🎭 Colonial erasure of Indian medical scholars and systems

🎭 Colonial Tricks Used to Erase and Mislead About Indian Medical Science and Homeopathy

---

1. 🧹 Epistemic Invalidation: Labeling Indigenous Knowledge as “Unscientific”

Strategy:

Colonial authorities dismissed Ayurveda, Siddha, and Indianized homeopathy as superstition, mysticism, or folklore, positioning Western biomedicine as the only legitimate science.

Example:

• British doctors and colonial bureaucrats in India often referred to Indian systems as “native quackery” in official medical reports.

• Even though homeopathy thrived in Bengal under Indian physicians, it was recognized in Britain but not officially supported in India.

📚 Naraindas, H. (2014). “Nosopolitics.”
📚 Bhattacharya, J. (2014). “Genesis of Hospital Medicine in India.”

---

2. 🏛️ Monopolization of Medical Education and Licensing

Strategy:

• Colonial medical colleges (e.g., Calcutta Medical College) taught only Western medicine.

• Indian systems and even homeopathy were excluded from curricula, and practitioners were denied formal recognition, thus delegitimizing them.

Example:

• Mahendralal Sarkar, a homeopathic doctor, was denied key roles in medical councils due to his non-Western training.

📚 Das, S. (2019). “Vernacular Medicine in Colonial India.”

---

3. 📝 Misattribution and Repackaging of Indigenous Knowledge

Strategy:

Knowledge from Indian traditions was often:

• Extracted, translated, and attributed to European scholars.

• Stripped of cultural context and rebranded under a Western label (e.g., “homeopathy as German science”).

Example:

• Herbal compounding techniques, dosage scaling, and theory of similars found in Ayurveda were overlooked in historical accounts of homeopathy.

• British and German scientists studying Indian materia medica rarely credited Indian sources.

📚 Minhas, T. (2020). “Global History and Indian Science.”
📚 Winterbottom, A. (2021). “Neem and Biopiracy.”

---

4. 📚 Colonial Control Over Publishing and Archival Systems

Strategy:

• Colonial presses prioritized English-language and European-authored texts.

• Indian manuscripts and works (in Sanskrit, Persian, Bengali, Tamil) were either destroyed, untranslated, or archived without cataloging.

Example:

• The writings of Indian homeopaths like L. M. Chattopadhyay were rarely published internationally.

• Colonial censors often rejected translations of Indian medical treatises on the basis of “lack of evidence.”

📚 Reddy, S. (2006). “Who Owns Traditional Medical Knowledge?”

---

5. 🧠 Knowledge Distancing via the “Discovery Narrative”

Strategy:

• European historians promoted a “discovery” myth — i.e., that Europe invented scientific systems that had existed in India for centuries.

• Any similarities between Ayurveda and homeopathy were presented as coincidental or derivative, not as mutual influence.

Example:

• Samuel Hahnemann is hailed as the father of homeopathy, but no discussion is made about ancient Indian concepts like “similia similibus curantur.”

📚 Gaudillière, J.P. (2014). “Biocapital and Reformulated Ayurveda.”

---

6. 🧬 Medical Segregation and Ghettoization

Strategy:

• Indian systems were confined to “native dispensaries”, while European medicine was reserved for urban hospitals and military establishments.

• This created a class and racial hierarchy in medicine.

Example:

• Homeopathy was popular among rural and lower-middle-class Indians but was excluded from elite medical institutions.

📚 Lambert, H. (2018). “Therapeutic Hierarchies in India.”

---

7. 🧾 Licensing Barriers and Legal Marginalization

Strategy:

• Indian homeopaths were often unlicensed and penalized for practicing medicine.

• Meanwhile, European-trained doctors, regardless of efficacy, were protected by law.

Example:

• Bengal Medical Registration Act (1914) recognized only allopaths; homeopaths had to create parallel institutions like the Bengal Homeopathic Medical College.

📚 Das, S. (2012). “Homoeopathic Families.”

---

8. 🕊️ Divide-and-Rule Among Indian Medical Systems

Strategy:

• British policies pitted Ayurveda, Unani, and Homeopathy practitioners against each other, weakening collective resistance.

• Funding and recognition were selectively given to co-opt compliant practitioners.

📚 Langford, J.M. (1998). “Fluent Bodies.”

---

9. 🧬 Biopiracy and Patents

Strategy:

• Indian formulations were patented by European firms under different names, blocking Indian exports and access.

• Colonials used intellectual property law to erase Indian ownership.

Example:

• Many Indian herbs used in homeopathy (like Neem, Nux vomica, Bryonia) were repackaged and patented abroad.

📚 Winterbottom, A. (2021). “Biopiracy Discourse.”

---

10. 👩‍⚕️ Cultural Denigration and Mockery

Strategy:

• Indian systems were ridiculed in British journals, paintings, and newspapers.

• Indian practitioners were called “barbers,” “bonesetters,” or “witch doctors” in colonial discourse.

📚 Pinto, S. (2022). “Hysteria: A South Asian History of Global Medicine.”

---

🔥 Indian Resistance and Reclamation

Despite these erasures, Indian doctors, nationalists, and freedom fighters fought back:

• Mahendralal Sarkar founded the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), blending Indian and European science.

• Homeopathy was adopted by Gandhi, who called it “the most refined method of healing.”

• Lalit Mohan Chattopadhyay created Bengali-language texts on psycho-homeopathy.

• Post-independence, India institutionalized AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathy).

---

🧭 Conclusion

The colonial erasure of Indian contributions to homeopathy and medical science was multi-pronged, involving:

• Ideological suppression

• Legal constraints

• Historical revisionism

• Cultural mockery

But history, once buried, can be uncovered through critical scholarship. Modern academic works have begun to decolonize medicine, recognizing Indian systems not just as tradition—but as part of the global evolution of scientific knowledge.