29,525
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
A further frequently asked question is why an Assistant Surgeon ancestor does not appear in ''Crawford’s Roll of the Indian Medical Service 1614-1930''. Apothecaries as members of the [[Indian Subordinate Medical Department]], rather than the superior [[Indian Medical Service]], generally are not listed in Crawford, except for some entries relating to the [[Madras Presidency]] in the very early years, probably prior to the establishment of the Subordinate Medical Department. It should be noted that IMS used the title Assistant Surgeon for its lower ranks until 1873 and that the ISMD used the same title after 1894. Therefore if your Assistant Surgeon appears with that title before 1873, he should be in the IMS and will not be an Apothecary.
Medical personnel appointed to the IMS will almost always have been educated in the UK, even if they were born in India. They always held higher medical ranking. A London Gazette announcement sets out the requirements for Assistant-Surgeons in the service of the [[East India Company]] in March 1856.<ref> [http://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/21858/page/976 ''The London Gazette'' 7 March 1856] Issue: 21858 Page: 976</ref>
Conversely, however brilliant, the Indian born and educated men were trained in India and provided service in the ISMD, on lower pay scales. Some did rise in seniority, but would always be 'inferior' to their colleagues in the IMS. As the years went by, this perceived inferiority became an issue to be addressed. There are examples of men in the ISMD trained elsewhere, although these were in the minority. For example, The London Gazette Oct 17, 1919 lists under ''To be Senior Asst Surgeon with rank of Lieutenant: 1st class Asst Surgeons, 10th Feb 1919, Frederick William Mathews, L.R.C.P and S.I., L.M (Dub)'' ie Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians (London) and Licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (LRCSI), coupled with a Licence in Midwifery.
