Between the Bazaar and the Bench: Making of the Drugs Trade in Colonial India, ca. 1900–1930

32 Pages·2012·0.68 MB·English

Between the Bazaar and the Bench: Making of the Drugs Trade
in Colonial India, ca. 1900–1930
Nandini Bhattacharya
Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Volume 90, Number 1, Spring 2016,
pp. 61-91 (Article)
Published by Johns Hopkins University Press
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/bhm.2016.0017
For additional information about this article
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/613420
Access provided at 2 Jan 2023 00:43 GMT with no institutional affiliation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Between the Bazaar and the Bench:
Making of the Drugs Trade in Colonial
India, ca. 1900–1930
nandini bhattacharya
Summary: This article analyzes why adulteration became a key trope of the Indian
drug market. Adulteration had a pervasive presence, being present in medical
discourses, public opinion and debate, and the nationalist claim for government
intervention. The article first situates the roots of adulteration in the composite
nature of this market, which involved the availability of drugs of different poten-
cies as well as the presence of multiple layers of manufacturers, agents, and dis-
tributors. It then shows that such a market witnessed the availability of drugs of
diverse potency and strengths, which were understood as elements of adulteration
in contemporary medical and official discourse. Although contemporary critics
argued that the lack of government legislation and control allowed adulteration
to sustain itself, this article establishes that the culture of the dispensation of drugs
in India necessarily involved a multitude of manufacturer–retailers, bazaar trad-
ers, and medical professionals practicing a range of therapies.
Keywords: drugs trade, Ayurveda, bazaar medicine, adulteration, colonial India,
medical market, Drugs Enquiry Committee, indigenous drugs
At the turn of the nineteenth century colonial India was awash with pat-
ent and proprietary medicines, tinctures, tonics, powders, and tabloids
of every description. Many were imported from Great Britain or the
United States; a substantial number also arrived from Germany, France,
Italy, and the fast-industrializing Japan. These were sold by British Indian
agents in India, who also traded in compounds and galenicals that they
manufactured themselves. They competed with Indian druggists, who
were large-scale importers and also did extensive business with fledgling
Indian firms in the early twentieth century. Therapeutic and cosmetic
I wish to thank the Wellcome Trust, which funded the research for this article. I am
grateful to the staff of the APAC, British Library, Wellcome Library, Baroda Record Office
Vadodara, and National Library, Calcutta, for all their help in the course of my research.
61 Bull. Hist. Med., 2016, 90 : 61–91
62 nandini bhattacharya
products of varying standards and efficacy were sold directly to consum-
ers by small merchants, itinerant traders, and Ayurvedic and Hakimi
practitioners as well.
This article argues that the prevailing distinctions drawn between
indigenous and Western drugs in colonial India are misleading. These
distinctions are premised on an understanding of cultural nationalism.
They do not take into account the heterogeneous nature of the trade,
manufacture, and consumption patterns in the market. An understand-
ing of this composite nature of the drug market provides a unique entry
point to the question of adulteration of drugs within that market. The
heterogeneity of the market did not only involve the availability and diver-
sity of drugs or the multiple layers of agents and distributors involved in
that trade, although these were characteristic of that market. This market
witnessed the availability of drugs of diverse potency and strengths, some-
times one single drug sold in several degrees of potency. This was as true
of Ayurvedic and Hakimi medicines as of Western therapeutic products.
For the latter, there was always British Pharmacopeia (BP) as the standard
of reference, but neither the importers not local manufacturers were
restricted by its recommendations. This diversity of drugs and potencies
was defined within contemporary medical, official, and public discourse
as “adulteration.” This article proposes adulteration as the key trope of
the colonial Indian drug market.
Adulteration of drugs in this market has been almost entirely ignored
by historians, except with reference to the distribution of quinine. Patricia
Barton has pointed out that the colonial government’s efforts to distribute
cheap packets of quinine throughout India failed due to flaws in distribu-
tion and the common adulteration prevalent in the use of cinchona and
its alkaloids in India.1 While Barton has made an important contribution
to the history of adulteration of drugs, her perspective is limited to qui-
nine. The problems of adulteration in quinine (or cinchona) cannot be
seen in isolation to the entirety of the political and cultural complexities
that defined the drug market in colonial India. This article explores the
story of heterogeneity and adulteration in the emergent Indian drug
market. It argues that the discourse of adulteration in drug production
and marketing in India was informed by uniquely Indian realities, such
as the share of the indigenous drugs in the market, economic national-
ism (swadeshi), the elusive allure of import substitution, and a plurality of
medical traditions and practices. The problem of adulteration of drugs in
India is wider than that of a lack of government regulation. This article
1. Patricia Barton, “‘The Great Quinine Fraud’: Legality Issues in the ‘Non-Narcotic’
Drug Trade in British India,” Soc. Hist. Alcohol Drugs 22, no. 1 (2007): 6–25.
Between the Bazaar and the Bench 63
explains how the drug market in colonial India was formed and why it
remained largely uncontrolled in spite of state or nationalist intervention.
Historians of medicine have examined the histories of the pharmaceuti-
cal industries in Europe and North America, focusing on industrialization,
collaborations between the industry and medical schools, and new market-
ing strategies in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.2 These stud-
ies have emphasized that organization, often into cartels (in the United
Kingdom), and marketing strategies helped British drug companies to
expand in the late nineteenth century, while the German industry largely
depended on research and the production of new patents. In the United
States, collaborations between universities and corporations helped in
the manufacture of new drugs.3
Although scholarship in Indian history of medicine has explored how
colonialism changed institutions and praxis of medicine in India, there
is relatively scant attention to a history of the production and the delivery
of drugs. Recent histories on drugs in India have focused on Ayurvedic
and Unani therapy: their marketing, standardization, and tangled rela-
tionship with the British Indian medical establishment and with Indian
nationalism. These narratives of the “modernization” and nationalization
of indigenous drugs focus on the cultural nationalism, specifically in sci-
ence and medicine through an interaction of their practitioners with
several strands of Indian nationalist activity. This provided the political
context of the consolidation of the corporate identities of Ayurvedic and
Unani practitioners and informed new marketing strategies, transforming
traditional drugs into modern Ayurveda or Unani therapeutics. Ayurvedas
and Hakims used the print media in major Indian languages of Punjabi,
Hindi, and Urdu to sustain the discourse of the Indian body, with nation-
alist political movements in order to build the edifice for a legitimate,
2. R. P. T. Davenport-Hines and J. Slinn, Glaxo: A History to 1962 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992); Jonathan Liebenau, Medical Science and Medical Industry: The Formation
of the American Pharmaceutical Industry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); V.
Quirke, Collaboration in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Changing Relationships in Britain and France,
1935–1965 (New York: Routledge, 2008); Michael Robson, “The French Pharmaceutical
Industry, 1919–1939,” in Pill Peddlers: Essays on the History of the Pharmaceutical Industry, ed.
Gregory J. Higby, Elaine Stroud, and Jonathan Liebenau (Madison: American Institute of
the History of Pharmacy, 1990), 107–21; Roy Church and E. M. Tansey, Burroughs, Wellcome
& Co.: Knowledge, Trust, Profit and the Transformation of the British Pharmaceutical Industry,
1880–1940 (Lancaster: Crucible, 2007).
3. Judy Slinn, “Research and Development in the UK Pharmaceutical Industry from
the Nineteenth Century to the 1960s,” in Drugs and Narcotics in History, ed. Roy Porter and
Mikuláš Teich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 168–86.
64 nandini bhattacharya
collective identity for themselves.4 The construction of this indigenous
collective was not seamless; as Kavita Sivaramakrishnan has pointed out,
the Punjabi vaids resisted the Hindi-dominated discourse that validated
Hindu nationalism and instead opted to appropriate “indigenous” sci-
ence in Punjabi language and a Sikh solidarity.5 In the Unani tradition,
as Seema Alavi has argued, the discourse of authentic Unani practitioners
in the Urdu public sphere occurred in counterpoint to the rise of the self-
qualified hakim and the dissemination of Unani knowledge as well as its
consolidation in print and practice in north India.6 In the princely court
of Hyderabad, the practice of Unani bypassed the contentious debates
between the reformers and traditional Unani practice was absorbed into
an institutionalized hospital system.7
Rachel Berger has claimed that the Indigenous Drugs Committee, insti-
tuted by the government of India, privileged a few useful Indian drugs,
but not the knowledge system of Ayurvedic medicine, which instead “pre-
sented medically useful components of Indian agriculture as something
that Europeans had stumbled upon, of which Indians had been unaware.”8
This is inaccurate; on the contrary, BP incorporated fifty-odd Indian drugs
in its colonial addendum as early as in 1899.9 Instead, it is possible to argue
that while Ayurvedic drugs were incorporated within BP, their usage by
Western practitioners was tolerated within limits; the “bazaar medicines,”
drugs from the local markets, were regularly used even in hospitals and
dispensaries in British India and were “in every way efficient substitutes
for the better known drugs of BP.”10 Projit Mukharji has shown that both
4. See Kavita Sivaramakrishnan, Old Potions, New Bottles: Recasting Indigenous Medicine in
Colonial Punjab, 1850–1945 (Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2006); Madhuri Sharma, Indig-
enous and Western Medicine in Colonial India (New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2012); See also
Charles Leslie, “The Ambiguities of Medical Revivalism in Modern India,” in Asian Medical
Systems: A Comparative Study, ed. Charles Leslie (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1976), 356–67.
5. Sivaramakrishnan, Old Potions, New Bottles (n. 4), 13.
6. Seema Alavi, “Unani Medicine in the Nineteenth Century Public Sphere: Urdu Texts
and the Oudh Akhbar,” Indian Econ. Soc. Hist. Rev. 42 (2005): 101–29.
7. Guy Attewell, Refiguring Unani Tibb: Plural Healing in Late Colonial India (New Delhi:
Orient Longman, 2007).
8. Rachel Berger, “Ayurveda and the Making of the Urban Middle Class in North India,
1900–1945,” in Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms, ed. Dagmar Wujastyk
and Frederick M. Smith (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 101–15.
9. GOI Medical, “GMC: A Report from the Pharmaceutical Committee on the Proposed
Indian and Colonial Addendum to the BP of 1898” (March 1899), Asia, Pacific and Africa
Collections, British Library (henceforth APAC), IOR/P/5645, 373–97.
10. “The Indian and Colonial Addendum to the British Pharmacopeia,” Indian Med.
Gazette 36 (1901): 62–63.
Between the Bazaar and the Bench 65
Ayurveda and Hakimi in colonial India consolidated themselves through
exclusions of subaltern knowledge and practice, and by borrowing the dis-
course of Western, scientific modernity.11 In a broader context, Mukharji
has argued for the “vernacularization” and “provincialization” of Western
medicine especially in Bengal as Bengali medical print in the nineteenth
century was adapted to local medical vocabulary and praxis.12
Prior researchers have focused on Indian practitioners and the mod-
ernizing of indigenous drugs centered on the trope of indigenous medi-
cal cultures in consonance with Indian nationalism in various forms.
Sivaramakrishnan, Berger, and Madhuri Sharma have specifically dem-
onstrated that indigenous medical theory and praxis, particularly that of
Ayurveda, were constructed through the public sphere in Punjabi and
Hindi in northern India.13 They have demonstrated, valuably, the work-
ings of medical science at the sites of Indian culture and politics and its
interactions with Western medicine and colonial modernity. Their schol-
arship has provided a counterfoil to the focus by historians on the loss of
institutional support and legitimacy of the indigenous medical systems
in British India.14
To move from discourse to praxis, international trade in drugs and
therapeutic products had burgeoned in the eighteenth century, commen-
surably with the volume of trade itself. With the isolation of the “active
principles” of drugs from their raw materials, the potency of drugs for
sale increased as well.15 As Guy Attewell has demonstrated, drugs traveled
and were easily assimilated within different cultural traditions in the age
of commerce, making them heterogeneous.16 Indeed, as anthropologists
11. Projit Bihari Mukharji, “Pharmacology, ‘Indigenous Knowledge,’ Nationalism: A Few
Words from the Epitaph of Subaltern Science,” in The Social History of Health and Medicine in
Colonial India, ed. Biswamoy Pati and Mark Harrison (London: Routledge, 2009), 195–212.
12. Projit Bihari Mukharji, Nationalizing the Body: The Medical Market, Print and Daktari
Medicine (London: Anthem Press, 2011), esp. 75–110.
13. Sharma, Indigenous and Western Medicine (n. 4), 120–39.
14. Deepak Kumar, “Unequal Contenders, Uneven Ground: Medical Encounters in
British India, 1820–1920,” in Western Medicine as Contested Knowledge, ed. Andrew Cunning-
ham and Birdie Andrews (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 172–90; Neshat
Qaiser, “Politics, Culture and Colonialism: Unani’s Debate with Doctory,” in Health, Medicine
and Empire: Perspectives on Colonial India, ed. Biswamoy Pati and Mark Harrison (London:
Sangam Books, 2001), 317–55.
15. Pratik Chakrabarti, “Empire and Alternatives: Swietenia febrifuga and the Cinchona
Substitutes,” Med. Hist. 54, no. 1 (2010): 75–94.
16. Guy Attewell, “Interweaving Substance Trajectories: Tiryaq, Circulation and Therapeu-
tic Transformation in the Nineteenth Century,” in Crossing Colonial Historiographies: Histories
of Colonial and Indigenous Medicines in Transnational Perspective, ed. Anne Digby, Waltraud
Ernst, and Projit B. Mukharji (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2010), 1–20.
66 nandini bhattacharya
have pointed out, even in the contemporary age of the dominance of
biomedicine, medicines and therapeutic substances used by medical
practitioners have remained heterogeneous, borrowed from several exist-
ing medical traditions.17 Discussions on indigenous or Indian medicine
have therefore focused on the epistemic and discursive trajectories, with
emphasis on cultural aspects of medicine, but have ignored the struc-
ture of the market itself. This essay asks some questions: Did nationalist
and institutional consolidations change the content of medicines and
therapeutic substances sold in colonial India? How were they distributed
and marketed? Was the widespread adulteration of the market the con-
sequence of its heterogeneity? To what extent did the involvement of
government-sponsored medical establishments that bought therapeutic
products from the market influence the drug market?
The drugs and therapeutics trade in India was a complex one and
occurred at multiple levels. These processes of production, marketing
and dispensing of Indian drugs were conducted in an intensely com-
petitive, dynamic, and diverse market. The polarities of indigenous and
Western therapeutic products were a construct of this market. The terms
“Western” and “Indian,” “Ayurveda” and “Allopathy,” “Unani” and “Doc-
tory,” and “swadeshi” and “foreign” had deep political resonance, but
these dialectics hardly represented the totality of the drug market and
were reflective, often, of marketing strategies. Instead, the production
and consumption of drugs and other therapeutic products in the late
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century India were ideologically flexible
and commercially vibrant. An international, heterogeneous therapeutic
culture placed India within this trade; and this transnational commerce
encompassed and included regional therapeutic vernaculars, both in
medical print and therapeutic products. This market was made mostly in
Indian cities. And although the fear of adulteration was pervasive, it was
not a construct of the heterogeneity of the market but an inalienable part
of the making of the market itself.
The Making of the Indian Drugs Trade
The drug market was formed through the interplay of three institutions:
the colonial state, the emergence of the Indian middle class, and the drugs
trade. These defined the heterogeneity of the market and led to various
degrees of adulteration in the drug market.
17. Susan Reynolds Whyte, Sjaak Van Der Geest, and Anita Hardon, Social Lives of Medi-
cines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 3–19, 79–103.
Between the Bazaar and the Bench 67
The principal cities in colonial India were populated by a large middle
class by the second half of the nineteenth century. These included the
Presidency capitals of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras as well as large pro-
vincial towns such as Delhi, Benares, Allahabad, Lahore, Patna, Banga-
lore, Poona, and Ahmedabad and the hill stations where most of British
Indian officialdom lived and worked for more than half the year—Simla,
Darjeeling, and Ootacamund. A lively urban culture developed here; the
cities and towns of British India were the locations of the successes of the
colonial economy and polity, of populations of British, Anglo-Indian, and
educated Indians as well as migrant laborers, traders, and small and large
manufacturers. Many Indians benefited from the colonial experiments in
institution building; universities and colleges, medical schools, hospitals,
municipal government and local politics, and a print culture all originated
and took root in the colonial cities; these in turn informed the emergent
public sphere in urban colonial India.
As historians have pointed out, although the making of a modern
middle class in India was a fragmented and ambivalent process, a middle-
class identity was nonetheless self-fashioned through a pursuit, in many
forms, of modernity.18 This was a conflictual and often contradictory pro-
cess, involving new and older ideas of social relationships in the emergent
middle-class worldview, a process that can be discerned from the late nine-
teenth century onward.19 The content of this modernity was also imbued
with a deep engagement with modern science as well as ancient Indian
epistemology, including medicine.20 Therefore, embedded as their con-
sumption became in middle-class (however ambivalently self-conscious)
households, therapeutic products assumed both political and commercial
overtones; it straddled both the modern and “scientific” as well as the
supposedly ancient and long-validated epistemologies and commodities.
The middle classes’ own engagement with modernity was imbued with
a reconstruction of the idea of antiquity and ancient tradition. While
the Indian middle class had emerged from the early nineteenth-century
18. Douglas E. Haynes and Abigail McGowan, “Introduction,” in Towards a History of
Consumption in South Asia, ed. Douglas E. Haynes, Abigail McGowan, Tirthankar Roy, and
Haruka Yanagisawa (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1–25.
19. Sanjay Joshi, “Introduction,” in Fractured Modernity: Making of a Middle Class in Colonial
North India, ed. Sanjay Joshi (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1–22.
20. For the Indian fascination with modern science and technology, see Pratik Chakrab-
arti, Western Science in Modern India: Metropolitan Methods, Colonial Practices (Delhi: Permanent
Black, 2004); Shiv Visvanathan, A Carnival for Science: Essays on Science Technology and Develop-
ment (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997); David Arnold, Everyday Technology: Machines and
the Making of India’s Modernity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
68 nandini bhattacharya
colonial establishments, the drug market in turn had developed from
eighteenth-century encounters between the commerce of the East India
Company (EIC) and indigenous trade. The drug market and middle-class
engagement with medicine (political and therapeutic) were mutually
constitutive. The two had distinctive roots.
In eighteenth-century India, both Western and indigenous medicines
depended on herbs and their extracts, minerals, and animal matter. The
EIC surgeons depended greatly on the local markets; their medical items,
commonly known as “bazaar medicines,” included hundreds of botani-
cal and mineral products locally available from indigenous drug sellers
who were also spice merchants.21 Throughout the eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, bazaar medicines constituted a significant although
declining proportion of the EIC’s total expenditures on therapeutics.
Later, these supplemented the total quantity of drugs used by government
medical institutions. The trade in therapeutic products was differentiated
according to both scale and production; at one end were the “European”
drug houses that catered to the British Indian community and to the aris-
tocratic and the affluent, at the other were the drug sellers in local bazaars
who sold drugs as well as locally made generic medicines. Within this wide
spectrum were the importers, traders, and manufacturers of indigenous
and allopathic remedies and retailers and distributors who participated in
the vast subcontinental drug market. The difference between indigenous
drugs and Western ones occurred mostly in the processing stage.
In the nineteenth century, the hospitals and charitable dispensaries
that were supported by the colonial state predominantly used drugs pro-
cured from England. At this time, Britain imported a huge amount of bulk
drugs from India; these were then processed and re-exported at much
higher prices. A large proportion of drugs were bought by the Indian
army in India for the use of its troops in their hospitals. The army also
extensively purchased from abroad all kinds of pharmaceutical prepara-
tions and proprietary medicines. Since the expansion of the hospital sys-
tem in colonial India was first undertaken and then overseen by military
administration, the supply of medicines to them was undertaken by the
medical department of the government.22 Therefore the government was
the biggest purchaser of medicines at the turn of the century. The Medi-
cal Store Depots (MSDs), located at Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Lahore,
and Rangoon, also purchased drugs and chemicals in the bazaars and
21. Mark Harrison, Medicine in an Age of Commerce and Empire: Britain and Its Tropical Colo-
nies, 1660–1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 22.
22. India Office, “Report of the Committee on the Supply of Drugs for India” (1875),
APAC, IOR/L/MIL/7/15141.
Between the Bazaar and the Bench 69
processed them in their own factories. The government was both manu-
facturer as well as supplier of medicine to the government-aided hospitals
and dispensaries. Although it processed some local drugs in its factories,
in the late nineteenth century the MSDs preferred to patronize firms
from England. Large manufacturing firms in England had their agents in
Bombay or Calcutta who negotiated contracts with government on their
behalf.23 Until decolonization (except in the years of the two wars), the
bulk of the purchases by MSDs were from Britain. This was the cause of
great resentment on the part of Indian manufacturers and importers.24
This pressure assumed political proportions when nationalist Indians
joined the Indian manufacturers in pressuring the MSDs to purchase
Indian (India-manufactured Western and indigenous drug) products.25
The Heterogeneous Marketplace
The private market flourished outside of government-aided institutions.
In the early twentieth century, urban areas in British India became the
sites of competition for the distribution and sale of numerous medicines
imported from Britain, Germany, the United States, and even Japan.
This also facilitated the entry and presence of several pharmaceutical
multinational companies (MNCs), and the Indian market became a
lucrative area for foreign companies. Some of the companies involved
in exporting pharmaceutical products to India included Wellcome Bur-
roughs (UK), Burgoyne and Burbidges (UK), Parke, Davis and Company,
(United States), Merck (Germany), and Bayer (Germany). The consumer
market in pharmaceutical products refers not only to drugs, but also to
aerated water, hair oil, creams and ointments, toothpaste, aphrodisiacs,
and innumerable tonics. The drugs included patented medicines as well
as generic cholera pills, “fever pills,” “stomach pills,” and aphrodisiacs.
The identification of diabetes as a widespread condition among middle-
class Hindu men also raised the specter of “performative degeneration”
23. “Medical Supplies to Local and Municipal Boards,” Indian Med. Rec. (henceforth
IMR) 6 (1894): 148.
24. For instance, see representations from Smith, Stanistreet and Company and the
Union Drug Company to the Drugs Enquiry Committee in 1930, “Report of the Drugs
Enquiry Committee” (Calcutta, 1931), 131.
25. Complaints from Indian manufacturers that the government stores department
refused to patronize their products, not only medicine but also steel and machine tools,
were continually propagated by the nationalist Indian Merchants Chamber in the interwar
years. See chairman’s address, “Annual Report of the Indian Merchants Chamber, 1922–23”
(Bombay, 1923), 49.