Editorial – Obstacles To The Spread Of Homoeopathy


The so-called Allopathy still occupies the dominant place in any country, even in the land of birth of Homoeopathy. It is no wonder that Homoeopathy, being a discovery of merely a century and a half still lags behind its rival school. But it is a wonder of wonders that Homoeopathy has already encompassed the whole world with in such a short period since it was ushered into existence by Samuel Hahnemann.


That Homoeopathy is a scientific system of treatment, philosophically sound, logically unimpeachable, pregmatically highly efficacious in curing the sick and cheap enough to suit admirably to the poor economic condition of the Indian mass has become a much-talked-of subject in the country. But why is it not spreading sufficiently and adequately in our mother-land or in fact anywhere in the world? Why is not our National Government still keen on according official recognition to this superb system of healing art or providing ways and means for its development and spread? Why the public opinion is not gaining strength enough to put sufficient pressure on our Government to take interest in it? Why sufficient numbers of fully equipped Homoeopathic teaching institutions and hospitals are not growing to turn out adequate numbers of fully qualified Homoeopathic physicians in the country?

It is high time that we should draw the attention of the profession and the laity to provide answers to so many “whys” and to solve the pressing problems in the matter concerned. On a cursory view it becomes evident that the Homoeopathic profession, the members of other rival medical profession, the people and the Government are each individually and collectively responsible for this impasse.

The so-called Allopathy still occupies the dominant place in any country, even in the land of birth of Homoeopathy. It is no wonder that Homoeopathy, being a discovery of merely a century and a half still lags behind its rival school. But it is a wonder of wonders that Homoeopathy has already encompassed the whole world with in such a short period since it was ushered into existence by Samuel Hahnemann.

The history of man reveals that no where a new truth was accepted by him easily and readily, obsessed as he is by conservatism, tradition, authority and vested interests. None the less the triumphant march of Homoeopathy with such a meteoric speed throughout the length and breadth of the world is a proof positive of the truth inherent in the system and phenomenal therapeutic efficacy of this healing art. It is one more glaring instance of mans love of truth against heavy odds that impede his progress at every step.

For the propagation of any new truth and its acceptance by the man, in general, the first and foremost condition is the turning out of sufficient number of persons who have realised the truth and are adapt in the practice of it. This involves establishments of a sufficient number of teaching institutions which will turn out experts in the science and art of Homoeopathy; and a sufficient number of Homoeopathic hospitals where, the efficacy of this system of treatment will be put to test.

Human Knowledge is becoming unmanageably vast. The appearance of specialists has become indispensable. Similarly special hospitals for the treatment of specific types of diseases have sprung forth e.g. Tuberculosis hospitals, Cancer hospitals, etc. Because of the organisation of these hospitals people generally think of getting themselves treated in these institutions. As there are no fully-equipped general homoeopathic hospitals and not to speak of special homoeopathic institutions, the result is Homoeopathy is not getting a fair chance of treating those diseases like tuberculosis, cancer etc., on a large scale (excluding cases treated by private homoeopathic practitioners).

Consequently the general public cannot keep much faith in this treatment and mostly take recourse to homoeopathic treatment when the case is “past all hope or surgery”. Hence the establishment of fully- equipped homoeopathic institutions (both general and special is the sine qua non for enhancing the prestige of the homoeopathic profession and convincing the people about the therapeutic system of this treatment. Is it not a pity that Homoeopathy once established its reputation by treating Cholera cases in this city and now nobody thinks of this treatment in Cholera cases and rushes the patients to the allopathic hospitals which are especially meant for these patients? How can we hope to gain ground under these circumstances?

The next great obstacle is the apathy and in many cases, active antagonism of the Government, both at the centre and the states, towards Homoeopathy. The Government is under the thumb of its medical directorates which are manned by allopathic doctors. The first and foremost reason for the non-acceptance of the Homoeopathic system of treatment by them may be summed up in three words: habit, authority and professionalism.

Their psychology is easily understood if it is borne in mind that the conservative inertia of human mind attempts to reject the new thought with all the means at its disposal, fair or foul. The second reason is that of vested interests. Even a cursory glance at the history of origin and spread of Homoeopathy, enables one to find out that the opposition to this system was not scientific but rather of commercial nature on the part of the apothecaries who were afraid of losing of their trade-profits.

Another great obstacle is the psychology of the general mass of population who fails to adopt a proper philosophical attitude towards Homoeopathy and take the Homoeopathic Therapeutic Law as a great paradox contrary to common sense. Unless we can educate the public in the matter we cannot hope to secure their whole hearted support for this therapeutic system. Hahnemann, himself, went so far as to advise his disciples not to undertake the treatment of a person who refuses to go through his Organon before he submits himself to this treatment.

Lack of enthusiasm for constructive works on the part of the homoeopathic profession, the apathy of the Government and hesitancy on the part of the public to accept Homoeopathy are the three great obstacles to the spread of this system in the country. Unless this vicious circle is broken the progress of Homoeopathy is bound to be impeded. We have to fight in three fronts if we aspire to achieve victory in our battle for the cause of Homoeopathy and the suffering humanity.

N C Das