While many scientists and philosophers from Europe were major players in the shaping of human consciousness, Girindrasekhar Bose was different. He contacted Sigmund Freud not as a disciple but rather in an equal manner, assessing Freud’s theories through both inquiry and contemplation. Bose’s writings on Freud do not demonstrate complete admiration or total disapproval but rather a measured degree of both faith and scepticism.
This moment was significant. Psychology in the early 1900s was predominantly ruled by European frameworks; it was often treated as universally applicable. Scholars outside this context blindly adopted these ideas without any questions. Bose, however, approached them differently. He began by studying Freud’s work closely. Only after understanding it did he begin to question it. An important issue arose: how can a culturally located theory describe everyone’s mind? This does not mean rejecting the theory but investigating it more closely.
Bose did not dismiss psychoanalysis but considered it based on experience. He compared its ideas with real psychological observations and allowed alternative interpretations to emerge. This process reflected an important shift; psychological ideas are not static; they change when they move across cultures.
A Critical Look at Freud
Psychoanalysis was becoming more popular in Europe while Freud and Bose were still writing to each other from 1921 to 1937. While many accepted Freud’s theories as they were, Bose identified limitations within them.
He disagreed with the idea of repression a lot. Freud characterised repression as the mechanism by which undesirable impulses are relegated to the unconscious, resulting in internal conflict. Bose questioned whether this mechanism applied universally. In his 1929 work, Bose introduced the idea of “opposite wishes.” He suggested that opposing desires can exist within a person without being suppressed. These impulses do not require resolution; they may coexist without conflict.
This perspective challenges Freud’s linear model of conflict. Instead of one desire dominating another, Bose suggested coexistence as a natural state of the mind. Internal contradictions, in this view, are not signs of dysfunction but part of normal psychological experience (Bose, 1929). The long-standing exchange of letters between Bose and Freud further reflects this intellectual engagement. Freud’s continued responses suggest that Bose’s ideas were taken seriously within psychoanalytic discourse (Freud & Bose correspondence, 1921–1937).
Read More: The Psychoanalytic Roots of Resistance: Freud and Anna Freud’s Psychoanalytic Perspectives
Questioning Western Universality
The critique put forth by Bose was not confined only to the concept of the individual but extended to the general assumption of the universality of Western Psychology. This assumption, prevalent in the early 20th century with several European theories being published at that time, posited that all men, regardless of cultural context, were bound by the same principles of Psychology. Bose disputed this assumption by arguing that psychological frameworks are determined by their surrounding environment. He argued that in order to fully understand any given mental process, one must take into account both the culture and the society in which that mental process occurs (Dalal, 2011).
Bose’s perspective was deeply rooted in Indian philosophy, as many of its schools provide alternative understandings of human experience than what is provided through Western thought. For instance, Indian philosophy often holds that the opposing state is not to be viewed as a conflict, but rather as two aspects of a larger reality that coexist in a complementary relationship.
For example, experiences such as attachment and detachment, or desire and restraint, can exist simultaneously without requiring resolution. Thought systems like Advaita support this idea by allowing dualities to remain present without conflict. This philosophical influence is reflected in Bose’s concept of “opposite wishes.” By framing internal contradictions as natural, he expanded the scope of psychological understanding beyond Western models (Bose, 1929).
Bose did not dismiss psychoanalysis, but rather offered a new interpretation of psychoanalysis from a different cultural context. His research has shown that when psychological theories are analysed cross-culturally, they can become richer and deeper. With his questioning of the dominance of the Western view, Bose has created room for a more inclusive and pluralistic understanding of the human mind (Rao et al., 2008).
Read More: The Depths of Indian Psychology: Traditions and Modern Insights
Indian Contributions to Psychoanalysis
Bose’s contributions were not limited to theoretical work. He began the Indian Psychoanalytical Society in 1922 to develop psychoanalysis with a base in India. This was an important point of transition, as Bose pointed out that psychological theories are to be culturally adapted rather than simply accepted from the West.
