GS-3 Mains QUESTION : “Ayurveda has gained popularity in recent years, but a lot is still to be done to ensure that it stands the scrutiny of science.” Comment

 

Today Editorial Topic : MAKING AYURVEDA A REAL SCIENCE

 

WHAT ?

 

State of Ayurveda In India

 

WHY IN NEWS ?

 

Ayurveda has gained popularity in recent years, but a lot is still to be done to ensure that it stands the scrutiny of science. The author Kishor Patwardhan(Faculty of Ayurveda, Banaras Hindu University) shares his views as a teacher of Ayurveda with 20 years of experience. 

 

KNOW ABOUT THE AYUSH ?

 

  • AYUSH stands for Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy.

 

  • These systems are based on traditional medical philosophies. They represent a way of healthy living with established concepts on prevention of diseases and promotion of health.

 

  • In 2015, the Ministry of Ayush had also included Sowa Rigpa into the AYUSH system.

 

  • Benefits of AYUSH system:

 

o It is generally cheap and affordable

 

o AYUSH medicines have lesser side effects than modern medicine.

 

o It has proven to be effective in lifestyle diseases like diabetes and hypertension

 

o It is used to provide healthcare in rural hinterlands where there is a shortage of allopathic doctors. 

 

MISINFORMATION DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC ABOUT AYURVEDA :

 

o Self-medication: Advocation of self-medication during COVID waves diluted the message that unscrupulous, excessive and prolonged use of any medicine could be harmful.

 

o Lost a chance on correct usage of herbs: We did not educate the public on the identification of the correct herbs, though we encouraged their consumption. For example, Giloy (Tinospora cordifolia) and Dalchini (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) are two plants where correct identification matters. Sometimes, Tinospora crispa and Cassia cinnamon are mistakenly identified as Giloy and Dalichini, which could be harmful.

 

o Lack of Scientific evidence: Almost every Ayurveda physician came up with his/her own formulations as a purported cure for COVID-19. Many lab reports suggesting clinical improvements with Ayurveda interventions were shared on different social media platforms. However, most of them could not make it to peer-reviewed journals.

 

o Miss opportunity: Thousands of COVID-19 cases treated by Ayurveda physicians could have provided good data that could have been further analysed. Even though the Ministry of Ayush came up with an online case registry, our fraternity could not make any meaningful use of it.

 

o Lack of coordination between agencies: The protocols of ICMR and Ayush were disconnected .

 

CHALLENGES IN RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA:

 

o Lack of protocols for research: For example, in most of the COVID trials, the Ayurveda interventions were either in addition to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) protocols or, when used as independent interventions, they were administered in mild to moderate cases only.

 

o Too Subjective – Variety of interpretations: Absence of uniform protocols either for diagnosis or for interventions make Ayurveda too subjective and diverse.

 

o Vague terminology: Scientifically speaking, ‘immune boosting’ is a vague and potentially misleading term(used during COVID).

 

o Lack of Regulations in Ayurvedic medicine: During the pandemic, every other Ayurveda pharmacy came up with its own patent and proprietary formulation that supposedly boosted immunity. The common public was made to believe that Ayush interventions were safe, of preventive value, and effective in treating the disease. But most of these claims lacked credible evidence.

 

o Commercial take-over of Ayurveda: Formally, we never teach our graduates patent and proprietary formulations. However, as these graduates set up their clinical practice, they start prescribing these formulations. Most of these products are not backed by reliable trials or even pre-clinical and toxicity data. The number of pharmacies that manufacture classical formulations(given really in Ayurveda) has reduced to a bare minimum over the years, which shows how commercialisation has taken over this sector.

 

o The Damage due to poor Scientific understanding – Negative Publicity as Pseudoscience: A group of scientists and physicians has recently started a social media campaign calling all Ayush systems ‘pseudoscience’.

 

o Levels of Toxicity high: These activists conduct chemical analysis of many Ayush formulations and demonstrate that many of these products contain high doses of unwarranted constituents such as antibiotics, corticosteroids and heavy metals.

 

o Documentation of Adverse events reported: They also publish and share various clinical case reports where adverse events are reported after exposure to Ayush interventions.

 

o The myth of non-falsifiability of ancient texts: Academia, at present, has made Ayurveda a pseudoscience by teaching the young students that whatever is written in ancient texts is the ultimate truth and cannot be challenged. This renders the system unscientific.

 

WAY FORWARD :

 

  • Support rational Ayurveda: It should be based on experimental rationality, i.e. through scientific evidence.

