Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:11:46.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recongnizing India's Doctors: The Institutionalization of Medical Dependency, 1918–39

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Roger Jeffery
Roger Jeffery
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1975 the British General Medical Council ceased to recognize Indian medical degrees as sufficient qualification for practice as a doctor in Britain. For several years previously the G.M.C. had refused to grant automatic recognition to the degrees of the new Indian medical colleges, and this had soured relationships between the G.M.C. and its Indian counterpart, the Medical Council of India. In retaliation for the British move, the M.C.I. ceased to recognize British medical degrees, and higher qualifications from Britain awarded after 1976 would not be accepted from candidates for promotion in medical colleges and other public sector jobs. This controversy was not as novel as recent commentators have supposed. Indian medical degrees had been refused recognition once before—in 1930—and the issue of G.M.C. recongnition had been at the heart of a dispute between the Indian medical colleges and the British medical authorities which had raged from the end of the First World War to the eve of the Second.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1979 , pp. 301 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful to the U.K. Social Science Research Council for supporting the research for this paper, and to Dr Tom Barron for helpful criticism.

1 For current W.H.O. thinking, see Newell, K. E. (ed.), Health by the People (Geneva, 1975).Google ScholarPubMed On Chinese medical proposals in the 1930s see Bullock, M. H. B., The Rockefeller Foundation in China (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1973).Google Scholar On Indian parallels, see Shah, K. C., Report of the National Planning Committee, Subcommittee on Public Health (Bombay, 1948);Google ScholarHooton, J., ‘Medical Relief in Villages’, Indian Medical Gazette (1928), pp. 265–9;Google ScholarPubMedNaidu, M. G., ‘Presidential Address’, Journal of the Indian Medical Association (1933), pp. 191–204.Google Scholar

2 The material in this paragraph and the next is drawn from Crawford, D. G., A History of the Indian Medical Service, 1600–1913 (London, 1914);Google ScholarBradfield, E. C. W. (ed.), An Indian Medical Review (New Delhi, 1938);Google ScholarLeslie, C., ‘The Professionalising Ideology of Medical Revivalism’, in Singer, M. (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Modernisation of Occupational Cultures in South Asia (Durham 1973);Google Scholar and Hehir, P., The Medical Profession in India (London, 1923). Ayurvedic medicine derives from classical Sanskrit texts and is usually practised by Hindus, called vaids. Unani medicine was introduced by the Muslims, is derived from Greek medicine and is practised by hakims, normally Muslim.Google Scholar

3 Crawford, , History of the Indian Medical Service, p. 64.Google Scholar

4 See the source quoted for Table I.Google Scholar

5 Seal, A., The Emergence of Indian Nationalism (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 120–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Crawford, , History of the Indian Medical Service, p. 505.Google Scholar

7 Report of the Royal Commission on the Public Services in India (Islington Report), H.M.S.O. (Cd 8383) 1915, paras 56375 and 56428. See also India Office Records (I.O.R.), File L/MIL/7/314; and National Archives of India (N.A.I.) File in the Department of Education, Health and Lands (E.H.L.), March 1922, 1–2 A and 20–63 A.Google Scholar

8 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1922, 1–2 A and 20–63 A.Google Scholar

9 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), May 1919, 5–7 A and 107–109 A.Google Scholar

10 G.M.C., Minutes (1921), pp. 127–32; N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1922, 1–2 A and 20–63 A.Google Scholar

11 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1922, 1–2 A and 20–63 A; G.M.C., Minutes (1921), pp. 129–32. Sir Norman Walker was a senior member of the G.M.C. elected from Scotland, with no prior experience of India.Google Scholar

12 G.M.C., Minutes (1922), Appendix II.Google Scholar

13 G.M.C., Minutes (1927), Report by R. A. Needham; N.A.I. (E.H.L.), February 1925, 3–22A.Google Scholar

14 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), June 1927, 1–40 A; and February 1929, 19–42A.Google Scholar

15 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), June 1927, 1–40 A; September 1929, 123–4 B; November 1929, 66–7 B; February 1930, 336–42 B.Google Scholar

16 Seal, , The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, pp. 120–1;Google Scholar see also Hume, J. C. Jr., ‘Rival Traditions: Western Medicine and Yunan-i Tibb in the Punjab, 1849–89’, mimeo, 1976, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

17 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), January 1919, 3 & K-W Deposit; October 1921, 15–28 A; December 1925, 1–15 A.Google Scholar

18 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), September 1926, 26–31 A; September 1929, 63–101 A.Google Scholar

19 Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report, 20/3/30, Simla, 1930.Google Scholar

20 Letter reprinted in ibid., p. 2017.

21 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 43–33 H; for the attitude of the I.M.A. see in particularGoogle ScholarRay, K. S., (ed.), Some Problems of the Medical Profession in India (Calcutta, 1929), and Journal of the Indian Medical Association, 1930–33, passim; for general nationalist comment see the debate in the Legislative Assembly Debates.Google Scholar

22 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 43–22/34 H and 43–27/34 H; see also the Medical Council of India, Minutes (1934–1945), passim.Google Scholar

23 M.C.I. Minutes (1945–1946), pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

24 Quoted in Robb, P. G., The Government of India and Reform (Oxford, 1976), pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., p. 55. I have summarized Robb's discussion of the progress of reform in this and the next paragraph.

