A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRIMARY SOURCE-WORKS OF INDIAN ASTRONOMY AND MATHEMATICS (JYOTISHA SASTRA) WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED INTO OTHER (INDIAN AND FOREIGN) LANGUAGES

Today a student of history of Indian science has to work under very serious limitations. Since most of the source-works are completely inaccessible to him, he has to rely almost entirely on the extremely biased and unreliable accounts produced by the western scholars, or the servants of British authorities in India, in late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These alone form the basis of most of the discussions even today. In the twentieth century, oriental sciences have been almost forgotten, and whatever sporadic discussion appears (in the 'only language very familiar to all of us— English) in the literature, is always biased in favour of the western perspective that takes modern western science to be the paradigm of all scientific knowledge. We therefore see no way for an impartial student to arrive at any understanding of Indian science except through the study of source-works themselves—discounting all the trash that has been written in the name of histories and critical accounts.

Here we have collected what we believe to be an exhaustive bibliography of source-works on Indian Astronomy and Mathematics (Jyotisha Sastra) which have been published with translations into other Indian languages in the last two centuries; Even these translations have to be studied critically, as most of them have been produced at a time when the continuity of scientific tradition in India had been seriously impaired. Also there is no reason to believe that the sixty-six source-works that have been translated will provide any kind of a total picture of the development of Jyotisha Sastra with its rich history. Tradition has it that Jyotisha Sastra is a veritable ocean of knowledge. That this is no exaggeration can be seen from the fact that nearly one thousand works (in manuscript form) have been listed in "A Bibliography of Sanskrit Works on Astronomy and Mathematics" (Ed. by S. N. Sen, A. K. Bag & S. R. Sharma, INSA New Delhi, 1966), and a recent more extensive bibliography which is only half complete (D. Pingree, Census of Exact Sciences in Sanskrit Vol. 1', Memoirs of American Phil. Soc. 81, 1970; Vol. 2, ibid. 86, 1971; Vol. 3, ibid. 1976) lists as many as 1450 authors and their works on Jyotisha Sastra. A reasonable estimate would thus place the number of works for which manuscripts are extant at around 3000. Of these, hardly 200 works have been printed in the original. The number of works which have been translated is thus almost insignificant.

It is a curious reflection on our respect for our own cultural-scientific heritage that most of these works have been published in the 19th century or early 20th century at the time of colonial rule, when contempt and hostility to our tradition and culture was unconcealed, and very little new work has been done in this direction in the post-independence, era.

It is our hope that soon many more such bibliographies will be compiled on all aspects of Indian science and technology, so that at least some idea of the immensity of scientific literature produced in pre-British India can be formed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 Rasigolasphutaniti by Achyuta Pisarati (1550-1621 AD): Eng. tr. by K. V. Sarma, Adyar Library 1953 and Visvesvaranand Inst., Hoshiar-pur 1977.

2 Apastamba Sulva Sutra (800-300 BC) :

i German tr. by A. Burk, Zeitschrift d. Deutsch Morg. Gesselschaft 55, 543-591 (1901); ibid. 56, 327-391 (1902).

ii Eng. tr. (with Comms. of Kapardiswamin, Karavinda and Sundararaja) by Satyaprakash and R. S. Sharma, New Delhi 1968.

3 Atharvana Jyotisha (—BC) : Hindi tr. by C. L. Sarma and O. N. Dvivedi, Datya, Madhya Pradesh.

4 Aryabhatiya of Aryabhata (b.476 AD) :

i French tr. of Ganitapada by L. Rodet, J. Asiatique 13, 393-434 (1879).

ii Hindi tr. (with Tika of Parameswara (1431 AD)) by Udaya Narayana Singh, Madhurapur, Etwah 1906.

iii Eng. tr. of Ganitapada by G. R. Kaye, J.Asiatic Soc. of Bengal 4, 111-141 (1908).

iv Eng. tr. by Baidyanath Rath Shastri, Univ. of Chicago Thesis (Unpubl.) 1925.

v Eng. tr. by P. C. Sengupta, J. Dept. of Letters (Calcutta Univ.) 16, 1-56 (1927).

vi Malayalam tr. of Gitikapada by Kolatheri Sankara Menon, Sri Vanchi Setulakshmi Series No. 7, Trivandrum 1927.

vii Eng. tr. by W. E. Clark, Univ. of Chicago Press 1930,

viii Telugu Comm. 'Sudhataranga' by K. Kodandarama Siddhanti (1844 AD), ed. by V. Lakshmi Narayana Sastri, Madras Govt. Oriental Series No. 139, 1956.

ix Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by B. Mishra, Bihar Res. Soc, Patna 1966.

x German tr. by Kurt Elfering, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich 1975.

xi Eng. tr. by R. N. Rai, Ind. Natl. Sc. Acad., New Delhi 1976.

xii Eng. tr. by K. S. Shukla and K. V. Sarma, Ind. Natl. Sc. Acad., New Delhi 1976.

xiii Kannada tr. by N. K. Narasimha Murthi, Bangalore Univ. 1978.

xiv Malayalam tr. by P. S. Purushottaman Namputiri, S. T. Reddiar and Sons. Quilon.

5 Mahasiddhanta of Aryabhata II (950 AD): Eng. tr. of Grahaganitabhaga by S. Rajeswara Sarma, 2 parts, Erich Mauers-jberger, Marburg 1966.

6 Tatvarthadhigama.Sutra of Umaswami (135-219 AD) : Eng. tr. of fifth chapter by G. R. Jain, 2nd edn., BharatiyaJnanpith 1975.

7 Katyayana Sulva Sutra (800-500 BC) : Eng. tr. (with Comm. 'Katyayana Suiva Vyakhya ' by Ramachandra Vajapeyi) by G. Thibaut, Pandit (N.S.) 4 (1882).

8 Grahanadarpana of Krishna Joshi (1868 AD) : Eng. tr. by author, Madras 1868.

9 Jyotirvijnanachandrika of Krishnadhana Vidyasagara (19th Century AD) : Bengali tr. by Mohinimohan Jyotihsastri, Dacca 1917.

10 Grahalaghava Sarini of Gangadhara Varman (1907 AD) : Hindi notes, Sri Venkateswara Press, Bombay 1911, 1923.

11 Grahalaghava Karana of Ganesa Daivajna (1520 AD) ;

i Marathi tr. (with Comm. 'Grahalaghavodaharana'' by Visvanatha (1578 AD)) by Krishna Sastri Godabole and Vamana Krishna Josi Gadre, 2nd edn., Bombay 1873 (6th edn., Poona 1926).

ii Bengali tr. (with Comm. ' Grahalaghavodaharana' ay Visvanatha (1578 AD)) in ' Phalita Jyotisha Vol. Ill', ed. by Rasikamohana Chattopadhyaya, Calcutta 1887.

iii Hindi tr. by Jiyarama Sastri, ed. by Ramesvara Bhatta, Kalyana, Bombay 1899.

iv Telugu Comm. 'Andhratika' (with Comm. 'Siddhanta Rahasya’ of Mallari (1571 AD)) by Mangipudi Virayya Siddhantigaru, Masulipatnam 1915.

v Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm. 'Sudhamanjari Vasana') by Sitaram Jha, 2nd edn., Benares 1932 (Rep. 1941, 1975).

vi Hindi tr. (with Comm. 'Grahalaghavodaharana’ by Visvahatha (1578 AD), Comm. 'Madhuri' by Yugesvara Jha) by Kapilesvara Sastri, Kasi Sanskrit Series 142, Benares 1946.

vii Hindi tr. (with Comm. 'Siddhanta Rahasya' by Mallari (1571 AD)) by Ramachandra Pandeya.

12 Tithichintamani of Ganesa Daivajna (b. 1507 AD): Hindi Comm. 'Vijayalakshmi'by Matriprasada Pandeya, Haridas Sanskrit Series 76, Benares 1938.

13 Yantrachintamani of Chakradhara :

i Hindi tr. (with Comm. 'Vivritti' of Chakradhara and Comm. 'Yantradipika' of Rama (1625 AD)) by Bagirathiprasada Sarman, Benares .1883.

ii Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by Sundaradeva Sarman, Mathura 1898.

14 Chandraprajnapti Sutra (—BC) : Hindi tr. by Amola Karisi, Hyderabad 190 .

15 Grahagochara of Jayarama : Gujarati tr. by. Gowrisankara Lalu Mehta, Ahmedabad 1891.

16 Yantraraja Karika by Sawai Jayasimha (1686-1743 AD ): Eng. tr. by A. F. Garret and C. Guleri, The Pandit (Jaipur) 1 (1924).

17 Jaimini Sutra or Upadesa Sutra of Jaimini (—BC):

i Marathi tr. by Vishnu Gopala Navathe, Jatakasiromani I, 8, Bombay 1914.

ii Bengali tr. (with Coram. 'Subodhini' by Nilakantha (1754 AD)) by Radha-vallabha Pathaka, Calcutta 1926.

iii Eng. tr. by B. Suryanarayana Rao, Bangalore 1932 (Rev. by B. V. Raman, Bangalore 1944 (Adhyayas I and II only)).

iv Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm. 'Vimala') by Achyutanand Jha, Haridas Sanskrit Series 159, Benares 1943 (2nd edn. Chowkhambha Sanskrit Series, Varanasi 1952).

v Eng. tr. (with Sanskrit Comm. 'Marichi') by Kasinatha Vasudeva Abhayankar, (Adhyayas I and II only), Bombay 1951.

18 Yuktibhasha (in Malayalam) of Jyeshthadeva (1550 AD) : Malayalam notes by Ramavarma (Maru) Tampuran and A. R. Akhilesvara Iyer, Mangalodayam Press, Trichur 1948.

19 Karanaratna of Devacharya (689 AD) : Eng. tr. by K. S. Shukla, Lucknow Univ. 1979.

20 Rista Samucchaya of Durgadeva (1032 AD) : Eng. tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by A. S. Gopani,, Singhi Jain Series 21, Bombay 1945. '

21 Jyotishasara of Narachandra Suri (d. 1230 AD) :

i Gujarati tr. by Ratilala Pranajivanadasa Sudivala, Surat 1913.

ii Gujarati tr. by Kshamavijaya Gani, Bombay 1938.

22 Golasara of Nilakantha Somayajin (1444-1545 AD) : Eng. tr. by K. V. Sarma, Visvesvaranand Inst.. Hoshiarpur 1970.

23 Chandracchayaganitarn of Nilakantha Somayajin (1444-1545 AD) : Eng.tr. by K. V. Sarma, Visvesvaranand Inst., Hoshiarpur 1976.

24 Siddhantadarpana of Nilakantha Somayajin (1444-1545 AD) : Eng. tr. (with Autocomm.) "by K. V. Sarma, Adyar Library 1955 (Visvesvaranand Inst., Hoshiarpur 1976).

25 Trilokasara of Nemichandra (10th Cent. AD) :

i Hindi Comm. by Todarmal (1761 AD),ed. by Manoharlal Sastri, Hindi Jain Prasarak Karyalaya| Meerabag, Girgaon, Bombay 1918.

ii Hindi tr. by Visuddhamati Mataji, ed. by R. C. Mukhtiynr and C. P. Patni Sri Mahaviraji (Rajasthan) 1974.

26 Jambudvipa Pannati Samgaho of Padmanandi (11th Centur,' AD): Hindi tr. by L.C. Jain, Jaina Saraskriti Samrakshaka Sangh, Sholapur 1958.

