Conclusion

The hierarchical problems in the medical feld of India seem to be very deep rooted. From the Vedic period onwards there would have been a divide between codifed systems of medicine as in the Atharva Veda and the indigenous medicine which hardly got recorded anywhere; the divide continued into the Epic period. This is as epitomized by Sushena the vanara (monkey) vaidya of Ramayana, who saved the life of critically wounded Lakshmana, using Sanjeevani and some other obscure herbs, none of them having proper identity in the Ayurvedic texts to this day. Ayurveda itself got greater strength from the time of Buddha, to beneft more of humanity beyond India, by blending of its classical texts with ethnomedicines, a process that continued through ages. The Malabar region of yore (modern Kerala), not only achieved the distinction of taking far forward the progress of Ayurveda, from where the trios, Charaka, Susruta and Vaghbhata left it, but also played a key role, incidentally, in laying the foundations of modern systematic botany, due to its own heritage of rich plant wealth and associated medical knowledge possessed by people ranging from the humble Ezhava vaidyans like Itti Achudan to the celebrated Ashtavaidyas. The paradigm shift, in the medical feld in India, as captured by Hardiman and Mukherjee (2012), began with British colonialism. In modern times, more in the West, biomedicine is considered a hegemonic system, projecting itself as scientifc, progressive and modern. But beyond the West are alternative systems claiming ‘civilizational hegemony’. Globalised form of biomedicine occupied the top of the hegemony in South Asia. The state backed medical practice AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathy, Naturopathy and Sowa Rigpa) formed the second layer in the hegemonic healing systems of India. Folk medicine remained outside these two legitimate systems, tolerated at the most as ‘harmless superstition’ or as potentially harmful quackery. The Ayurveda and Unani of today are modifed forms of these indigenous healing systems, described as ‘Syndicated Ayurveda’ or ‘Syndicated Unani’ (-ibid-).

The Biodiversity Act, 2002 raises some hopes in traditional healers, starts on the premises that it is an “Act to provide for conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefts arising out of the use of biological resources, knowledge …” etc. By92 M. D. Subash Chandran ‘beneft claimers’ the Act means also “creators and holders of knowledge and information relating to the use of such biological resources, innovations and practices associated with such use and application.” While the Section 7 of the Act strictly insists on Indian citizens, corporates, associations or organisations, giving prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board concerned for use of biological materials for commercial utilization, it states that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the local people and communities of the area, including “growers and cultivators of biodiversity, and vaids and hakims, who have been practicing indigenous medicine. When Section 18(4) allows the National Biodiversity Authority to take any measures to oppose the grant of intellectual property rights in any country outside India of any biological resource or knowledge associated with it derived from India, it certainly sounds positive on protection of indigenous medical knowledge as well. “Chronicling knowledge relating to biological diversity” is one of the prime functions of the Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC), which are to be constituted by every local body. The Biological Diversity Rules, 2004, in Section 22(6) states that preparation of Peoples’ Biodiversity Register (PBR), is the main function of the BMC. The register, among other things shall contain “knowledge of local biological resources, their medicinal or any other use…” Further, in Section 22(7) the Rule empowers the BMC as the “Authority for granting approval, to maintain data about the local vaids and practitioners using the biological resources.” As a person who had coordinated chronicling such knowledge in PBRs in several Gram Panchayats, and as a member of the Karnataka State Biodiversity Board, this author understands that knowledge on indigenous medical practice by folk healers form an important part of such PBRs. It would therefore be a glaring contradiction in the government policy to hold the traditional healer as an unlawful practitioner indulging in quackery while at the same time considering traditional medical knowledge as sacrosanct to be safeguarded. In support further, the MoEF (NBA) Notifcation of 21st November, 2014, called “Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefts Sharing Regulations, 2014,” vide Section 17(c), exempts from seeking approval of NBA or SBB “local people and communities of the area, including growers and cultivators of biological resources, and vaids and hakims, practicing indigenous medicine, except for obtaining intellectual property rights.”

Despite the BD Act and subsequent development of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) by the CSIR, many unfair IPRs granted, involving Indian bio-materials and recorded TK related to them have been revoked and many more claims are getting stalled. But unfortunately the TK holders like the folk healers, who collectively hold phenomenal amount of knowledge, continue to languish in the shadows of legitimacy, practicing if at all, their medical tradition in a subdued fashion fearing punitive action from the state. Their medical knowledge, safeguarded through generations, getting recorded in the PBRs since last few years, being not codifed, has not been reaching the TKDL either, which is rather reserved for AYUSH systems; on the contrary, such knowledge is becoming increasingly prone to biopiracy, through a flourish of patent claims, which the government would fnd it diffcult to stop. If the BD Act-2002 should fulfll its avowed commitment towards “fair and equitable sharing of the benefts arising out of the use of biological resources, knowledge and for matters connected therewith” the TK being collected (especially in relation to ethnomedicine), from every nook and corner of the country, should be in a format compatible with the TKDL, lest it fnds easy way from unsuspecting TK givers into the hands of professional TK seekers for unfair uses.

Most of the senior Ayurvedic vaidyans of the recent times, hailing from the State, were not degree or diploma holders, but persons of great experience, acumen and learning. Case study in the forest and biodiversity rich Uttara Kannada, towards the north of the Malabar of yore, shows that ethno-medical tradition is still strong here, being carried out more as a service than as business, engaged in by people irrespective of the caste, bulk of them being Havik Brahmins of the elite class. The future, however is bleak, the present practitioners being seniors and as the younger successors being averse to carry forth the tradition from the shadows of legitimacy. The outcome of the study is to put forth a few suggestions towards bringing folk healing practices into legitimacy through documentation, within an acceptable framework provided by the BD Act- 2002. The frst step would be to gain recognition at the local level by the folk healers themselves making written submissions about their claims in the local language, to be examined and translated into English by an authorized team from the State Biodiversity Board. All such submissions from every local body, like the Gram Panchayat or Municipality should be received and acknowledged by the legally constituted of the respective local body, and should be treated as integral part of the Peoples’ Biodiversity Register. The written submissions should be examined and subjected to procedural formalities at par with the same intensity to which other AYUSH formulations are being subjected so as to be meriting consideration for inclusion in the TKDL. As many traditional formulations recorded from Uttara Kannada are of nutraceutical importance similar formulations, duly documented, should also merit status as food supplements so that benefts could reach millions of malnourished people in the country. The medical pluralism in India, evolved through millennia has grown into a resilient system, has its own checkered history, and often humble beginnings in folk medicine reflecting the knowledge related to rich biodiversity of the country from strikingly diverse ecosystems spanning the alpine meadows and temperate forests of Himalayas to the rain forests of Meghalaya and the Western Ghats and from the deserts and arid landscapes of Rajasthan and Deccan region to the mangroves and marsh vegetation of the extensive coastal zones encircling the peninsula and the islands. The need is strongly felt for blending the medical acts and regulations of India with the Biodiversity Act- 2002 and Rules 2004 so as to create an environment conducive for healthy growth of the informal sector of indigenous medical systems to complement AYUSH and modern biomedical systems.