India refuses to swallow UK's bitter pill for Ayurveda

India refuses to swallow UK's bitter pill for Ayurveda
SANCHITA SHARMA

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 13: India House in London is seething over what is seen as a big snub to Indian medicine by Britain. The House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology, in its sixth report, recently dismissed ayurveda as ``unscientific''. It placed it in a group of alternative therapies ``for which scientific evidence is almost completely lacking''. Even Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's transcendental meditation, hypnotherapy and flower therapy were placed above it.

High Commissioner Nareshwar Dayal has written to Lord Walton, head of the committee, asking him to consider ``modifying conclusions'' in the face of scientific evidence. His letter stressed ayurveda's ``scientifically demonstrated effect above the placebo effect''. Forty two exhaustive scientific papers on ayurvedic medicines and therapies were enclosed.

An indignant Department of Indian Systems of Medicine in the Union Ministry of Health has also protested to Lord Walton, saying that ayurveda is ``supported and recognised by the Government of India'' and is backed by 30 years of ``literary research, clinical research and drug research''. It adds that the Government regulates the ``quality of ayurveda drugs, which are manufactured commercially and has developed formularies and pharmacopoeias''.

Ayurvedic companies in Britain are mincing no words in condemning the ``extremely serious level of misunderstanding and factual inaccuracy about ayurveda'' in the report. Says David McAlpine, Director of the Ayurvedic Company of Great Britain Ltd, in his letter to Lord Walton: ``We do not know who carried out the study but we suspect their brief did not include a trawl through the very large number of scientific papers published in India and China as well as in the West on these profound, powerful and ancient systems. In fact, the Medicines Control Agency (UK) has been very supportive of ayurveda and probably knows more about the subject than your advisors.''

The report divides complementary and alternative medicine into three groups based on existing scientific research backing the therapies. It puts ayurveda at the bottom of the ladder -- in Group Three -- which includes ``techniques that offer diagnosis as well as treatment but for which scientific evidence is almost completely lacking''. It says this ``group of techniques cannot be supported''.

The report describes ayurveda as ``mind-body-spirit interaction, originating in India and employing herbs to stimulate and aid relaxation.''

Says an official of the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine: ``The report completely ignores the therapeutic effects that have made ayurvedic medicine a Rs 4,000-crore market in India.'' Exports of ayurvedic preparations crossed Rs 450 crore in 2000.

The report: a capsule
GROUP ONE:Professionally organised therapies for which there is some scientific evidence of success: acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine,homeopathy, osteopath
GROUP TWO:Complementary medicine...used as an adjunct rather than a replacement for conventional therapies: alexander technique, aromatherapy, Bach and other flower remedies, body work therapies, including massage, counselling stress therapies, hypnotherapy, meditation, reflexology, shiatzu, healing, Maharishi's transcendental meditation, nutritional medicine, yoga
GROUP THREE:Techniques that offer diagnosis as well as treatment but for which scientific evidence is almost completely lacking: anthroposophical medicine, ayurvedic medicine, Chinese herbal medicine, eastern medicine, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, crystal therapy, dowsing, iridology, kinesiology, radionics