27 Goladipika of Paramesvara (1431 AD): Eng. tr. (with Autocomm.) by K. V. Sarma, Adyar Library 1957.

28 Grahananyayadipika of Paramesvara (1431 AD) : Eng. tr. by K.V. Sarma, Visvesvaranand Inst., Hoshiarpur 1966.

29 Grahanamandana of Paramcswara (1431 AD) : Eng. tr. by K. V. Sarma, Visvesvaranand Inst., Hoshiarpur 1965.

30 Grahanashtaka of Paramesvara (1431 AD) : Eng. tr. by K. V. Sarma.K. S. R Inst., Madras 1961.

31 Karanapaddhati of Putumana Somayaji (1660 - 1740 AD):

i Malayalam notes by P. K. Koru, Astro-Printing and Publishing Co., Cherp 1953

ii Ed. with two Malayalam Comms. by S. K. Nayar, Madras Govt. Oriental Ser. No. 98, 1956

32 Bakshali Manuscript (3-4th Century AD) : Edited with introduction by G. R. Kaye in 3 parts, Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series Vol. 43, 1927-33.

33 India of Al Biruni (1030 AD) : Eng. tr. by E.C. Sachau, 2 vols., London 1910 (Rep. New Delhi 1964).

34 The Chronology of Ancient Nations of Al Biruni (1030 AD) : Eng. tr. by E. C. Sachau, London 1879.

35 Baudhayana Sulva Sutra (800-500 BC) :

i Eng. tr. by G. Thibaut (with Comm. 'Sulvadipika' by Dvarakanatha Yajvan), Pandit vO. S.) 9, 10 (1874-75); ibid. (N.S.) 1 (1876-77), Benares.

ii Eng. tr. by G. Thibaut (with Comm. 'Sulvadipika' by Dvarakanatha Yajvan), ed. by Satyaprakash and R. S. Sharma, New Delhi 1968.

36 Brahmasphuta Siddhanta of Brahmagupta (628 AD) :

i Eng. tr. of a portion in 'Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration, Translated from the Sanskrit of Brahmagupta and Bhaskara', by H.T. Colebrooke, London 1817 (Rep. 1972).

ii Hindi tr. (with Comm. 'Brahmasphuta Siddhanta Tika' by Sudhakara Dvivedi (1892 AD)) by Ram Swarup Sharma et al., 4 vols,, Indian Inst, of Astronomical and Sanskrit Research, New Delhi 1966.

37 Khandakhadyaka of Brahmagupta (665 AD) :

i Eng. tr. by P.C. Sengupta, Calcutta Univ. 1934.

ii Eng. tr. (with Comm. 'Vivritti' by Bhattotpala (966 AD)) by Bina Chatterjee, World Press, Calcutta 1970.

38 Maha Bhaskariya of Bhaskara I (629 AD) :

i Edited with introduction (and the Bhashya by Govindasvamin (800 AD) and the supercommentary 'Siddhantadipika' by Paramesvara (1431 AD)) by T. S. Kuppanna Sastri, Madras Govt. Oriental Ser. No. 130, 1957.

ii Eng. tr. by K. S. Shukla, Lucknow Univ. I960.

40 Bijaganita of Bhaskara II (b. 1114 AD) :

i Eng. tr. (of the Persian' tr. 'Tarjamah i Bij Ganit' by Ata Allah Rushdi ibn Ahmad i Nadir (1634 AD)) by E. Strachey with notes by S. Davis, London 1813.

ii Eng. tr. of a portion inJ'Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration, Translated from the Sanskrit of Brahmagupta and Bhaskara', byH.T. Colebrooke, London
1817 (Rep. 1972).

iii Marathi tr. by Vinayaka Pahduranga Khanapurkar, Poona 1913.

iv Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by Durga Prasad Dvivedi, ed. by Girija Prasad Dvivedi, Naval Kishore Press, Lucknow 1941.

v Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by Visuddhanand Gaur, Benares 1943.

vi Hindi tr. (with Comm. 'Subodhini’ by Jivanatha Jha (1846-1900 AD)) by Achyiitanand Jha, Kasi rSanskrit Series 148, Benares 1949.

vii Malayalam tr. by P. K.Koru, Managalodayam Press, Trichur 1960.

viii Hindij tr. in 'Acharya Bhaskara, Ek Adhyayana' by Acharya Ramajanma Misra, Chowkhambha Orientalia, Varanasi 1979.

41 Lilavati of Bhaskara II (b. Ill4 AD):

i Eng. tr. by J.Taylor, Calcutta 1816.

ii Eng. tr. in 'Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration, Translated from the Sanskrit of Brahmagupta and Bhaskara', by H.T. Colebrooke, London 1817 (Rep.1 1972).

iii Persian tr. 'Tarjamah i Lilavati' by Abu Al-Fayd Faydi (1587 AD), Calcutta 1827,1854.

iv Hindi tr., Calcutta (C. B. LeWis) 1876.

v Eng. tr. by H. T. Colebrooke, ed. with notes by H. C. Bannerjee, 2nd edn., Calcutta 1927 (Rep. Kitab Mahal, Allahabad 1967).

vi Telugu tr. (with Comm.' 'Lilavativiv'arana' by Mahidhara) by V. Lakshmi Narayana Sastri, Madras 1934.

vii Malayalam tr. by P. K. Koru, Mangalodayam Press, Trichur 1954.

viii Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by Pandit Sitaram Jha, Sanskrit Book Depot., Varanasi 1970.

ix Hindi tr. in 'Acharya Bhaskara, Ek Adhyayana' by Acharya Ramajanma Misra, Chowkhambha Orientalia, Varnasi 1979.

42 Siddhanta Siromani of Bhaskara II (b. 1114 AD) :

i Marathi tr. (with Comm. 'Siddhanta Siromani Prakasa' of Ganes'a (1600 AD)), Bombay 1837.

ii Eng. tr. of Goladhyaya by L. Wilkinson, Revised by Bapudeva Sastri, Calcutta 1861.

iii Bengali tr. of Goladhyaya (with Autocomm. 'Vasana Bhashya') in 'Phalita Jyotisha Part III', ed. by Rasikamohana Chattopadhyaya, Calcutta 1887.

iv Marathi tr. by Vinayaka Panduranga Khanapurkar, Poona 1911, 1913.

v Hindi tr. of Goladhyaya (with Autocomm. 'Vasana Bhashya') by Pandit Girija Prasad Dvivedi, 2 Parts, Lucknow 1911, 1926.

vi Bengali tr. of Goladhyaya (with Autocomm. 'Vasana Bhashya') by Radhagovinda Smriti-Vyakaiana Jyotishatirtha, Calcutta 1921.

vii Hindi tr. of Ganitadhyaya (with Autocomm. 'Vasana Bhashya' and ‘Comm Marichi' by Munisvara (1603.AD)) by Kedarnath Jyoshi, 3 Parts, Benares Hindu Univ. 1961-64

43 Mahadeva Sarini of Mahadeva Bhatta (1316 AD): Eng. tr. by O. Neugebauer and D. Pingree, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc, 111, 69-92 (1967).

44 Ganitasarasamgraha of Mahavira (850 AD) :

i Eng. tr. by M. Rangacharya, Madras 1912.

ii Hindi tr. by L.C. Jain, Jaina Samskriti. Samrakshaka Sangh-, Sholapur 1963.

45 Venvaroha of Madhava (1340 AD) : Malayalam Comm. 'Venvarohavyakhya' by Achyuta Pisarati (1550-1621 AD), e d. by K. V. Sarma, Ravivarma Sanskrit Series No. 7, Sanskrit College, Tirupunnithura 1956.

46 Sphutachandrapti of Madhava (1340 AD) : Eng. tr. by K..V. Sarma, Visvesvaranand Inst., Hoshiarpur 1973.

47 Manava Sulva Sutra (800-500 BC) : Eng. tr. by N. K.'Majumdar, J. Dept. of Letters (Calutta Univ.) 8, 327-42 (1922).

48 Panchangamanjusha of Mukundarama (1910 AD) : Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm. and Sutrapanchanga Sarini) by Pandita Chakra, dhara, Bombay 1922.

49 Laghumanasa of Munjala (932 AD): Eng. tr. by N.K. Majumdar, Calcutta 1951.

50 Dinachandrika of Raghavananda Chakravartin (1599 AD):

i Bengali tr. by Durgacharana Kaviratna, Berhampur 1878.

ii Bengali tr. by Bhagavaticharana Smritiratna, Calcutta 1914 (ed. by Ramadeva Smritiratna. Calcutta1935).
51 Laghusangraha of Laksbmi Narayana : Hindi tr., Benares 1911.

52 Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha (—BC):

i Eng. tr. of a portion by G. Thibaut, J. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal 46 (1877).

ii Eng. tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by R. Shamasastry, Mysore 1936.

iii Eng. tr. by Lala Chbtelal (Barhaspatya Kavi), ed. with a preface by Jagannatha fripathi, Allahabad I960.

vi Bengali tr. by Sitesh Chandra Bhattacharya, Our Heritage 19, No. 2 (July-Dec. 1971).

53 Sishya Dhivriddhida' Tantra of Lalla (768 AD) : Eng. tr. by Bina Chatterjee, Ind. Natl. Science Acad., New Delhi 1981.

54 Vakyakarana of Vararuchi (1300 AD): Eng. introduction and notes (with Comm. 'Laghuprakasika’ by Sundararaja (16th Century AD)) by.T. S. Kuppanna Sastri and K. V. Sarma, K.S.R. Inst., Madras 1962.

55 Panchasiddhantika of Varahamihira (587 AD) :

i Eng. tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by G. Thibaut and Sudhakara Dvivedi, Benares 1889 (Rep. Motilal Banarsi Das 1930; Rep. Chowkhambha Sanskrit Studies 1968)

ii Eng. tr. by O. Neugebauer and D. Pingree, 2 Vols., Royal Danish Acad, of Sciences, Copenhagen 1970-71.

56 Brihajjataka of Varahamihira (587 AD):

i Eng. tr. by N. C. Iyer, Madras 1885.

ii Eng. tr. by Vijnanananda Swami, Sacred Books of the Hindus No. 12, Allahabad 1912

iii Eng. tr. by V. Subrahm'anya Sastri, Mysore 1929.

iv Hindi tika'Vimala'by Achyutananda Jha, Haridas Sanskrit Series 151, Benares 1945 (2nd edn;, Benares 1957).

v Hindi tr. by Ram Ratna Avasthi, 5th edn., T.K. Press, Lueknow 1972.

57 Brihatsamhita of Varahamihira (587 AD) :

i Hindi tr. by Bala Sastri, Benares 1880.

ii Hindi tr. by Durgaprasada, Lueknow 1884.

iii Eng. tr. by M. Kern, in 'Verspriede Geschriften' (Collected Works)'s,- Graven hage 1913.

iv Hindi tr. by Baldev Prasad Misra, Bombay 1940.

v Eng. tr. by V. Subrahmanya Sastri and M. Ramakrishria Bhat, 2 Vols., Bangalore 1947.

vi Malayalam tr. by P. S. Purushottaman Namputiri, 2nd edn., Sri Ramavilasam, Quilon 1955.

vii Hindi tika 'Vimala' by Achyutananda Jha, Vidyabhavana Samskrita Granthamala 41, Varanasi 1959.

58 Vatesvara Siddhanta of Vatesvara (904 AD) : Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by R. S. Sharma and Mukund Misra, Part I Indian Inst, of Astronomical and Sanskrit Res., New Delhi 1962.

