Dr Sarkars speech


Hitherto biological sciences, in common with physical sciences, are following quantitative – analytic – experimental methods in investigation of biological truths; but might it not be that qualitative – synthetic – experimental methods are more relevant and direct approaches to the problem? It is the bounden duty of us, homoeopaths, to educate the people in the matter and try to change their old stereotyped views to the effect that we need specific drugs for individual patients and not for specific diseases.


SUMMARY OF DR. B.K. SARKARS SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE THEĀ  SINGHBHUM DISTRICT HOMOEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION ANDTHE STAFF AND STUDENTS OF THE JAMSHEDPORE HOMOEOPATHICMEDICAL COLLEGE ON THE 30TH NOVEMBER, 1954.

Dr. Sarkar thanked the organisers of the meeting for giving him an opportunity of meeting the members of the Jamshedpore Homoeopathic profession and reviewed the present status of Homoeopathy vis – a – vis the Central and State Governments.

He referred to the circumstances which led to the formation of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee in August 1948 by the Government of India; the publication of its unanimous report in July 1949; the acceptance of the report with slight modifications at the Third Health Ministers Conference in August – September, 1950; the long period of Governmental inactivity; the consideration of the recommendations and resolutions of the Third Health Ministers conference by the Medical council of India on April 1952 and setting aside those recommendations and recommending in their stead the introduction of Homoeopathy only at a post – graduate level and passing of a resolution to the effect that “there should be only one system of medicine in India, namely the modern system, with a minimum uniform standard as prescribed by the Council”.

Dr. Sarkar categorically emphasised the point that the opinion of the Medical Council of India was virtually a confirmation of the dissension notes of the two Allopathic members of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee. He mentioned how the Indian Medical Councils decision raised a storm of protests from all quarters of the Indian Homoeopathic profession and attention of the Ministry of Health, Government of India was drawn officially to this matter by the General Council & State Faculty of Homoeopathic Medicine, West Bengal. Fortunately for us, the Central Health Minister had not yet come to any final decision regarding Homoeopathy; but it was evident that the Medical Directorate was trying to implement the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and to put all sorts of impediments to reach our goal.

In the meantime the Planning Commission, while busy on drafting the Five – Years Plan, invited a few leading Homoeopaths of India to discuss about Homoeopathy in their final report. It is to be noted that the Planning Commission felt the need of established a Central Council of Homoeopathy as was recommended by the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee.

But it is curious to note that this body left the allocation of money for Homoeopathy beautifully vague and under the item for granting funds for Research Schemes tagged Homoeopathy with indigenous Systems of Medicine and the other Systems, e.g., Ayurveda, Unani and Nature cure Systems. However, after the publication of the Planning commission Report, the Central Ministry of Health could not afford to shelve the question of Homoeopathy any longer and through its Director – General of Health Services formed and Ad-Hoc Committee consisting of a few Homoeopaths “to take some concrete steps in order to put some of these recommendations at any rate into effect as soon as possible”. Arising out of the discussion in three Ad-Hoc Committee sittings unanimous decisions were arrived at regarding:

1. Training of Homoeopaths.

2. Researches in Homoeopathy.

3. Standardization of Homoeopathic Drugs.

4. Regulation of the practice of Homoeopathy.

5. Utilisation of Homoeopaths in Health Services.

6. Establishment of the Central Council of Homoeopathy.

As the Planning Commission recommended grants for Research purposes but not for upgrading existing institutions and starting new institutions, the Director – General of Health Services, the Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee hinted that if the existing institutions agreed to upgrade themselves to the degree – course standard, perhaps to upgrade themselves to the degree – course standard, perhaps a portion of the money recommended for researches by the Planning Commission, might be diverted for the purpose of upgrading the institutions.

But there was a fly in the ointment. The condition precedent for the Governmental grant is the amalgamation of the three existing Homoeopathic institutions affiliated to the Homoeopathic State Faculty, West Bengal. It is a tragedy that some Calcutta College, for reasons best known to it, could not rise up to the occasion as yet. The latest development is the formation of an Advisory Board with the Director – General, Health Services as Chairman for consideration of Research Schemes and disbursal of grants – in – aid for the purpose.

Dr. Sarkar then pointed out the drawbacks which impeded the spread and growth of Homoeopathy in the country. The Homoeopathic profession has not yet been able to start a fully – equipped college anywhere in India. It has failed to start and maintain a Hospital fully up-to-date where the most respectable and the uppermost section of our society would not hesitate to seek their admission in times of need. It has failed in their hands to be progressive in the sense of assimilating all the latest advances in medical sciences from the Homoeopathic philosophical point of view.

They have failed to turn out complete Homoeopathic physicians who would be able to hold their own in every field of medicine. Due to want of properly equipped hospitals, statistics of cure through homoeopathic method of treatment cannot be presented before the scientific medical profession of the world. That is why Homoeopathy still lacks prestige and fails to convince the people as a whole however great might be the therapeutic successes of individual homoeopathic practitioners.

The result is that sufficient public attention, sympathy and confidence have not yet been attracted towards Homoeopathy to create enough public opinion to force the Government of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of India to take adequate measures for the betterment of Homoeopathic teaching and practice. Further the apartment paradoxicality of the Homoeopathic Law of cure, its high and subtle philosophy, the administration of drugs in infinitesimal doses and its distinctive holistic approach to the study of patients, diseases and drug – action prove themselves to be great stumbling blocks to the unscientific common sense point of view.

Hitherto biological sciences, in common with physical sciences, are following quantitative – analytic – experimental methods in investigation of biological truths; but might it not be that qualitative – synthetic – experimental methods are more relevant and direct approaches to the problem? It is the bounden duty of us, homoeopaths, to educate the people in the matter and try to change their old stereotyped views to the effect that we need specific drugs for individual patients and not for specific diseases.

The governmental apathy, nay active antagonism on many occasions, may have much to perpetuate this undesirable state of affairs. But can we, homoeopaths, honestly declare that we have played our part well in the game and assert that we have been weighted in the balance and found not wanting?.

N C Das