Indian Journal of History of Science, 53.4 (2018) T198-T204 DOI: 10.

16943/ijhs/2018/v53i4/49545

Girindrasekhar Bose and the History of

Psychoanalysis in India
Anup Dhar*
(Received 16 May 2018; revised 2 July 2018)

Abstract
The ‘entry point’ into the history of psychoanalysis in India could be offered by ‘Savage Freud’,
Girindrasekhar Bose (1886-1953) (Sinha, 1954, pp. 62-74; Nandy, 1995, pp. 81-144), who practiced
proto-psychiatry in a mental hospital, taught psychology and psychoanalysis in the Calcutta University
and wrote (psychoanalytically singed) commentaries on the Bhāgvad Gītā (1948, 1931), the Yoga Sūtras
(1966), the Purāas (2001, 1934) and proposed, A New Theory of Mental Life. Girindrasekhar Bose,
already a medical professional, obtained a Master’s degree in psychology (1917) and was awarded the
first doctorate in psychology at an Indian university in 1921. His PhD thesis was titled ‘The Concept of
Repression’. In writing a ‘history of psychoanalysis in India’ this paper encounters two questions: why
write a history of psychoanalysis and how does one write a history of psychoanalysis. In the process the
paper also distinguishes between a logic of the Indian psyche and an ‘Indian’ logic of the psyche. There
is however no one understanding of India, and ‘India’ is indeed a multi-stranded perspective – a perspective
haunted by numerous inner contradictions.
Key words: Aboriginalization, Dharma-sa–kaa, Difference, Guilt, Oedipus, Orientalism,
Psychoanalysis.

1. INTRODUCTION is not just about the logic of the Indian psyche. In

The ‘history of psychoanalysis in India’ is that sense, the paper is on the question of
informed by two central questions: why write a methodology.
history of psychoanalysis in India and how does
one write the history? With respect to the ‘why’, 1.1 ‘Why’ write the History of a Science?
the paper argues that one perhaps writes the history First, why write a history of
of a science to mark difference; i.e. to show how a psychoanalysis in India? Is it to demonstrate to
science (in this case, psychoanalysis) has the world that ‘oh, we also did/had psycho-
germinated differently in different time-space analysis!’ Or is it to assert: we did/had it before
curvatures, in different cultures, in different you! There was psychoanalysis in India well
contexts. In other words, history of a science is before Freud founded psychoanalysis in Germany.
not an increasing formalization of only one The ‘before you’ argument can take a displaced
particular strand of knowledge; it is multi-stranded form; we did psychoanalysis before you; but we
at its origin. With respect to the ‘how’ the paper did not do it the way you did it; we had the Yoga
argues for a move beyond dates and events to a Sūtra. The ‘before you’ can go through a further
history of ideas, idioms, paradigms, practices, displacement and become a difference argument.
concepts and language; so as to once again mark You did psychoanalysis. We did Yoga. Difference
the work and play of difference at the origin; so as in the nature of praxis can also become
to show how the history of psychoanalysis in India epistemological difference: you were driven by the
*Professor of Philosophy, School of Liberal Studies, Ambedkar University Delhi, Email: [email protected]
 GIRINDRASEKHAR BOSE AND THE HISTORY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS IN INDIA T199

Cartesian ‘mind-body’ divide in psychoanalysis 2. ‘HOW’ DOES ONE WRITE THE

(whether there is such a divide in psychoanalysis HISTORY OF A SCIENCE?
is of course to be examined); we were working This takes me to the second question. How
through the divide in Yoga. You built psycho- does one write a history of science qua
analysis out of Greek tragedy. We built it out of a psychoanalysis in India?
re-reading of the Bhāgvad Gītā. Guilt was the core
of Freudian psychoanalysis. Dharma-sankata, 2.1 The Multiple Histories of Psychoanalysis in
self-doubt was the core of the kind of new theory India
of mental life we developed.
Problematic one: the history of psychoanalysis
Who are ‘we’; and who is this ‘you’ is of in India is not of one kind or of one character. It
course a complex question. There is no one ‘we’; spans the birth and genesis of psychoanalysis in
India is a divided perspective (Spivak, 1994; largely four cities, Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi and
Kakar and Kakar, 2007). There is also no one Bangalore including Patna, Benaras, even
‘you’. It is hence not about West and East or North Rangoon in 1948 ( Samiksha Vol. 1, No. 1-3);
and South. History of science qua psychoanalysis marked in turn, by the character psychoanalysis
will give us a sense – only a sense – of how partial took in each of the four cities; Kolkata: Freudian,
perspectives (not universals) to the human psyche Mumbai: Kleinian (building on the works of the
were developed in different corners of the globe Austrian-British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein
depending on the kind of ‘soil’ the ‘psychoanalytic [1882-1960] and ‘object-relations theory’), Delhi:
plant’ was growing in, depending on the kind of Winnicottian (building on the works of the British
context, culture, and subject positions that were Independent Group of the British Psycho-
analytical Society and British pediatrician and
informing the birth of the science qua art qua
psychoanalyst Donald W Winnicott [1896-1971]),
psychoanalysis. Is history of science then about
and Bangalore: Jungian (building on the works of
marking what French philosopher Jacques Derrida
the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung
(2002, pp. 75, 95, 161, 247) calls differance? Is it
[1875-1961]). However, none of the cities are
about how a certain science (say, psychoanalysis
informed by any one school of psychoanalysis.
in or from India or Indian psychoanalysis) deferred The school of psychoanalysis in Kolkata was in
the assumptions and findings of a certain other critical dialogue with the basic tenets of Freudian
science (say, Freudian psychoanalysis)? How a psychoanalysis from the 1920s up to the 1970s
certain science (say, psychoanalysis in or from (the criticality was paradoxically higher during
India or Indian psychoanalysis) differed with the colonial rule; it diminished after political
basic tenets and principles of a certain other independence). It also marked its difference with
science (say, Freudian psychoanalysis)? Is history Freudian conceptualizations of the psyche. Bose’s
of science then not just about chronicling the birth New Theory of Mental Life (Vol. 1, 1947) to about
and growth of a science? Is it not about an Vol. 15 (1963) of Samiksha stand testimony to this
increasing formalization of knowledge? Is it not conversation and to the difference in
just about the curvature of time; but about the psychoanalytic conceptualization the school in
curvature of space; is it then about delineating the Kolkata instituted. The school in Delhi was also
distinctive character of a certain science (say, informed by the works of German psychoanalyst
psychoanalysis in or from India or Indian Erik Erikson (1902-94) and Indian psychoanalyst
psychoanalysis) in relation to another science (say, Sudhir Kakar (b. 1938 ) (Kakar, 1982, 1989, 2011).
Freudian psychoanalysis) in another space? Which history does one then write?
T200 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE

2.2 Girindrasekhar Bose’s works from the perspective and standpoint of

Problematic two: If The Concept of Repression psychology-psychoanalysis. Bose re-reads the
is Bose’s early work of critical reflection on, even Gītā for an inner psychological-psychoanalytic
dissent, with respect to the extant psychoanalytic consistency. This consistency is according to Bose
corpus of conceptualization in Germany, the the life force of the Gītā. Bose, however, doesn’t
Bhāgvad Gītā (written in Bengali) could be limit himself to either The Concept of Repression
(1921) or the Bhāgvad Gītā (also see Bose’s ‘Gītā’
considered one of his late and more mature works.
published in Pravāsī). For example, he publishes
It is also paradigmatic of Bose’s attempt at re-
‘A New Theory of Mental Life’ in Samiksha, Vol
thinking psychoanalysis at the cusp of traditional
2, No 2 in 1948 – a monograph which marks in
texts and modern texts, classical Indian texts and
detail his difference with Freud. He also publishes
contemporary German texts; as also Indian epics
numerous articles in Samiksha. For example,
and Greek tragedy. It is also an attempt at reading
‘Ambivalence’ in Samiksha, Vol 3, No 2 in 1949
the Bhāgvad Gītā radically and differently:
– which foregrounds the importance of
My knowledge of Sanskrit is limited. However, ambivalence in human psychic constitution, ‘The
even with the limited knowledge, I shall write my
Nature of the Wish’ in Samiksha, Vol 5, No 4 in
interpretation of the Gita. I shall write it through a
certain dependence on the dictionaries, on 1951 – which demonstrates the importance of the
interpretation of existing interpretations, on ‘see-saw’ of the ‘double wish’, as also the
perhaps extant bhāyas (from the Preface of the importance of doubled up wish-affects in the
Bhāgvad Gītā; translation mine). psyche. In 1952, Bose published three articles in
This is how Girindrasekhar Bose begins Samiksha: ‘Analysis of Wish’ (Vol. 6 No. 1),
his Bhāgvad Gītā. He admits that he could make ‘Pleasure in Wish’ (Vol. 6 No. 2), and ‘Sex and
mistakes in his reading of the Gītā. He also Anxiety’ (Vol. 6 No. 3). Bose’s The Yoga Sūtras
suggests that there is no end to readings and was published by The Indian Psychoanalytic
interpretations of the Gītā. However, according Society in 1966. Bose’s Bengali book on dreams
to him, most interpretations are either dogmatic; Svapna was published by the Bangyia Sahitya
i.e. the interpreter foregrounds in his or her Parishad in 1986. The history of psychoanalysis
interpretation the philosophy of the path – the in India will hence have to be an in-depth
mārga – the interpreter is a member of. The engagement with each of Bose’s texts as also the
Bhaktimārga member foregrounds the perspective Freudian counterparts of such texts. The history
of bhakti. The j–ānamārga member foregrounds of psychoanalysis in India would thus be an
j–āna. Bose finds such readings sectarian, biased. inscription of how Bose marked difference with
The ‘rationalist’ in Bose cannot accrue to such respect to Freud’s corpus of ideas, idioms, and
over-tilted or over-biased readings. He wants a concepts.
neutral, an objective reading; only such readings
shall open the path to the search for ‘truth’. What 2.3 The Institutional History of Psychoanalysis in
India
did the Gītā really suggest; one needs to look for
that. Such a neutral and an objective reading was Problematic three: the birth of psychoanalysis
attempted according to him by Bankim Chandra in colonial India could be broadly mapped through
Chattopadhyaya. However, Bankim could not the following events. The introduction of the study
complete the task. He worked his way up to the of psychoanalysis in the psychology course at the
19th śloka of the fourth chapter. Bose however re- University of Calcutta in 1917 and a subsequent
reads the entire text of the Gītā ; he re-reads it shift of focus in the teaching of psychology to
 GIRINDRASEKHAR BOSE AND THE HISTORY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS IN INDIA T201

