0
0
A seemingly heartfelt Doctor’s Day tribute by Indian chess Grandmaster Vidit Gujrathi has ignited a heated national debate over who deserves to be called a “doctor” in India’s diverse healthcare landscape. The controversy began when Gujrathi, a key member of India’s Olympiad gold-winning chess team, posted a family photo online, highlighting his father as an Ayurvedic migraine specialist, his mother as a cosmetologist, his wife as an MD in homoeopathy, and his sister as a physiotherapist.
The post drew swift criticism from Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, known as TheLiverDoc on social media, who asserted that “none of Vidit’s family members were really doctors.” This sparked a fierce online exchange and prompted Maheshwer Peri, Founder and Chairman of Careers360, to add, “There is no profession called a migraine specialist. Physiotherapists are not doctors.”
Complex Questions of Recognition and Authority
The debate quickly moved beyond social media, with EdexLive interviewing stakeholders from across the medical spectrum. Prof Kishor Patwardhan of Banaras Hindu University’s Faculty of Ayurveda argued that if the government runs medical courses in Ayurveda and homoeopathy—each lasting around five and a half years and involving patient care—then using the title “doctor” for such practitioners is “perfectly acceptable.” He further emphasized that Ayurveda, with its ancient roots, should not be dismissed as pseudoscience, and that the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are not always clear-cut.
Dr Suvendu Kumar Sahoo, President of the All Odisha AYUSH Students’ Association and a homoeopathy practitioner, questioned the logic of denying the “doctor” title to those in government-recognized alternative medicine fields. “If we are not doctors, then the government is blind. Why would there be a National Institute of Homoeopathy, and why would the government invest so much and build new colleges and hospitals?” he asked, highlighting the paradox of institutional investment versus professional recognition.
Systemic Divides and Calls for Reform
The debate also exposed deeper systemic issues. Prof Patwardhan criticized the “elitist” nature of biomedical education in India, noting that access is often limited to those who can afford exorbitant fees, while others are pushed into alternative medicine streams despite their potential. He called for a reassessment of the “elitist attitude” that dismisses the contributions of Ayurvedic and other alternative practitioners.
From the perspective of conventional medicine, Dr Dhruv Chauhan of the Indian Medical Association acknowledged the government’s promotion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy) systems, but warned against practitioners overstepping their training—particularly those prescribing allopathic medicines without the requisite qualifications, calling such practices both illegal and dangerous.
A Broader Cultural and Policy Debate
The discussion has grown into a reflection on India’s healthcare identity, with questions about the value of traditional knowledge, government policy, and the realities of patient care. Dr Sahoo described the existence of an “artificial hierarchy” between medical branches, suggesting that professional divisions may be more about power than efficacy.
Experts interviewed by EdexLive stressed the need for nuanced conversations about medical legitimacy, focusing on improving training, preventing malpractice, and ensuring high standards of care across all systems—rather than dismissing entire branches of medicine.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on information reported by EdexLive and reflects a range of expert opinions and stakeholder perspectives on the ongoing debate over medical legitimacy in India. The views expressed by individuals cited herein do not necessarily represent the position of this publication. Readers are advised to consult qualified healthcare professionals for medical advice or treatment.