 

  • Support even those who conduct tests on Ayurvedic medicine and publish negative results: These activities are crucial and need the support as this would make Ayush academicians and policymakers introspect seriously about the current system. The only way to make Ayurveda a real science is to present evidence before the scientific community showing that it works.

 

  • Removing vagueness & subjectivity: An objective evaluation of complex Ayurveda practices is very difficult in the standard accepted format of ‘double blind randomised controlled trials’. The practical alternative is to go for longitudinal observational studies.

 

  • Need for regulation: ‘Commercialization of the sector’ needs to be regulated to ensure that propriety formulation products go through robust pre-marketing studies. Even classical formulations that contain toxic substances such as heavy metals need to be regulated.

 

  • Focus on Quality rather than Quantity: Further, maintaining only a manageable number of colleges is essential to ensure that all students get good clinical exposure. The indiscriminate growth of new Ayush colleges is another matter of concern.

 

 A middle path needs to be found out by an integrated framework- merging the two systems of medicine while also leaving enough scope for their autonomous growth.

 

 Medium and long-term plans for seamless integration should be developed expeditiously in view of the massive drive for achieving universal health care already underway in the country.

 

 

CONCLUSION :

 

The pandemic has made us realize that no single health care system can provide satisfactory answers to all the health needs of modern society. There is a need for an inclusive and integrated health care regime that could guide health policies and programs in the future. Medical pluralism is here to stay and the role of AYUSH sector has a critical role to play in the new and emerging situation.

 

 Through this India will be able to address the subservient status of AYUSH and foster its legitimate inclusion into mainstream health care.

 

GS-2 Mains QUESTION: Explain the issues with China’s Nuclear policy and its implications on India .

 

Today Editorial Topic : KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON CHINA’S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

 

WHAT ?

 

China’s Nuclear Power

 

WHY IN NEWS ?

 

The only real substantive outcome of recently held virtual summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping has been some unconfirmed reports of the two sides, the US & China, agreeing to hold strategic nuclear talks sometime in the near future.

 

ISSUES WITH CHINA’S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES :

 

  • China’s nuclear capabilities, in particular, are undergoing a fundamental transformation and a shift seems to be evident in both the quantity and the quality of the PRC’s atomic arsenal.

 

  • There is growing concern globally about the trajectory of China’s strategic capabilities.

 

  • China Military Power Report (CMPR) recently released by the US reveals four specific areas where change is underway — quantitative strength, atomic yield, delivery capabilities and posture.

 

SIZE OF THE PRC’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL:

 

  • Until now, China’s nuclear arsenal has hovered at roughly 200 nuclear warheads, half of which directed at USA.

 

  • By 2027, it is estimated that this number is likely to increase to 700 weapons consisting of varying yields which is three and half times the current Chinese warhead strength.

 

LOW YIELD WEAPONS :

 

  • Low-yield weapons have been an area of interest and development for China.

 

  • They are weapons meant for battlefield use during conventional military operations and against conventional targets such as concentrations of armoured, artillery and infantry forces.

 

  • Lower yield warheads help the PRC avoid causing collateral damage.

 

  • Prior to the release of the CMPR, evidence that China was testing low-yield devices has periodically surfaced in years past.

 

  • There is growing concern that China’s atomic arsenal consists of a large number of low-yield weapons ideal for battlefield use.

 

DELIVERY CAPABILITIES :

 

  • These low-yield nuclear warheads are also likely to find their way into a key delivery capability — the PRC’s Dong-Feng-26 (DF-26) ballistic missile.

 

  • This missile has already undergone deployment at Korla in the Xinjiang region in Western China.

 

  • In addition to the DF-26, China has also developed the JL-2 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) with a range of 7,200 kilometres capable of striking targets across continental Asia.

 

NUCLEAR POSTURE  :

 

  • Finally, China’s move towards a Launch on Warning (LoW) nuclear posture marks an important shift in the PRC’s commitment to ensuring that no adversary doubts its response in the event of a nuclear first strike.

 

  • A higher alert posture not only risks reducing the threshold for nuclear use in the form of pre-emption but it could also sow the seeds of miscalculation and unintended nuclear use.

 

IMPLICATIONS ON INDIA :

 

The PRC’s nuclear competition with the United States will have a cascading effect.

 

(1).Size of China’s nuclear arsenal complicates the potency of India’s nuclear arsenal

 

 (2).The Beijing’s pursuit of a Launch on Warning (LoW) posture. Such a posture reduces the decision time for any Indian retaliatory nuclear strike in the heat of a war or crisis and places pressure on India to pursue its own LoW.

