The Epidemic Diseases Act (1897): A study of international and domestic pressures on British epidemic policy formation in India

International and domestic pressures leading to the adoption of the EDA

The onset of the plague in Hong Kong in 1894 and then its transmission via steamships to Bombay created panic among European countries.³³ On 3 October 1896, the British Medical Journal announced the arrival of plague in Bombay and commented that:

From a commercial point of view it is even more grievous than the recent outbreak in Hong Kong. Although Bombay in its harbour tonnage returns does not show much more than one third amount of Hong Kong, still the city is so central that whether seaward or landward the possibilities of spread are enormous.^34(p966)

To safeguard commercial interests and ports from the plague infection, governments across the globe started instituting quarantine measures against Bombay Port in 1896. On 8 October 1896, quarantine was imposed at Bussorah (present day Basra) for 21 days against arrivals from Bombay Port.³⁵ The authorities at Constantinople also imposed a quarantine of 10 days against arrivals from Bombay on 16 October 1896.³⁶ France declared quarantine for 7 days against arrivals from Bombay and later also prohibited the importation of rags, old clothes, bedding and raw hides.¹⁹ Malta imposed 20 days of quarantine on arrivals from India. Cyprus, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco also imposed similar quarantine measures.¹⁹ The colonial government was under immense pressure to employ stringent preventive measures and enact laws and regulations to stop the transmission of plague via Bombay Port and other Indian ports to European ports and their colonies.

The precautionary measures used by several countries revolved around the regulations devised at the International Sanitary Conference held in Venice (1892) and Dresden (1893). According to the Venice Sanitary Convention, the ships were classified into three categories: healthy, suspected and infected. Healthy ships referred to those ships that had recorded no cases of plague during the time of departure or during the voyage after leaving an infected port. Suspected ships recorded cases of plague but no fresh cases were recorded within 9 days. Infected ships were those which recorded the cases of plague within 9 days of their arrival.²¹

In the Suez Canal, the infected ships were to be detained at a sanitary station and the sick on board were to be sent to hospitals whereas healthy individuals were to be kept under observation. France imposed severe regulations on passengers from India; in Marseilles, passengers arriving from Bombay in some instances were not allowed to disembark. France employed a series of quarantine measures against both healthy and infected ships. Other countries such as Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Holland, and others also devised regulations based on the larger framework of regulations established by International Sanitary Conferences.²¹ The Government of India was also apprehensive of the upcoming International Sanitary Conference to be held at Venice in 1897 as the European governments could decide to further increase the restrictions placed on Indian vessels.¹⁶

Apart from the imposition of quarantine regulations against arrivals from India, the restrictions on the export of goods and merchandise posed an imminent risk to the trading interests of both India and Britain. George Hamilton, the Secretary of State for India voiced his concerns regarding the impact of the plague on India’s interest to the Governor General of India in Council:

The alarm caused by the plague in India and elsewhere is greater than might have been expected to result from this mortality, one-third of the population of Bombay are said to have left the city; trade and manufactures have been arrested; European and African harbours have declined to admit vessels, passengers, and goods from the infected ports of Bombay and Karachi; and Russia has notified that all India must be treated as contaminated by plague. Not only is there risk of the epidemic spreading to other cities and provinces of India, where millions of people are congregated on relief works and at poor-houses, but for the time a serious injury has been done to India’s export trade.^19(p100)

Restrictions on the export of raw hides and skins from India to France, Italy, and Germany had disastrous effects on India’s trade. Restrictions were placed on merchandise and goods as they were considered contagious in nature and ‘were capable of carrying the plague’.^13(p182) The total seaborne trade of India in private merchandise declined for the years 1896–97 and 1897– 98, particularly in the Asian region (Table I).

