Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts c6: Introduction

Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts c6

Language
English

Contents

Introduction

c6.1

The present volume is part of an attempt to understand the functioning of the Indian state and society some eight to ten generations back, i.e., around the period 1750, when India began to fall under European domination—firstly in the Tamil and Telugu areas, and afterwards in Bengal and elsewhere. This attempt consisted in a perusal, during 1966-70, of some of the vast Indian archival material in the English language lodged in the archives of Britain. This volume presents some of the major eighteenth and early nineteenth century documents found during this search on the subject of science and technology.

c6.2

The authors of these documents came to India in various capacities: as military, medical and civilian servants of the European governments; as travellers, sometimes coming on their own, but more often sent by wealthy patrons or the newly established learned societies (like the Royal Societies of Paris and London; the Society of Arts in London, etc.); and some, like the Jesuits, came on behalf of the various Christian religious orders. According to the European scholarly canons of the time, all these were experts in their respective fields and were considered to be competent to report on what they observed or studied. Most of those, included here, spent a substantial part of their active lives in different parts of India.

c6.3

Practically all European scientific and technological accounts relating to the sciences and technologies of non-European countries (including the ones reproduced here) are an outcome of the seventeenth and eighteenth century European quest for useful knowledge in these fields. The nature of the quest itself got wider and more complex with the passing of practically each decade. Few things, except finished consumer goods or gold and diamonds, etc., were noticed in the non-European world by the earlier European travellers, servants of European states, and the scientists and technologists, etc. This was partly due to the short durations which most of them spent in any particular area. But the preponderant cause was the lack of requisite comprehension amongst the learned of Europe of the prevailing non-European practices and technologies. Such lack of understanding was even more evident amongst the learned of Britain who, till about 1800, seem to have lagged behind some of the other parts of Europe in many scientific and technological fields by about fifty years.

c6.4

Two examples of such lack of comprehension pertain to the practice of inoculation against smallpox, and the use of the drill plough. Till 1720, when the wife of the then British Ambassador in Turkey, having got her children successfully inoculated,¹ began to advocate its introduction into Britain, the practice of inoculation was unknown to the British medical and scientific world. Proving relatively successful, though for a considerable period vehemently opposed² by large sections of the medical profession and the theologians of Oxford, etc., an awareness grew about its value and various medical men engaged themselves in enquiries concerning it in different lands. The two accounts of inoculation reproduced here are a result of this post-1720 quest.

c6.5

Similarly about the drill plough. The drill plough is said to have been first used in Europe by one Joseph Locatelli of Carinthia (Austria) in 1662.³ Its first introduction in England dates to 1730. But it took perhaps another 50 years before it was used on any scale. It was used in India (according to the authors of Chapters XII and XIII) from time immemorial. Observations of its use, by the British, however could only begin in the last decades of the eighteenth century, after its awareness had dawned on the more observant amongst them.

c6.6

Initially, the quest is limited and the queries which are put by the various European learned societies and individual patrons to those of their kind who have stayed or wandered in the non-European world, are fairly simple. In course of time, as knowledge gets added to knowledge and newer formulations develop in Europe, the quest becomes wider and more sophisticated and the queries begin to be concerned with the more complex. The interest in the Indian manufacture of ice; in the making of the ‘Madras mortar’; in the processes of Indian iron and steel manufacture; or the observatory at Varanasi (Benares) (treated as one of the five ‘celebrated observatories’ of the world by the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* in its editions till 1823); the search for newer chemicals and dyes, or for materials for the water-proofing of the bottom of ships (considerable quantities of which were sent with information as late as the 1790s by a Bombay correspondent to the President of the British Royal Society: Chapter XVII), arose out of rapidly multiplying but specific European needs.

c6.7

It is in this context of widening horizons as well as the urgent need for materials and processes (partly resulting from constant warfare in which the Europeans were engaged during the greater part of the eighteenth century) that accounts of the kind presented here were written and submitted by individual Europeans to their respective patrons. It is in these European writings of the period (i.e., from about 1720 to 1820), that one discovers the observed details about science and technology as well as about the societies, institutions, customs and laws of various parts of the non-European world. Before this period, the European ability to comprehend this new world was limited; after about 1820, the knowledge and institutions of the non-European world also began to have much less usefulness to the problems of Europe. Further, by the 1820s, most parts of the non-European world are no longer themselves. Their institutions, sciences and technologies are not what they were 50 or a 100 years earlier, and have met the same fate as their political systems and sovereignty. By the 1820s or so, most of the non-European world had become, at least in European theory and most conventional history texts, if not actually in practice, ‘backward and barbarian’.

c6.8

But the imagery of backwardness and barbarism which still serves as a descriptive label for most of the non-European world was no sudden product of the 1820s or any other decade. It grew over a fairly long period, but at a much accelerated pace after about 1780. Many of the post-1780 accounts reflect the growth of this attitude amply.