59 Sadratnamala of Sankaravarman (1800 AD) : Author's Malayalam Comm., Kavanodayam (Malayalam Journal) 16 (1898).

60 Bhasvati Karana of Satananda (1099 AD) : Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm.) by Matriprasad Pandeya, Mehrchand Laxman Das, Bombay.

61 Trisatika of Sridhara (900 AD): Eng. tr. by N. Ramanujacharya and G. R. Kaye, Bibliotheca Mathematica 13, 203-217 (1912).

62 Patiganita of Sridhara (900 AD): Eng. tr. by K. S. Shukla, Lueknow Univ. 1959.

63 Dhikotida Karana of Sripati (1039 AD) : Eng. tr. by K. S. Shukla, Lueknow 1969.

64 (Suryaprajnapti (300 BC):

i Eng. tr. by G. Thibaut, J. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal 49, 107-127, 181-206 (1880).

ii Hindi tr. by/Amola Karisi, Hyderabad 1910.

65 Surya Siddhanta (650-950 AD) :

i Eng. tr. by E. Burgess and G. fcWhitney, Jour. Amer. Oriental Soc. 6, 141-500 (1859-60) (Rep. with Intr. by P. C. Sengupta, Calcutta Univ. 1935; Johnson Rep., New York 1964;
Rep. Indological Book House, New Delhi 1977).

ii Eng. tr. by Bapudeva Sastri, Bibliotheca Indica No. 32, Calcutta 1861.

iii Bengali tr.- (with Comm. 'Gudhartha Prakasika' by Ranganatha (1603 AD)) in (PhalitaT Jyotisha Vol. ITI'.ed. by Rasika Mohana Chattopadhyaya, Calcutta 1887.

iv Hindi tr. (with Sanskrit Comm. by Madhava Pu'rohit) by Girija Prasad Dvivedi, Naval Kishore Press, Lucknow 1904.

v Bengali tr. by Vijnanananda Swami and Hariprasad Chattopadhyaya, ' Calcutta , 1909.

vi Hindi tr.f (with Comm. 'Gudhartha Prakasika' by Ranganatha (1603 AD)) by Baladev Prasad Misra, Kalyana, Bombay 1924.

vii Hindi tr.' (with Sanskrit Comm. 'Vijnana Bhashya') by Mahavir Prasad. Srivastava, Vijnana Parishad, Allahabad 1924-41

viii Malayalam tr. by P. S. Purushottaman Namputiri, Trivandrum 1950.

66 Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja (3rd Cent. AD) : Eng. tr. by D. Pingree, 2 vols., Harvard Univ. Press 1978.



Author:M. D. Srinivas

ANCIENT INDIAN MEDICINE — THE PROBLEMS OF AN UNBIASED PERSPECTIVE

[A Critical Review of Science and Society in Ancient India by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Research India Publications, Calcutta 1977].
The task of the historian who will search for elements of 'scientific knowledge ' in the knowledge systems of ancient non-western civilizations is a difficult one. All present-day theoretical reflections—sociological, epistemological and historiographical—on science are based on the assumption that western science in its modern phase is the paradigm for a ‘scientific’ knowledge system. If the historian of science in. ancient civilizations is to go by the tradition of this scholarship on science, he must abdicate his task right at the threshold—he is not likely to find 'knowledge systems' identical with the modern western science anywhere in history. All that the historian of science can then, do is to document the evolution of modern science in the western culture from Galileo onwards. And this is precisely what the historians of science did till recently, till Needham, to be precise.

Therefore, if the historian of science in ancient civilizations is at all to take up his task seriously, he must first free himself of the bias of all modern scholarship on science and must first evolve an unbiased criterion for calling a knowledge system ‘scientific’.

Fortunately, evolving such a criterion is not difficult. One can simply turn back to the school-text definition of science: 'Science is the body of knowledge based on observation of phenomena and their classification under a theoretical framework, which itself is tested in observation .' Thus, all that the historian of science in an ancient civilization has to look for is a knowledge system that has the following methodological characteristics:

M1 It is based on a sufficiently large body of observational data.
M2 It has a sufficiently elaborate theoretical framework to classify the data.
M3 The basis of legitimization of theoretical speculation is based in observation.

The above methodology obviously presupposes the epistemological position that :

El The above method is a legitimate method for acquiring knowledge about reality.

E2 The knowledge so acquired is always limited and subject to modification in the light of new data.

Therefore, the historian of science must also search for evidence., explicit or implicit, in favour of the above two epistemological criteria.'

Since the above epistemological-methodological criteria make knowledge an accretional process—ever increasing and changing through the addition and assimilation of new data—acquisition of such knowledge can only be a corporate activity. Therefore, in order to show that in a society a knowledge system based on the above criteria actually flourished, the historian must also show the presence of a community of practitioners. Thus to the above list of methodological-epistemological criteria, the historian must add the sociological criterion that :

S1 ln the society there was a professional community of practitioners of knowledge in the above sense, well governed by some social norms.

If in a knowledge system of an ancient civilisation the historian can find all the above characteristics, he can have no hesitation in calling such a knowledge system 'scientific'—whether that system fits in with the 'modern science' paradigm or not. The current tradition of scholarship on science—obsessed as it is with the ' modern science' being the only 'scientific' knowledge system that mankind has produced—may not agree, with him, but for any unbiased observer such a knowledge system must have all claims to be called 'scientific'.

Debiprasad Chattopadhaya in the first chapter of his book ' Science and Society in Ancient India' marshals enormous amount of data gleaned solely from the text-books of Indian medicine, in fact from the two major texts Caraka-Samhita and Susruta-Samhita alone, to prove that the system of ancient Indian medicine satisfied all the above requirements. To get an idea of the enormity of data collected, the first part of the book deserves to be read in full. Below, we shall endeavour to give some glimpses of the data collected on the above six aspects.

Methodological Criteria

MI Empirical Basis ; The Ayurvedic texts lay great store by empirical observation. The texts give detailed instructions about how to collect data on drugs, on pathological symptoms, and even on anatomy through dissection of corpses. And the data accumulated on all these aspects is stupendous. To take the case of data on drugs alone: Ayurvedic texts mention drugs of vegetable, animal and mineral origin. The number of drug plants mentioned in the three Samhitas (Caraka, Susruta and Ashtanga-hridaya) is somewhere between 600 and 700 and the number of Sanskrit names (excluding their derivatives) of vegetable drugs is about 1900. 'To this it needs to be added that the medical works do not discuss plants as such. What these discuss instead are the effects on our bodies of the different parts and products of the plants. As the Caraka-Samhita explains, "Root, bark, pith, exudation, stalk, juice, sprouts, atkalies, milk, fruit, flower, ash, oils, thorns, leaves, buds, bulbs and off-shoots are the plant products now in medicine.” (p. 85).

As far as the drugs of animal origin are concerned, 'Caraka-Samhita (alone) discusses one hundred and sixty-five varieties of animals. Enumerating the different animal products used for medical purposes, it says, "Honey, milk, bile, fat, marrow, blood, flesh, excrement, urine, skin, semen, bones, sinews, horns, nails, hooves, hair goracana—these are the substances used in medicine from the animal world. " (p.86). Again, Caraka-Samhita mentions 64 main minerals used for drugs. Add to these—600 to 700 drug plants with their different parts forming different drugs, 165 varieties of animals again with different products and parts acting as different drugs; and 64 main minerals—the various pharmacological preparations to which each of these drugs could be subjected, and one can have some idea of the enormity of the pharmacopoeia on which Ayurvedic medicine was based. In fact, 'the Caraka-Samhita itself speaks of “six hundred purgatives and five hundred decoctions", besides the eightyfour varieties of wines...'(p.88).

The respect for empirical observation of the Ayurvedic physicians is so great that Caraka-Samhita states, "The entire world is the teacher of the intelligent physician, as it is the fos of the fool. " (p.63). And both Ciraka- and Susruta-Samhitas declare, "No substance is found in the world which is without relevance for medicine.”

M2 Theoretical Framework to Classify the Empirical Data : The Ayurvedic physicians are clearly aware of the need for a theoretical framework to understand empirical data-in order to go b3yond mere empiricism, '...they feel-that something more than the mere knowledge of substances is required for their purpose. This something is the intellectual discipline or Yukti. Hence they claim, "Yukti (rational application) is the ultimate foundation of (therapeutic) success. A physician accomplished in rational application is always superior to one with the mere empirical knowledge of the substances,” (p.9-10). Or "...No one can claim to have a perfect knowledge of pharmacology by the mere acquaintance with the names or even forms of herbs. If one who knows the uses and action of herbs, though not acquainted with their forms, may be called a pharmacologist, what then need be said of the physician who knows the herbs botanically, pharmacologically and in every other respect ?..."(P- 9).

M3 Basis of Legitimization ; In spite of the fact that the physicians laid so much stress upon a theoretical formulation of the problem of medicine, the physicians always insisted that the final test of any hypothesis lay in practice. One can quote any number of verses from those collected by Debiprasad to support this contention. To quote just a few :

"He is the best of physicians who can in actual practice cure people of diseases. "

(From Caraka : p. 103)

"A learned physician must never try to examine on grounds of pure logic the efficacy of a medicine, which is known by direct observation as having by nature a specific medical action. Thus, for example, even a thousand logical grounds will not make the Atnbastha group of drugs have a purgative function."

(From Susruta : p. 83)

" All this is what we prescribe, because all these are based on what we directly observe (sarnyak upadisamah; samyak pasyamah ca iti.)”

(From Caraka : p. 82)

Epistemological Criteria

It is not essential that a knowledge system in order, to be termed ' scientific' must state its epistemological position explicitly—in no text of modern science will one find statements to that effect, and most of the practitioners of modern science are unlikely to be aware of the epistemological position implied by their science. However, in a society wherein more than one knowledge system is allowed to flourish, explicit statements of the epistemological positions of various knowledge systems are expected and it is interesting to find in the texts of Ayurveda verses stating the positions El and E2 unambiguously.

El Faith in the legitimacy of the Method: Ayurvedic texts are very forceful -in asserting that the method they follow is a legitimate method of acquiring knowledge about human health. Thus Caraka-Samhita declares : "The physician starting medical treatment in time and with proper medical knowledge—inclusive of the knowledge of the difference between the curable and incurable diseases—is absolutely certain to attain success.” (p. 36). Again, "In cases of diseases amenable to medical treatment, medicine can never be ineffective.", (p. 195).' And "As a bowman who is a good marksman and given to constant practice, taking up a bow and releasing an arrow does not fail in hitting a big target that is not far off, and achieves his purpose, so does a physician of accomplishment and means who starts treating a curable disease after full investigation, without fail bestow health on the patient ... “(p. 195).

In fact, the texts go so far as to state that any success achieved without following the correct method is sheer accidental success and is to be discouraged. Thus Caraka-Samhita declares, "Like a man without eyes or like a canoe left at the mercy of winds, the ignorant physician gropes about timidly because of his lack of knowledge. However, when he meets accidental success in someone otherwise assured of life (niyatayusha), the pretentious quack gathers courage with which he hastens the death of many others whose lives are not thus assured (a-niyatayusha)." (p. 204).

E2 Recognition of Limitations : Since the scientific method itself demands continuous accretion of data and continuous checking of the theoretical formulation against this data, it is essential, for a knowledge system based on such a method, to recognise the limitations of the knowledge available at any given time. In the western epistemological tradition these limitations of the scientific knowledge have been recognised to some extent only since early twentieth century. Therefore, it is interesting to find statements in Ayurveda explicitly recognising these limits. They recognise these limits at all levels.

