Name- Prayati Sharma
Roll no.- 404/pg.
College- Departmentof History
Semester- ii
Term paper- Disaster inHistory:Acasestudyfromthepast:1896TheBombayPlague
The Bombay citywas situated on an island lying off the Konkan coast. Itwas in 1896
when the cityfaceda devastating epidemic calledthe bubonicplague or the Bombay
plague. As surgeon major general Cleghorn the sanitary commissioner with
government of India gave the description of the conditions of native dwellings where
epidemic first broke out. The chawls as they were called ran upto seven stories, the
corridor had one water tap andtoiletwithoutmuch ventilation, theywere seen as
repository of filth1 and the mosthitregions. Bombay rose as major manufacturing city
from 1850s and produced the consequences of anyother industrial city like rapid
demographicgrowth, urban expansion and disease prevalence.
R Nathan in his book Plagues of India described that, Dr Viegas was the first-person
to detectthe firstcase of plague after which M Haffkine was sentto Bombayto make
a bacteriological enquiry. Therefore, the first public declaration of plague was made
on 23rd September 1896, the immediate cause of the plagues was predicted tohave
come from the sea as the plague in HongKong was still active andthe traffic from the
region was not keptin check 1.
This was also the time when heavy rainfall occurred in the city which flooded the
sewage andthe low-lyingareas were pollutedandthe crowed portions of the city
were further damped, the firstcase was also seen in such a region in Mandavi
quarters.2itwas an overcrowded port of the citywith poor ventilation. The people
here were opposed to the killingof rats and even startedrumours for the same.1
1 R. Nathan, ‘The Plague in India, 1896, 1897’ vol 1, SIMLA: Government centralprinting office,
(1898): 107
2 Ibid: 111
By October people startedtoflee to various cities and plague alsotravelled as
estimatedby Mr. Snow, epidemic was geographically divided into four,along
Konkan coast, from SurattoRatnagiri, along the west and centre of deccan districts,
whole of Gujarat andKutch. Worsthits regions were Thana, Kolba, Daman, Poona,
Nasik, Ahmednagar, Kathiawar, Mandavi etc.3All these areas showedthe class
contours of the plague as these were inhabitedbypoor and pettymerchants. Filth
anddirt was consideredas proponents of the plague, therefore the age oldrelation of
povertyand disease was reimaginedhere.
There were various measures adoptedin plague centres andan epidemic diseases
act was also passedwhich instructedon inspection of ships on the port, inspections
of travellers byrailway etcand segregation of the infected. The act also providedthe
same power tolocal government.1 Various actions were taken including
segregation of the infected, cleaningof slums anddestruction of filthy regions which
was metby serious opposition by the natives. Pointthatneeds tobe highlightedis the
class bias thatinformed the colonial states anti plagues policies directed atthe urban
poor. Alsothe British government was ruthless in its methods of regulation which
were forcedon the people by an alien governmentwhich took a racistturn.
Therefore, this plague of 1896 precipitatednot onlyphysical butalso a political, social
andeconomiccrises. Historians like David Arnold,I Catanach, Roy Porter, Prashant
Kidambi, Cynthia Deshmukh etchave workedon the catastrophe. They have
examined the impactof policies like compulsory hospitalization of suspectedvictims,
intrusive house visitations in search for cases andelaborate quarantine regulations
along with the assault of colonial state on bodies of Bombay poor.4
Ira Klein describes the periodbetween 1871-1921 as a "woeful crescendoof death”
in India. the bubonic plague provoked an unparalleled crisis in the history of state
medicine and the exceptional degree to which colonial state power was exercisedin
the service of medicine during the plague epidemicraised questions aboutthe
nature and purposes of Western medicine in India and about its reception among
Indians of differentclasses which actuallyshared insecurities of imperialism. The
earlyyears of the epidemic witness state medicine in uneasytransition from a
defensive preoccupation with European interestandphysical well-beingto a
broader, and as yetpoorly defined, notion of publichealth1
3 R. Nathan, ‘The Plague in India, 1896, 1897’vol1, SIMLA: Governmentcentral printingoffice,
(1898) :113, 116, 117, 119
4 [Link], Colonizingthe Body: State Medicine andEpidemic Disease in Nineteenth Century
India (New Delhi, 1993), 203
Initially the severityof the plague was ignored as the Bombaygazette conformed and
even statedthatis was rapidlybeingstampedout5,there was a delayin acceptance
of the disease because of its unfamiliarity andit was on October 1 thatgovernment
admitted the outbreak of a true bubonic plague but stressedthat itwas mild one. On 6
October officialnotification to Bombay municipal commission came under the
municipal actof 1888 for enforcementof segregation andhospitalization of
suspectedones. Municipality alsostartedthe massive cleansing of urban areas,
flushing outdrains andsewers, scoring outshops andgrain warehouses, destroying
several slum dwellings. Patients were forcibly taken tohospitals and even the dead
were examined.
