top of page

By:

Subhash Kaushik and Kishore Paknikar

21 August 2024 at 11:16:39 am

Homoeopathy, As We Know It

When NASA searches for life beyond Earth, it speaks of searching for “life, as we know it.” Those five words capture one of the most important principles of science. If life exists elsewhere in the universe, it may not resemble the life we know on Earth. Scientists therefore do not search for the unknown using yesterday’s assumptions. They search with better instruments, better questions, and an open mind. The same principle has guided every major scientific breakthrough. Every generation...

Homoeopathy, As We Know It

When NASA searches for life beyond Earth, it speaks of searching for “life, as we know it.” Those five words capture one of the most important principles of science. If life exists elsewhere in the universe, it may not resemble the life we know on Earth. Scientists therefore do not search for the unknown using yesterday’s assumptions. They search with better instruments, better questions, and an open mind. The same principle has guided every major scientific breakthrough. Every generation mistakes the limits of its instruments for the limits of nature. Microorganisms influenced human life long before the microscope revealed them. Most stomach ulcers were blamed on stress until the discovery of Helicobacter pylori changed medicine forever. Casting Aspersions The same lesson applies to homoeopathy. For more than two centuries, homoeopathy has occupied a unique place in medicine. It has been practised across the world, integrated into healthcare systems in many countries and trusted by millions of patients. At the same time, it has remained one of the most debated systems of medicine. Critics have questioned not merely whether it works, but whether it could work at all. Most medical debates begin after a treatment has shown some benefit. Homoeopathy has often been judged before the scientific discussion could move beyond its proposed mechanism. Homoeopathic medicines are diluted to such an extent that little or none of the original substance is expected to remain. If almost nothing remains, how can anything produce a biological effect? Judged by the chemistry and analytical methods available during the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, that conclusion appeared entirely reasonable. Science, however, does not stand still. Its greatest strength is not certainty but self-correction. New instruments often compel scientists to revisit old conclusions. Advances in nanoscience, materials science and analytical chemistry now allow researchers to examine highly diluted preparations in ways that earlier generations simply could not. Research from India and other countries has reported observations, including measurable physicochemical features in some highly diluted preparations, that have reopened scientific discussion. Not every finding has been independently reproduced, and many questions remain unanswered. Yet one conclusion is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss. The scientific basis for rejecting homoeopathy without further investigation is no longer as strong as it once appeared. Changing Perceptions Yesterday’s science asked whether homoeopathy was possible. Today’s science is increasingly asking how highly diluted preparations should be investigated using the best tools available. The placebo argument deserves similar attention. Critics frequently argue that any benefit observed with homoeopathy is simply the placebo effect. There is no doubt that placebo is real. Confidence in a physician, expectation of recovery, and the body’s own healing mechanisms influence outcomes in every branch of medicine. More than two centuries ago, physicians recognized that nature itself plays a powerful role in healing. That observation applies not only to homoeopathy but to every therapeutic system, including modern medicine. Homoeopathy has been reported to produce responses not only in adults but also in infants, animals and even plants, where expectation and belief cannot readily account for the observations. These reports do not, by themselves, prove the effectiveness of homoeopathy. Scientific conclusions require rigorous, reproducible and independently verified evidence. They do, however, raise a legitimate scientific question. If placebo cannot adequately explain every reported observation, what does? The answer cannot come from opinion. It can come only from careful scientific investigation. This is precisely how science has always progressed. It does not reject difficult questions because they challenge accepted thinking. Nor does it accept extraordinary claims without evidence. It designs better experiments. India is uniquely positioned to lead this next phase of inquiry. It possesses one of the world’s largest networks of qualified homoeopathic physicians, teaching institutions, hospitals and patients. Equally important, it has created a dedicated research ecosystem through the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH), the apex research organisation under the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India. Its mandate is neither to defend tradition nor to promote belief. Its responsibility is to generate credible evidence through laboratory research, well-designed clinical studies, public health investigations and collaborations with leading scientific institutions. The history of science repeatedly reminds us that ideas are not accepted because they are popular, nor rejected because they are unconventional. They are judged by evidence. Homoeopathy should be no exception. It should neither receive special privilege nor face special prejudice. It should be subjected to exactly the same standards expected of every other branch of medicine. That is the spirit in which this article has been written. One of us comes from a lifetime devoted to homoeopathic research, education and patient care. The other has spent decades in mainstream scientific research, institution building and promoting scientific temper. We share neither blind faith nor blind scepticism but a commitment to the scientific method. The larger lesson extends far beyond homoeopathy. Scientific progress depends on a willingness to revisit yesterday’s conclusions when today’s evidence demands it. Every generation mistakes the limits of its instruments for the limits of nature. The history of discovery is, in many ways, the history of overcoming those limits. Homoeopathy may ultimately confirm some long-held beliefs. It may equally challenge others. Science must remain prepared for either possibility. What it cannot afford is to stop asking questions simply because the answers appear inconvenient. Research does not exist to protect ideas. It exists to test them. Homoeopathy has earned that test. It deserves to be judged by the best evidence that twenty-first century science can generate, not by the limitations of nineteenth-century knowledge. (Dr. Kaushik is the Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH), Ministry of Ayush, New Delhi; Dr. Paknikar is the Member, Scientific Advisory Board, CCRH, N. Delhi and ANRF Prime Minister Professor, COEP Technological University, Pune. Views personal.)

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page