The transmission of plague via Mecca pilgrims from India was perceived as a major risk by the European authorities. Pilgrimage to Mecca was already a contentious issue in the International Sanitary Conferences after the outbreak of cholera in Mecca (1865) and its transmission to the European continent.³⁸ This issue was discussed in sanitary conferences held since the Constantinople Sanitary Conference of 1866.³⁹ In a telegram dated 14 January 1897, the Secretary of State raised concerns shared by other countries regarding pilgrimage to the Viceroy of India. He stated that Russia was pressurizing the British government to prohibit pilgrimage from India for the year 1897; also, the fears of Russia regarding pilgrimage were also shared by the Austrian government. He further highlighted the unsuitability of Bombay as a port of departure for the pilgrims.¹⁹

The issue of pilgrimage also highlighted the friction between the provincial governments and the imperial government. The port of Bombay was closed for pilgrimage but the governments of Calcutta and Madras were requested to keep their ports open for the purpose of pilgrimage. The Government of Madras was vehemently against the shifting of the pilgrim traffic to Madras due to the fear of infection reaching the province through pilgrims arriving from different regions.¹⁹ Shams-ul Akbar reported that strong protests were registered by the Madras government, the Madras Municipality, the Chamber of Commerce, the Harbour Trust Board, the Trades Association, and the Mahajana Sabha against the use of Madras port as the harbour for pilgrim traffic.⁴⁰ This issue was also raised by Joy Gobind Law in the discussion of the Council for the EDA bill.⁴¹ Due to its traditional policy of non-interference in religious matters, the government was initially reluctant to put a ban on the pilgrimage but later prohibited the pilgrimage for the whole year.¹⁶ The government was under immense pressure as the issue of pilgrimage would have posed an imminent risk to India’s trade interest in the upcoming Venice Sanitary Conference of 1897. The eventual ban on pilgrimage and the rigorous medical inspection employed by India was appreciated in the Venice Sanitary Conference and the government was able to avoid drastic measures such as trade embargoes and quarantine against its commerce.¹⁶

The quarantine restrictions, international pressures encountered by the imperial government, the threat to India’s commercial interests, and the transmission of plague to other parts of the country led to the adoption of stringent measures despite protests from the local population. Bombay, being a major port as well as a commercial city, was connected internationally with major ports and domestically with interior regions of India through a vast network of railways. The Government of India imposed quarantine measures at the port of Madras (now Chennai), Calcutta (now Kolkata), Karachi and Rangoon (now Yangon) against the vessels arriving from Bombay. These measures were also used to satisfy international concerns regarding India’s effort to control the transmission of the plague.¹⁴ For the British authorities, the unrest and riots which erupted as a result of the extreme measures highlighted the lack of laws to deal with such events. On 28 November 1896, the British Medical Journal commented on the lack of general laws on riots and disturbances which arose as a result of the segregation policies: ‘It would appear that there are no General Laws for India in connection with this subject, and the local authorities have no rules to guide them in their dealing with the matter now in hand.’^42(p1606)

The differing attitudes of the British government regarding quarantine policies within India faced criticisms from the delegates of European countries at International Sanitary Conferences. Sandhya Polu in her work highlighted the lack of a legislative framework in India that was in congruence with the regulations of International Sanitary Conferences. She argued that ‘India needed a domestic counterpart to the International Sanitary Conventions’.^16(p43) In a despatch to the Secretary of State for India, Viceroy Elgin summarized the pressures that necessitated the adoption of special legislation to control the plague:

The situation appeared to us to be of such gravity. having regard to the high mortality, the persistence of the disease in Bombay and Karachi, the apprehension that it might spread and become endemic in other places, the injury that was resulting to the trade of the places affected and the country at large, and the fear that foreign powers might introduce regulations and restrictions disastrous to the commerce of the country, that we considered it necessary to take special powers by legislation, with a view to prevent the spread of, and to suppress the plague, and to guard against infected vessels leaving our ports.^19(p79)

Adoption of the EDA

A bill (No. I) titled ‘A Bill to Provide for the better prevention of the spread of Dangerous Epidemic Disease’ was introduced by Sir John Woodburn on 28 January 1897 in the Council of the Governor General of India.^41(p14) The bill was further referred to the Select Committee composed of Sir John Woodburn, Sir James Westland, M.D. Chalmers, P. Playfair, R.M. Sayani, and Joy Gobind Law; the committee was instructed to report it at the next meeting of the Council. The Medical Board of Calcutta and the Government of Bombay gave certain criticisms and suggestions which were incorporated by the Select Committee in the amendment of the bill. The report of the Select Committee was presented to the Council on 4 February 1897.⁴¹