psychoanalytic interpretation and the workings of orism, existentialism in early 20th century) and
the unconscious; the formation of the Indian questions coming from the ‘Indian past and the
Psychoanalytic Society in 1922 and the Indian context’ (questions pertaining to ‘faith
publication of the journal of the Society, Samiksha, healing’, non-modern and non-western approaches
in 1947; in 1939, the Society opened its own to mental health, debates around ‘Indian
mental health institution, the Lumbini Park Mental Psychology’ or Indian insights into the inner world
Hospital; and in 1959, Citta, a Bengali journal was and ‘Psychology in/from India’).
brought out by the Society. While the Department
Problematic five: one needs to be menaced by a
of Psychology was founded inside the premises
somewhat primal doubt, doubt marked by the
of the University in 1915, the Indian
question: is the history of psychoanalysis in India
Psychoanalytic Society emerged outside the
indeed the history of psychoanalysis. Is it
academia in 1922. Girindrasekhar Bose thus
psychoanalysis turned upside down? Or is it the
occupies both positions: one, inside what French
other side of psychoanalysis (Lacan, 2007)? Is it
psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in Seminar XVII
the history of ‘a new theory of mental life’, a new
calls the ‘Discourse of the University’ (Lacan,
theory, different from the one offered by Freudian
2007, pp. 41) and the other, in terms of the
‘Discourse of the Analyst’ (Lacan, 2007, pp. 11- psychoanalysis, a theory marked by insights drawn
26). In other words, the history of psychoanalysis from what gets reflected in the rearview mirror,
takes two forms: one pedagogic, in classroom namely insights from the Yoga Sūtra, the Purāas
contexts; the other can be accessed in terms of and the Bhāgvad Gītā. Was it stemming from the
clinical work and case histories. Which one would realization that we cannot perform conventions
take us closer to a history of psychoanalysis? Or laid down according to Hebraic-Hellenic-Christian
would we need to work through both? stories? Is the parricide story the beginning of
human history? Does not Freud foreclose
2.4 History of Science: Fort-da between Wind- possibilities of looking at a different (rather than
screen View and Rearview Mirror deviant) language game by relegating matrilineal
polytheisms or pagan polymorphisms to the pre-
Problematic four: one also needs to, in the
history of humankind (Spivak, 1994, pp. 41-75)?
process of recuperation, negotiate between the
windscreen view (i.e. the direct vision of the ‘way 2.5 Logic of the Indian Psyche: Indian Logic of
ahead’ or what is to come) and the rearview mirror the Psyche
(i.e. the reflected vision of ‘what has been left
behind’). Driving in terms of the fort-da (fort-da Problematic six: the history of psychoanalysis in
in German; the two-ness of ‘far/there/lost’ and India would therefore need to ask: what happens
‘near/here/found’ in English) between the when psychoanalysis and India come close? Does
windscreen view and the rearview mirror is an apt India become the analysand (simply put, what in
metaphor of the methodology that marks the medicine is patient, is analysand in psycho-
writing of the history of psychoanalysis or for that analysis)? Does India provide to western
matter, history of any science. In other words, one psychoanalysis case material about the aboriginal
needs to negotiate between insights coming from world? Or can India emerge as the analyst in this
an ‘ever emergent present’ and a ‘vanishing past’ exchange? Can India give back to the west
as one writes; Bose himself is caught in this double interpretation about the west? What was the nature
bind of appearance and erasure. One thus needs of aboriginal psychoanalysis? Was it Indian
to write at the cusp of questions coming from the psychology? In which sense was it Indian? Was it
contemporary (experimental psychology, behavi- the ‘Indian logic’ of the psyche? Or was it the logic
T202 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE

of the ‘Indian psyche’? It is possible that taking teleology is sparked off by ‘guilt’ a posteriori
off from an extant logic of the Indian psyche (guilt after the event), in the Bhāgvad Gītā the
(exemplified by epic manuscripts like the psychic teleology is sparked off by ‘reflection’ on
Mahābhārata as against Greek Tragedy) it offers self and dharma a priori. Does this then offer
to the west the Indian logic of the psyche (and not interesting insights for ‘another’ or even a ‘new
just the logic of the Indian psyche). For example, theory’ of mental life; a theory relevant to both
when one takes Oedipus Rex as the ‘text of the east and the west; this/these new theory/theories
psychic’ one ends up with a narrative of ‘acts could be represented as having been born in the
committed in the context of non-knowledge/ east or as having been borne by scholars residing
ignorance’ (Oedipus did not know who his parents in the east and texts bathing eastern shores.
were), remorse/guilt at what one has done, self-
We are thus left with two possibilities. It
chastisement or sacrifice to atone for one’s deeds
is possible that Bose was re-conceptualizing the
(Oedipus blinds himself). This guilt-ridden
given contours of (western) psychoanalysis in the
traumata sets off the ‘psychic teleology’. Freud
Indian context. In the process, he was giving birth
tries to make a case for such a psychic teleology
to an ab-Original form of psychoanalysis, a form
in Moses and Monotheism. However, if one takes
different from the western Original. It is also
the Bhāgvad Gītā as the text of the psychic, as
possible that Bose was giving birth to an aboriginal
Bose does, one gets a different psychic teleology,
form of psychology, where aboriginal psychology
a teleology sparked off by an affront to a
was not about an isolated insight or data but about
menstruating woman in the blind king’s court of
questioning the basic paradigm, architectonics and
justice, now being avenged by the collective of
culture of western psychology; this could possibly
husbands she has; however there is a deferral; one
grant alternative/aboriginal psychologies the right
of the five husbands is haunted by a near-primal
to integrate within, what they see as the best of
doubt that could be so characteristic of the
modern psychology and to reject the bad; and
conception of dharma (what should I do?) and why
inaugurate in the process a new theory of mental
not, even the conception of the human (who am
life.
I?) as well; the doubt is premised on the question:
can I kill? Not ordinary killing. Can I kill my The history of psychoanalysis would
relatives, my brothers, my teacher, my grandfather perhaps need to be premised on an examination
even if I am here to avenge the trauma inflicted of both possibilities. One would be to read Bose
on ‘my’ woman? The answer was ‘yes, you have from the perspective of Freud. The other would
to’ to forestall further harm and auxiliary be to read Freud from the perspective of Bose.
destruction by a group of marauding men. While This is, of course, not to clinch the exchange
the premise is guilt (what have I done? The between Bose and Freud in favor of the one or the
‘should’ and ‘should not’ being known before- other, but to see what possibilities emerge out of
hand) in the Oedipal narrative, the premise is the table-turning. One would be to see Bose’s
dharma (what should I do? Should I kill? The psycho-logic as a version of Freudian psycho-
‘should’ and ‘should not’ needs reflection) in the analysis; one then uses Freudian psychoanalysis
narrative of the Bhāgvad Gītā; even the call of as the paradigm or at least, benchmark, for
dharma (the a-dharma woman has been subjected understanding Bose’s psycho-logic. Here one
to) requires further reflections on dharma (avenge wishes to see whether Bose was concurring with
an originary a-dharma over woman); it is, as if, the principles of Freudian psychoanalysis. Or
dharma sparking off further reflections on whether in his engagement – in his immersion/
dharma. While in the Oedipal narrative the psychic submersion in psychoanalysis – he was moving
 GIRINDRASEKHAR BOSE AND THE HISTORY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS IN INDIA T203