c6.9

The widespread prevalence (no less amongst the learned and scholarly) of European ethnocentric bias is dramatically demonstrated by the post-1780 writings on Indian astronomy and the observatory at Benares. It comes through even in the very learned review (p.48-93) which Prof John Playfair, professor of mathematics in the University of Edinburgh, an academician of distinction, did of the then accumulated European knowledge on Indian astronomy. After a detailed examination, he arrives at the conclusion that the Indian astronomical observations pertaining to the period 3,102 years before Christ appeared to be correct by every conceivable test. Such correctness of observation was possible either through complex astronomical calculations by the Indians or by direct observation in the year 3102 B.C. He chooses the latter explanation. The reason for the rejection of the explanation that these could have been arrived at by the Indians through astronomical calculation would have implied that ‘there had arisen a Newton among the Brahmins, to discover that universal principle which connects, not only the most distant regions of space, but the most remote periods of duration, and a De La Grange, to trace, through the immensity of both its most subtle and complicated operations.’⁴ It became intellectually easier for him to concede this astronomy’s antiquity rather than its sophistication and the scientific capacities of its underlying theories.

c6.10

But even the conceding of its mere antiquity was of very short duration. With the strengthening of the fundamentalist and evangelical Christian tendencies, this concession began to look like blasphemy. Keeping in view the European historical premises, originating in the Old Testament, it was just not conceivable for anything except the stated items to have survived ‘the Deluge’ which was computed to have taken place in the year 2348 B.C. By 1814, though things Indian were still being half-heartedly defended by a journal like the *Edinburgh Review*, even the mere antiquity of Indian astronomy had received a final European dismissal.

c6.11

While reviewing Cuvier’s *The Theory of the Earth*⁵, (in which Cuvier had ridiculed and dismissed the ancient date of the Indian tables), the *Edinburgh Review* took cognisance of the changed attitudes and relationships between Europe and the non-European world, and observed: ‘But though the tide of opinion seems, for some time past, to have set strongly against the high antiquity of the sciences of the East, it does not appear that the main arguments of the Historian of astronomy [i.e., Bailly] have ever been refuted.’ It tried to resolve the contradiction between the Mosaic and Christian belief, and the earlier date of the Indian tables, by advancing the proposition, that ‘the early date of that Astronomy, and the usual date of the Deluge, may be perfectly reconciled, on the supposition that the former is a fragment of antediluvian science, which had escaped the general destruction.’ Such a solution of the controversy was, however, no longer practicable, nor necessary from the viewpoint of European scholarship, in what had by then become an exclusively European century.

c6.12

Even when the ancientness of Indian astronomy was being conceded, as was done by Prof Playfair, it was difficult to admit that the eighteenth century Indian astronomers and scholars on the subject had any real competence. According to Playfair, the eighteenth century Indian astronomer had little knowledge of the principles on which his rules are founded, and no anxiety to be better informed.⁶ Yet it was only through intercourse with Indian astronomers and by means of instruction and data received from them that the European knowledge of Indian astronomy could be acquired. It was thus acquired by M. Le Gentil during his visit to India about 1769. According to the *Encyclopaedia Britannica*: 'During the time of his stay in Hindustan, the Brahmins had been much more familiar with him on account of his astronomical knowledge, than they usually were with Europeans, and he thus had an opportunity of obtaining considerable insight into their methods of calculation. In consequence of this instruction he published tables and rules, according to the Indian method, in the Academy of Science for 1772.'⁷

c6.13

The general incommunicativeness of eighteenth century Indian scholars and specialists in the various fields had two probable roots: one, the usual secretiveness of such persons, and, two, the very sophistication and complexity of their theories which in their view (whether rightly or wrongly) would not have been understood by most Europeans. It is possible that the various sciences and technologies were on a decline in India around 1750 and, perhaps, had been on a similar course for several centuries previously. But there seems little doubt that the processes, methods, theories and formulations described in the contemporary accounts included in this volume were very much a living reality in the areas of India to which they pertain. Whether these were also used or taught or discussed in most other parts is a matter for detailed investigation, not only into the English language records, but more so in the surviving indigenous Indian records of the period, and also the Indian archival material in other foreign languages. How do mid-eighteenth century Indian sciences and technologies compare with the sciences and technologies in earlier periods requires similar investigation.

c6.14

The later eighteenth century European ethnocentric preoccupations had other dimensions also. Some of these are expressed in Chapters III and V, whereby everything existing elsewhere is visualised to have had its origin in India. A different dimension was expressed in propositions like: The Hindu religion had its origin in the British Isles,⁸ (which was held to be the *Sweta Dwipa* of the Hindu classics). Though perhaps not so intended, all of these conflicting speculations and formulations ultimately led to the subversion of the non-European world. Many directly confirmed the growing European view of the barbarism and ignorance of the non-Europeans; the others served the same purpose by becoming easy targets for European ridicule and contempt.

