top of page

By:

Subhash Kaushik and Kishore Paknikar

21 June 2024 at 12:21:10 pm

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.)

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Mamata is seeing a ghost of Bangladesh behind the massive outrage and waves of protest over rape and murder of the trainee doctor. And the reasons are many.

It’s been over a fortnight. Yet with each passing day the voice of protest is getting louder and stronger. From the streets of Kolkata it’s pouring into roads of hinterland. The cry for justice for a rape victim has consolidated into a wail of demands to set a lot of wrongdoings right. Here in lies the fear and trepidation. Wasn’t the issue that brought the youth of Bangladesh out on the thoroughfares a simple, innocent one of quota reform?

The chief minister of Bengal, known for understanding the pulse of people better than many, was quick to read the signages floating in the political horizon.

The most obvious reason for her to be tensed is that both the regime change in Bangladesh and the mass protest in Bengal, were student-driven to begin with. The two incidents---end of 15 year old Sheikh Hasina government and turbulence in West Bengal, over the heinous crime, falling back to back, the first on August 5th and the latter from August 9th onwards, give natural scope for comparisons. More so, because in both the cases the movement strayed beyond an affected constituency to include aggrieved people at large, cutting across socio-economic demography. If the quota reform protest started by students in Bangladesh became a mass uprising against an autocratic regime, the campaign demanding justice for the rape victim and overall safety and security of women in Mamata Banerjee’s Bengal soon snowballed into a movement of no-confidence against the government. Slogans--”Mamata must resign” also got floated in social media much in line with the call for ouster of Sheikh Hasina. In fact “Resignation of Hasina” became the single point agenda into which all other fringe demands coalesced.

Incidentally, even before people started drawing parallels, that there could be a thread of commonality in the way the upheaval in Bangladesh and Bengal played out, Mamata was quick to point out that the Opposition were trying to pull off a Bangladesh by politicizing the tragic incident: “A coordinated approach has been executed by the BJP and the CPIM with support from the Centre to defame Bengal and exploit the situation....They want to make a Bangladesh here. They are taking cues from student unrest in Bangladesh and are attempting to capture similarly. I have no longing for the chair. I came here to serve people.”

Not only Mamata, her political lieutenants are consistently equating the turmoil in Bengal with the mayhem in Bangladesh. Cabinet minister for North Bengal development Udayan Guha threatened to take stern action against those, who would be trying to exploit the situation by emulating a Bangladesh like movement. “ Even after the hospital was vandalised, the police did not open fire on anyone. The police will not allow a Bangladesh type situation. We will not allow Bengal to turn into Bangladesh, Guha thundered.

Is the government’s fear unfounded?

Apart from the similarities on ground zero, as to how and where the future course of events are heading to, there are ample reasons for Bengal to mull on-- as to what led to a Bangladesh like boiling point. To begin with, it’ll be appropriate to talk of Bangladesh and the prevailing situation, that made the students’ protest become big in magnitude. The students were out on the streets because of a high reservation in public jobs. Unemployment and stagnant job market in private sector coupled with a high rate of inflation drove the educated youth to rebel against the government.

But soon the students found enormous number of sympathisers, who were equally at the receiving end. According to Bangladesh citizens, the last two terms of the Sheikh Hasina government were a mockery of democracy. Even elections would be compromised. As Hasina grew from strength to strength, she politicized institutions. The rank and file of police owed allegiance to the ruling dispensation. Extortion, harrassment and raids by police and people in power became rampant. An atmosphere of fear and repression reigned and people got restless to overthrow the government.

Politicization of institutions has been happening in Mamata government too. Allegations are quite strong that police in Bengal functions at the beck and call of political bosses. The lapses and alleged loopholes on the part of police in handling the rape and murder of the young doctor have yet again revealed a sense of confused or misplaced loyalty.

But above everything else both Hasina and Mamata governments allegedly seem to have twined in accepting corruption as a way of life. In Bangladesh jobs of primary and secondary teachers got sold at premium, Rs 10-12 lakh in the Hasina regime. Even police had to pay up for prized postings and transfers. In Bengal busting of the teacher’s recruitment scam has revealed how unsuccessful and ineligible candidates got government jobs in schools in exchange of bribes.

Similarities are multiple and inescapable. Mamata has good reasons to be apprehensive. It’s not only she, who can see and connect the dots. People, out on the streets, clamoring for justice, can see a providential pattern somewhere in the unfolding of future events in these two places-- Bangladesh and Bengal. True, they share more than 2,217 odd km of border. They share the same umbilical cord, other than language, culture, ethos, icons. Even emotions are the same. So she cannot take any risk.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Kolkata. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page