(a) Limits on the domain of applicability of knowledge acquired : The recognition of this is clear in the distinction, made in the above quotations, between curable and incurable diseases. The physicians are willing to recognise that there are diseases which are not curable, and in those cases their medicine will not be effective. Thus Susruta states: "Having made these observations, the physicians will try to cure diseases that are curable, adopt palliative measures in cases where palliation is all that can be offered, and should not take up a case which is beyond all medical treatment ..." '(p. 102).

(b) Limits on the completeness of theoretical apparatus : The physicians not only recognize the limits of applicability of their science, they also recognise the incomple of the theoretical apparatus developed to classify and understand empirical data.

Thus, when they fail to classify all substances and their actions on the basis of their observed qualities alone, they introduce the category of vipaka—that of post-digestive changes in qualities of the substance. And when they still find that some substances agreeing with each other in all the categories developed so far do not agree in their action, they introduce the concept of prabhava. 'Here is what Caraka-Samhita says about –prabhava: "When, in spite of the similarity between taste (rasa), potency (virya) and post-digestive change (vipaka), two substances are actually observed to differ in their actions, such difference is to be accounted for by prabhava" ......But what is meant by prabhava? The Caraka-Samhita comes out with the frank admission that at the stage of knowledge represented by it, prabhava is something beyond the comprehension of doctors : prabhavah acintyah ucyate.’ (pp. 173-4). This willingness to add new theoretical categories in the face of new data, and willingness to admit the incompleteness of the current theoretical apparatus is the very essence of scientific method, and is rarely to be found even in the outlook of modern scientists.

(c) Limits on the domain of applicability of the method: Flourishing in an epoch and a society in which a number of knowledge systems prevailed, Ayurveda seems to admit the possibility of other methodologies in other contexts. Since Debiprasad is not looking for data on this aspect of Ayurveda, we cannot give any direct statement to corroborate this proposition. However, there is sufficient evidence to the effect that the Ayurvedic physicians do conceive of other methodologies in other contexts in the fact that wherever an assertive epistemological or methodological statement appears, it carries the qualification that the assertion holds is the therapeutic context alone. Thus Caraka-Samhita 'declares, "In this discipline (viz. medicine), everything is viewed as made of matter in five forms.(p.66), and Susruta-Samhita adds, "It is claimed that knowledge of matter in its different forms is alone relevant for medicine, because in the therapeutic context it is impermissible to conceive of anything transcending matter." (p. 74) [emphasis added].

This realization, that different contexts may require different' methodologies and categories', and that the scientific methodology is essential for acquiring knowledge specific to certain contexts, is very important—especially today when the undisputed legitimacy of the scientific method in the domain of natural sciences is given as a proof of the illegitimacy of all other knowledge systems devoted to the 'ethical', 'social' etc. contexts.

Sociological Criterion

Even a cursory reading of Debiprasad's book is sufficient to convince oneself that Ayurveda is the product of an active community of physicians that had well-established norms to govern it. Large parts of the texts seem to be accounts of symposia held at various places in which physicians from various schools participated. The fact that there were well-defined norms governing this community is obvious from the fact that the text insists that there are certain rules which are unanimously shared by all schools of medicine : sarva-tantra-siddhanta. For example Caraka - Samhita states, " Among these (conclusions) those are called the unanimously admitted ones which have reputation in each and every treatise on the subject (viz. medicine). Such are : there are causes, there are diseases, there are ways of curing the curable diseases." (p. 22).

How anxious the physicians are to have a professional community is also obvious from the minute care with which both Caraka- and Susrutn-Samhitas describe the qualities of men entitled to seek medical studies. The following about the seeker after medical studies from Caraka-Samhita is worth quoting in full:

"He should be peaceful (prasanta), noble in disposition, incapable of any . mean act (a-kshudra-karman), with straight eyes, face and nose, with slim body, having a clean and red tongue, without distortion of teeth and lips, with clear voice (i.e., with voice neither indistinct nor nasal), persevering, without egotism, intelligent, endowed with powers of reasoning and good memory (vitarka-smriti-sampanna), with broad mind (udara-sattava), inclined to medical study either because of being born in the family of physicians or by natural aptitude, with eagerness to have the knowledge of truth (tattva-abhinivesin), with no deformity of body and no defect of sense-organs, by nature modest and gentle, contemplating on the true nature of things (artha-tattva-bhavaka), without anger and without addiction, endowed with good conduct, cleanliness, good habits, love, skill and courtesy (sila-sauca-anuraga-dakshya-pradakshinya-up apanna), desirous of the welfare of all living beings, devoid of greed and laziness (alubdham analasam sarva-bhutahitaishinam) and having full loyalty and attachment to the teacher." (p.218-9).

In fact, from within the data collected by Debiprasad, one can find evidence for all the four norms for a scientific community—universalism, communism, disinterestedness and organised scepticism—prescribed by Merton.

Universalism implies that truth claims in the community be subject to impersonal, well-defined criteria of validation. As we have seen above, Ayurveda lists the criteria of validation of knowledge In so many words. And even for those who are permitted to pursue medicine as a career, it prescribes clear impersonal qualities as obvious from the verse quoted above. However, unlike the Mertonian analysis, the Ayurvedic physicians do not go further to claim that the impersonal criteria for validation of knowledge established by them in the therapeutic context are the only criteria by which any knowledge in any context can be validated. But that, in any case, is an impermissible and biased extension of the criterion of universality.

Communism essentially means that there be free flow of information amongst the practitioners. In Ayurveda, it is ensured by laying a strong stress on debates within the community. The Caraka-Samhita advises, "A physician must enter into debate with another physician (bhishak bhishaja saha sambhashote).” Explaining the desirability of it, the text adds: "Debate with one belonging to the same discipline contributes in the perfection of one's knowledge and clarifies one's understanding...... Those who are wise, therefore, strongly recommend intra-disciplinary debate." (p. 208)

Disinterestedness : In Ayurveda, disinterestedness in the Mertonian sense of willingness to discard theories that do not face up to the data and willingness to add new categories to the theoretical framework is clearly borne out by the discussion on prabhava given earlier. However, in preaching disinterestedness, Caraka-Samhita goes much further than any present-day scientific community. The Samhita declares: "(Among physicians) he surpasses all who practises medicine neither for the sake of money nor for the sake of sensual gratification in any other form, but is motivated only by the compassion for living beings......One who practises the healing art with compassion for the living beings as the noblest of all duties is .a person who really fulfils his mission and thereby gets entitled to the highest form of happiness." (p. 210).

Organised Scepticism : The Ayurvedic texts are clearly sceptical about any knowledge that is not acquired in pursuance of the scientific method. Thus, in a colloquium described in Caraka-Samhita, when a participant, Rajarshi Varyovida, waxes eloquent abot the importance of Wind (Vayu) in sustaining life quoting the various qualities of the Vayu god, Maricit another participant in the colloquium, leaps to attack : "Even if all these were true, what is the point of saying all this in the medical discipline ? Whatever is said here must be said in accordance with the requirements of medicine." (p. 265).

However, this scepticism, as emphasized earlier, is conscientiously restricted to the medical context, where alone it is relevant to the requirements of science. The physicians show no inclination to state that nothing is sacred in any context. Thus, while analysing the cow in the medical context as to its place in the general zoological
classification of animals', and describing the properties of cow's flesh and other parts as drugs, they find no contradiction in declaring in other contexts that, "One should worship the gods, cows, brahmins, preceptors, spiritual adepts and teachers." (p. 15).

In the above, basing entirely on the data collected by Debiprasad Chattopa-dhayaya in his" book, we have tried to prove how by an unbiased criterion the knowledge system of ancient Indian medicine was entirely 'scientific'. The analysis above is necessarily limited, because, firstly Debiprasad is not using the categories of analysis we have defined above secondly we cannot do full justice to the enormous amount of data 'collected in his book within the format of this review. To get a more complete idea of the scientificity of the ancient Indian medicine, the first chapter of the book must be read in full. However, this recommendation we make with a proviso—a lot of statements that Debiprasad makes and contradictions that he finds must be discounted. This is because Debiprasad is not looking for the 'scientific' in ancient Indian medicine for its own sake, but only to prove that Indian medicine had tendencies which could be called 'proto-scientific' and which, given an alternative (western-liberal) civilization, would have bloomed into modern science. The reasons for and the inadequacies of this position we discuss in the second part of this review.

Having overcome the first bias of modern scholarship on science that modern science is the only scientific knowledge system that mankind ever produced, and having shown the existence of an alternative knowledge system which had claims to be called scientific by any unbiased criterion of 'scientificity', the historian is immediately faced with the question : 'Why did this knowledge system not evolve into modern science?'

An unbiased historian will answer: There is nothing in the criterion for scientificity of a knowledge system which dictates that all scientific knowledge systems must evolve into modern science. Having actually observed a scientific knowledge system that was and remained in its content and form quite different from modern science through centuries of evolution, the unbiased historian will have to conclude that, like all other knowledge, science is also a cultural product, and the content and form of science in different cultures are therefore different. He will then have the interesting task of looking for differing socio-cultural elements in different societies that make their scientific formulation of the same natural phenomena so different. Thus, in answer to the above question, the historian of science will have to make a comparative analysis of the concepts of human health, of social organization, of health-care system etc., in the ancient-Indian and modern-western societies, to see why their scientific formulations of the problem of medicine are so different.

However, taking up such a position will amount to a head-on confrontation with all modern scholarship on science, which insists not only that modern science is the only scientific knowledge system evolved in human history, but also that modern science is the unique formulation of reality. [And incidentally since modern-western culture alone has been able to produce this ' unique formulation of reality', modern-western culture is the model to be followed by other cultures if they want to have any genuine knowledge of reality]. Denying this bias will amount to denying the whole basis of modern cultural-imperialism of the West.. That needs intellectual courage of a high order.

Standing on the shoulders of Needham, Debiprasad takes the first step towards evolving an unbiased view on science: that of allowing that other societies at other times may have produced scientific knowledge systems. But, like Needham, Debiprasad cannot take the next step of allowing that these alternative scientific knowledge systems, flourishing in different cultures, had a right to their independent evolution; and the fact, that these systems in their evolution showed no tendencies of becoming identical with modern science, is no argument to prove that these systems died a natural death. Instead, Debiprasad acquiesces in the current bias that modern science is the unique formulation of reality. All that he wants to claim in favour of the enormous theoretical and empirical knowledge of the ancient physicians is that it was some sort of a proto-science*, which had the potential of evolving into modern science. If it did not do so, it can only be because there must have been elements in the ancient Indian culture which inhibited the evolution of science. And, as if to atone for the sin of having discovered in Chapter 1 a scientific knowledge system in a non-western society, Debiprasad immediately sets for himself the task of finding these elements in the cultural environment of ancient India. Here is what Debiprasad himself has to say about his task in the remainder of the book:

".........it is impossible for the historian of science in its restricted sense—and even for the historian of ideas in general—to ignore the significance of a number of theoretical achievements of the ancient physicians. But it-Ms equally, impossible for the historian to overlook the basic fact that the promises of science remain unfulfilled in ancient and medieval India. These do not lead to the creation of science in the modern sense as expected of the normal course of their development. Evidently there is also something in ancient India which inhibits or injures science, wanting even to destroy what is once achieved by it. Since, as Needham says, the inhibitory processes concern the historian of science as much as the adjuvant ones, an attempt will be made in the present chapter to identify the former." (p. 212).

In this attempt to search for the 'inhibitory processes', Debiprasad collects data from the Indian legal literature in Chapter 2, and from Caraka-Samhita itself in Chapter 3. Before evaluating this data, we wish to remark on a curious feature of this attempt.

