`Nature`s molecules are complex; the synthetic chemist can hardly make them`
What are you trying to achieve through the FRLHT database?
We are trying to focus on the relevance of the knowledge and resource base of the Indian medical heritage. We can strengthen the resource base of the traditional knowledge system by using the FRLHT database. A lot of people talk about codifying and explaining the contemporary relevance of traditional knowledge. I think networking and building up a database is the most effective way to preserve this traditional knowledge. After all, 80 per cent of modern drugs come from traditional medicine.
The users of the FRLHT database will include the agricultural community, medical research institutes, the pharmaceutical industry and practitioners of the Indian systems of medicine. We hope that in the next 10 years, we will have a much better understanding of our heritage.
It is ironic that although we gloat about our glorious past, we are still in the dark about the contemporary relevance of traditional plants and herbs. The Chinese have done much better than us in this respect. While the Indian heritage is as rich as China"s, we haven"t been able to utilise our knowledge.
You have been very critical of the lack of perceptions about this traditional knowledge in contemporary society. Why is this?
Traditional Indian medicine can be found in two streams. One of them -- the Prakrit stream of folk medicine -- holds a rich store of medical lore. It is intriguing to note that the principles of the Prakrit system vary conspicuously over short distances, particularly in south India. We have observed that according to the principles of folk tradition, there are variations in the system every 100 metres. There are variations in usage as well. In effect, this means that every community has made different appraisals of various medicinal plants. The differing assessments often result in multifaceted interpretations. Even if one accesses the information through a database, there is always the question of interpretation and assessment of utilities in varying contexts.
Then there is the issue of ethnobotany, which has failed to do justice to traditional medicine. Very little work has been done in exploring the values of various species. Ethnobotanists have compiled these traditions but they have not studied them regionally. If we do not study these plants and their usage community by community and region by region, then access to the knowledge base means nothing. The time, area of growth, specific community uses and combinations constitute the basic framework of folk knowledge.
Are you suggesting that the classical stream is more streamlined?
You have Ayurveda, Tibetan medicine, Unani and the siddhas in the classical stream, all of which have been codified and marketed to a far greater extent than the Prakrit systems. Even then the database that is available on the classical stream is scattered and, maybe, unsystematic and inadequate.
There is a wealth of knowledge in both the streams but where is the appreciation of the nature of this knowledge? It is perhaps during the colonial regime that modern allopathic medicine caught the attention of the average urbanite and, to a certain extent, the fancy of the rural people.
Even though the traditional system is not moribund, one observes a decline beyond a point. Historically, traditional medicinal systems suffered from a lack of appreciation for over 400 years. But the contemporary lack of appreciation and awareness is by and large the handiwork of colonial rule.
Is Ayurveda a science? Or, for that matter, traditional medicine?
I think such a question is irrelevant. No, Ayurveda is not a science. It is another kind of knowledge system, a shastra which is a cultural product. Even science is a cultural product. While I agree that any substantial knowledge system will have universal attributes, I think it is a mistake to attribute monopoly status to any knowledge system. There are so many ways of understanding nature.
We have passionately embraced modern science during the colonial period, leading us to assume that every knowledge system has to be validated by science. This is most unfortunate. For the past two centuries, an intense debate has been raging over how far the Indian traditional system meets the parameters of allopathy. Consequently, codification and research in this area has been very poor.
How do you translate the parameters of one system in terms of another? It would be ridiculous, for instance, to maintain that Indian classical music could be considered music only if it fits into the parameters of a sonata or a symphony.
Nature"s molecules are complex; the synthetic chemist can hardly make them. The sudden interest of pharmaceutical companies in gene databases is to ensure that in a deforestation-prone world, the plant is available when it is found useful.
The logical framework of Ayurveda, based on the traditional Sankhya and Nyaya Vashihka, is very different from the Aristotelian world view of modern medicine. Therefore, the comparison is not between the scientific and the hypothetical but between two different worldviews. The FRLHT project is trying to project this fundamental but neglected fact.
Will the FRLHT project highlight different epistemological systems?
We must realise that epistemology is at the heart of the matter. Unless people begin to realise that there are different epistemological systems, and that a science-based epistemological system is not the only one, one cannot expect appreciation. Through the FRLHT project, we are trying to sensitise people about different knowledge systems and trying to teach them the right way to evaluate them.
Since 1986, we have been organising dialogues between Ayurveda practitioners and scientists in areas of nutrition and public health, where we have been asking modern scientists to have a look at the epistemology of Ayurveda. In 1987, we held a dialogue on immunology at a time when technology missions were promoting vaccines. We questioned the validity of launching an immunisation programme on just the basis of allopathic medicine. Did they think the traditional medical community had nothing to contribute in a programme of immunisation?
What kind of health programme would succeed in India?
Considering that the government health programmes reach at best about 30 per cent of the people, it is important to realise that nothing will succeed in this country on a mass scale unless it is rooted in culture. Notwithstanding the incompleteness and inadequacies of local traditions, a cent per cent self-reliant health care can only be achieved through revitalising these traditions.
For instance, there are about 60,000 barefoot bonesetters in the country, but we hardly have any information on the range of surgical operations that these traditional bonesetters perform in Coimbatore and parts of Kerala. Many of them are illiterate, but they know the art of bonesetting. Now, this is something that has to be revitalised.
How do you propose to conserve the diversity of the traditional resource base?
We are setting up a chain of 45 conservation parks in Karnataka and Kerala. Our conservation programme is not confined to the agro-techniques of a few specific species; it intends to revitalise traditions to meet the needs of millions in the rural areas. We would also like to ensure that people learn to protect their own resources.
Do you feel that our traditional knowledge and resource base is under threat from the present patent regime?
I don"t think there is any threat to traditional knowledge or resources. I am confident that people will continue to use their resources. The catch is that if you modify the traditional knowledge or resource in a particular way, you could patent it. We are afraid someone will exploit such knowledge.
But we should be more concerned about exploiting such knowledge ourselves. Scientists in the West are in no position to understand the synergy of the compounds through which traditional medicines are made. Often, crude compounds made in the traditional way using Ayurvedic parameters are far more effective than those made in the modern scientific laboratory. Even if the West patents genes, it would be at a loss to manufacture the required medicines since chemical analyses will not yield Ayurvedic compounds.