Owners and Ownership only affects the growth of ISM?

Who owns the allopathic system of medicine and who owns the ISM (AYUSH system)?

We strongly feel that the issue of ‘ownership’ and the ‘owners’ are only affecting adversely the growth and development of Siddha system and ISM. Due to such ownership issue, people in the system have become rustic and uncomfortable to criticism. Any question on the safety and efficacy of ISM is raised, the people concerned more often deal such situation with hyper-emotion. The most common answer they would prefer to give is that the system is time tested, 5000 year old, follow different science, gifted to mankind by Lord Siva or Vishnu, which is holistic in its approach etc.

Can a ‘system of medicine’ afford to hang on to such arguments/logic in the present world?

India is growing fast, people are becoming aware and aspiring, looking for scientific solutions than faith or emotion based counseling, from mere consumers to choosers of brands and merit. Why ISM is not realizing the above ‘truth of the day?

Another painful fact that affects the ISM is cross-pathy. Many institutionally qualified ISM private practitioners practice allopathic drugs than own system? When we ask why they do so, none wants to answer the question straight.

Is it not because ISM does not have curative drugs, they prefer allopathic drugs? If so, why the ISM must be promoted by our Government as system of medicine? When we raise such ‘forthright’ question, no one claims any ownership to answer?

The private Pharma industries and research organizations are the champions and frontrunners in bringing out several new allopathic drugs, vaccines and immunological agents.

In the strict sense, the allopathic system of medicine belongs to science and science is the real owner of allopathic system.

On the contrary, the people in often act like they are the owners of ISM. If they relinquish such ownership and become open to criticism and correction, the scope for ISM to evolve out as wonderful health providing system is high.

Still time is not too late.

Since ‘science’ is the owner of allopathic system, even today, newer and newer allopathic drugs are emerging, the existing drugs are re-validated, questioned their efficacy and safety, rejected if found any doubts etc.

But in ISM, all the ISM products (Sastric products not proprietary products) are claimed be as old as 1000 - 5000 years. It means, over 5000 years, no improvement, research, re-validation, safety evaluation has been done on these products!

How come the ISM products could retain their efficacy, safety and relevance, even today? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to ask such question and push for validation of ISM products as per global standards? Instead, why Government is also joining the chorus and singing the same old ‘song’, i.e. ISM is time tested, 5000 year old, tradition linked, holistic etc.

Only because the fact that allopathic system belongs to science, many Pharmaceutical companies have invested heavily in research and development in allopathic medicine. Biocon headed by Madam Kiran Mazhumdar Shaw is one such outstanding example in India in bringing out several new drugs/therapeutic agents/antibodies etc.

But look at the paradox in ISM. If an ISM manufacturing company conducts any research to bring out new ISM preparation using herbs listed in the ISM texts, still obtaining manufacturing license to such products is difficult. But quite contrary to that, even for the metal based preparations with toxic metals like mercury, arsenic, copper, lead listed as Shastric preparations, obtaining manufacturing license is quite easy. Similarly, the ISM practitioners can dispense own concoctions (God knows what they are) to the patients, no quality check or approvals are required.

Has all these extra privileges and advantages done anything good to ISM?

In the name of tradition, Government has granted ‘ex gratia’ and ‘extra-constitutional’ status to ISM but not seems to have done anything worthwhile to develop the ‘true merit’ and relevance of ISM. Otherwise today ISM would have been the only system of medicine in India and none of the institutionally qualified ISM private practitioners and Siddha practitioners would ever go after allopathic practice.

Another big question the CCIM, CCRS, NIS, AYUSH etc., has to answer is that when all Sastric ISM products require no validation as they are used by mankind over 5000 years and were gifted by God, then why these research institutes are run by the Government? Is it because all the sastric ISM products are already proven, these institutions has not done any path breaking research in ISM and have proved the science of ISM in any reputed research journals like Lancet, Nature, Science or PNAS etc?

If we question, they get angry and upset as they are the owners of the system and no owner would like questing their system/product.

Only if the ownership is relinquished wholeheartedly and show openness to criticism and new learning, the system can be developed. The policy makers must accept the absolute limitations of ISM and must promote it as ‘non drug based system’ than system of medicine.

The policy makers of ISM also must understand that the definition of ‘drug’ cannot be done as ISM drug or allopathic drug or ‘your science’ and ‘my science’. Definition of science and definition of drug should be as per global standard and not based on tradition.

In the changing tide of time, the role of ISM for support therapy value alone should be looked at by the Government and not as stand alone treatment system or system of medicine.

It is not anger, contemplation, not emotion, intelligence, not blind faith, inquisitiveness to learn must be shown by the system.

Cross-pathy by some ISM practitioners and too much of ownership, ISM needs to address if the system has to be developed.

Dr S Ranganathan