26 Ibid. See in particular pp. 106–8.

27 Seal, , The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, pp. 180–4.Google Scholar

28 Islington Report; Robb, The Government of India and Reform, pp. 56–7;Google ScholarPotter, D. C., ‘Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism’, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 7, Pt 1 (1973), pp. 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 I.O.R. L/MIL/7/249, 256, 263 and 264.Google Scholar

30 Collected in I.O.R. L/MIL/7/264.Google Scholar

31 On B.M.A. involvement, see Little, E. M., History of the British Medical Association (London, 1932); I.O.R. L/MIL/7/256 and article in B.M.J., 24/7/09. On I.M.S. recruitment, see Crawford, , History of the Indian Medical Service; B.M.J. (1921), Vol. I, p. 115; Islington Report, p. 251; and N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1923, 3–41 A.Google Scholar

32 I.O.R. L/MIL/7/342.Google Scholar

33 See B.M.J., 23 and 30/6/28.Google Scholar

34 Crawford, , History of the Indian Medical Service, p. 505; B.M.J. (1921), Vol. I, p. 115, shows 770 in the I.M.S. in 1914 with 48 Indian, or 6.25%.Google Scholar

35 Secretary of State for War, quoted in Robb, The Government of India and Reform, p. 47.Google Scholar

36 The position of the I.M.S. was discussed in the Islington Report; Report of the Committee to Examine the Question of the Reorganisation of the Medical Services in India (Venrney-Lovett Committee), H.M.S.O. (Cmd. 946), 1920; Report of the Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for India to Enquire into the Administration and Organisation of the Army in India (Esher Committee), H.M.S.O. (Cmd. 943), 1920; Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India (Lee Commission), H.M.S.O. (Cmd. 2128), 1925. See also N.A.I. (E.H.L.), August 1925, 7–29 A.Google Scholar

37 See Lloyd, George's speech in House of Commons Debate, 2/8/22; also N.A.I. (E.H.L.), February 1920, 73–118 A.Google Scholar

38 House of Commons Debate, 2/8/22.

39 I.O.R. L/MIL/7/431.Google Scholar

40 Ibid; N.A.I. (E.H.L.), July 1929, 22 Deposit; April 1932, 1–13 A; 52–96/33 H; Bradfield, An Indian Medical Review.

41 The Provincial Governments commented on the Islington Commission's Report in 1917 that ‘young European doctors of good standing will not enter the I.M.S. if within their lifetime the country will be ruled by Indians or they may have to serve under Indians’, in N.A.I. (E.H.L.), February 1920, 73–118, A; see also N.A.I. (E.H.L.), August 1925, 7–29 A, where the War Department asserts that this lay behind the problems of recruitment, and July 1929, Deposit. The Medical Adviser to the Secretary of State for India said in 1931 that potential recruits for the I.M.S. invariably asked ‘What about serving under Indians?’—see I.O.R. L/MIL/7/431.Google Scholar

42 I.O.R. L/MIL/7/263; see also Report of the Royal Commission on Decentralisation, H.M.S.O. (Cd. 4360), 1909, paras 349–84;Google ScholarHorne, E. A., The Political System of British India (Oxford, 1922), esp. p. 70.Google Scholar

43 In I.O.R. L/MIL/7/249.Google Scholar

44 Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, H.M.S.O., 1919, Vol. II (Cmd. 945), pp. 504–9.Google Scholar

45 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1923, 3–41 A.Google Scholar

46 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), January 1921, 90–4 A.Google Scholar

47 This phrase comes from the dispatch of the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India of 1916, quoted by Robb, Government of India and Reform, p. 64. Fazli-iHussain argued in 1931 that the medical departments had ‘in no sense, really transferred’ because they were forced to accept I.M.S. men, but this is clearly an exaggeration: see N.A.I. (E.H.L.), April 1932, 1–13 A.Google Scholar

48 Quoted in Robb, Government of India and Reform, p. 307, footnote 87.Google Scholar

49 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1922, 1–2 A and 20–63 A. The quote is from a note by W. R. Edwards.Google Scholar

50 Ibid.

51 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), August 1921, 1–7 A.Google Scholar

52 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), August 1928, 1–23 A.Google Scholar

53 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), February 1929, 19–42 A.Google Scholar

54 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), August 1928, 1–23 A.Google Scholar