far from being Freudian/psychoanalytic in his In the process, Bose was giving back Freud
psycho-logic. He was in the process inaugurating another psycho-logic – or an Other psycho-logic
a different psychoanalysis – an ab-Original (which was also not merely about the psycho-logic
psychoanalysis. Was then Bose a savage Freud, of the cultural or colonial Other) – a psycho-logic
or a savage Klein, or a savage Lacan or at best/ that could be the ground for ‘rethinking mental
worst a savage Jung? Or was he in the process health’ not just in India but even in the West. Bose’s
inaugurating an altogether different or a radically psycho-logic is then not a displaced Oriental/
different psycho-logic – different from psycho- Indian version of the western Universal. It is not
analysis, so different that his version is not a what could then be represented as an Indian
‘version of psychoanalysis’; his version is not a version of the Universal – or an Indian version of
version at all; it is original; it is aboriginal in the the Western Modern – it is not what ‘our
true sense of the term. modernity’ was all about. We were actually giving
back to the west an aboriginal insight – an insight
3. ABORIGINALIZATION that would need to be adopted by the West as well;
and this insight was not about who we were; it
The paper invokes aboriginalization in a
was not just about the Indian psyche; it was not
two-fold manner. The first is about the now-known
about the possibility that Indian males don’t have
history of the ‘aboriginalization of certain cultures’
the castration complex; it was about questioning
during the colonial era. The first is about
the very deployment of the castration complex as
the characterization of certain cultures as
a constitutive node/anchor of psychic life. It was
aboriginal and the consequent degradation,
not about saying that we are or was different. It
devaluing. The first is about Orientalism (both
was to build on this difference and give to the west
white and brown). The second is about a possible
and to ourselves a different psychology and by
post-Orientalist episteme. The first is about how
default, a different science.
cultures were made and unmade. The second is
about what cultures of knowledge (as against the
Orientalist knowledge of cultures) can be BIBLIOGRAPHY
produced. The second is about creating cultures Bose, G. Concept of Repression. Sri Gauranga Press and
of aboriginalization as against an extant Kegan Paul, Trench, Troubner and Co., Calcutta and
London, 1921.
aboriginalization of cultures. This is thus not just
to ‘render the origin genealogical’ (as in Foucault) Bose, G. Gita, Pravasi, 2.1(1931): 9-16.
or to ‘put under erasure the Original’ (as in Bose, G. Bhāgvad Gītā, Indian Psychoanalytic Society: 14,
Derrida). It is to render the ‘western Original’ Parsibagan Lane, Kolkata, 1948.
aboriginal. It is not just to make micro-changes Bose, G. A New Theory of Mental Life, Samiksha, 2.2
in western theories, keeping its architechtonics (1948): 108-205.
intact; but to aboriginalize its very archi-texture Bose, G. Ambivalence, Samiksha, 3.2(1949): 54-75.
(Nandy, 2004, pp. 324-328). Through a close
Bose, G. The Nature of the Wish, Samiksha, 5.4(1951): 203-
reading of the long correspondence (1921-1933) 214.
between Sigmund Freud and Girindrasekhar
Bose, G. Analysis of Wish, Samiksha, 6.1(1952): 1-11.
Bose of India one could look at both the
‘aboriginalization of non-western cultures’ and a Bose, G. Pleasure in Wish, Samiksha, 6.2(1952): 53-69.
possible ‘culture of the aboriginalization of Bose, G. Sex and Anxiety, Samiksha, 6.3(1952): 191-200.
western knowledge systems’ put in place by Bose Bose, G. The Yoga Sūtras, The Indian Psychoanalytic
(Dhar, 2017, pp. 17-48). Society, Calcutta, 1966.
T204 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Bose, G. Svapna, Bangyia Sahitya Parishad, Calcutta, 1980. Kakar, S. A Book of Memory: Confessions and Reflections,
Viking Penguin, New Delhi, 2011.
Bose, G. and Freud, S. The Beginnings of Psychoanalysis
in India: Bose-Freud Correspondence. The Indian Lacan, J. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan – The Other Side
Psychoanalytic Society, Calcutta, 1999. of Psychoanalysis – Book XVII, (Ed.) Jacques-Alain
Miller and trans. with notes by Russell Grigg, W. W.
Derrida, J. Writing and Difference, Trans with an Norton & Co., New York and London, 2007.
Introduction by Alan Bass, Routledge, London and
New York, 2002. Nandy, A. The savage Freud and other essays on possible
and retrievable selves, Oxford University Press, Delhi,
Dhar, A. The Other Father: Oedipus, anti-Oedipus and the 1995.
an-Oedipal, Imperial Maladies: Literatures on
Healthcare and Psychoanalysis in India, (Ed.) Nandy, A. Towards an Alternative Politics of Psychology,
Debashis Bandyopadhyay and Pritha Kundu, Nova Bonfire of Creeds: the Essential Ashis Nandy, Oxford
Science Publishers, New York, 2017. University Press, Delhi, 2004.

Kakar, S and Kakar, K. The Indians: Portrait of a People, Sinha, T. A Short Life Sketch of Girindrasekhar Bose,
Penguin-Viking, New Delhi, 2007. Samiksha, Bose Special No., Ed. Nagendranath Dey,
8.1(1954): 62-74.
Kakar, S. Shamans, Mystics and Doctors. A Psychological
Inquiry into India and its Healing Traditions. Oxford Spivak, G C. Psychoanalysis in the left field and field
University Press, New Delhi, 1982. working: Examples to fit the title, Speculations after
Freud: Psychoanalysis, Philosophy and Culture, (Ed.)
Kakar, S. Intimate Relations: Exploring Indian Sexuality, S. Shamdasani and M. Munchow, Routledge, London,
Penguin India, New Delhi, 1989. 1994.