 

(3).Despite Beijing’s pursuit of No First Use (NFU), which is reversible, the PRC could also significantly degrade an Indian retaliatory strike if China chooses to resort to First Use (FU) of nuclear weapons,

 

(4).Indian strategic planners will have to think about the quantitative nuclear balance and India’s nuclear posture vis-à-vis China.

 

(5).India must pay close attention to the sub-surface leg of China’s nuclear arsenal. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese have added two new Type 094 (Jin class) SSBNs/nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines to their existing fleet.

 

  • The maritime dimension of China’s nuclear capabilities might not be an immediate strategic challenge but will potentially become one in the coming years for New Delhi.

 

REASONS BEHIND CURRENT EXPANSION BY CHINA :

 

  1. Increase the survivability of its arsenal against a first strike from their nuclear adversaries, most prominently the United States. Washington, which possesses a larger arsenal, stands at 3,800 warheads, and paired with its growing missile defence capabilities poses a threat to Chinese retaliatory nuclear forces. However, other countries too figure in China’s nuclear expansion such as Russia and India, even if Russia is not an overriding concern presently.

 

  1. To mislead enemies: The current silo-based missile expansion being undertaken by China can also be to mislead and deceive enemies by hiding actual number of nuclear tipped warheads.

 

  1. A credible nuclear deterrent: Land-based nuclear capabilities, like silos also mean that for its enemies China will be a country with a huge number of targets to strike. The larger the target list for any potential opponent, the greater the chances of China’s arsenal surviving a first strike, thereby boosting the credibility of China’s nuclear deterrent. In all probability, China is expanding its nuclear forces to withstand a first strike and then execute a retaliatory attack that would defeat its enemy’s missile defences.

 

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY (CTBT) :

 

CTBT bans all nuclear explosions – everywhere, by everyone. The Treaty was negotiated at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It opened for signature on 24 September 1996.

 

Background:

 

  • For decades, a ban on nuclear testing was seen as the necessary first step towards curbing the nuclear arms race but Cold War politics made it impossible.

 

  • A Partial Test Ban Treaty was concluded in 1963 banning underwater and atmospheric tests but this only drove testing underground.

 

  • By the time the CTBT negotiations began in Geneva in 1994, global politics had changed. The Cold War had ended and the nuclear arms race was over.

 

  • CTBT came into being in 1996 but has failed to enter into force even after a quarter century.

 

Negotiations were often contentious:

 

  • France and China continued testing, claiming that they had conducted far fewer tests and needed to validate new designs since the CTBT did not imply an end to nuclear deterrence.

 

  • France and the U.S. even toyed with the idea of a CTBT that would permit testing at a low threshold, below 500 tonnes of TNT equivalent.

 

Impact:

 

  • Civil society and the non-nuclear weapon states reacted negatively to such an idea and it was dropped.

 

  • Some countries proposed that the best way to verify a comprehensive test ban would be to permanently shut down all test sites, an idea that was unwelcome to the nuclear weapon states.

 

  • Eventually, the U.S. came up with the idea of defining the “comprehensive test ban” as a “zero yield” test ban.

 

Controversy regarding enforcement of CTBT:

 

  • Vaguely defined: The CTBT prohibits all parties from carrying out “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion”; these terms are neither defined nor elaborated.

 

  • Lacks authority:

 

o Another controversy arose regarding the entry-into-force provisions (Article 14) of the treaty.

 

o After India’s proposals for anchoring the CTBT in a disarmament framework did not find acceptance, India announced its decision to withdraw from the negotiations. 

o Unhappy at this turn, the new provisions listed 44 countries by name whose ratification was necessary for the treaty to enter into force and included India.

 

o Status of the treaty today: The CTBT was adopted by a majority vote and opened for signature.

 

 Of the 44 listed countries, to date only 36 have ratified the treaty.

 

 China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have signed but not ratified.

 

 In addition, North Korea, India and Pakistan are the three who have not signed.

 

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO)

  • CTBTO is an international organisation to verify the CTBT, established in Vienna.
  • Ironically, the U.S. is the largest contributor with a share of $17 million.
  • The CTBTO runs an elaborate verification system built around a network of over 325 seismic, radionuclide, infrasound and hydroacoustic (underwater) monitoring stations.

 

CONCLUSION :

 

The strategic balance between China and India is unlikely to be altered because of the Chinese nuclear expansion, but New Delhi should keep a close eye on its neighbour and work on enhancing its own strategic capabilities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *