0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views7 pages

Haffkine's Plague Vaccine Trials in India

The document summarizes the 1896 Bubonic plague epidemic in India. It describes how the plague originated in China and was spread to India through trade routes. When the plague hit India, the British authorities did not take adequate measures to control its spread in order to keep trade open, allowing it to become a massive epidemic. Under the Epidemic Disease Act of 1897, harsh measures were taken against infected communities, causing anger and resistance. The plague was eventually brought under control through a vaccine developed by Waldemar Haffkine and mass inoculations. However, over 10 million Indians died in the epidemic, revealing British lack of preparedness and understanding of Indian society.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views7 pages

Haffkine's Plague Vaccine Trials in India

The document summarizes the 1896 Bubonic plague epidemic in India. It describes how the plague originated in China and was spread to India through trade routes. When the plague hit India, the British authorities did not take adequate measures to control its spread in order to keep trade open, allowing it to become a massive epidemic. Under the Epidemic Disease Act of 1897, harsh measures were taken against infected communities, causing anger and resistance. The plague was eventually brought under control through a vaccine developed by Waldemar Haffkine and mass inoculations. However, over 10 million Indians died in the epidemic, revealing British lack of preparedness and understanding of Indian society.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

The Bubonic plague of 1896

The Covid-19 outbreak has brought into life an old colonial era law, which
gives the state governing bodies authoritarian powers to combat a highly
contagious disease, but leaves the central government in a rather ambiguous role
as just an advisor or a coordinator (Shantanu Nandan Sharma, The Economic
Times, 22nd March 2020). The law known as the Epidemic Disease Act of 1897
is a short legislation that was drafted rather hurriedly under strained
circumstances to stall the bubonic plague, an epidemic that ravaged lives in
Bombay Presidency in 1896. The act mainly aimed at vacating the plague
affected parts and all the people living therein, which led to devastating results.
While calls have already been made to repeal this antiquated law by the GoI in
2008 (Management of Biological Disaster Guideline, GoI, 2008), however with
changes yet to be made, the old act has again been called forth to help fight the
Covid-19.

The bubonic plague starts wreaking havoc

The last five years of the 19th century spelled a series of disasters for India. It
was at this time that the bubonic plague, which was a part of the Third Plague
Pandemic, wreaked havoc in the Bombay Presidency wiping out thousands in
one sweep during 1896-97. The plague then spread to Bengal, Punjab, the
United Provinces, and later even to Burma; however, its impact was severest in
western and northern India, while southern and eastern India escaped with
relatively lesser deaths. By 1901 4 lakh Indians were reported dead, and by
1905 the number sharply rose to 10 lakhs.

The bubonic plague is an endemic disease caused by bacterium Yersinia pestis,


carried by small fleas that are commonly seen on the bodies of small animals.
The ground rodents of central Asia were long known to carry the disease that
would kill locals and travellers passing through that area. The infection would
mainly spread from the bite of infected fleas living on the rodents, or when
human body fluids came in touch with the infected dead body of a rodent. In
modern times as shifts in political scenarios took place and new trade relations
were established, these remote areas became easily accessible, and the disease
did not take much time to spread to other places through the commercial routes.
The epicentre of bubonic plague was in western Yunnan (China) where there
had been a rapid influx of the Han Chinese in the 1850s as migrants, looking to
exploit the rich mineral resources in the area. Furthermore, with the start of the
highly profitable opium trade and increasing transportation facilities, the
number of migrants also exploded, and soon the disease took the form of an
epidemic and started spreading to other parts of China, killing lakhs in the
process. From there the scourge entered India via Hongkong, through infected
flea infested rodents that came riding in with the British opium merchant ships.