When a historian of science undertakes an attempt to find the processes which inhibited the development of a scientific knowledge system, one expects him to first adduce some evidence that, in the period under consideration, the knowledge system was indeed inhibited in a way that it failed to flourish. Debiprasad adduces no such evidence against ancient Indian medicine.-On the contrary, the impression one forms from the data collected by Debiprasad is that of a medical system which continuously flourished during the whole period of about ten centuries covered by his analysis, and which was apparently very efficacious. Let us give some evidence of these two features of ancient Indian medicine—using again the data collected by Debiprasad himself:

(i) Evidence showing that ancient Indian medicine was a flourishing system : According to Debiprasad's testimony, Indian medicine acquired the status of a scientific knowledge system sometime before Buddha. 'Indian medicine takes the step from magi-co-religious therapeutics to rational therapeutics sometime before the Buddha.' (p. 341). And the extant Caraka-Samhita, on which the analysis of Debiprasad is based, is a revised version of the earlier texts, the revisor being Dridhabala about whom 'on a very rough estimate, however, it may be permissible to assume that he belongs to the Gupta period or sometime near the sixth century' (p. 32). In the extant Caraka-Samhita Dridhabala claims that the text he is revising is itself a revised version of an earlier text, the intermediate reviser being Caraka. Then there is the presumption (according to Debiprasad) based on the textual evidence that there are 'eminent ancient authorities through whose hands the compilation passes before reaching its intermediate editor, whom Dridhabala calls Caraka'. (p. 33). The extant Susruta-Samhita seems to have a similar history. Thus over the period of ten centuries, about which the medical compilations offer historical data, the canonical works of Indian medicine are being repeatedly revised, or reconstructed—as Dridhabala prefers to term his revision. Who will imagine this happening in a knowledge system that has failed to flourish?

And what does the reconstruction of these medical compilations involve? Dridhabala, the final reconstructor of the Caraka-Samhita relied upon by Debiprasad, claims to have 'completed this treatise by adding to it seventeen chapters on therapeutics, the Siddhi-Sthana and Kalpa-Sthana...’ (p. 31). Thus, in this one reconstruction, the Caraka-Samhita acquires 41 new chapters out of a total of 120. What are these new /'additions? The first seventeen chapters are added to Cikitsa-Sthana which deals mainly with therapeutics, the newly added Kalpa-Sthana contains '12 brief chapters, evidently supplementing the pharmacopoeia of the earlier books' (p. 21) and Siddhi-Sthana contains '12 Chapters on enema, purgation, urinary diseases etc, mainly supplementing what is discussed in other books (of Caraka-Samhitay (p. 21). Thus the reconstructor is evidently bringing the text up-to-date by adding to it the new information acquired on therapeutics, pharmacology and diseases and techniques since the earlier compilation. Does a science that is becoming decadent generate such a vast amount of new data, requiring a supplement one third as big as the earlier compilation?

(ii) Evidence showing that ancient Indian medicine was an efficacious system :
In favour of this proposition there is, of course, the evidence of the faith in their medicine of the ancient physicians themselves (quoted earlier in the first part of this review). It is difficult to imagine the practitioners of a medicine that did not work stating categorically, 'In cases of diseases amenable to medical treatment, medicine can never be ineffective (na hi bheshaja-sndhyanam vyadhinam bheshajam akaranam bhavati)’ (p. 195). However, this is not the only evidence we find in the book about the efficacy of Indian medicine. Debiprasad quotes Vinaya-Pitaka (a Pali canonical work of Buddhism) describing how Buddha allowed all sorts of freedom to the sick bhikkus in consideration of medical requirements (pp.328-333). According to Vinaya-Pitaka Buddha goes to the extent of saying, 'I allow, oh bhikkus, in the case of a disease not human, the use of raw flesh and the blood.' (p.332). If Buddha with his ethics of non-injury (ahimsa) allows his bhikkus the use of raw flesh and blood, in case of medicinal need, it could only be if the medical practice (had acquired sufficient authenticity through its efficacy. In fact, the general belief in the efficacy of medicine at the Buddhist time seems to be so great that sick lay-men are tempted to join the samgha merely to get entitled to the services of a famous physician, Jivaka Komarbhacca. (p.328). In the end we must add that the Indian legal literature) which according to Debiprasad is frankly anti-science, itself pays a tribute to the efficacy of medicine by recording the story of Asvins—the medical gods—having acquired the right of getting libations drawn for them during the sacrificial ritual, by having repaired the head of the sacrifice (Vedi) which had got severed. And the story is repeated on and on in the various Vedic texts (pp. 242-250). If the medical practice is so efficacious that even gods, who do not like the medical men, can be in need of it, it must have been really efficacious for mere humans.

Thus there is sufficient evidence in Debiprasad's book to show that Indian medicine, in the period considered by him, flourished continuosly and worked effectively. Therefore, it appears that he takes up the task of finding the processes which inhibited the growth of science only because the theoretical formulations of ancient Indian medicine during their evolution did not ' lead to the creation of science, in the modern sense, as expected of the normal course of their development' (p.212). And what are the inhibitory factors that he finds ? Debiprasad collects two types of evidence to show the presence of inhibitory factors. We shall discuss these two separately :

1. Evidence (in Chapter 2) from literary sources—especially from what he calls the Indian legal literature : He shows that in this literature there is intense contempt for the knowledge acquired by observation, and for the rational method. Also, the legal-literature assigns a low-caste status to the physicians, and even the medical gods are not quite at par with other gods.

We are no authorities on Vedic literature to discuss how far this evidence is reliable. So we shall assume that all that is said about the Vedic literature is correct. All that this evidence proves is that in the socio-ethical-religious context the scientific method was not considered suitable ; and that the physicians did not belong to the ruling classes. These two are; just not sufficient to establish that scientific method in the medical context could not have survived.

Then, there is the related question that, as far as historical evidence is available, the-legal literature and the rational-medicine flourished at the same time. Obviously, there must have been sufficient realization of the relevance of alternative systems of knowledge in alternative contexts (as emphasized by the physicians in the canonical texts of medicine themselves) to allow for the simultaneous flourishing of two different knowledge systems. Debiprasad does not accept this hypothesis (pp.273-274). Instead, he seems to propose to explain this historical fact of the simultaneous development of Upanishadic philosophy and rational-therapeutics, by claiming -that the latter developed outside Upanishadic India—the development of the two was spatially separated if not temporally. In support of this he quotes the story of Uddalaka Aruni who is born in Kuru-Pancala but has to go out of his native place to the physician Saunaka, 'who lives in some comparatively unknown place outside the stronghold of Upanishadic culture', in order to pursue his interest in medical questions (pp. 303-304). The hold of Upanishadic literature must have been rather limited to allow the Indian medicine to continuously flourish for ten centuries outside its strongholds!

2. Evidence (in Chapter 3) from Caraka-Samhita : In this section Debiprasad lists evidence from within Caraka-Samhita which goes against its expressed reliance in the scientific method. Debiprasad's hypothesis is that these extra-scientific statements in Caraka-Samhita are in the nature of tributes, paid by the physicians to the dominant anti-scientific ideology, to save their science from being entirely banned. While avoiding going into the merits of this hypothesis, we only wish to point out that most of the extra-scientific statements quoted by Debiprasad from Caraka-Samhita are in the nature of ethical statements. Thus a very large portion of Chapter 3 is devoted to showing how Caraka-Samhita, in spite of taking a very scientific interest in the cow, recommends, at other places, that the cow should be worshipped; and how the text, while giving a very scientific description of alcohol and listing 84 varieties of wines, insists at other places that celibacy (brahmacharya, which includes avoidance of alcohol) is a virtue. It is difficult to see why a scientist, while realizing the importance of a scientific understanding of the cow and alcohol in the medical context, is not allowed to hold the cow worshippable and alcohol obnoxious, ordinarily. If Buddha with all his piety and all his insistence on ahimsa can recognise the medical need of eating flesh and thereby lose nothing of his ethics, why must the scientist recognizing the ethical need of worshipping the cow and avoiding alcohol lose all his science?

Debiprasad believes that the ancient physicians, by taking an interest in the ethical-social questions, stopped ancient medicine from evolving into modern medicine. He may well be correct. But he does not prove that this interest in the social-ethical questions stopped ancient medicine from flourishing, in the period under consideration, or from curing sickness—and that is all that matters.

It is a belief of the modern scholarship on science that recognition of the ethical and social needs in a knowledge system is anti-scientific. Thus, we hear Needham saying about Confucius:

"To neglect man and speculate about Nature was, he (Confucius) believed, to misunderstand the whole universe. And so it was that he struck a blow at science by emphasizing its social context too much and too soon." [The Shorter Science and Civilization in China, abridged by C. A. Ronin, Vol. 1, p. 83].

Debiprasad, by acquiescing in this belief, loses the opportunity of finding how the ethical-social views that the ancient physicians held effected the content and form of their science and made it so different from modern science, whose unstated ethics is the ethics of the market and of unbridled exploitation of both nature and man for the sake of profit.

However, let us state that if this denial of all ethics except the ethics of the market is essential for the development of modern science, as both Needham and 'Debiprasad seem to imply, then let us not have modern science. We shall still have a science, just as the ancient physicians had a medicine, that was scientific, that flourished and that cured.



Author:J. K. Bajaj

CHIPKO - MOVEMENT

[Shri Sunderlal Bahugunaji, one of the major inspirers and leaders of the Chipko movement, observed a prayerful fast for 11 days for self-introspection and focussing the countrymen's attention on that serious problem [of the critical state of affairs in the Himalayan region]. The fast started on 2nd April ‘81 and was to be followed by a foot march from Kashmir to Kohima in May-June by the youth drawn from various parts of the country. On this occasion, Bahugunaji has requested us to give wide publicity to the cause of Chipko movement and to support it by all possible means.

Chipko is too well known a movement to need a detailed write-up from us. Also, sufficient literature has been published explaining the history and the objectives of the movement. This literature can be obtained by writing to Chipko Information Centre, P.O. Silyara Ghansali, 249155 (Tehri Garhwal, U.P.) Below, we only emphasise the two special features of the movement, which in our view make Chipko more than a usual conservationist movement. ]

1. Chipko is a Gandhi an Movement for Total Change

The Chipko movement had its origins in the efforts of Shri Chandi Prasad Bhatt and his colleagues, started in the early sixties, to win a share for the local hill people in the commercially exploited forest wealth of the Himalayas. The Chipko movement proper, however, right from its inception on March 27, 1973, has had a much wider scope than that of an economic, or even an ecological movement. The organizers of the movement see Chipko as a movement that 'rebels against the materialistic civilization which, in order to satisfy its ever-increasing artificial needs, has provoked man to, conquer nature and rape the earth, and a movement that works for 'the establishment of cordial relationship between man and nature.' This wider perspective of the movement is reflected in all its facets: in the techniques it employs (Chipko literally means embracing— embrace the trees to avoid the lumberman's axe falling on them); in the slogans and songs it uses (Chipko has thrown up a number of melodious folk songs and powerful slogans—all expressing the hill-people's organic link with the natural forests), in what its leaders say and even in the idiom that they use for saying it. Notice the personification of the Himalayas in the following;

"The Himalayas have been providing livelihood to the highlanders through its forests and rivers, but now its endurance is exhausted owing to man's provocations and it has started hurtling rocks. The Himalayas which was known to safeguard against any peril owing to its unpenetrable wall, has become the origin of floods and has shaken the economic structure of Northern India. It has declared war against mankind. Man has no power and wit to face this calamity, other than change his style from A to Z. Instead of presuming himself the conqueror of nature he should try and live in harmony with it. Our materialistic civilization has made us the butchers of nature. In order to satisfy his passion man wants to plunder everything at one stretch. He wants to slaughter the earth."