Woodburn, while introducing the report in the Council, commented that there were almost negligible suggestions from the non-official bodies and he assumed that the public supported the bill based on the remarks from the press. The discussion of the Council members centred around the passage of the bill and suggestions of the public, the extent of the powers provided in the bill, the pilgrimage to Mecca, policies of segregation, and the response of people. Sayani (Note 9) observed that the bill was hurriedly passed and in ordinary circumstances, general public opinion would have been taken into consideration but plague presented extraordinary circumstances. He stated that under such circumstances the role of the Council was to ‘grant to Government what they ask for and to leave to Government the responsibility’.^41(p24) The Maharaja of Darbhanga remarked that an early introduction of the bill would have provided an opportunity to consider the inputs and suggestions of non-official bodies. Emphasizing the need for enlisting public support for the bill, he said: ‘Supported by popular feelings the sanitarian may achieve great results, but he is doomed to failure if he has to work in the teeth of polar opposition.’^41(p28) The Lieutenant Governor of Calcutta also wished for an earlier introduction of the bill but for different reasons. He pointed out that the existing laws were insufficient to deal with the plague in Calcutta had it broken out the same way it did in Bombay. He also said that in the absence of a law such as the EDA, he would have been compelled to introduce special legislation to empower the Medical Board and quell the spread of plague in Calcutta, had it broken out. Responding to the Maharaja of Darbhanga, Chalmers sympathized with the Maharaja’s concern and argued that the bill was deliberately kept vague as it did not take public inputs into account. He reasoned that the bill rather empowered the local governments to make specific regulations to tackle any epidemic, and provided the local governments a space to take people’s inputs and suggestions into account if they so wished. Woodburn also responded to the complaints of the Lieutenant Governor and the Maharaja of Darbhanga and stated that the Government of India did not introduce the legislation earlier because it was under the impression that the plague would be confined to a limited region as happened in the case of Hong Kong.⁴¹

The issue of segregation was discussed among the members of the Council with Rai Bahadur Ananda Charlu moving an amendment in clause 2, sub-clause (2), paragraph (b) to insert ‘temporary accommodation’ between ‘in hospital’ and ‘or otherwise’.^41(p26) He believed that even as the word ‘otherwise’ was vague enough to allow multiple interpretations, an explicit mention of ‘temporary accommodation’ would assuage public fears. Pandit Bisambhar Nath supported the amendment. Drawing from his understanding of North-Western Provinces and Oudh, he believed that policies of segregation and isolation would create panic and fear, especially among Muslims who subscribed to the practice of purdah. He went beyond Ananda Charlu’s amendment and suggested:

where segregation is to be enforced as a precautionary measure, the people affected by disease may not be forcibly removed to hospitals, but that camps provided by the people or the community concerned may be allowed to be used for the exercise of the measure. That will afford some relief to the people, and they will not then regard this measure, which is indeed a beneficial one, as one calculated to excite too much needless terror.^41(p35)

Woodburn expressed no objection to Ananda Charlu’s amendment, which was subsequently included in the final bill that was passed. Although not commenting directly on the amendment, Lieutenant Governor contributed to the discussion on segregation. He emphasized the critical importance of segregation in quelling the plague but qualified it with respect for ‘Oriental decorum’ (Note 10).

The pilgrimage to Mecca was an important point for discussion in the Council. Joy Gobind Law called the pilgrimage a ‘danger’ which required ‘drastic remedies’, including the prohibition of pilgrimage from Madras and Calcutta.^41(p24) Sympathizing with Joy Gobind Law’s view, the Lieutenant Governor called for complete prohibition of pilgrimage. If not, then he suggested a mechanism for observing and quarantining the pilgrims for a certain number of days before letting them embark on the pilgrimage. Woodburn reiterated the government’s traditional position of non-interference in religious matters. Instead of advocating a complete prohibition, he considered distinguishing pilgrims from affected areas and non-affected areas as a more reasonable response. Sayani considered the matter of pilgrimage as ‘delicate’ as it was a religious duty to perform the pilgrimage. He further added that pilgrimage should only be undertaken if the individual has sufficient means to support himself and his family for the course of voyage. He also invoked the traditional law which stated that an individual should refrain from undertaking the voyage if plague is persisting either in the place of origin or destination.⁴¹

