consumed, whilst in Madras, Mysore, Ilaidarabad and Bombay a 

 very great proportion of the people would eat it could they oljtain itj general- 

 ly the Brahmins, Vysias, Nairs in Malabar, and Jains appear to reject it. 

 In the Central Provinces, from 50 to 1)5 per cent, are reported as consumers 

 of fish. In hilly districts, fish is almost uniformly eaten wheu it can 

 be procured, whilst in the extreme east no Burman would consider his 

 meal complete, were it defi' ient in the odoriferous nga-pee. The 

 Audamanese may be said to principally exist on fresh fish, pork, tortoises 

 or turtles, for vegetables are consumed to a very inconsiderable extent, 

 so long as they can procure ai;unal food. 



413. Of the foregoing races, an important question is — are any 



peculiarities noticeable amongst those who 



Gcnernl oflocts of a fish diet ^^t fish, and those wlio reiect it as food? 



ou tue UiUivcs 01 tuo Last. ,,rt j. i • i -i i- ii lii 



When one takes into consideration tne wealtli 



or the poverty of these various people, and the difTerences in climate, 

 I do not think that amongst the Hindu races much distinction can be 

 drawn. We may certainly find such, however, if we compare, for instance, 

 the people of Malabar with the Panjabese or Burmese, but this mode 

 of comparison is useless. The state of the intermediate people and 

 climate must be looked at, and, when this is done, I cannot perceive 

 much difiercnccs between the Nairs of Malabar who reject all fish and 

 flesh and the people of Orissa and Lower Bengal who eat the finny 

 tribes. A great and marked change may be observed in Malabar in those 

 who have turned from Hinduism to Mahomcdanism, but tiiis generally 

 occurs amongst the fishermen castes, who do not reject animal food. On 

 the other hand, the soil slaves of Malabar arc about the most degraded 

 race, except the Naidis, wild in the jung'les, whilst they all consume 

 fish. The Black Jews, who arc in Malabar merely the converted 

 people of the country, or their pure or semi-Jewish descendants, 

 do not a])pear to be superior to the surrounding population. Neither is 

 any marked diflference observable between the native Christian and Hindu, 

 which might not fairly be attributed to greater wealth and a superior 

 mode of living. The Burmese certainly have greater physical powers 

 to the natives of India, than whom they consume more fish, but the 

 diminutive Andamanese are very deficient in these qualities, although 

 the finny tribes form the chief constituent of their diet. 



414'. It has been asserted that a fish diet has some effect on pro- 

 creation, and that fish-eating tribes are un- 

 Ilna n fisli ilict iiiiy rcliition- usually prolific, concerning which Dr. Pareira 



nfTil''A!!"r'"""''''"p'''" ''""'"' (On met, p. 2S;i) remarks:— " There is, I 

 of the Aaialic niuca ? \ n- • . • i i i i i ■ 1 , 



think, sulheient evidence to prove that iclitliy- 