II

c6.s1.1

Four of the accounts included in this volume deal with astronomy and two with mathematics. The observatory at Benares described by Sir Robert Barker, after a visit to it in 1772, still exists more or less intact and is at present known as the Man Mandir. It stands only a few hundred yards away from the Dasasvamedha Ghat. Its appearance today seems even more neglected (It is tragic that one of the five celebrated observatories of the world (and in India the most celebrated), though still intact, remains in complete neglect. Its counterparts in Britain, France, etc. are greatly cherished and serve as the repositories and centres of their respective astronomical knowledge. India owes that much to itself and its people that places like the Man Mandir are duly cherished and looked after.) than that described two centuries ago, except that a few plates have been fixed indicating the names of the various *yantras* (instruments) in Hindi and English. Two other plaques indicate the period of the building and the date of the erection of the observatory. While the building is stated to have been built in the late sixteenth century, the relevant plaque states the erection of the observatory in the early eighteenth.

c6.s1.2

Such playing about with the dates of the founding of the observatory has a curious tale to tell. Barker's account was published in the *Transactions* of the British Royal Society in 1777 and it put the erection of the observatory some two centuries previously. In 1792, in conformity with the request of a Fellow of the Royal Society, another report on the observatory was received from one J.L. Williams of Benares. This was published in the *Transactions* in 1793.⁹

c6.s1.3

One of the two main points which this later account, as if in passing, tried to make was that the observatory only came into being some 50-60 years earlier and was not built in the sixteenth century—as stated by the Bengal commander-in-chief in his article published in 1777. To support this contention, it produced what it claimed to be the opinion of the Indian magistrate of Benares (who, incidentally, with his colleagues was in the process of being displaced by British judges and magistrates through the newly enacted ‘Cornwallis’ Judicial Regulations). The magistrate is alleged to have said that though the building was built by ‘Rajah Maunsing, for the repose of holy men and pilgrims’, the ‘observatory was built, by the Rajah Jeysing.’ Further, it was begun in 1794 *sumbut* (A.D. 1737) and finished in two years and that the Rajah died in 1800 *sumbut* (A.D. 1743). To this was added the even ‘weightier’ opinion of the Brahmins of Benares ‘one of whom is professor of astronomy in the new founded college.’ According to him, ‘they all agreed that this observatory never was used, nor did they think it capable of being used, for any nice observations; and believe it was built more for ostentation, than the promotion of useful knowledge.’ Besides these two points, the article gave the measurements of the various instruments but stated that ‘from the want of sufficient knowledge of the science of astronomy, I have not been able to describe the different instruments, and their uses, satisfactorily; however, you may rely on the measurements being taken with the greatest exactness.’

c6.s1.4

The subject of the Benares observatory was again taken up in 1798 by William Hunter, an assistant to the British Resident at the Marhatta capital at Poona, in an article, ‘Some account of the astronomical labours of Jayasinha, Raja of Ambhere, or Jayanagar’. The interest in Raja Jayasinha is explained: ‘Arising superior to the prejudices of education, of national pride and religion’, Jayasinha strove to enrich his country ‘with scientific truth derived from a foreign source’, in this particular instance, Europe. The writer was quite candid and outspoken about his purpose. He said: ‘I have always thought, that after having convinced the eastern nations of our superiority in policy and in arms, nothing can contribute more to the extension of our national glory, than the diffusion among them of a taste for European science. And as the means of promoting so desirable an end, those among the natives who have penetration to see, and ingenuousness to own its superior accuracy and evidence, ought to be cherished.’¹⁰

c6.s1.5

This article made an attempt to provide documentary evidence of the Benares observatory as having been the creation of this early eighteenth century Raja Jayasinha by quoting from what is called the *Zeej Mohammedshahy*. (If it still exists, much more needs to be known about this mid-eighteenth century document: how it came to be written, by whom, under whose patronage and in what year.) According to this document, having ‘assembled the astronomers and geometricians of the faith of Islam and the Brahmins and Pundits, and the astronomers of Europe’ etc., Jayasinha ‘bound the girdle of resolution about the loins of his soul, and constructed (at Dehly) several of the instruments of an observatory.’ And ‘in order to confirm the truth of these observations’ i.e., at Dehly, ‘he constructed instruments of the same kind in Sewai Jeypoor and Matra, and Benares and Oujein.’ With the foregoing statement from the *Zeej Mohammedshahy*, the documentary proof ended. For the rest, he added: ‘The observatory at Benares having been described by Sir Robert Barker and Mr Williams, I have only a few remarks to offer, in addition to the account delivered by those gentlemen’¹¹ and the writer made some more observations on its measurements, etc.

c6.s1.6

Various other Britishers seem to have gone and made reports on the Benares observatory in the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the subject soon disappeared from public discussion. It was re-opened in 1920 by the author of ‘A Guide to the Old Observatories’,¹² originally published by the Archaeological Survey of India. It stated that the Man Mandir i.e., the actual building of the Benares observatory, ‘was built about the beginning of the seventeenth century. The astronomical instruments were added by Jai Singh about A.D. 1737.’ It said further: ‘The date is not certain, and nearly every writer gives a different one.’

