Rayana Ghosh explores how anxieties around sexuality shaped the regulation of abortion in Colonial India
Colonial Medical Jurisprudence and the Politics of Reproductive Control in Bengal
In 19th-century Bengal, India, abortion became a site of intense colonial scrutiny, entangled with questions of morality, legality, and medical science. In this article, I explore these ideas through an analysis of Norman Chevers’ A Manual of Medical Jurisprudence for Bengal and the North-Western Provinces (1856), a foundational medical and legal text relating to colonial India. The manual provided guidelines for investigating crimes such as poisoning, homicide, and infanticide, integrating Western medico-legal practices with the specific cultural and environmental contexts of India. While it advanced medical jurisprudence and public health administration, Chevers’ text also reflected racialised colonial ideologies, portraying Western medicine as superior to non-Western practices and reinforcing stereotypes about Indian society.
Chevers, who was a prominent British medical practitioner, offers a crucial lens for understanding how reproductive practices were framed as both medical and moral crises within the colonial project. His 608-page manual intricately linked abortion to cultural degeneration—described in 19th-century medical discourse as the weakening of a society’s physical and moral health—and to sexual deviance, casting it as a criminal act necessitating judicial and medical intervention. For example, colonial authorities often argued that the use of abortifacient herbs by Indian women, particularly those outside British medical oversight, represented a threat to the moral fabric of society and contributed to the perceived decline of racial and social “fitness.” Chevers characterised his work as contributing to the “history of crime in India,” (1856, iv) underscoring the use of forensic medicine as an instrument of moral and political governance in colonial settings.
Abortion, or pet phelano, was described by Chevers as a widespread but illicit practice, often employed by women to conceal socially stigmatised sexual activity, such as having (illegitimate) children through wedlock or extramarital affairs. Indigenous midwives (dāīs), typically from marginalised and lower-caste communities, were central figures in facilitating abortions, using a mix of mechanical interventions and medicinal irritants. These methods included ingesting arsenic-based contraceptives, inserting sticks of laal chitra (plumbago rosea, locally found roots), and inducing physical trauma through abdominal blows (Chevers 1856, 389). Although these practices were deeply embedded in local knowledge systems, colonial authorities intervened in cases where maternal or foetal death occurred, marking such instances as severe crimes warranting medical and legal examination.
At its core, the colonial preoccupation with abortion reflected broader anxieties about regulating sexuality and reinforcing ‘respectable’ behaviour amongst colonised ‘subjects’, particularly among women. Medical science played a pivotal role in these efforts, constructing women’s bodies as objects of surveillance and deviance. Forensic accounts reduced indigenous women to empirical subjects of study, where abortion was framed as an emblem of moral failure and cultural backwardness. This process not only criminalised reproductive practices but also positioned Indian customs as antithetical to the colonial state’s ideals of morality and progress.
Colonial Narratives and the criminalisation of Indigenous Reproductive Health Practices
In contrast to the colonial portrayal of abortion as a symbol of cultural and moral decay, indigenous fertility practices reveal a sophisticated and adaptable body of traditional knowledge. Fertility regulation in Bengal encompassed a wide array of methods, ranging from herbal remedies and physical interventions, to ritualistic practices. Married women often sought abortions to avoid the strain of repeated childbirth, while unmarried women used them to mitigate the stigma of illegitimate children. Widows, subject to stringent expectations of celibacy, frequently turned to abortion to conceal extramarital pregnancies, placing them at the centre of many abortion-related scandals (Guha 1996, 404).
Abortion-inducing substances like Randia dumetorum (mainphal), plumbago root, and neem smoke were widely used due to their affordability and accessibility. Other methods included ingesting substances like ergot or oleander to induce uterine contractions or using irritants such as black pepper or papaya seeds. Proverbs, such as Enro chheler kenre dagar (denoting the risks of closely spaced pregnancies), reflect an embedded cultural awareness of the need for fertility control. These practices were often facilitated by dāīs, whose expertise in reproductive care extended beyond abortion to encompass childbirth, postpartum care, and management of complications like retained placentas.
