Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 345 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page


    Advanced search

    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded94    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


LETTER TO EDITOR Table of Contents   
Year : 2006  |  Volume : 48  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 274
Author's response-II

Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

How to cite this article:
Basu AR. Author's response-II. Indian J Psychiatry 2006;48:274

How to cite this URL:
Basu AR. Author's response-II. Indian J Psychiatry [serial online] 2006 [cited 2021 Sep 16];48:274. Available from:


I thank Dr Debashis Chatterjee for taking note of my article, commentaries, and offering a critique. When I appreciate his corrections of faulty historiography by Sharma, I am somewhat cautious in labelling Laing, Szasz and Cooper in such reductionist terms. A recent book has done some good review of the antipsychiatry discourse, which helps us to see this movement in context.[1]

In response to his critique on my article, first I would like to say that I have not used 'History of Psychiatry in India' (p.126, para 1, line 1) and the 'History of Indian Psychiatry' (p.126, para 2, line 1) interchangeably. In the first use, a dominant narrative strategy and its interpretation is in question and in the second, the representation of 'Indian psychiatry' is in question.

The concept of lack is more a psychological construct than a checklist. It is generated from the engagement between the coloniser and the colonised. It is used in relation to the hegemonic discourse of a linear, progessivist development.

I have brought Foucault to understand the disjuncture that has come in the evolutionary historiography of psychiatry and think it was irrelevant to discuss the Foucault-Derrida debate, which I have mentioned elsewhere (see References 3 and 4 in my 'Response'). However, Derrida's critique was with the issue of madness in itself and Foucault's response to that is well acknowledged.

Finally, I appreciate Dr Chatterjee's attitude for engaging himself in the debate to make it more productive.

   References Top

1.Double DB (ed). Critical psychiatry: The limits of madness. Palgrave Macmillan; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 1    

Correspondence Address:
Amit Ranjan Basu
BE 318, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700064, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 20703358

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions