Psychiatry, colonialism and Indian civilization: A historical appraisal

Abstract

Byline: Shridhar. Sharma Dr Basu's paper on 'Historicizing Indian psychiatry'[1] is a wonderful read, written in a lucid and powerful prose. While some authors may write better prose than many trained historians, they do not necessarily possess the rigour and insight which a trained historian brings to the subject. Scientific evaluation of social-medical-historical facts is a complex process, and must be ideally based on rational, objective and transparent criteria to help generate valid conclusions. It is also true that assessment of historical facts is often guided by one's ideology, experience and knowledge in the field. Apparently faulty assessment and subjective bias is not uncommon in the field of history while arriving at a conclusion. It is apparent that Dr Basu's intent is more in showing the impact of colonization than contribution of other factors in the development of psychiatry in India. Secondly, the paper is based heavily on Michael Foucault's work and his views on development of psychiatric thought, which is biased by his anti-psychiatry ideology. Further, Foucault's good work was focused mainly on the 'interpretation of madness in the context of European civilization' and not of Indian civilization. Thirdly, the paper is also greatly influenced by the belief that history writing has been decided by the West, which is conventionally considered as a repository of value and truth with an absolute right to define what is truth and what is exciting, including the culture and social issues of a non-western country. Though strange, this notion is a fact. Fourthly, those who work in the field of psychology are familiar with the faulty perception which is influenced by personal biases. The uniqueness of psychiatry as a medical specialty lies in the fact that there is a biological and psychosocial dichotomy. It is necessary for historians to appreciate this dichotomy to understand the phenomena of mental illness. There is something unique about the field of psychiatry, as psychiatry is primarily a medical specialty; yet, it has close proximity with the social sciences and cultural issues. This causes some discomfort to those who are not sensitive to these issues. To illustrate, a typical western writer's attitude is well-reflected in the views of W.S. Shaw (1932)[2] who stated that 'in spite of over-crowding of mental hospitals the absence of a definitely expressed public opinion continues to delay improvement under present condition of government in India and the noisy section of population led by Mahatma Gandhi who prefers the Ayurvedic and other indigenous systems to our modern methods of treatment'. Such conclusions are similar to the views that the first freedom movement of 1857 in India was perceived as 'Mutiny' by western writers. Keeping the above views, we will examine the basic concept of mind and mental health in the context of colonization of India. It is true that during the period of colonization some elements of science were brought to psychiatry, but philosophy, culture and religion were already deep-rooted in the Indian tradition. James Mills,[3] a historian, states that 'a concern with mental health has long been a part of Indian cultures which evolved a variety of ways of attempting to understand and negotiate psychological disorder'. History is a kind of screen in which the past lightens the present and the present brightens the future. The ancient Indian thought emphasized the theory of unity of body and soul and also explained how to deal with the health and mental health problems in psychosomatic way. These concepts are part of Indian history and not borrowed from colonial rulers. To depend totally on the western viewpoint that all cultures (except the West) construct history as a myth rather than on empirical facts will not lead us to the meaning of history, because meaning itself cannot derive solely from the western viewpoint. Eminent Indian philosopher S. …