However, colonial accounts of reproduction in Bengal, including Chevers’ manual, stripped these practices of their cultural and social contexts, presenting them as barbaric and unscientific. Chevers’ descriptions, while meticulous, consistently linked abortion to deviance, portraying women who sought abortions as morally compromised and midwives as unscrupulous practitioners. These narratives exemplify the colonial tendency to document indigenous knowledge while simultaneously discrediting its legitimacy.
Dāīs were pivotal yet vilified figures in colonial reproductive governance. Skilled in managing pregnancies, inducing labour, and addressing complications, they were indispensable to local communities. However, their association with abortion rendered them frequent targets of colonial suspicion and persecution. Chevers described dāīs as
“hags of low caste and evil repute…carrying on a systematic trade in the procuration of abortion by the use of the most deadly poisons” (Chevers 1856, 92).
This rhetoric aligned midwives with criminality and danger, reinforcing their marginalisation within colonial legal and medical discourses.
Despite colonial vilification, dāīs often evaded detection due to their expertise and community networks. Authors like Patrick Hehir and J. D. B. Gribble (1908) noted the difficulty of prosecuting skilled village abortionists, who operated covertly to shield themselves and their clients. Nonetheless, when midwives were implicated, they bore the brunt of colonial legal action, serving as scapegoats for broader anxieties about reproductive governance and social order.
Chevers’ manual also highlighted the prevalence of self-induced abortions, often attempted in desperation by women who lacked access to skilled care. For example, he recounted the case of a 30-year-old Hindu woman, Shama, who died of peritonitis after inserting a bamboo splinter to terminate her pregnancy. Dr. D. Stewart, Professor of Midwifery at Calcutta Medical College, cited the case as a “melancholy example of the fatal consequences of the ignorant and wicked attempts…to produce miscarriages among the natives of India” (Webb 1848, 330). Such cases underscored the risks faced by women navigating restrictive social norms and limited reproductive options.
Colonial Surveillance and the Regulation of Female Sexuality/Deviancy
The criminalisation of abortion was inextricably linked to the professionalisation of medicine in colonial India, which sought to marginalise indigenous practitioners and elevate Western-trained male doctors. Figures like Dr. Chevers positioned themselves as moral and scientific authorities, discrediting dāīs and other traditional healers as untrustworthy. This professionalisation process not only reinforced colonial power dynamics but also redefined medical practice in ways that excluded women and indigenous communities from formal authority.
Chevers’ framing of midwives as criminals exemplifies this trend. He remarked on the “great crimes frequently practised to conceal the results of immorality,” (Chevers 1856, 492), portraying abortion as both a societal and individual failure. By discrediting indigenous expertise, colonial medical jurisprudence sought to replace traditional knowledge systems with Western models of care, embedding reproductive governance within a framework of racial, gendered, and professional hierarchies. In Britain during the mid-19th century, abortion was increasingly criminalised, particularly after the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, which outlawed abortion at any stage of pregnancy. This reflected a broader Western trend of aligning reproductive governance with moral concerns, bolstered by the growing authority of the medical profession and religious influences.
While Western-trained doctors in British India occasionally performed life-saving abortions for European women, this was not a uniform practice across Europe. Attitudes toward abortion varied significantly depending on local laws, dominant state religions, and medical norms. For instance, Catholic-majority countries such as France or Spain often adhered to stricter anti-abortion stances compared to Protestant-majority England. In colonial India, however, such care was rarely extended to the indigenous population. Instead, colonial authorities appropriated elements of indigenous knowledge for botanical and medical documentation, even as they criminalised its practitioners. This paradox reflects the colonial state’s dual approach to reproductive governance: appropriation for scientific advancement and vilification to consolidate control.
The legal codification of abortion under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1862 further entrenched colonial control over reproductive practices. Abortion was designated a punishable offence, with enforcement primarily focused on cases involving maternal mortality (Chowdhury 2013, 279-80). Regulation XXII of 1816 had previously limited police authority in abortion investigations unless a death occurred, aiming to curtail false accusations, particularly against widows (Sharafi 2020). However, as the IPC and the Indian Police Act of 1861 expanded colonial surveillance, women faced invasive interventions by colonial doctors, such as genital examinations in cases of rape, infanticide, or abortion. These practices violated bodily autonomy and reflected the colonial obsession with identifying and disciplining ‘deviant’ women (Mitra, 2018).