In view of the vagueness of the sections of the bill and the excessive powers vested in the Central and provincial governments, the members of the Council justified the same by citing the ‘extraordinary circumstances’.⁴¹ Sayani, exemplifying the fears posed by the plague, commented that the government needed to safeguard the country to prevent human suffering, the collapse of commerce, and the ‘excommunication of India from the commercial union of the world’.^41(p25) The fear of the spread of plague in other parts of the country, its impact on commerce, and the ineffectiveness of the plague preventive measures constituted the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and the bill was hurriedly passed on 4 February 1897, which brought into force the Act No. III of 1897 titled ‘The Epidemic Diseases Act’.⁴¹

The EDA had four sections which provided the government extraordinary powers to control the spread of the plague. The first section had three sub-sections which provided the title and the extent of the Act. The Act extended to the whole of British India and included the regions of Upper Burma, British Baluchistan, Santal Parganas and the Pargana of Spiti.

The second section of the Act defined the powers of the Governor General in Council to take special measures and prescribe regulations to control dangerous epidemic diseases and was divided into three sub-sections. The first sub-section empowered the Governor General in Council to take measures in the event of an outbreak of dangerous diseases if he considered the ordinary provisions insufficient; he could ‘empower any person to take such measures’ and ‘prescribe such temporary regulations to be observed by the public or by any persons or class of persons as he shall deem necessary to prevent the outbreak of such disease’.^41(p39) This sub-section was based on Section 434 of the Bombay Municipal Act.¹⁹ The second subsection outlined the measures and regulations for traffic on both land and sea. Clause (a) empowered the government to inspect any vessel that arrived or left the port of British India as well as the detention of any vessel or person intending to sail or arrive if considered necessary. The provisions under clause (a) were instituted for the protection of the Indian ports from infection and also the protection of commercial interests abroad by ensuring that vessels leaving Indian ports were not a source of infection or danger. Clause (b) empowered the inspecting officer to inspect the persons traveling by railway or otherwise, segregate travellers in hospital, temporary accommodation, or otherwise if they were suspected to be infected with any disease. The third sub-section empowered the local governments (with respect to territories administered by them) to exercise any or all powers conferred under the Act by any general or special order by the Governor General in Council.⁴¹

The third section penalized (under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code) any person for disobeying any regulation or order made under the Act. The fourth section protected a person from any legal proceedings intended or done in good faith under this Act.⁴¹

The vernacular newspapers from the Bombay Presidency and the Punjab and Central provinces, while highlighting the importance of the adoption of an Act such as the EDA, provided certain criticisms regarding the difficulties that could have arisen due to inspection, segregation, and the abuse of power. Gujàrati flagged the need for inspecting officers to treat all classes of railway passengers—especially women—courteously as well as asked the government to learn from the blunders of complete segregation in Bombay while instituting new rules under the EDA. Directly addressing Woodburn’s stated reasoning in the Council for a delayed introduction of the bill, Gujàrati pointed out that the government was already aware of the spread of plague in Karachi, and therefore, Woodburn’s explanation was not convincing.⁴³ The Mumbai Vaibhav focused on the issue of house inspection and demolition although not critical of the demolition policy per se, the newspaper did flag two crucial points: first, delegation of the discretion of demolition decision to subordinates would result in the oppression of the people; second, the demolition and burning of insanitary huts should not be indiscriminate.⁴⁴ Similar sentiments were earlier echoed by Ananda Charlu in the Council; he had commented that inspectors ‘must be men who have something to lose in the way of reputation or status’.^41(p27) The Deshi Mitra was critical of medical inspection of passengers at night and suggested that the inspection be done at destination stations as opposed to some central stations.⁴⁵ Paisa Akhbar was also deeply critical of the Act and remarked that the dangerous Act would cause great inconvenience to the railway passengers especially the third class passengers. It was also critical of the unlimited powers which could result in the abuse of authority.⁴⁶

Deeply critical of the rules framed under the EDA, Subodh Sindhu flagged issues such as forceful segregation, oppressive and whimsical destruction of properties of suspected plague cases and injury to religion so much so that people preferred death from plague instead of conforming with the rules.⁴⁷ The editor of Paisa Akhbar highlighted that he received several letters complaining about the prevalence of rampant corruption in the form of bribes to inspectors.⁴⁸ Criticizing the Act, Lahore Punch commented that the new Act brought great miseries on the local population and these miseries surpassed the pain brought by the famine and the plague together.⁴⁹