However, these were hardlyhelpingas the disease alsospread to the hinterlands of
Bombay, there in 4February 1897 Lord Elgin gave further assentto a legislation for
providing better prevention of the spreadof dangerous epidemic disease which
gave governmentthe power to inspectany shipor passenger, tosegregate and
detain plague suspects, to destroyinfected property, prohibitpilgrimages etc. in
regions of Bombay, Pune, Karachi and Calcutta andIndian opinion was brushed
aside and the religious sentiments of the natives were nottaken care of.1
The colonialgovernmentadopted an interventionistapproach due to various
reasons, one of which I.J. Catanach highlighted was that British authorities felt
themselves under an international pressure as itcoulddisturb the trade patterns,
therefore stricter controls were putover the movement of sea and rail passengers.
Another reason for strict measures was toprotectthe urban control as it was being
spread in overcrowded cities which were the central nodes of colonial power in
India.6
Worth noting was that the British were notmuch affected by this plague as argues
DavidArnold which alsofacilitated for the rise of popular belief thatEuropeans were
immune of the disease andwere deliberatelyspreading the plague tokill unwanted
Indians.
In March 1897 the Municipal Commissioner Snow was replacedbya plague
committee headedbyBrigadier- General W.F. Gather tobring military efficiency
which have been a sign of threatfor the people.1
5 I. Catanach, ‘Plague andthe tensions ofempire: India, 1896–1918’, in D. Arnold, Imperial
Medicine and Indigenous Societies(Manchester, 1988): 149
6 D. Arnold, Colonizing the Body: State Medicine and Epidemic Disease in Nineteenth Century
India (New Delhi, 1993): 206, 207
Aboutthe etiology of the plague which was barely understood, rats were believed to
be the transmitters butlater itwas understood thathuman body andconditions of
human habitations and sanitations were the primary factors as stated in 1896
Gatacres committee.7 therefore, human body became the main carrier of plague.
For this reason, italso became an essentialdiagnostical source as well, the body
hence became a secular objectlike state property andwas exposedto the western
gaze as well as physical touch. This further provokedpublic resistance against
colonial masters.
Talking about the responses of Indians to the anti-plague measures and western
medicine were as follows – Bal Gangadhar tilak through his English newspaper
Mahratta in December 1896 wrote accusing the government of criminal indifference
towards plague butsoon protested againstthe plague operations in Pune to be very
interventionistin nature. This view was sharedbymany who alsoprotested over the
segregation of plague suspects thatvoicedagainstthe manner of hospitalizations
taking place of Bombay wrote “the feelingof Native community is strongly
against segregation”. 1
The westerners on the other hand claimed the hospital to be the safest place butthis
place for Indians was of pollution, contaminated by bloodand faeces, insensitive to
caste, religion and purdah, one such instance finds mention in in April 1897 by
Tilak where a brahmin survived on milk in the hospital because the foodwas served
by a Shudra.8
The plague was also seen by some as a form of divine retribution againstwhich
medicine would be useless. Further the most severe issue was the examination and
seizure of women tosegregation camps. March 1897 a Kazi spoke for many Muslims
when he demanded in anger, "How coulda husband be expected totolerate the sight
of his wife's handbeingin the hand of another man?”, this led toseveral attacks on
Bombay’s Arthur Road Infectious Disease hospital on 29 October 1896 after a
woman was taken there as a plague suspect. Segregation of women beyondthe
controlof patriarch of the family posed a challenge to their masculinity andeven a
twelve year oldgirl was preventedfrom going to the hospital. The touch bymale
doctors was seen polluting anda sexual molestation as bodilysigns of plague were
examined by touchingthe neck,thighs and armpits. 1
7 Ibid: 210
8 [Link], Colonizingthe Body: State Medicine andEpidemic Disease in Nineteenth Century
India (New Delhi,)1993: 213
With the coming of British troops to handle the research in Pune andBombay, this
further increased the manhandlingof Indians like mere beasts, the British were
popularlycalled white bulls for there actions. Further postmortem examination of
suspectedvictims was alsofiercelyopposed, alsoin Bombay overcrowded
cemeteries were restricted and the dead body was tobe wrapped in a sheetsoaked
in perchloride of lime which led togreater demonstrations. British were dismayed
because a westernized community of Parsis resortedtosuch evasions.9
Another pointof opposition was the loss of property andpossessions for the poor it
was more of loss of wages andjob.