c6.s1.7

It further observed, ‘Prinsep wrote: “The building was converted into an observatory by Jaysingh in A.D. 1680” and refers to a supposed description of it by Tavernier.’ Dismissing all these other dates (Prinsep, with a footnote: ‘Tavernier died in 1689, three years after Jai Singh’s birth.’) this author concluded that ‘Williams’ date for the observatory at Benares, 1737, may be accepted’ as the ‘on all points that can be verified, is extremely reliable’, and quoted Hunter as speaking ‘of the accuracy of Mr Williams’ measurements.’¹³

c6.s1.8

The eighteenth century dating of the Benares observatory thus rests on the two articles published in 1793 and 1798 respectively; the first, at the instance of a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the second, in a longer piece wishing to convince the Eastern nations of the superiority of European eighteenth century science with a view to ‘contribute more to the extension of our national glory.’ What Tavernier said in his published, ‘Travels’ was: ‘Near to this great Pagod, upon the summer-west, stands a kind of a college which the Raja Jesseing the most potent of all the idolaters in the Mogul’s empire, built for the education of the youth of the better sort.’¹⁴ Tavernier visited Benares in 1655-6. It may be added that quite a few ‘Jayasinha’ (spelt variously) have been Rajas of ‘Ambhere’ through the centuries. It is possible that this fact has also contributed to different writers claiming widely separate dates for the construction of the Benares observatory.

c6.s1.9

A rather curious point arises here out of this chronology about the dating of the Benares observatory: Barker along with Pearse, and A. Campbell visited the observatory in 1772. If the observatory was actually built in 1737, it was only 35 years old at this date. Both Barker and Pearse specifically state that it had been there for some two centuries. They must have arrived at this statement after meeting and conversing with persons who, if the observatory had been constructed only 35 years previously, must have been eye witnesses to its construction. As there was no controversy in 1772 about the date of the construction of the observatory, it is inconceivable that Barker’s informants misled him on this point. The conversion of two centuries into 35 years is the most fabulous aspect of this later controversy.

c6.s1.10

Next is the long and learned review (Chapter II), ‘Remarks on the Astronomy of the Brahmins’, by John Playfair, read by him in 1789. In this article, the author begins by referring to certain astronomical tables received from the East Indies by European scholars at an early stage in their contact with the East. Some of these tables were received from Siam and their ‘epoch’ corresponded to 21 March 638 A.D. But the point to note was that the ‘meridian’ of these tables was not Siam but Benares!

c6.s1.11

Other tables received from South India had one thing in common. Their ‘epoch’ coincides with the era of *Kaliyuga*, that is, with the beginning of the year 3102 B.C. Prof Playfair begins by enquiring whether the ‘epoch’ was real or fictitious; that is, whether the planetary positions at that time were actually observed or were merely calculated back from the ‘epochs’ of more modern tables to coincide with a mythical *Kaliyuga*.

c6.s1.12

Prof Playfair observes that it is not for astronomy, even in its most perfect state, to go back 46 centuries and to ascertain the situation of the heavenly bodies at so remote a period, except with the help of lately developed Integral Calculus and the Theory of Gravitation. He finds that the positions of the planets as given in these tables is very close to the position as calculated back with the help of modern Integral Calculus and the Theory of Gravitation. All other systems of calculation, whether Chaldean or Egyptian or Greek which the Hindus might have used for their purpose gave very different results.

c6.s1.13

So for him, the inescapable conclusion is that these positions were observed by the Brahmins, and it is rather a wonder that the Brahmins could do so rather precisely at so distant a past. Prof Playfair also observed that the construction of these tables implied a good knowledge of geometry and arithmetic, as well as the possession of a Calculus equal to Trigonometry.

c6.s1.14

The paper (Chapter IV) by Colonel T.D. Pearse, sent by him to the Royal Society, London, and surviving in their archives, refers to the Indian knowledge of the four Satellites of Jupiter and the seven Satellites of Saturn. Pearse further felt that the Indians must have possessed some kind of telescopic instruments to have acquired such detailed knowledge. The author of Pearse’s memoirs, while including a slightly modified version of this piece in the memoirs, states:

c6.s1.15

We cannot pass this interesting communication without offering some reflection upon the subjects it embraces. The circumstances of the four girls dancing round the figure of Jupiter, as they ought to be according to the Brahmin’s statement to Colonel Pearse, is a strong argument in favour of the superior knowledge of the heavenly bodies which the ancient Arabians and Hindus possessed. The four dancing girls evidently represent the four satellites of Jupiter. These circumjovial satellites (as they are styled by modern astronomers from the quirk of their motions in their orbits) were not known in Europe before the year 1609, and the third and fourth only are visible, and this but rarely and in the clearest atmosphere to the naked eye. But it is truly interesting and curious that the figure of Saturn should be represented with seven arms. At the time Colonel Pearse wrote his letter to the Royal Society, the sixth satellite of Saturn had not been discovered: it was first discovered by Herschel on the 28 August 1789; and the seventh satellite, which the seventh arm of the figure, without dispute, must be intended to represent, was not discovered by Herschel until he had completed his grand telescope of 40 feet focal length, when it was first observed by him on the 17 September 1789. All the satellites of Saturn are so small, and the planet is so remote from the earth, that the best telescopes are necessary for observing them. May not the seventh arm *having hold of the ring* denote a circumstance connected with the orbits of these planets, which is that the planes of their orbits so nearly accord with that of the ring, that the difference is not perceptible? Undoubtedly, the ancient astronomers must have possessed the best instruments: probably differing from modern ones, but fully as powerful.

c6.s1.16

The writer added further: ‘We are not aware that the Royal Society in any of its printed papers have noticed Colonel Pearse’s communication, but our imagination, warmly interested as it has been in all that relates to the subject of the present memoir, has pictured the probability that Colonel Pearse’s paper may have met the eye of Herschel, and may have been an additional spur to the indefatigable and wonderful labours of that great man.’¹⁵

c6.s1.17

Reuben Burrow’s unpublished paper (Chapter III) was addressed to the British Governor General Warren Hastings soon after Burrow had come to India to take up his new job at Calcutta. It is highly speculative and in a way is more in line with the contemporary intellectual tradition of the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century. (The tradition has, in fact, continued well into the present time; only as time passed, however, it has become more and more Eurocentric. The late 19th century dictum, ‘Except the blind forces of nature, nothing moves in this world which is not Greek in its origin,’ enunciated by Maine (one-time Law Member of the Governor General’s Council in India) was merely an intellectual and scholarly expression of the mounting Eurocentric character of this speculativeness.) Though in itself it does not provide much factual data, and perhaps comes to even several erroneous conclusions as we would see them today, its very speculativeness seems to have provided inspiration and stimulus to a number of subsequent enquiries about Indian sciences, particularly mathematics. The article ‘A Proof that the Hindus had the Binomial Theorem’ by Burrow himself, and the later dissertation by H.T. Colebrooke on ‘Hindu Algebra’ (given as introduction to his translation of ‘Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration’ of Brahmagupta and Bhascara) decidedly follow such speculativeness. Acknowledging Burrow’s contribution, particularly in bringing Indian Algebra to the notice of Europeans, the article on ‘Algebra’ in the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* (8th edition) stated:

c6.s1.18

We are indebted, we believe, to Mr Reuben Burrow for some of the earliest notices which reached Europe on this very curious subject. His eagerness to illustrate the history of the mathematical sciences led him to collect oriental manuscripts, some of which in the Persian language, with partial translations, were bequeathed to his friend Mr Dalby of the Royal Military College, who communicated them to such as took an interest in the subject, about the year 1800.16

c6.s1.19

The article (Chapter V) on ‘the Binomial Theorem’ was published in 1790 in Calcutta. Till then, and in British reference books like the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* well into the twentieth century, the discovery of this theorem has been credited to Newton.17 Some thirty years later, Burrow’s article was followed by another titled ‘Essay on the Binomial Theorem; as known to the Arabs’.18 This later article was a sequel to the first by R. Burrow, and it concluded: ‘It plainly appears, that whatever may have been the case in Europe, yet long before the time of Briggs the Arabians were acquainted with’ the Binomial Theorem.

c6.s1.20

(Briggs was teaching around 1600, about a century before Newton).

c6.s1.21

This later author quoted Dr Hutton concerning the origin of the Binomial Theorem in Europe. The following, from the longer extract of Hutton’s account, is worth quoting:

c6.s1.22

Lucas De Burgo extracted the cube root by the same coefficients, about the year 1470...Briggs was the first who taught the rule for generating the coefficients of the terms, successively one from another, of any powers of a binomial, independent of those of any other power...This theorem then being thus plainly taught by Briggs about the year 1600, it is surprising how a man of such general reading as Dr Wallis was, could be ignorant of it...and fully ascribe the invention to Newton...But I do not wonder that Briggs remark was unknown to Newton, who owed almost everything to genius and deep meditation, but very little to reading: and I have no doubt that he made the discovery himself, without any light from Briggs.19

c6.s1.23

H.T. Colebrooke’s dissertation on ‘Hindu Algebra’, resulting from all the preceding investigations by men like R. Burrow, F. Wilford, S. Davis, Edward Strachey, John Taylor, etc., and from his own considerable knowledge, is a learned survey and comparison of the developments in Europe and India. But the conclusion that Indian Algebra, etc., may have had an independent development proves difficult for him to digest. Reversing the speculations of Burrow, he comes to the conclusion that the ‘Algebra of the Greeks’, imperfect though he admits it to be, ‘was made known to the Hindus by their Grecian instructors in improved astronomy.’ (The reviewer of ‘Algebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration’, in *The Edinburgh Review* (November 1817) however thought differently and stated that it ‘could not have been derived from Greece.’ Commenting on Colebrooke’s opinion he added: ‘Mr Colebrooke, after demonstrating the excellence of this algebra, and comparing its more perfect algorithm and its superior advancement with the Greek algebra, as explained in the work of Diophantus, seems nevertheless willing to admit, that some communication about the time of the last mentioned author, may have come from Greece to India, on the subject of the Algebraic Analysis. Of this we are inclined to doubt; for this simple reason, that the Greeks had nothing to give on that subject which it was worth the while of the Indians to receive. Mr Colebrooke seems inclined to this concession, by the strength of a philological argument, of the force of which we are perhaps not sufficiently sensible. It seems however certain, that the facts in the history of Algebraic Analysis, taken by themselves, give no countenance to the supposition.’ But wishing to be gracious and charitable, he infers that ‘by the ingenuity of the Hindu scholars, the hint was rendered fruitful and the algebraic method was soon ripened from that slender beginning to the advanced state of a well arranged science.’20