During the early stages of the plague, the British authorities in their attempts to
not impede the thriving global trade gave little importance to the damages
stemming from the disease, and kept all ports fully functional for commercial
activities. This eventually led to a complete disaster, as the bubonic plague soon
started spreading rapidly in India. As the situation rapidly went out of control,
the British hastily drafted the Epidemic Disease Act 1897 and put it in place.
Under the Act the state authorities had the power to do absolutely anything in
order to save the situation without any legal ramifications. At that time in Pune,
WC Rand, the then assistant commissioner of Pune, was handed the duty of
implementing of Act. Initially Rand made some genuine efforts to provide relief
by establishing quarantine camps, hospital, while also disinfecting the infected
areas. However, as the situation remained out of control, he soon decided to
adopt more brutal measures, which ripped off the dignity of many affected
families, leading to massive anger among the local people. Rand and his men
that included young doctors backed by the army and police would sometimes
publicly strip men, women, and children in order to inspect sensitive body parts
like groins and armpits for signs of the bubonic plague, and forcibly quarantine
or shift to hospitals many of the affected. Often buildings, food, clothes, and
other properties of the affected were also ruthlessly burned and destroyed
during the process of disinfection without any permission. The New York
Times reporting the plague in June 1897 had quoted a Presbyterian priest who
had said, “Two kinds of the disease, and both deadly—Natives dying by
Hundreds of Hunger—Overseers stealing the supplies.” Soon people from
colonies who were just suspected as infected were forcibly taken away to
detention centres. Such measures however didn’t help the disease to come under
control, instead they aggravated the spread, especially among the ones kept in
detention centres.
Bombay also faced the same situation as in Pune, and according to Cynthia
Deshmukh in her 1988 journal article titled The Bombay Plague (1896-1897),
many communities like the Jains, Bhatias, and the Banias living in various
chawls in the port city of Mandvi, further added to the woes by refusing to
allow the killings of rats. Additionally, majority of the Bombay people refused
to believe that they were infected and refused to go to hospitals and quarantine
camps causing a large-scale chaos. In one instance that Cynthia Deshmukh
gives in her paper is that of a Parsi family where an infected 13 year old Hindu
boy living with the family was surrounded by knife bearing 13 Parsi ladies who
refused to let go of the boy, saying they would commit suicide using the knives
if the boy was taken. The boy died the next day in the Parsi household, as
neither the police nor the health officer could convince the ladies. Hospitals
were stoned, and patients escaped while being taken to hospitals. The general
feeling among Indians was that the British was using exceptionally intrusive
measures that spelled humiliation in many instances; while it also made the
British realise how tough the political constraints were on health-related
interventions in India. There was also mass exodus from many affected areas,
which created even a greater worry of the diseases spreading far and wide.
Amidst the chaos and din the British government understood that a foreign
ruling body cannot effectively tackle the sensitive social regulations followed
by their native subjects. This led to the rise of a middle-class leadership in the
Bombay Presidency at that time, and the ones with English education tried to
mediate with the British government. Lokmanya Tilak was one such leader who
gave voice to the citizens of India during the 1896-97 plague crisis, and spoke
against the governmental highhandedness in his paper Kesari. This writing
inspired Damodar, Balkrishna, and Vasudev, the Chopekar brothers from Pune,
and the three decided to take down Rand who they felt had brought indignity
and humiliation to many families in Pune.

On 22nd June 1897 around midnight, after the Celebrations for Queen Victoria’s
Diamond Jubilee ended, as Walter Charles Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst (Rand’s
military escort) were returning from the celebrations, the three Chopekar brothers
first shot dead Ayerst and then Rand. The three brothers were later caught and
sentenced to death. After the killings of the two British officials Rand and Ayerst,
a series of trials were started where many people were held and charged with
sedition. Tilak faced 18 months of rigorous imprisonment, and it is after his
sentencing on the Rand case that Tilak had famously said “Swaraj is my
birthright, and I shall have it.” Thus, at that time India found a new national
leader in Tilak who later made many important contributions to the Indian fight
for freedom as a part of the Indian National Congress in the early 20th century.

How the plague was brought under control


As the bubonic plague continued ravaging parts of India, the British government
pressurised Waldemar Haffkine, a Russian bacteriologist, to develop a vaccine for
plague as early as possible. Haffkine continued with constant researches on the
subject, and after three months of hard work was ready for a human trial. On 10 th
January 1897 Haffkine tested the vaccine first on himself, and after that volunteers
from the Byculla jail were inoculated. The inoculated inmates survived the
epidemic, and soon the vaccine was made available to Indians. By the turn of the
century, four million people were inoculated in India, after which the bubonic
plague, though continuing in sporadic phases until around 1920, largely petered
out. The one good outcome from the disastrous handling of the plague crisis was
that these experiences were recorded and later used for laying the foundation to
India's modern public health services.
A look at the handling of the plague crisis of 1896-97 clearly shows that the
British had a poor understanding of the Indian social regulations and the Indian
mindset. It also revealed their complete lack of preparedness to tackle the
epidemic that resulted in the deaths of almost 10 million people. They initially let
the bubonic plague to spread, just so that they could keep the global trade alive,
and then took brutal measures to curb the problem after the disease had already
turned into an epidemic and had spiralled out of control. Besides these, the hastily
drafted Epidemic Disease Act 1897, which gave complete power to the local
authorities turned out to be too draconian to bring any actual relief or help to the
affected. Since the same law (without any amendments made to suit the modern
scenario) has again been brought to life, it would be interesting to see how things
pan out now. India is now an independent democratic nation, and in 2021 as we
stare at the outbreak of another possible epidemic in the form of Covid-19 virus,
one can only expect and hope that the current government has learned from
history and will avoid repeating the same errors that the British government
committed in 1896-97.
References

Cynthia Deshmukh, The Bombay Plague (1896-1897). Proceedings of the


Indian History Congress Vol. 49 (1988), pp. 478-483.

