Sushrut Jadhav on the Decolonization of Psychiatry

As part of its “Global Reflections” series, Institute Social hosted Sushrut Jadhav, Professor of Cultural Psychiatry at University College London (UCL). At the talk, titled Pirate Therapy: Universal Psychiatry and Its Colonial Legacy, held on 22 October, Jadhav highlighted how psychiatric knowledge has been shaped by the history of colonialism. He explored, from a decolonial perspective, how mental health problems associated with social inequalities can be understood beyond Western-centric frameworks.

Jadhav explained how power relations inherited from colonialism continue to operate through institutions, professional authority, and everyday practices. He noted that his use of the term “colonial clinic” referred to a much older colonial mindset rooted in the caste hierarchy of the Indian subcontinent, which predated British rule. He then introduced the concept of “local colonialisms” to explain how internal power hierarchies within societies also contribute to the perpetuation of these relations.

Addressing how caste privilege shapes care practices, Jadhav argued that assumptions about the neutrality of mental health professionals, coupled with the silence of witnesses, can render caste-based violence invisible. He drew attention to how clinical practices can normalise the authority of upper castes while marginalising the distress experienced by oppressed communities.

Jadhav argued that encoding historical trauma through new medical labels such as “Post-Slavery Syndrome” or “Caste Trauma Syndrome” risks turning people into passive victims rather than restoring their dignity. He also addressed the role of language, proposing the use of verb-based expressions such as “uppered” and “backwarded” in place of static descriptors such as “upper caste”.

Drawing on his work with homeless people as a street psychiatrist in London, Jadhav explained that genuine human connection can only be established by meeting others on an equal footing. Through clinical and cultural examples, he also examined the possibilities of “political” therapy and emphasised the importance of confronting forms of violence that conventional psychiatry has struggled to address. The talk raised a fundamental question: must psychiatry also confront the power relations that produce psychological distress in order to understand and address it? The event concluded with a question-and-answer session.