These objections led to rise of rumours againstthe governmentwhich were often
printedin press toshow absurdity. JN Cook health officer of the city noted that, “it
was extraordinary how natives occupying a respectable position gave credence to
wildestand improbable stories”.
One such was that the real intention of the governmentwas to interfere with religion
andcaste andtoforce Christianity on the natives. Other rumours included- poisoning
by doctors, cuttingup the body toextractan essentialoil calledmomiai, another
rumour concernedover seizing, searching andlooting the Indians, then was
inoculation which couldalsocause instantons death, impotence or sterilityetc.1 one
of the reason for these rumours was also because of unfamiliarity with western
medical technology bur alongwith that italso showed the overall relation of distrust
on the mai-bap raj and the inhabitants as the suspicious also raised against the
Indian collaborators of the British.
On the other hand, British easilyexemplified these rumours toIndian apathy, fatalism,
irrationalityetc. the plague providedan opportunity for politicians to place attacks on
government and alsogave the government the excuse to strike back these leaders
like tilak. People of Bombayviolently opposed the attempts of governmentto
implement plague regulations. There were twoattacks made on Arthur Roadhospital
by Indian.10
However, all these failed to control the plague which came back in far greater scale in
October-November 1897.1 By this time government faced a dual crisis of control as
the epidemic was notextendingtoother regions like Pune as well andriots were still in
action as the leaders urged governmentto show respectfor Indian sentiments and
9 Ibid: 216, 217
10 Cynthia Deshmukh, The Bombay Plague (1896-1897): 480
customs or else there wouldbe bloodshedand stronger opposition.11 This situation
was often comparedto the 1857 rebellion situation as it was seen as a loss of religion
for both Hindus andMuslims because the broth in which the vaccine was cultivated
was derivedfrom the flesh of either cow or pigs.1 The British officials were concerned
over this fight with natives as well as the plague as itwas reachingcountryside as well.
MacDonnell commentedthat more than the discomfortof the of isolation and
segregation the oppression by police and medicalsubordinates was more resented,
therefore he urged a more cautious andconciliatory approach and compulsion
should be abandonedand people shouldbe made to feel involved indecisions
taken.12the British governmentbyrealizedthat a foreign government could notthrust
social regulations on the natives and a mediation of Indian leaders from the grass
roots was necessary.
Therefore, the regulations were alteredand patients were notshiftedto the hospital
anymore if theyhad conveniences of proper treatment. People were educated
aboutthe nature of the plague and the severity;communityhospitals were
established without infringementof social norms and tilak played a leading role here,
both Mahratta and Kesari for being consistentwith Indian self-respect. 1
The Indian plague commission provided a reportafter twoyears which stated thatthe
gradual decline came less from medical and sanitary intervention andmore from
natural limits seton its spread through zoological and ecological factors.13
From the discussed the, itis quite evident thatthis plague of 1896 hadcommunal,
caste, class and racistovertone and there were various social and political
dimensions toit rather than mere epidemiological ones.
Conclusion
The Plague of 1896 Bombay was a significanteventin Indias colonial historywhich
marked a major health crisis,havingprofoundeffects of the population, government
andthe socialpolitical andeconomicdevelopments of India. This outbreak however
exposedthe deepflaws in the British colonial administration and highlightedthe
racistattitude of the government through their harsh treatmentof natives which was
opposedto large extent. This epidemicintensified the nationalist sentiments and the
11 Ibid: 230,231
12 D. Arnold, Colonizing the Body: State Medicine and EpidemicDisease in Nineteenth Century
India (New Delhi, 1993): 232
13D. Arnold, Colonizingthe Body: State Medicine andEpidemic Disease in Nineteenth Century
India (New Delhi, 1993): 236
resentmenttowards British rule andcouldalso be seen as a contributor in the rise for
Indias struggle for independence and rise of modern nationalism.
Bibliography
D. Arnold,Colonizingthe Body:State Medicine and EpidemicDisease in
Nineteenth Century India (New Delhi, 1993).
Cynthia Deshmukh,The BombayPlague (1896-1897)
R. Nathan, ‘The Plague in India,1896, 1897’ vol 1, SIMLA: Government
centralprintingoffice,(1898)
I. Catanach, ‘Plague and the tensions of empire: India, 1896–1918’, in D.
Arnold, Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Societies (Manchester, 1988)