Devidas Deshpande, August 2009, How the Epidemic Act plagued Pune in
1897, Pune Mirror

Retrieved from

[Link]
plagued-pune-in-1897/articleshow/[Link]

Shantanu Nandan Sharma, March 2020, How India is fighting Coronavirus with
a colonial-era law on epidemics, The Economic times,

retrieved from:

[Link]
fighting-coronavirus-with-a-colonial-era-law-on-
epidemics/articleshow/[Link]

Common questions

Powered by AI

The plague crisis revealed the British government's shallow understanding of Indian social norms and political landscape. Their harsh measures, such as forced inspections and quarantine, were misaligned with Indian cultural practices, leading to widespread resentment and failure to control the disease . The crisis highlighted how a foreign ruling body lacked the nuance to navigate sensitive social regulations in India, demonstrated by incidents of resistance and violent actions by leaders like Tilak and the Chopekar brothers . This disconnect underscored the limitations of colonial authority in effectively governing health interventions in foreign contexts .

The intrusive nature of epidemic control measures, including public inspections and forced relocations, often violated local customs and caused public indignation. Cultural conflicts arose as authorities ignored social norms, leading to resistance and protests from communities like the Jains, Bhatias, and Banias who refused rat killings . These actions cast a light on the colonial misunderstanding of Indian social practices, resulting in resentment and further spread of the disease due to fear and mistrust of health measures .

The Epidemic Disease Act of 1897 was hastily enacted to grant broad powers to local authorities for managing the plague, resulting in draconian measures like forced quarantines and destruction of property without due process . While it facilitated immediate action, it also led to abuses and public unrest due to its excessive powers and lack of sensitivity to cultural practices . In modern times, the same Act was invoked to combat COVID-19, despite calls for its repeal or amendment to address contemporary needs, reflecting persistent challenges in balancing authoritative power and civil liberties during public health crises .

Waldemar Haffkine was instrumental in combating the bubonic plague through the development of a vaccine. Under immense pressure from the British government, he conducted rigorous research and tested the vaccine on himself before administering it to others . His swift action in developing a vaccine within three months played a crucial role in curbing the epidemic's spread, with millions inoculated by the turn of the century . Haffkine's work laid foundational practices for public health responses to epidemics in India, setting a precedent for vaccination campaigns .

Initially, the British authorities attempted basic relief measures such as establishing quarantine camps, hospitals, and disinfecting infected areas . However, as these efforts proved inadequate in controlling the outbreak, more coercive measures were adopted, including public inspections and forced quarantines, which often led to humiliation and unrest among the local population . The intrusive nature of these actions reflected a misunderstanding of the social and cultural context of India, which contributed to the widespread dissatisfaction and ultimately impeded effective disease control .

Community engagement and leadership played a pivotal role in resisting colonial measures during the bubonic plague outbreak. Leaders like Lokmanya Tilak mobilized the populace against the highhanded actions of the British, fostering a sense of unity and resistance among the affected communities . The collective defiance, such as the refusal to comply with rat killings and resistance to forced quarantines, exemplified effective community mobilization. Despite the lack of immediate control over the epidemic, this engagement laid a foundation for future nationalist movements and emphasized the role of indigenous leadership in health crises .

The plague crisis catalyzed the rise of a middle-class leadership in India, as the native population sought representation to contest the highhanded measures of the British authorities. Lokmanya Tilak emerged as a vital figure during this period, advocating for the rights of Indians against the oppressive policies of the colonial regime. His writings in 'Kesari' inspired actions against the authorities, such as the assassination of W.C. Rand by the Chopekar brothers . These events significantly contributed to the growth of nationalistic sentiments and later influenced Tilak's prominent role in the Indian independence movement .

The response to the bubonic plague, marked by inadequate and coercive measures, served as a critical learning point for the establishment of a more structured public health system in India. The failure of intrusive measures underscored the need for culturally sensitive health policies and improved preparation for dealing with infectious diseases . Documented experiences from this period informed later public health strategies, emphasizing the importance of vaccination and community engagement, which became core to modern India's public health infrastructure development .

The spread and impact of the bubonic plague in India were heavily influenced by its physical and cultural geography. The plague initially spread through major trade routes, significantly affecting regions with high population densities and trade activities, such as the Bombay Presidency . Western and northern India experienced severe outbreaks, while southern and eastern regions saw comparatively fewer cases due to lesser trade interactions . Cultural practices and resistance to colonial measures in densely populated areas further complicated containment efforts, illustrating how geography and culture intersected to shape the epidemic's course .

The introduction of the Bubonic Plague into India exemplifies the nexus between global trade routes and the spread of disease. The plague entered India through British opium trade ships from Hongkong, which carried infected rodents harboring the disease . The colonial authorities prioritized maintaining economic activities over public health, with trade still thriving at ports despite the rising epidemic, ultimately exacerbating the spread . This highlights how colonial economic policies sometimes conflicted with health imperatives, leading to disastrous public health outcomes .

You might also like