Public health — insights from the 1896 Bombay Plague Premium

Reflecting on the colonial response to the plague helps us understand that data should be a means to enhance health and safety rather than to reinforce existing hierarchies or curtail freedom

Understanding the interplay between public health crises, surveillance, control, and ethical governance is paramount in addressing today’s global health challenges. Historical epidemics provide valuable case studies to examine how authorities have navigated these complex dynamics. The 1896 Bombay Plague serves as a compelling example, illustrating how colonial authorities utilised mapping and policing not merely as tools for disease management but as instruments of surveillance and control. By analysing the strategies employed during this epidemic, we can glean insights that are highly relevant for modern public health policy and practice.

The Bombay Plague of 1896–97 was a catastrophic epidemic that profoundly affected colonial India. Originating in Bombay through trade networks with the Far East, the plague rapidly spread throughout the Bombay Presidency and neighbouring princely states, eventually permeating across the subcontinent. By September 1899, the epidemic had claimed over 370,000 lives, as documented by the Indian Plague Commission.

The outbreak exposed significant deficiencies in the public health infrastructure of colonial India. In response, the colonial authorities established the Indian Plague Commission in November 1898, under the chairmanship of T.R. Fraser from the University of Edinburgh. The Commission embarked on an extensive investigation, conducting over 70 sittings and examining 260 witnesses, culminating in five volumes of detailed documentation. Despite the wealth of data collected, the Commission struggled to draw definitive conclusions regarding the plague’s origins and transmission. This difficulty reflected the colonial administration’s framing of the plague less as a public health issue requiring community-based solutions and more as a matter of controlling the population and maintaining order.

A notable aspect of the Commission’s work was its utilisation of maps. Unlike the iconic spot map employed by John Snow during the 1854 cholera outbreak in London, which pinpointed the locations of affected individuals to identify patterns of disease spread, the maps produced by the Indian Plague Commission diverged significantly in purpose and design. Rather than detailing the residences of plague victims or clusters of cases, the Commission’s maps emphasised railway lines, inspection stations, quarantine zones, and police cordons.

For instance, maps such as the Railway Plague Inspection Stations Map highlighted railway networks and inspection points, focusing on monitoring movement rather than disease incidence. The Chausa Observation Camp Plan detailed the layouts of observation camps with prominent police lines, reflecting a militarised approach to quarantine. Similarly, the Khanpur Station Map showing Disinfecting Lines showcased disinfection zones and the role of police in maintaining these areas. These maps were unusually vibrant in colour for administrative reports of the time, perhaps intended to present control efforts as more effective and to obscure the epidemic’s severity. This cartographic approach shifted the focus from who was affected by the plague to where the disease could infiltrate, mirroring the colonial authorities’ framing of the epidemic as a problem of mobility and security. The emphasis on control points over cases indicated a prioritisation of state mechanisms of surveillance and control rather than epidemiological understanding and community health needs.

Policing played a central role in managing the plague, enforcing quarantine measures, monitoring population movements, and collecting plague-related data. This approach aligned with the colonial framing of the plague as an issue of maintaining order and controlling mobility. Observation camps operated by the police were established at railway stations to enforce inspections and quarantines, reflecting a militarised approach to public health.

Additionally, the Bombay Government introduced military ward orderlies in Parel hospital and municipalities, legitimising military control as an effective way of controlling the disease. Police stations served as primary nodes for collecting plague data, with local watchmen (chaukidars) reporting deaths to the police, who then relayed information up the administrative chain. This practice persists in parts of India, where police still contribute to death registration, illustrating a continuity in statecraft.