AYUSH was made to fail – How and by whom?

How the traditional systems of health care practices in India like Siddha and Ayurveda has lost its charm, preference, relevance and why these systems do not form the first choice of people in treating their diseases? It is not just a single reason or cause that has harmed the growth and acceptance of Siddha and Ayurveda in our society but several factors have contributed to its dismal failure.

In strict sense, these systems have not failed but were made to fail. It means, the failure of Siddha and Ayurveda is essentially scripted by none other than the guardians and proponents of these systems.

If we look at the genesis of Ayurveda and Siddha, it comes with clear tradition (Parambarya). The knowledge of such system was always transferred from one generation to the next generation or was inherited by the subsequent generation.

When such transfer of knowledge takes place, always the experience, the shortfalls, limitations, rate of success and the level of dependence of certain practices etc., were regularly getting refreshed, renewed and only then were shared to the next generation. Therefore the system was always dynamic and continuously iterative during prarmbarya period.

Always newness and removal or isolation of anything that have limited use was happening. It was not just some products or process or the mere knowledge systems were transferred from one generation to another. The cumulative experience, collective learning, overall wisdom and the confidence of one generation was transferred to the next. Because of such dynamism and vibrancy in Siddha and Ayurveda in ancient days, the systems were then relevant and useful to humanity.

During independence movement, the proponents of these systems appeared to have used the spirit of patriotism and maneuvered the Government and lobbied the political system and brought a great reform called Gurukulam approach (institutionalization) over the Parambarya system of knowledge – Siddha and Ayurveda.

In fact such an approach has made the systems to become ‘stagnant’, than being dynamic. These systems were constantly getting improvised through added knowledge and experience of one generation to the next when it had existed as parambarya system.

But when it was institutionalized, the system appeared to have simply taught its graduates to recite the pre-existing scriptures, over cry about its greatness and legacy than really use, experience and improve the system.

To make the system look great, they compared and started to adopt the approaches of scientifically proven and validated allopathic science otherwise called western medicine. In essence, the proponents of Siddha and Ayurveda adopted western form of education to a knowledge that had come into existence out of experience of several vaidyas.

These experiences were always getting improved with the knowledge during parambarya days. But when the contents were taken out from the experience of different vaidyas to convert as curriculum for medical education, the proponents appeared to have failed to recognize the truth that the experiences were the corner stone of such system and nothing else. Perhaps the proponents of Siddha and Ayurveda would have assumed that such copying, mimicking and adoptions of allopathic style and approaches will give great dividends to the system.

Knowledge about the use of some herbs with small medicinal value especially when no proven drug or medical facility was available cannot be converted as medical science. The proponents of these systems have totally converted these paramedical practices as medical science by adopting the styles of western medicine.

Such knowledge system can at best provide only paramedical benefits to people. This cardinal truth the proponents of Siddha and Ayurveda appeared to have not recognized and as a result they promoted the system as medical science and produced graduates from the system as doctor. Instead, they should have clubbed all practices of traditional faith under Indian Traditional Medicine exactly like how Peoples Republic of China promotes their system as Traditional Chinese Medicine.

None had realized that when these systems remain stagnant, it cannot grow, useful and relevant. In the name of institutionalization, the proponents of Siddha and Ayurveda have made these systems to fail than being useful, relevant, scientific and effective to humanity.
As a natural gift of institutionalization, several graduates were produced from the stagnant system. These graduates have studied all those scriptures and noting of ancient vaidyas excluding their experience and corrigendum. During parambarya days the knowledge, experience and wisdom of one generation was getting transferred to the next. But the institutionalization has made the continuously running stream of water to become stagnant and allowed eutrophication to occur.
The real problem of Siddha and Ayurveda does not stop with institutionalization alone. They produced several graduates with the tag - vaidya to act as doctor in the society.

When patients consult these institutionalized vaidyas for treating various diseases, most of these vaidyas do not take pride and comfort to tell the patients they are suffering from Vatta disorder or Pitta disorder or kapha disorder to combination of the above etc. Instead they show pride to use the disease descriptions of modern medicine like Psoriasis, Viiligo, Arthritis, Dengue, Chikungunya, Cancer etc.

This self designed metamorphosis by several Siddha and Ayurveda vaidyas in private practice as allopathic drug prescribing doctors (cross pathy) and the support of various AYUSH departments to such westernized style has only worsened the system from being useful to bundle of false promises that lack science and truth.

The proponents of AYUSH must honestly ask the question of which product of Ayurveda or Siddha can be called as drug as per global standard? Which product of these systems has true curative value? Is the above curative effects are only due to such products as proven by well established pharmacokinetic data?

When none of the above scientific proofs are available, is it wise not to promote these systems as medical science? If it is promoted as medical science, will these systems ever get any respect? What about the institutionalized qualified vaidyas in private practice? How do they satisfy the expectations of their patients that they are doctors and have studied medical science? Which product they use to treat the diseases of their patients?

The proponents of AYUSH must honestly ask the above questions and must accept the truth that AYUSH is paramedical practice and not medical science. The products of AYUSH may have some medicinal value but they cannot, on any day, qualify the title -drug. Therefore continuing AYUSH as medical science will do no good to the system.

Another truth that destroys AYUSH is cross pathy by most AYUSH vaidyas in private practice. The AYUSH vaidyas are supposed to be the promoters and guardians of AYUSH. But most of these guardians are instead of guarding the system, show great love and support to allopathic science. The truth is two fold. The first reason being they have to prove to their patients that they are doctors and the second reason is to give cure to the patients. The AYUSH products may help these vaidyas only to mesmerize the poor patients but cannot offer any real treatment benefit.

Unless the truth is recognized and respected by the AYUSH Ministry that AYUSH can serve only paramedical benefit, AYUSH will continue to struggle for its existence. In the present era, even if it exists, it will remain vestigial. Therefore AYUSH must be renamed as Indian Traditional Medicine and its graduates as Indian Traditional Medicine Practitioners with their specialization. The cross pathy by the AYUSH vaidyas in private practice also must end.

Dr S Ranganathan