III

c6.s2.1

As contrasted with the eighteenth century European consideration and discussion on Indian sciences, the accounts of Indian technology did not give rise to passionate controversy. Perhaps such passion was neither possible nor necessary, as it ordinarily did not challenge any fundamental European dogma or belief. The results of the technology were there for all to observe and utilise. And it may incidentally be the lack of such controversy itself that explains the complete current ignorance of most aspects of this technology.

c6.s2.2

It appears that Indian medical men (with whatever names they may be termed at the end of the eighteenth century) made considerable use of surgical techniques in different parts of India. According to Colonel Kyd in ‘Chirurgery (in which they are considered by us the least advanced) they often succeed, in removing ulcers and cutaneous irruptions of the worst kind, which have baffled the skill of our surgeons, by the process of inducing inflammation and by means directly opposite to ours, and which they have probably long been in possession of.²¹ Dr H. Scott (Chapter XVII) seems to corroborate the above and further reports the prevalence of plastic surgery in Western India, in his letters to the President of the Royal Society, London. In 1972, he states:

c6.s2.3

In medicine I shall not be able to praise their science very much. It is one of those arts which is too delicate in its nature to bear war and oppression and the revolutions of governments. The effects of surgical operation are more obvious, more easily acquired and lost by no means so readily. Here I should have much to praise. They practice with great success the operation of depressing the crystalline lens when become opaque and from time immemorial they have

c6.s2.4

cut for the stone at the same place which they now do in Europe. These are curious facts and I believe unknown before to us.22

c6.s2.5

Two years later he refers to the ‘putting on noses on those who lost them’ and sends to London a quantity of ‘Caute’, the cement used for ‘uniting animal parts’.23

c6.s2.6

Inoculation against the smallpox seems to have been universal, if not throughout, in large parts of Northern and Southern India, till it was banned in Calcutta and other places under the Bengal Presidency (and perhaps elsewhere) from around 1802-3. Its banning, undoubtedly, was done in the name of ‘humanity’, and justified by the Superintendent General of Vaccine (A vaccine (the Latin *vacca*, meaning cow) from the cow, for use in the inoculation against smallpox was manufactured by Dr E. Jenner in 1798. From then on, this vaccine replaced the previous ‘variolous’ matter, taken from human agents. Hence the method using the ‘vaccine’ came to be called ‘Vaccine Inoculation’.) Inoculation in his first report in March 1804.24

c6.s2.7

The most detailed account of the practice of inoculation against the smallpox in India is by J.Z. Holwell, written by him for the College of Physicians in London.

c6.s2.8

After giving the details of the indigenous practice, Holwell stated (Chapter VIII, pg 158): ‘When the before recited treatment of the inoculated is strictly followed, it is next to a miracle to hear, that one in a million fails of receiving the infection, or of one that miscarries under it.’ It is possible that Holwell’s information was not as accurate as of the newly appointed Superintendent General of Vaccine Inoculation in 1804. According to the latter, fatalities amongst the inoculated were around one in two hundred amongst the Indian population and amongst the Europeans in Calcutta, etc., ‘one in sixty or seventy’.25 The wider risk, however, seems to have been in the spreading of disease by contagion from the inoculated themselves to those who for one reason or another had not been thus inoculated.

c6.s2.9

It is possible that there were some areas in India where inoculation did not prevail. This, of course, is a matter for enquiry. But wherever it did, it appears to have been universal over a whole tract. After the imposition of British rule in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, areas of Madras Presidency, etc., this situation seems to alter. According to the Superintendent General of Vaccine Inoculation, a section of the people, either ‘from indigence’ or ‘from principle’, did not any longer (*circa* 1800) receive the inoculation.²⁶ Those who did not receive it ‘from principle’ seem to have been the Europeans in Calcutta, etc. Partly this may have been due to the greater mortality (i.e. one in sixty or seventy, as indicated above) amongst them. Further it may have also resulted from the persistence of Christian theological objections to any inoculation amongst them.²⁷

c6.s2.10

Not receiving it ‘from indigence’, on the other hand, pertained to sections of the Indian population. Like many other categories of specialists, (including school teachers, doctors, establishments of religious institutions and places, village establishments, etc.), it is probable that the inoculators in India had also been maintained on subventions from public revenues. With the imposition of British rule, the Indian fiscal system began to collapse and various categories of specialists and functionaries were thrown out on the streets and left to wholly fend for themselves. It is this development, and the simultaneous deepening of poverty amongst the people, that most probably resulted in many not being inoculated ‘from indigence’. Such a situation must have naturally made the practice of inoculation seem even more undesirable to the Europeans who, while they themselves did not like to be inoculated, yet could not function without whole contingents of Indian domestic servants.