Yet enforcement was marked by inconsistencies and strategic leniency. For example, a circular order from 1824 deemed abortion ‘not heinous’ unless it resulted in death, illustrating the colonial administration’s reluctance to interfere in non-fatal cases. This selective enforcement highlights the contradictions within colonial reproductive governance: while anti-abortion laws symbolised moral authority, their implementation prioritised public order over the lived realities of women’s desperation and limited agency.
Reproductive Governance and the Legacy of Colonial Control
The colonial regulation of abortion in Bengal exemplifies the broader entanglement of reproductive governance with the politics of morality, law, and medical science. Figures like Norman Chevers used medical jurisprudence to frame abortion not simply as a medical issue but as a marker of cultural and moral failure, with Indian women’s bodies cast as deviant, and indigenous practices dismissed as primitive. These narratives served the dual purpose of criminalising local reproductive practices while legitimising colonial authority through the professionalisation of Western medicine in the Indian context.
Yet, beneath the colonial narrative of cultural degeneration lies a complex and enduring history of indigenous knowledge systems. Fertility control practices in Bengal were deeply informed by social and economic realities, driven by women’s agency in navigating the constraints of widowhood, illegitimacy, and repeated childbirth. Midwives (dāīs), though vilified by colonial authorities, were indispensable actors in this landscape, embodying a rich repository of reproductive expertise that persisted despite systemic efforts to erase and criminalise their roles.
The selective enforcement of colonial abortion laws further underscores the contradictions within the colonial project. While laws like the Indian Penal Code of 1862 ostensibly sought to impose moral and legal order, their implementation prioritised the state’s interest in public stability over the welfare of individual women. The invasive surveillance practices, including genital examinations and the confiscation of abortive tools, reveal the extent to which colonial reproductive governance was rooted in controlling sexuality and maintaining racial and gender hierarchies.
The legacy of colonial reproductive governance continues to shape contemporary debates around reproductive rights, autonomy, and expertise in India. Colonial authorities marginalised traditional knowledge systems and criminalised reproductive agency, embedding reproductive governance within racial, gendered, and professional hierarchies. This historical backdrop influences current issues, such as the enforcement of bans on sex-selective abortion, which echo colonial-era moral policing (Sreenivas 2021). These bans often emphasise moral alignment over addressing structural inequalities or respecting women’s autonomy, leading to policies that may inadvertently harm the very individuals they aim to protect. Strict regulations can drive the practice underground, resulting in unsafe procedures and further marginalisation of vulnerable groups. Understanding this colonial legacy is crucial for developing equitable and culturally sensitive reproductive policies that genuinely empower women and respect diverse knowledge systems.
About the author
Rayana is a first-year PhD candidate in Anthropology at the Geneva Graduate Institute, with a focus on reproductive health, global medical histories, and Indigenous knowledge systems. She combines ethnography, oral histories, and archival research to explore ethno-medical practices and histories of reproductive risk. Connect with her on Twitter at @CalicoCatRay
References
Chevers, Norman. 1856. A Manual of Medical Jurisprudence for Bengal and the North-Western Provinces. Calcutta: Bengal Military Orphan Press.
Chowdhury, Indira . 2013. “Delivering the ‘Murdered Child’: Infanticide, Abortion, and Contraception in Colonial India.” In Medical Encounters in British India, edited by D Kumar and R Sekhar. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Guha, Supriya. 1996. “The Unwanted Pregnancy in Colonial Bengal1.” The Indian Economic & Social History Review 33 (4): 403–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/001946469603300402.
Mitra , Durba . 2018. “Sociological Descriptions and the Forensics of Sexuality.” In Locating the Medical – Explorations in South Asian History, edited by Rohan Deb Roy and Guy N. A. Atwell, 23–47. India: Oxford University Press.
Sharafi, Mitra. 2020. “Abortion in South Asia, 1860–1947: A Medico-Legal History.” Modern Asian Studies 55 (2): 371–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x19000234.
Sreenivas, Mytheli. Reproductive Politics and the Making of Modern India. University of Washington Press, 2021.
Webb, Allan. 1848. Pathologica Indica; Or, the Anatomy of Indian Diseases. Second. Calcutta: Messrs. Thacker and Co. https://wellcomecollection.org/works/rqbe5j2z/items?canvas=8.