Bose’s emphasis was on developing a theory that was relevant rather than strictly replicative. He maintained that psychology must be based upon and reflect the lived experiences of the people for whom it attempts to provide an understanding. In contributing to context-sensitive psychology, Bose’s work demonstrated that there are multiple cultural perspectives from which to acquire knowledge, rather than the predominance of one.
Read More: Freud’s Secret Society: Political Power and the Foundations of Psychoanalysis
Why His Ideas Still Matter Today
The ideas of Bose are still important within modern Psychology because the notion of “opposite wishes” is aligned with the contemporary concept of Emotional Ambivalence, which means experiencing two conflicting emotions at once. There is presently increasing recognition that emotions are multifaceted and cannot be regarded simply as existing linearly. Bose’s ideas were ahead of their time (Dalal, 2011).
Also, Bose’s emphasis on cultural experience is consistent with current efforts to make Psychology more inclusive. It is now being recognised that Mental Health Frameworks should reflect cultural diversity, rather than regard all individuals as universal. Therefore, Bose’s Work will continue to be relevant to current issues in Psychology.
Conclusion
Bose did not view Freud’s work as something to oppose; instead, he engaged Freud’s work through critical dialogue. Psychoanalysis was approached by Bose through careful questioning rather than blind acceptance, and demonstrated the value of psychoanalysis.
For example, his work shows that psychological understanding occurs through exchange rather than passivity. By also introducing the idea of “opposite wishes” to those of Freud, and applying cultural context to an understanding of Freud’s theories, Bose developed the psychoanalytic tradition into a broader framework. Bose redefined the role of the thinker as someone who reshapes knowledge rather than simply taking it; this is true regardless of what he argued or discussed regarding the work of others. By using these techniques, Bose positioned himself as an equal contributor to the development of Western psychology rather than as a subordinate character.
References +
Antić, Ana. “Decolonising Madness? Transcultural Psychiatry, International Order and Birth of a “Global Psyche” in the Aftermath of the Second World War.” Journal of Global History, 20 Apr. 2021, pp. 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1740022821000115.
Basak, Jhuma. “Encounters of the Psychological Kind.” Sculpting Psychoanalysis in India: Volume 1, 25 Feb. 2025, pp. 68–81, academic.oup.com/book/60764/chapter abstract/530740202?redirectedFrom=PDF&login=false,
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9789354974687.003.0005. Accessed 30 Mar. 2026. BOSE,
GIRINDRASEKHAR. “Bose, Girindrasekhar (1886-1953) | Encyclopedia.com.” Encyclopedia.com, 2026, www.encyclopedia.com/psychology/dictionaries-thesauruses pictures-and-press-releases/bose-girindrasekhar-1886-1953?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 30 Mar. 2026.
Dhar, Anup. “Girindrasekhar Bose and the History of Psychoanalysis in India.” Indian Journal of History of Science, vol. 53, no. 4, 1 Nov. 2018, https://doi.org/10.16943/ijhs/2018/v53i4/49545. Accessed 1 Dec. 2021.
Gasparyan, Armen Yuri, et al. “Open Access: Changing Global Science Publishing.” Croatian Medical Journal, vol. 54, no. 4, Aug. 2013, pp. 403–406,https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2013.54.403.
Hiltebeitel, Alf. Opposite Wishes. Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford University Press, 20 Sept. 2018, academic.oup.com/book/8978/chapter abstract/155321088?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Accessed 30 Mar. 2026.
Manickam, S. “Research on Indian Concepts of Psychology: Major Challenges and Perspectives for Future Action.” Foundation Books, 16 May 2008, pp. 492–505, www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/handbook-of-indian-psychology/research-on-indian concepts-of-psychology-major-challenges-and-perspectives-for-future action/29594D562C6B8C21746C42AC90C5C67D, https://doi.org/10.1017/upo9788175968448.027.
Mills, James H. “Psychoanalysis in Colonial India.” Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, vol. 39, no. 3, 1 June 2003, pp. 312–313, www.researchgate.net/publication/240326014_Psychoanalysis_in_colonial_India, https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.10124.
Leave feedback about this