Colonial Response to the 1896 Bombay Plague
The colonial administration used the Bombay Plague of 1896-97 to focus more on surveillance and control rather than public health
The Indian Plague Commission's maps prioritized locations for surveillance (like railways and camps) over identifying and addressing the victims of the plague.
Police were integral in data collection, with local authorities reporting deaths to the police, reinforcing a top-down, coercive approach to managing the crisis.
Plague Maps and Power Dynamics
The plague maps emphasized control measures, such as quarantine zones and police inspections, which projected an image of order and state efficacy, while downplaying the actual human suffering caused by the epidemic.
The maps reinforced colonial power by portraying disease control as a matter of discipline rather than compassion, shaping public perception and action towards disease management.
Ethics and Oversight in Public Health
The ethical implications of historical surveillance practices highlight concerns about prioritizing control over community well-being.
Modern health policies must balance effective oversight with respect for individual rights and privacy.
Public health data should enhance safety without reinforcing inequalities or violating personal freedoms.
Lessons for Modern Public Health Policy
The historical example of the Bombay Plague demonstrates the importance of framing public health measures in a way that prioritizes empathy, equity, and collaboration.
Today, data collection and surveillance should be used to protect public health, not to reinforce existing power dynamics or erode trust.
Ensuring that future health strategies are ethical and transparent can help avoid past mistakes.
COMMENTS