c6.s2.11

So what, till the latter part of the eighteenth century, when practised universally in any tract, was a relatively effective method involving no contagious effects (since all were similarly inoculated), had begun to seem by 1800 a great hazard to the Europeans in Calcutta. But in spite of the bannings, prohibitions, etc. resorted to in Calcutta and other cities and towns, the introduction of vaccine inoculation was very halting. Such halting development must have been caused by insufficient provision of resources or by sheer indifference. Or, as hinted by the officiating Superintendent General of Vaccination for N.W.P. (the present U.P.) in 1870, it may also have been caused by the peoples’ reluctance to get vaccinated as, according to this authority, the indigenous inoculation possessed ‘more protective power than is possessed by vaccination performed in a damp climate.’28 Whatever the causes, the indigenous inoculation seems to have been still practised around 1870. For areas near Calcutta, those who were not so inoculated are estimated at 10 per cent of the population around 1870, and for the Benares area at 36 per cent.29 The frequent smallpox epidemics which were rampant in various parts of India in the nineteenth and early twentieth century may largely be traced back, on the one hand, to the state’s backwardness and indifference in making the requisite arrangement for universal vaccination; and on the other hand, to having made the existence of the indigenous practice of inoculation most difficult not only by withdrawing all support for it, but also forcing it to be practised secretly and stealthily.

c6.s2.12

Another important point which emerges from Mr Holwell’s account of the Indian method of inoculation relates to the prevalence of some theory of bacterial infection amongst the mid-eighteenth century Indian inoculators. According to them: The small-pox is more or less epidemical, more mild or malignant, in proportion as the air is charged with these animalculae’, i.e. bacteria, and that these ‘adhere more closely, and in greater numbers, to glutinous, fat, and oily substances.’ That these ‘imperceptible animalculae floating in the atmosphere...are the cause of all epidemical diseases, but more particularly of the small-pox;’ that ‘they pass and repass in and out of the bodies of all animals in the act of respiration, without injury to themselves, or the bodies they pass through;’ but ‘such is not the case with those that are taken in with food,’ as these ‘are conveyed into the blood, where, in a certain time, their malignant juices excite a fermentation’ and end ‘in an eruption on the skin.’30

c6.s2.13

Similarly interesting accounts are available on Indian agriculture. The observation by Alexander Walker (Chapter XII), that ‘the practice of watering and irrigation is not peculiar to the husbandry of India, but it has probably been carried there to a greater extent, and more laborious ingenuity displayed in it than in any other country,’31 is in dramatic contrast to present day text-book accounts of ‘the comparative absence of artificial irrigation’ in eighteenth century India.32 How Indian agricultural principles, implements and practices (and these may have somewhat varied in different parts of India itself) compared with those elsewhere (China, Egypt, various countries of Europe, etc.), can only be known after a detailed comparative study of the subject. The causes of relative scarcity of resources constantly facing the Indian husbandman also need to be enquired into. It is probable that in most parts of India such scarcity was of late eighteenth century origin, and directly resulted from political causes. But it seems clear that besides widespread artificial irrigation, the practices of (i) crop rotation, (ii) manuring, (iii) sowing by means of the drill plough, and (iv) use of a variety of other implements were fairly widespread. The nature and quality of soils seemed to be well understood and in areas like Malabar, certain species of paddy are propagated by cuttings. The use of the drill plough, however, (and perhaps also of some other implements and practices), as noted in Chapter XIII, varied from husbandman to husbandman, the poor not being in a position to use it as it required larger resources not only in implements but also in draught cattle. The latter-day decline in the variety and efficiency of agricultural implements seems to be a result of the general economic impoverishment brought about by the state appropriating all it possibly could in the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. (The material concerning the proportion of the gross produce of agriculture taken away by the state constitutes a major portion of British Indian archival documents. Theoretically, the land revenue due to government was fixed at 50%. In large parts of India under British rule till 1855 or so, the proportion that during most years actually went towards governmental land revenue was appreciably higher. For instance, according to certain enquiries in the Madras Presidency Ryotwary areas during the 1850s, about one-third of the irrigated land had over the years altogether gone out of cultivation as the amount of land revenue on such land had begun to approximate the gross produce itself, and at times even exceeded it.)

c6.s2.14

The composition of the ‘Madrass Mortar’ (Chapter IX) is very curious, while the process of making paper (Chapter XI) is perhaps not very different from that currently in use in the manufacture of hand-made paper. Chapter X, on the process of making ice, however, is still more fascinating. It was first published in 1775 in London. But it appears that this subject and the manner in which ice was made had been observed even earlier by a number of Britishers in India and had given rise to considerable scientific curiosity in England. The artificial making of ice seems to have been till then unknown in Britain (and perhaps also in other European countries). The observation that ‘boiling the water is esteemed a necessary preparative to this method of congelation’ aroused particular interest. Sir Robert Barker, the author of this article, while referring to this point wondered ‘how far this may be consonant with philosophical reasoning’ (i.e., with scientific proof). As a consequence, after carrying out various experiments, the professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh University provided the following explanation:

c6.s2.15

The boiled and common water differ from one another in this respect; that whereas the common water, when exposed in a state of tranquility to air that is a few degrees colder than the freezing point, may easily be cooled to the degree of such air, and still continue perfectly fluid, provided it still remains undisturbed: the boiled water, on the contrary, cannot be preserved fluid in these circumstances; but when cooled down to the freezing point, if we attempt to make it the least colder, a part of it is immediately changed into ice; after which, by the continued action of the cold air upon it, more ice is formed in it every moment, until the whole of it gradually congealed before it can become as cold as the air that surrounds it. From this discovery it is easy to understand, why they find it necessary to boil the water in India, in order to obtain ice.33

c6.s2.16

Dr H. Scott (Chapter XVII) makes mention of many other processes and dyeing and other agents and substances. ‘Dammer: a substance in universal use through the whole Eastern world,’34 for covering the bottom of ships and for other uses where water proofing was required, was one such.

