Scientific Pretense: Story of theft, plagiarism and moral rhetoric
Recently the Govt of India announced through a gazette notification that Ayurved doctors will be allowed to perform certain surgeries after a period of training. While most people welcomed this, the reaction from some corners of the allopathic community was simply stunning. The IMA (Indian Medical Association) went as far as to say that the Aayurved practioners should not “arrogate themselves by venturing into undeserved areas of medical practice”. It went on to say that each system should develop it’s own methods through scientific research and that modern medicine had a history of half a millenium.
Now, the reaction from the IMA tells us two things:
- The IMA seems to makes no distinction between the history of science and the philosophy of science.
- Based on this conflation of the two, they derive authority which gives them the right to “certify” valid practices.
Let’s respond to the first point.
Does the validity of modern science depend upon it’s antiquity or on the philosophy on which it is based ? It seems unclear from the IMA statement what they hold to be of much value. While the IMA can make it’s case using both history and philosophy of medical practice but they cannot jump from one ship to the other in case one of them fails. It is also unclear what defines any medical practice as modern or traditional and why it’s modernity or antiquity should be attributed to a specific culture namely the Western. Let us illustrate this with an example : if it were argued that what is commonly understood as modern medicine developed a much more matured and efficient way of talking about the human condition, the illnesses and in finding ways to cure them one would happily accept this line of argumentation.
Let us take another example. If the case were made that what is commonly understood as modern medicine is better because of it’s antiquity, because of years of empirical tests and results with an ever improving understanding of the human body one would be compelled to side with the IMA only if it were true.
The history of Ayurveda dates back to probably 1600 years. Chinese, Thai or Japanese traditional medicinal traditions also date back to the same time. Keeping this in mind, one could make the case that traditional medicine is far more effective than modern medicine. But that is not the point.
As to the philosophy of modern medicine, I would like to point to this article by Dr Subhash Kak
which leads us to ask the question ‘does modern medicine have any philosophy at all except for corporate standardization and profiteering’ ? What stimulates the harsh criticism of integrating Aayurveda with surgical practice ? It seems as if there is an ideological malfeasance behind the scientific pretense of the IMA. A well reknowned doctor from Mumbai , Dr Amit Thadani said “ what would IMA say if Aayurvedics turned around and said that the nose reconstruction and ear flaps surgery emerged out of Ayurveda and not Modern medicine ? Any reasonable person would claim that modern medicine “co-opted” Ayurvedic practices which is true because Indians never made money off of sharing knowledge or monopolised the market the way Modern medicine has done. I would encourage the reader to read Dharampal’s book “Science and technology in 18th C India” which provides the context and the details to what Dr Thadani was saying. That book is written by sourcing East India company and British government records in case people have problems with Indian sources.
It naturally follows then that IMA is angry not because anti science is here to consume us all but because it challenges their monopoly and authority on medicine and well being. The British banned surgery as part of Aayurved because they genuinely believed that Indian traditional medicine was superstitious and it threatened their monopoly. Today many Indians educated in english echo the same parochial views which calls Aayurved “anti science” like the Christians calling non Christians heretics. A similar instance from the history of math will help illustrate this better -
Western historians of science, or most of them have claimed for long that India developed pre calculus. That is to say, that India might have developed trigonometry, mensuration, algebra, probability, statistics, combinatorics but calculus as we understand it today was developed in Europe. Why ? Because Europeans made the simplistic looking math of Indian heathens and made it rigorous. Rigorous in what sense ? By adding limits. Now limits do not add anything of practical value to the math Indians developed but they had to be added by the Europeans for their own sake because of their confusion with infinity and infinite series. So in effect they loaded the perfectly practical development of calculus with subtle theological rhetoric and repackaged it to us during colonialism as “superior science”.
For more on this, see
CKRaju.net
I hope you can appreciate the pattern in which knowledge is constantly appropriated and re-packaged with western rhetoric. What is modern or not is divided by a very fuzzy line. Entire systems of traditional practices have been appropriated into modern medicine which have helped people. Therefore to claim purity on account of being the high priests of medicine much like the church fathers used to do in moral practices is nothing but an attempt to coerce people into believing in authority backed by a certain ideological and industrial edifice. Modern medicine relies heavily on
equipment built by engineers
knowledge of human anatomy
biochemistry
brain function & knowledge of the human mind.
All of the above require borrowing (co-opting) from other fields of science. The knowledge base developed by Indians on the working of the brain, mind and psychology is helping modern medicine perform subjective analysis of brain functions. It could offer great insights not only on how one thinks but also the emotional responses to moral actions. The field of neuroscience is expanding and the study of consciousness will inevitably look to India for insights and basis. The study of consciousness ,brain functions,human mind and human actions will throw up questions relating to creativity, conditioning of the mind and it’s effect on physical reality, ethics and morality.
Ayurved and Indian traditions could also help doctors come up with novel solutions to treat pain
People like Herb Benson and Stephen Laberge have openly stolen Vipasna and Yog Nidra techniques making millions in the process. The half a millenium of scientific process that the IMA claims lineage to is full of openly sharing, borrowing, co-opting, theft, and plagiarism.
I would like to emphasise the need to invest in Ayurveda as a practice to expand it’s knowledge base, use the knowledge of anatomy that modern medicine relies on (developed in Europe) and offer a better alternative to modern medicine. There is great knowledge to be sought here but to dismiss it as quackery based not on empirical evidence but a sense of entitlement and authority would be the least scientific thing to do. What we argue for is not blindly accepting everything Ayurveda experts say or modern medicine says but a critical understanding of both, their traditions and figure out a way where th best of both can help people. Science was never and can never be the monopoly of one culture or tradition. Because the basic requirement for acquiring knowledge is विनय and श्रद्धा. I hope to write a series of articles on the Scientific history of India and the West to investigate some key questions relating to the de-indusrialisation of India in the 18th C and the industrialisation of Europe in the late 18th and throughout the 19thC.