This evolution of the Chipko movement from an economic-ecological movement to a total movement against the modern civilization (as always envisaged by Gandhiji see ‘Hind Swaraj') has, been forced in practice. Right from the beginning, Chipko’s stand against felling of trees was condemned as a narrow parochial attitude opposed to the ‘scientific’ exploitation of the forests. To this the answer of the Chipko workers could only be:

"The "principles of forestry" quoted in books are "scientific principles" follow¬ing from a world-view which teaches that nature is for conquering and the earth for raping. It is the world-view of the contractors and profit-makers and the “scientific principles" that flow from it are their principles. We have no faith in this "science of forestry". Our world-view teaches us to treat the whole world as our family (Vasudhaivecutumbakam). This is the world view that allows for permanent life on the hills. The science of forestry that flows from this world-view is the science that the hill people know and have been practicing since ages. It is this science that is of the\ people and for the people in which we have faith".

This then is an instance of the concept of the neutrality of science being questioned in practice, and this could also serve as an indication of the sources of a patriotic and people-oriented science and Technology (PPST).

2. Chipko is a Gandhian Women's Liberation Movement

On March 26, '74, during the Chipko action to save the Reni forests, the contractors and the government authorities connived to keep all the men-folk away from the village. The Chipko leaders were kept at Gopeshwar by the D.F.O. under the pretext of negotiations etc. The village men were all called to Chamoli under the pre¬text of paying compensation for the land appropriated by the Army at least 14 years earlier. And the contractors’ men were sent to Reni to fell the trees. When the Chipko leaders, Bhattji amongst them heard of the deception, they were dumbstruck; .everyone thought that all was lost. However, on reaching Reni the next day they found a complete surprise awaiting them. The women of the village had on that day, on their own initiative, gone to the forest and stopped the contractors' men from felling any trees. They had pushed the lumbermen out of the forest, and to make it doubly sure that they do not return, they had cut the road leading from the village to the forest; and also kept a night-long vigil over the marked trees. From that day the movement became the women's movement.

The organizers repeatedly emphasize the participation of women in the movement. The movement is described as ' Uttarkhand women's bid to save the forest wealth.' It is pointed out that women are the major sufferers in the loss of forests. It is their life that becomes a hell as a result of the 'scientific-commercial' exploitation of the forests. The men are forced to leave their homes and go to the plains to earn a livelihood. So the whole burden of family life-looking after the children and cattle and working in the fields-has fallen on the women. Sometimes, they have to walk more than 20 kms to bring a head-load of leaf-fodder or fuel. The drying up of drinking water resources has further increased their difficulties; hence their struggle to save the forests as a source of fuel, fodder and drinking water sources, which are fast depleted as a result of "scientific management".

That a Gandhian movement for a more harmonious life on earth be led to seek its base in women is particularly interesting. It may be relevant to summarize here Gandhiji's conception of woman's role in ushering in the regenerate society of his vision. (See: M.K.Gandhi, "Woman and social injustice”). Gandhiji believed that: while both man and woman are fundamentally the same, their roles have been different. While man has taken on the role of breadwinner, which in today's society is based on the exploitation of man and nature, woman has been the caretaker and distributor. In the present society, man's role is the dominant one and woman has developed an inferiority complex by believing in man's interested teaching that she is inferior to him. According to Gandhiji, in the regenerate human society based on Ahimsa-on harmonious, non-exploitative relationships between man and man, and man and nature—it is the woman's role that will be dominant. Gandhiji believed that woman will achieve true liberation, not by demanding equal partnership in modern man's rapacity, but by reemphasizing her role as the caretaker and distributor. In the struggle for a new order based on Ahimsa, woman will thus be the unquestioned leader.

‘My contribution to the great problem (of women's liberation) lies in my presenting for acceptance truth and ahimsa in every walk of life, whether for individuals or nations. I have hugged the hope that in this woman will be the unquestioned leader and, having thus found her place in human evolution, will shed her inferiority complex'. (Harijan, 24-2-1940; Rep. in loc: cit. p. 27).

The chipko movement while showing that a movement for harmonious life on earth, for better care of natural resources, calls forth spontaneous active participation even of the supposedly backward, uneducated women living in the remote villages of the Himalayas, seems to be trying out in practice Gandhiji's conception of a women's liberation movement.

All those who are searching for alternatives to the modern rapacious imperialist civilization will find a lot to support and study in the Chipko movement.

Suggested Reading

1. M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj

2. M. K. Gandhi, Women and Social Injustice, Navjivan Publishing house, Ahmedabad, 1942.

3. Anupam Mishra and Satyendra Tripathi, Chipko Movement, People's Action New Delhi, 1978.




Author:Madras Group

INDIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: AT THE CROSS-ROADS

[A review of "A Failed Science ?" : A symposium on the state of technical establishment; SEMINAR (258), Feb. 1981]

Indian Science and Technology (S & T) today, like Indian economy and Indian polity, is in a crisis, and the S & T planners are in a fix.

S & T planning in India was launched in right earnest in the fifties with great fanfare, and with a solemn declaration by the planners through a resolution of the parliament of their faith in" the efficacy of S & T in solving the material and social problems of a country long ravaged by colonisation. It is not necessary to state that S & T for our planners meant western S & T in its modern phase. The essential elements of the grand strategy to graft the western S & T on the Indian soil were :

(i) Creation of a large scientific and technical manpower trained in the western mould, through the establishment of a number of elite technological institutes in direct _ collaboration with western “advanced" nations, and through other scientific and technological educational institutes staffed largely by foreign-trained scientists and technologists.

(ii) Creation of a modern industrial infrastructure through the establishment in the public sector of a large number of high techno logy plants bought from the 'advanced' nations on a turnkey basis.

(iii) Creation of indigenous technology to substitute the foreign technology in a reasonable time through the establishment of a large number of R & D laboratories.

(iv) Creation of a pure-science capability through the establishment of elite institutes and by encouraging science in the universities.

After three decades of vigorous execution of this policy, all the four elements of the grand strategy are in place. India can today boast of the third largest S & T manpower in the world, an1 industrial infrastructure which is capable of feeding secondary industries that produce everything from razor blades to aero planes, umpteen number of R & D laboratories that specialize in diverse fields like environmental control and atomic energy, and a large number of universities and elite research institutes working on the frontiers of western science. But in spite of all this, the dream of the planners of the fifties of creating an India in the mould of England seems as remote as ever- The vast technological manpower has failed to make any impact on the world scene; in spite of the established infrastructure, industry is continuously stagnating (growth rates for the first five year-plans in large-scale manufacturing sector are 6.0, 7.2, 8.0, 35 & 2.8 per cent respectively); in spite of all the R & D laboratories, the industry keeps clamoring for more foreign technological input and more and more degrading collaborations have to be made (remember: the Siemens deal; the fertilizer story, and now the oil sellout); and the 'elite' pure scientists remain elites only within the country. The grand strategy, after having been fully executed, has failed. That is the crisis, and nobody knows the way out.

The SEMINAR issue under review is a good mirror of this crisis and an indication of the type of solutions and excuses a failed scientific community is offering. Three of the five main articles in the issue are devoted to careful quantifications of the failure of Indian S&T in three different areas. S. R. Ganesh's article ("Training patterns") deals with the failure of even an elite institute like 11T, Bombay in imbuing its students with any sense of purpose, or even with a respect for academic technical training; M. R. Bhagwan's article ("Innovations in Industry") gives a meticulous history of the various phases through which the Indian industry has passed, and gives impressive evidence of the failure of Indian R &D to innovate and of the continued reliance of Indian industry on foreign collaboration (which seems to be becoming an official policy now); and Dinesh Mohan ("Sea of Mediocrity") attempts a rigorous quantification of the mediocrity of Indian scientists-of even those who work outside India.

The three articles are useful reading for anyone who needs evidence for the obvious fact that Indian S&T has failed. However, we shall advise all readers to discount the infantile remedies offered in these articles. We are not being harsh in calling these remedies suggested infantile. For example, S. R. Ganesh after having noticed (through his carefully planned sociological study) that even though the faculty gives top priority to teaching and the students value academic aspects rather low, suggests that: "there is no alternative but for most faculty members to become influential in all these aspects (career choice etc.) of the students' development".

Correct, sir! But how? Hasn't Prof. Ganesh ever met a sincere IIT teacher and seen him being respected, yet treated like some sort of a crank who does not know the realities of the world outside IIT? When in the industrial world outside the IIT the managers show "very little enthusiasm for innovating" and "great enthusiasm for the 'wonder that the imports of the 'latest' technology would do" [Bhagwan's article in the same issue], the students are not likely to bother much about the old teacher or senior post-graduate who persists in pursuing 'technological excellence’, nor are they expected to help in creating 'an environment where inquiry is encouraged; irrespective of the best intentions of those people who are courageous enough to face the contradictions'. Market forces, as we all know, always prove to be more powerful than mere good intentions. Again, Mr. Bhagwan, having clearly sketched the impossibility of Indian industry, as it is, to expand any further on the basis of the Indian market alone, and therefore being forced to seek markets abroad, obviously with foreign collaboration, blames the supposed contempt of Indian middle class for manual dexterity and manual skills for the lack of innovations in R & D-this after having proved that within the Indian industry, keeping in view the market it has to cater to, the R&D employees are largely redundant.

The task of taking an overall view of Indian S&T is left to the articles by B. Banerjee ["Research Institutions"] and P. M. Bhargava and Indradev ["Deficiencies and corrections"]. It is in these articles that we get a glimpse of the fix in which the Indian S&T planners find themselves and of the type of solutions they are contem plating. Banerjee's article traces the history of development of science institutions in the country, notices that these were western grafts on Indian soil, notices their failure and almost frankly admits that he does not know the way out: "What the scientists do remains irrelevant to the functioning of the society. Whether a basic change in the Social Structure will alter the scientists' role is at the moment an open question". This is an honest article and coming from an established scientist in, an elite institute (TIFR), is worth reading. One must, of course, excuse a western trained scientist working in TIFR, for referring to his countrymen as "natives" and for the propensity to brazenly make statements like "Early nineteenth century scientific knowledge was introduced into a society whose members' knowledge of nature corresponded approximately to that of fourteenth century Europe" May we humbly remind Prof. Banerjee that fourteenth century Europe was still in its dark ages, and that the original impetus for the colonizers to turn towards India was its famed prosperity.. May we also humbly recommend to Prof. Banerjee the reading of the rather easily7 available books by Dharampal " (Indian Science and Technology in the 18 century: Some Contemporary European Accounts Impex India, 1971) and Claude Alvares (" Homo Faber ", Allied Publishers, 1975), to disabuse himself of such myths.

Bhargava and Indradev's article is perhaps the most important article in the whole issue as an indicator of the thinking of S & T policy planners in India. The article begins by introducing a large dose of optimism in the general atmosphere of gloom and despair that the rest of the issue generates and comes out openly in defence of the S & T community, alienated from the local culture and needs though it may be. The basic argument advanced by Bhargava and Indradev is that:

(i) The 'development research' whenever practised, has succeeded. In 1975-76 we exported 128 categories of finished goods to 179 countries, whereas in 1947 we exported no goods at all. (How much of this export is 'manufacture' from the foreign designs and how much is 'development’ is a moot question: refer to the succeeding article by Bhagwan)

(ii) Indian Scientific Community in the last 3 decades has produced a number of outstanding scientists whose work constitutes fundamental contributions to many fields of modern science. (How does this excellence compare in competition with the rest of the world? Refer to Dincsh Mohan's article).