c6.s2.17

But the substance which seems to have evoked most scientific and technical interest in the Britain of the 1790s was the sample of *wootz* steel sent by Dr Scott to Sir J. Banks, the President of the British Royal Society. The sample went through examination and analysis by several experts.35 It was found in general to match the best steel then available in Britain, and according to one user, ‘promises to be of importance to the manufactures’ of Britain.36 He found it ‘excellently adapted for the purpose of fine cutlery, and particularly for all edge instruments used for surgical purposes.’ After its being sent as a sample in 1794 and its examination and analysis in late 1794 and early 1795, it began to be much in demand; and some 18 years later the afore-quoted user of steel stated, ‘I have at this time a liberal supply of wootz, and I intend to use it for many purposes. If a better steel is offered to me, I will gladly attend to it; but the steel of India is decidedly the best I have yet met with.’37

c6.s2.18

Till well into the nineteenth century, Britain produced very little of the steel it required and imported it mostly from Sweden, Russia, etc. Partly, Britain’s lag in steel production was due to the inferior quality of its iron ore, and the fuel, i.e., coal, it used. (Writing in 1824, J.M. Heath, later a leading manufacturer of iron and steel at Sheffield, stated: ‘It is well known that England is entirely dependent upon foreign countries for all the iron required for this purpose, and last year the importation of foreign iron into England, for the purpose of making steel alone, exceeded 12,000 tons...Year after year does the Society for the Encouragement of Arts offer a premium for the manufacture of English Iron fit for steel making, and to this time the premium has never been claimed; nor is it likely that it ever will, from the nature of the English ores, and the inferior quality of the English fuel.’ (Madras Public Proceedings, January 1825)) Possibly such lag also resulted from Britain’s backwardness in the comprehension of processes and theories on which the production of good steel depended.

c6.s2.19

Whatever may have been the understanding in the other European countries regarding the details of the processes employed in the manufacture of Indian steel, the British, at the time wootz was examined and analysed by them, concluded ‘that it is made directly from the ore; and consequently that it has never been in the state of wrought iron.38 Its qualities were thus ascribed to the quality of the ore from which it came and these qualities were considered to have little to do with the techniques and processes employed by the Indian manufacturers. In fact it was felt that the various cakes of *wootz* were of uneven texture and the cause of such imperfection and defects was thought to lie in the crudeness of the techniques employed.

c6.s2.20

It was only some three decades later that this view was revised. An earlier revision in fact, even when confronted with contrary evidence as was made available by other observers of the Indian techniques and processes, was an intellectual impossibility. That iron could be converted into cast steel by fusing it in a close vessel in contact with carbon' was yet to be discovered, and it was only in 1825 that a British manufacturer 'took out a patent for converting iron into steel by exposing it to the action of carburetted hydrogen gas in a close vessel, at a very high temperature, by which means the process of conversion is completed in a few hours, while by the old method, it was the work of from 14 to 20 days.39

c6.s2.21

According to J.M. Heath, founder of the Indian Iron and Steel Company, and later prominently connected with the development of steel making in Sheffield, the Indian process appeared to combine both of the above early nineteenth century British discoveries. He observed:

c6.s2.22

Now it appears to me that the Indian process combines the principles of both the above described methods. On elevating the temperature of the crucible containing pure iron, and dry wood, and green leaves, an abundant evolution of carburetted hydrogen gas would take place from the vegetable matter, and as its escape would be prevented by the luting at the mouth of the crucible, it would be retained in contact with the iron, which, at a high temperature, appears [from the above-mentioned patent process] to have a much greater affinity for gaseous than for concrete carbon; this would greatly shorten the operation, and probably at a much lower temperature than were the iron in contact with charcoal powder.40

c6.s2.23

And he added:

c6.s2.24

In no other way can I account for the fact that iron is converted into cast steel by the natives of India, in two hours and a half, with an application of heat, that, in this country, would be considered quite inadequate to produce such an effect; while at Sheffield it requires at least four hours to melt blistered steel in wind-furnaces of the best construction, although the crucibles in which the steel is melted, are at a white heat when the metal is put into them, and in the Indian process, the crucibles are put into the furnace quite cold.⁴¹

c6.s2.25

The above quoted British authority however did not imply that the Indian practice was based on a knowledge ‘of the theory of his operations’ by the Indian manufacturer. He felt it to be impossible ‘that the process was discovered by any scientific induction, for the theory of it can only be explained by the lights of modern chemistry.’⁴² And feeling that ‘all speculation upon the origin of the discovery seems useless’, he proceeded to deal with the more practical matters.

First 62 of 125 passages. Read on

Linked texts (4)