55 I.O.B. L/MIL/7/431.Google Scholar

56 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 58–2/34 H.Google Scholar

57 See the general discussion in Tomlinson, B. R., The Indian National Congress and the Raj 1929–42 (London, 1976), esp. p. 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 See Note 36 above; also the discussion on the effects of the 1935 Government of India Act in N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 7–1/35H.Google Scholar

59 Gilbert, I. A., ‘The Organisation of the Academic Profession in India: the Indian Educational Service 1864–1924’, in S. I. and Rudolph, L. H. (eds), Education and Politics in India (New Delhi, 1972).Google Scholar

60 Jeffery, R., ‘Allopathic Medicine in India: A Case of Deprofessionalisation?’, forthcoming in Social Science and Medicine.Google Scholar

61 Ibid.

62 Madras Government, in N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 43/33 H.Google Scholar

63 Malaviya, Pandit Madan Mohan, Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Record 25/9/29 p. 1521. See also the Secretary of State for India, in the letter quoted in note 52 above: he saw ‘the cardinal importance to India as a whole of maintaining at the highest possible level the standard of medical education in the country’. This theme is a constant refrain in the notes made by the Director-General of the I.M.S. throughout this period.Google Scholar

64 Proceedings of the Conference on Medical School Education,New Delhi,7th and 8th November 1838 (New Delhi, 1939).Google Scholar

65 Ibid.

66 Journal of the Indian Medical Association (1931–1932), pp. 361–5 reprints a resolution from the 8th All-India Medical Conference in favour of raising the standard of licentiate education. See also N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 43/33 H.Google Scholar

67 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), March 1922, 1–2 A and 20–63 A.Google Scholar

68 Ibid. This argument was produced by Sharp, Secretary to the Department.

69 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), September 1929, 63–101 A.Google Scholar

70 Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Record, 20/3/30, pp. 2013–19.Google Scholar

71 Seal, , The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, pp. 120–1; I.O.R. L/MIL/7/249.Google Scholar

72 Census of India, 1931, Vol. I, Pt 1, ‘Report’ p. 337;Google ScholarReport of the Unemployment Committee, United Provinces (Allahabad, 1936); Indian Medical Gazette (1937), quoted in N.A.I. (E.H.L.), 57–3/37 H.Google Scholar

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 See note 64 above.Google Scholar

76 Ibid.

77 Hardinge laid the stone for the Delhi College, against the advice of Sir Pardey Lukis, and opened the college in 1916: see N.A.I. (E.H.L.), July 1919, 26–51 A.

78 N.A.I. (E.H.L.), September 1926, 26–31 A: this comment was made by the Inspector-General of Civil Hospitals for C.P. Similar replies came in 1917 to a request for opinions: see N.A.I. (E.H.L.), July 1919, 26–51 A.

79 See in Ray, , Problems of the Medical Profession in India, and Roy, B. C., Towards a Prosperous India (Calcutta, 1964).Google Scholar

80 Prominent nationalists were split on the issue: Nehru, for example, was never convinced of the value of indigenous systems.

81 Shah, , Report of the National Planning Committee.Google Scholar

82 Jeffery, ‘Allopathic Medicine in India’. See also Brass, P., ‘The politics of Ayurvedic Education’, in Rudolph, (eds), Education and Politics in India.Google Scholar

83 , N. and Parry, J., The Rise of the Medical Profession (London, 1976), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

84 Notes attached to draft Bill, printed in the Indian Medical Gazette (1932), pp. 32–8.Google Scholar

85 Figures derived from the Medical Register (relevant years). It is not possible to say how many Indians additionally registered themselves on the basis of British qualifications.

86 Jeffery, R., ‘Medical Migration from India’, Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay), 27/3/76.Google Scholar

87 Roy, , Towards a Prosperous India.Google Scholar

88 B.M.J. 21/11/31.Google Scholar

89 See G.M.C., Minutes, 1907, Appendix III, which refers to the original report calling for improvements, in 1906; Ibid, 1920, including a report by Sir Francis Champneys, admitting that ‘several’ schools were still unable to comply with the new regulations at all. The G.M.C. merely expressed the hope that when the difficulties were overcome, the recommendations should be carried out.

90 See, for example, the retrospective recognition of colleges in 1936.Google Scholar

91 Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Record, 14/2/33, pp. 661–2.Google Scholar

92 Newell, , Health by the People.Google Scholar

93 See footnote I above.Google Scholar

94 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Regulation of the Medical Profession (Merrison Report), H.M.S.O. (Cmnd. 6018).Google Scholar

95 Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 24/5/75 and 19 and 21/3/74.Google Scholar

96 Hindustan Times, New Delhi, and Statesman, New Delhi, 26/5/75.Google Scholar

97 In spite of the M.C.I. being involved in these decisions, the dominant role of the Government is clear.