If in spite of these successes, continues the argument, the overall S&T planning does not seem to have succeeded, the failure lies with a number of socio-politico-economic causes and with the organization of S&T. They suggest a number of remedies: Greater recognition of scientists' achievements and their role, removal of bureaucratization from the working of S & T community, provision of more funds for S & T, involvement of talented scientists in planning and administration, etc. All this is often repeated and almost trite. The science policy resolution of 1958 itself recognized the need for all this and the policy was tailored accordingly (Remember the amount of power Bhabha, Sarabhai etc wielded and Sethna, Ramanna, Dhavan, Swaminathan etc still do). The new points made by Bhargava and Indradev, in view of the obvious failure of S & T planning in the country are two:

1. If the S & T practice of the last 3 decades has failed to resolve the basic problems of the people, of say food, clothing, housing etc, the scientists should not be blamed for this. The responsibility for this failure is not primarily scientific, but overwhelmingly socio-politico-economic. "Blaming our scientists for our failures is like holding American scientists responsible for the backward-ness of blacks in USA".

This is a curious argument, and almost a demand that scientists should not be held responsible for being socially irrelevant - a demand we thought had become outdated since the pioneering work of Bernal. Let us only add that the American S & T is responsible for the backwardness of the blacks there. It was the development of this S & T that necessitated and facilitated slave-trade and colonization in the first place. Also American blacks are a minority, and the scientists there may justifiably refuse to work in the interest of a minority. How can Bhargava et al refuse the responsibility of working in the interest of the majority of the Indian people on the basis of that specious argument ?

2. The second new point that the article makes is that since 'scientific temper' is essential for the development of S & T, "all activities which are not consistent with the scientific attitude must be deliberately and actively discouraged. This idea should be incorporated into the Directive Principles of our constitution".

What is meant by "activities which are not consistent with the scientific attitude"? Since 'scientific attitude' is supposedly a component of western culture1, the above phrase can cover almost all activities that are not consistent with modern western attitudes-And what actively discouraging “anti-scientific" activities can mean, we can only guess from history. The Britishers are known to have banned the prevalent local practice of small-pox inoculation in Bengal because it was “anti scientific", thereby unleashing major small-pox epidemics. Britishers in India and other colonisers elsewhere are known to have banned a number of similar local practices, both cultural and industrial-economic in the name of promoting “scientific attitude ", with disastrous results. Even from Indians the claim that Indian cultural environment is not conducive to the development of Science has been heard before. But this is the first time some Indians have demanded a ban on the local activities.

It is tempting to quote a passage from ' The Plague’ of Albert Camus. At the height of the plague, Dr. Rieux visits a cafe and finds:

‘…a naval officer, with a girl on each side of him, was describing to a" fat red-faced man a typhus epidemic at Cairo. “They had camps, you know,” he was saying, “for the natives, with tents for sick ones and a ring of sentries all around. If a member of the family came along and tried to smuggle in one of those damn-fool native remedies, they fired at sight. A bit tough, I grant you, but it was the only thing to do.”

Neither Camus nor Dr. Rieux seem to be in sympathy with the sailor, but Professors Bhargava and Indradev, by demanding a ban of all activities not consistent with " scientific attitude" (which in this context means all the local pre-British S & T practices) have put themselves securely on the side of the sailor.

After reading the issue it becomes clear that the Indian S & T is at the cross-roads. The optimism of the fifties that western S & T can be grafted on Indian soil is gone. Now the choice has to be made. You can choose "modern S & T" and “modern industry” at all costs (even at the cost of banning by law the local practices), and no questions asked about its relevance to the majority of the people. Or you can choose to be with the people, their needs, their culture, their customs and develop a relevant S & T. Bhargava et al. and the officialdom have made their choice. Is it to be taken lying down?.



Author:Madras Group

THE OIL SELL-OUT

The early planners of the Indian scientific establishment, in their firm belief that the network of institutes and laboratories they had given birth to would usher in a new era of 'advanced' science, threw behind it the weight of their patronage. But Indian society went on, impelled by its inner dynamics, largely set into motion by the rapacity of the middleman (a significant section of the industrial capitalists too will come under this heading). In the Indian ruling classes' scheme of things, a well-carried-out science policy finds no place. For example gestational research and development and short term killings on a sellers' market are poles apart. So, as long as India is dominated by the middleman, science will not meet national problems head on. The atmosphere, the encouragement and the funds will not be forthcoming. Science will continue to be a pantomime. Given this ambience it is not surprising that scientific establishments are run on hierarchical lines and alienated scientists are thrown up. What happens when a nation's scientists are alienated and a time arrives when their services are needed more .than ever? The case of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) illustrates what happens.

At the moment India consumes about 34 million tons (MT) of crude oil, two thirds of which is imported. The import bill amounts to 90% of our total export earnings, which at present means Rs. 6,000 crores. This could rise to 17,000 crores m 1985—86 which would be 150% of our total export earnings at that time. The" demand for consumption could increase from the 35 MT today to 41 MT by 1993 and be as high as 92 MT by the turn of the century. The OPEC price in 1973 was §2 a barrel. Now it is $35 a barrel, and by 1990 could be as high as $300—$400 per barrel.

The inner imperatives of contemporary Indian economy demand' increasing consumption of petroleum and natural gas. The enormous strain on our foreign exchange resources and the tight international credit market necessitate a well-thought-out oil policy. A long run strategy has to be developed that takes into account: (1) lead time to develop an economy equilibrated at a lower petro-energy consumption level (2) international trends with regard to oil prices, survey, exploration and extraction equipment prices (3) need to achieve self-sufficiency (4) capability of ONGC scientists (5) foreign exchange position (6) conditions in the international credit market, etc. However, the Government, throwing aside all ideas of conserving oil for a future and more needy time, has decided Ion a heightened extraction level, thereby reducing the life of our resources. The wisdom of this move itself is in question. Not only this, the path chosen for accelerated exploitation of the oil fields has involved a compromise of national interests and sell-out to multi¬national corporations. The already frustrated ONGC scientists have been further mocked at. A recent-event will serve to illustrate the Petroleum ministry's attitude.

CFP is a French firm who are consultants to ONGC for the Bombay High project. The approved plan is to step up production to 12 MT per annum by 1982. The question of increasing production from: 12 to 17 MT was posted by the Petroleum Minister, P. C. Sethi, directly to CFP without a careful and detailed examination of the problem and prospect with the ONGC. CFP were initially sceptical about it. They advocated the view that an increase in the volume of extraction of oil from a field should be carefully regulated lest the life span of the field be damaged, adversely affecting long-term recovery prospects. The conservationist view was shared by Oil India experts-in Assam. ONGC experts were" however willing to take the risks involved and initiated-exercises to improve production from Bombay High at a rapid rate beyond 12 MT to even a rate, of 17MT by the end-of 19-82 without active French participation. The Minister however pursued the CFP for a collaboration for heightened oil extraction. And CFP reversed their original conservationist stand. The Petroleum minister went to Paris for negotiations-with CFP in spite of reservations' expressed at ONGC. According to ONGC experts, there is hardly anything special that the French can bring to bear on the-job that ONGC is not capable of. The" consultancy contract had equipped the ONGC to further develop Bombay High on its own. Balraj Mehta writes in the Economic and Political Weekly (-EPW) of 28 Feb. 1981: " In all fairness the extension of the contract and the terms and conditions on which it should be done should be subject to a proper evaluation by ONGC's technical experts who alone are in a position to tell the extent to which the contract has already served a useful purpose and what more can be gained by way of acquisition of technology and know-how. The Petroleum Ministry has instead taken if upon itself to*deal with the French agency and even widen- the scope of the contract with "it. (The Petroleum Minister)- Sethi personally went to- Paris- and: entered into .negotiations with CFP........."

And what else should turn up at the Paris talks but product-sharing? Mehta continues in EPW "...that P.C. Sethi did not reject the idea outright shows the extent to which the government would be willing to go with the other companies that have evinced interest in off-shore oil exploration......if the French get 5% for this, the new companies coming in for exploration will get at least 20% of the Oil......P.C.Sethi's claim that no oil will be given away is totally unconvincing".

On his return to Delhi Sethi addressed a Press Conference refuting the criticism. Balraj Mehta describes: "But the sum and substance of his refutation was extra¬ordinary, to say the least. It amounted in effect to issuing threats against the ONGC and its technical personnel. Sethi emphatically turned down the claim that the ONGC scientists were in a position to do the job at Bombay High on their own and that there was no need for sharing any part of the precious oil with the CFP for this purpose..... (Sethi adds) The ONGC people should be ready to give in writing that they would accomplish the task proposed to be assigned to CFP and if they failed they should be ready to face the consequences". To drive home this lesson, Sethi said that many heads would roll if obstacles were put in his way by making such claims. The murmur at ONGC quietened down.

Apart from this big betrayal, even small mercies have been denied to the ONGC by the Petroleum Ministry. Recently multinational Corporations (MNC) were invited to prospect in our off-shore areas on terms highly unfavourable to us. The interests of the MNC and the host country are usually divergent. And all the more so in the case of the now-strategic oil. Self-sufficiency in oil for India could militate against the MNC's interests because: (a) it could mean loss of lucrative contracts in the future (b) it could mean loss of business for oil-selling companies (c) for geo-political reasons it would be convenient to have an India made pliable with the oil weapon. MNCs fuelled by these motives cannot obviously be trusted for such a vulnerable sector as oil. Balraj Mehta in the Indian Express of 6 Feb. 1981 described the government's stance "......unlike in 1974, the invitation to foreign oil companies including the oil majors is now unconditional and open-ended......It is now left to the foreign oil company to lay down terms and conditions and the government is willing to negotiate with them on that basis. The first condition that the oil majors have laid down is that the Indian agencies in the field; above—all the ONGC, must be totally barred from any association with this venture. The government has agreed to it with alacrity". And this deal has ended all dreams of self-sufficiency.

Mehta continues: "ONGC's pre-drilling geological and seismological data collected painstakingly is being offered almost gratis. What is more, the foreign companies have been assured conditions in which any data that they might collect will be their exclusive property. These arrangements will not only result in bartering away a good part of the oil wealth which may be discovered but also in passing into the hands of the foreign agencies vital information and knowledge of Indian land and off-shore areas to which Indian agencies will have no access......If only a fraction of foreign exchange spent on oil imports is committed to outright purchase of needed technology and expertise and the ONGC is strengthened and encouraged to understand the job at hand, it can be done; the returns in any case will be far more than will be the case after paying the costs involved in the proposed colloboration arrangement with foreign oil companies on such terms and conditions".

In fact, the ONGC's discovery to date of 586 MT of crude in the country has received a general opinion of commendability. That India has only one off-shore drilling rig "Sagarsamrat" out of a total of 586 drilling rigs in the world has had a major part in handicapping ONGC's off-shore explorations.

But the apologists for the ministry will argue: There is no other way for India to fulfill our desperate need for oil. It is high capital, high technology, and high risk ONGC is incapable of making it and MNCs are not available on anything else but their own terms. China has been humoured for geo-political reasons. We cannot expect such soft terms.........etc.

The implication seems to be that inefficiency is "inner nature" to ONGC. With an active demoraliser at the helm, can the ONGC scientists to be expected to be enthusiatic? Have the decision makers ever given the ONGC a real chance to prove its mettle? Is the ONGC organised scientifically, geared to the goal of developing self-reliance in oil technology? Instead, the decision-makers have adopted a policy of sell-out under the pretext that ONGC cannot deliver the goods. So, in sum, the natural development of the Indian economy discourages the growth of science in ONGC.



Author:Madras Group

A BLUEPRINT OF UNCERTAINTIES: QUESTIONS ABOUT INDIA'S NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMME

The evaluation of India's nuclear energy programme has been difficult because Indian Atomic Energy Commission (A.E.C.) has covered the details of its activities by a thick veil of secrecy. The public and the press are left to speculate as to what is going on behind the scenes by the periodic statements issued to the public by the- chairman of the A.E.C. and its other functionaries.' Only the government is a confidant of the commission, but the government itself reveals little except utterly optimistic notes about the future of the nuclear programme in the Lok Saba and in other forums.

What is not in doubt, however, are the limited achievements of the programme ambitiously launched by the late Dr. Homi Bhabha in 1950. This was carried forward by the late Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, who had drawn up an energy profile according to which India should have had 2,700 MW of electricity by now. In actuality, what has been commissioned by 1980 is a meagre 640 MW, of which the Tarpur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) produces 420 MW and the Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant (RAPP) produces another 220 MW. It may also be noted that the first plant at Tarapur was built in 1968 as a turnkey project by the General Electric Co. of the U.S.A.

In spite of the dismal achievement in the nuclear field in the past, the Department of Atomic Energy (D.A.E.) has drawn up an ambitious plan-of about 10,000 MW of nuclear power production by the end of this century. Out of this figure, nuclear power from plants under construction or 'near completion' amounts to about 1800 MW. These include a second reactor-at Kota called RAPP-II which was expected to be completed by 1975 but is now expected to start producing electricity by the end of this year. The capacity of RAPP-II: is also about 220 MW. The Madras Atomic Power Project (MAPP) also consists of two reactors. These also have about the same capacity as RAPP and are expected to produce about 420 MW of electricity. The atomic power station under construction is at Narora in U. P. and its basic design and power-generating capacity are similar to those of MAPP. This station, on completion by about 1984, is expected to produce about 470 MW of electricity.

In addition to these 4 atomic power stations (TAPS,.RAPP, MAPP and Narora), work is going on to construct a Fast Breeder Test Reactor at Kalpakkam near Madras which, according to the A.E.C. chairman, is expected to be completed in 2 years or so. This will however produce only about 40 MW. All put together, if things work out favourably, then by the end of 1984, India will have an installed capacity of energy generation from nuclear power of about 1,800 MW.

Without going into a discussion of how the unrealistic target of 10,000 MW of electricity will be achieved by 2000 A.D., let us take a closer look at the problems of achieving even the limited target of 1,800 MW, work on which is said to be at full steam.

The difficulties of obtaining enriched Uranium (in the ratio of 3:1000 of atoms of U235 and U238) from the U.S.A., despite contractual obligations are too well known to be recounted here. One of the consequences of this has been that the two units of TAPS have been running below their full capacities in order to conserve the supplies of fuel as long as possible. But, despite occassional brave talk that appears in print, there has been no clear indication as to how TAPS will continue in operation when the U.S.A. finally abrogates its treaty obligations and stops supplying India with enriched uranium1. The existing supplies will run out in a few years' time. What happens after that?

As reported in some sections of the press, one of the tasks given to the new Secretary of the D. A. E., Dr. Ramanna, seems to be to look for alternative fuel for TAPS. The public is left guessing as to what direction this search takes. Moreover, even if some alternate fuel is found, will it be compatible with the existing systems and design of TAPS? An important question is, will TAPS continue to produce electricity at its capacity of 420 MW? Presumably, India will seek foreign collaboration for TAPS when the supplies run out. Will this not create other unforeseen difficulties?

Whereas TAPS runs on ordinary water and enriched Uranium, the other atomic plants called CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors all run on ordinary Uranium and heavy water. After the Canadians stopped their assistance in the wake of the 1974 Pokhran test, India has been forced to go it all alone. The engineers and other technical people have done a commendable job in mining, processing, reprocessing and fabrication of fuel and fuel rods, etc. The major hurdle, however has been the shortage of heavy water. After the Pokhran explosion, all essential nuclear supplies were denied to India, including the supplies of heavy water. Again, despite the optimistic pronounce-ments regarding heavy water, the actual production of it in the country is still very small and is saddled with many uncertainties. There are four operational heavy water plants of which the 14-tonne Nangal plant is the only one which is working at full capacity. The plant at Tuticorin has an annual capacity of 72 tonnes, but because of several problems has produced only 10 tonnes. The plant at Baroda and Talcher with a combined capacity of 130 tonnes have also been facing problems including shortage of electricity to run them and consequently have not produced any heavy water 2.

Thus, although the annual capacity of the operational heavy water plants is 215 tonnes, only about 25 tonnes are being actually produced. The requirement of the

1 This article was written before the recent developments on the Tarapur issue. As is well known by now, the U.S.A. has finally and formally abrogated its treaty.

2 According to a press note, the Baroda plant, with an annual capacity of 67.2 tonnes, has begun working from February this year.

RAPP-II unit itself is about 300 tonnes. Hence there seems to be no alternative but to import this commodity. Because of the Pokhran test, the only source for it seems to be the Soviet Union. Last year the Soviet Union had offered 250 tonnes of heavy water, and India has to accept this offer if the requirements of RAAP-II and MAPP-I are to be met.

Heavy water apart, even the supplies of ordinary Uranium for the CANDU reactors are uncertain. Each CANDU requires about 80 tonnes of Uranium fuel for an installed capacity of 235 MW. For the target of the 1400 MW (by 1984) energy production based on ordinary Uranium, this would amount to a demand of 480 tonnes of Uranium fuel per year. That quantities of this order will be available on a regular basis seems to be very doubtful considering that proven reserves of this element in India are very small and that an advance time of about 5 years for mining and fabrication of fuel rods is required.

In addition to the CANDU reactors, India is going in for fast breeders also to exploit the large resources of Thorium. The 40 MW Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam is being built with French assistance. The fast breeder requires an initial charge of 85% enriched Uranium and Plutonium. Plutonium can be extracted from the spent fuel of any of the atomic power plants and it is visualized that it will be obtained from the Madras or Tarapur plants. However whether India will actually be allowed to do so because of safeguard agreements is another matter. Then there is the limitation of reprocessing capacity. The CIRUS reactor at Trombay is an experimental one, and can reprocess limited quantities of spent fuel. Can it handle quantities on a commercial scale? Plutonium apart, there is the obvious difficulty of obtaining enriched Uranium. It is known that France is dragging its feet on supplying some essential components and enriched Uranium even for the FBTR. This may be because of pressure from the U.S.A. Suffice it to say that the fast breeder programme is beset with problems both technical and political, And any hope of generating large quantities of electricity in the immediate future is, at best, an uncertain proposition.

There seems to be no getting away from the fact that India's atomic power generation programme is crucially dependent on some foreign country or the other for the supply of some essential item. For Tarapur, this is enriched Uranium and for the remaining plants, the item is heavy water. If USA is insisting that India sign the fullscope safeguards or the N.P.T. before it can continue to supply Uranium on a regular basis, the offer of Soviet Union is also conditional upon India signing the extensive (though not full-scope) safeguard agreements.

If the limited present-day atomic energy programme is beset with uncertainties, both political arid technical, why then is the DAE going ahead full-speed with ambitious, plans of boosting it to a target of 10,000 MW by the end of the century? Except for a few critical articles that have appeared in the press, there has been almost no public' debate over the issue, and the only information domestically available is through whatever the government, the AEC or the DAE may periodically choose to divulge.

Pointed questions need to be asked especially because the opposition parties as a whole and eminent people in public life are keeping a strange silence on this issue. The first question relates to the running of TAPS. What is the position regarding the supply of fuel for Tarapur? Has there been any secret commitment from or understanding with some other country, possibly the USSR that will ensure supplies of enriched Uranium? If so, what are the conditions under which it will - be supplied? What is its cost? A related question arises because there have-been some reports that the Tarapur plant can run on alternate fuel. What is this alternate fuel and will it be compatible with the existing systems and design of Tarapur?

It is known that some multinationals like the General Electric Co., or Westing-house, engaged in the building of complete nuclear plants or some parts of it, are pressing their government for being allowed to export nuclear technology. This is particularly so after the effective opposition put up by the anti-nuclear groups in the U.S.A. It has been reported that in the U.S.A. there have been only 13 orders for nuclear plants since 1974. In the same period, (here have been more than 60 cancellations. In 1979 itself, there were 11 cancellations and no new order was placed. As a result of domestic opposition, pressure is being brought on the multinationals to look for alternate markets. France, West Germany and other countries are finding attractive markets for their nuclear technology in third world countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Chile and Brazil. These sales represent desperate corporate efforts to recoup losses incurred in declining domestic markets.

Last year, there was a concerted effort by a Western agency to sell the "nuclear blueprint for India's rapid industrialization in 40 years' time". According to it, India should go in for nuclear plants including CANDU-type of reactors and fast breeders and carry on research in fusion. The AEC Chairman himself has advocated research into practical applications of the fusion process. An interesting article, which appeared in the British magazine "New Scientist" advocated a three-tier nuclear economy. According to this scenario, there would be advanced nuclear countries which would take back the spent fuel from the reactors from the 2nd tier countries like India, Pakistan or Korea and reprocess it to extract Plutonium, thereby ensuring that the 2nd tier countries did not make bombs. In the last category would be those countries like Niger and Gabon which have Uranium for selling to the countries of the other two categories, but have no nuclear facilities in their countries.

With-this background of advanced nuclear countries conjuring up various scenarios to sell or exchange their nuclear capabilities, is it not pertinent to ask: what is their role in pushing forward our nuclear energy programmes? Are they not trying to find some outlets for their unused or underused nuclear capacities? Whereas France is going in for the 1,200 MW capacity fast breeder, it is assisting India in building the 40 MW FBTR. Is it because it wants to throw out its obsolete components and has found a convenient dumping ground in India?

Consider the cost involved -in- our entire atomic energy programme—the DAE has recently asked for Rs. 2,700 crores for the next 5'years'. "Consider also the DAE's past performance and that, as of today, energy produced from the nuclear plants comprises less than 3% of the total domestic production.' One should also bear in mind the innumerable political and. technical problems of obtaining and reprocessing fuel and of the availability of heavy' water, apart from ensuring environmental safeguards. Considering all this, should the DAE be allowed to jack up its nuclear energy programme, without discussing all the relevant issues threadbare? Does not the public have a right to know the answers to the various questions about which the Government and the DAE are tight-lipped? It is time that the people are taken into confidence and issues that vitally concern us are laid bare.

References:

1. “The Nuclear Age"—by Frank Barnaby (Director, SIPRI), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1974.

2. Science For The People, Vol. 12, No. 1, Jan. Feb. 1980.

3. Sponsored supplement, The Times of India, Dec. 4, 1979.

4. Economic and Political Weekly, Sep. 13, 1980.

5. Rajendra Prabhu, in The Hindustan Times, June 5, 7, 12, 12, 13 and 14, 1980.

6. "Generating Atomic Power" by K. E. Khanna, The Times of India, July 15, 1980.

7. "Energy Stategy for the Eighties", by Dr. H. N. Sethna, 3rd Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Lecture, Nov. 20, 1980 (New Delhi).




Author:Delhi Group