What began as a simple Doctor's Day tribute by Indian chess Grandmaster Vidit Gujrathi has evolved into a complex debate about medical legitimacy, forcing India's healthcare community to confront fundamental questions about professional recognition, traditional medicine, and institutional authority.
The controversy started when Vidit Gujrathi, a key member of India's Olympiad gold-winning chess team, shared a family photo, and later listed his father as an Ayurvedic migraine specialist, his mother as a cosmetologist, his wife as holding an MD in homoeopathy, and his sister as a physiotherapist.
Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as TheLiverDoc on X, responded by declaring that "none of Vidit's family members were really doctors," sparking a fierce exchange.
The debate intensified when Founder and Chairman of Careers360, Maheshwer Peri, supported Dr Philips, stating: "There is no profession called a migraine specialist. Physiotherapists are not doctors."
Academic voices challenge the narrative
EdexLive conducted interviews with stakeholders from various medical fields, revealing the complex nuances behind the seemingly simple question of medical legitimacy.
Prof Kishor Patwardhan from the Department of Kriya Sharir, Faculty of Ayurveda at Banaras Hindu University (BHU), offered a perspective on the debate: "When the government is running these medical courses – Ayurveda, homoeopathy or whatever – with equal duration of courses around five and a half years, and they are seeing patients, then the term doctor, when used to mean a person who has basic medical knowledge and who is trained in healing, is perfectly acceptable."
Prof Patwardhan made crucial distinctions between different alternative medicine systems, particularly challenging the blanket labelling of traditional practices: "Ayurveda is inherently not pseudoscience. The knowledge of Ayurveda was conceived and documented even before modern science came into existence, so it is pre-science or proto-science, but never pseudoscience."
He emphasised that scientific categorisation is more complex than absolute labels: "Many people use these terms science and pseudoscience as though they are two different absolute categories. They are not. The boundaries between all this are not bounded by strict categories."
The institutional recognition argument
Dr Suvendu Kumar Sahoo, President of the All Odisha AYUSH Students' Association and a homoeopathy practitioner, raised fundamental questions about government policy and institutional investment.
"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?" Dr Sahoo questioned. "The degree is well-renowned even abroad. The process is different, and the effectiveness of medicine and its trial is different."
He revealed a telling paradox within the medical community: "I have friends who are pursuing postgraduate degrees in Dermatology, Surgery, and so on, and they come to me for homoeopathy medicines. This shows that even if the allopathy community criticises it, they use it because of the lower chances of side effects. There are no permanent treatments for certain diseases and health-related problems, and homoeopathy and Ayurveda have proven better and effective in those types of cases."
The elitist healthcare system
Prof Patwardhan highlighted what he sees as systemic discrimination within India's medical education system: "Modern medical science has become increasingly elitist. Biomedical education, in particular, is disproportionately accessible to those who can afford it. Who actually secures a medical seat today? Often, it's those who can pay exorbitant fees, sometimes running into crores. Meanwhile, a student with equal marks but strong potential may be unable to afford an MBBS seat and is forced to opt for an Ayurveda college instead. This imbalance needs to be addressed."
He argued that this elitist attitude ignores the practical contributions of alternative medicine practitioners: "This elitist attitude of modern science doctors needs to be discouraged and called out. They are overlooking the fact that Ayurvedic doctors and other healthcare professionals are making significant contributions to India's healthcare delivery system. If that is not the case, then why would the government open Ayurvedic hospitals or invest so much in them?"
The conventional medicine perspective
Dr Dhruv Chauhan, National Spokesperson of Indian Medical Association - Junior Doctors Network (IMA-JDN) and a medical activist, provided the conventional medicine perspective while acknowledging the legitimacy of certain alternative practices: "Branches like Ayurveda and Homoeopathy are different, coming under AYUSH. The Government of India has promoted them. Ayurveda is an ancient science of treatment that existed long before modern medicine emerged. Like any civilisation, Ayurveda is essential to Indian culture and tradition."
However, Dr Chauhan identified serious concerns about mixed practices: "Our problem is with those practitioners who function without proper licenses and those who prescribe allopathy medications when they are actually Ayurvedic doctors. Being an Ayurvedic doctor and doing this is equivalent to committing fraud. Without holding enough and full knowledge, they prescribe allopathic medicine that can deteriorate the conditions of patients, which is not just legally wrong but life-threatening."
He advocated for respect based on proper training: "If the government is promoting any branch and giving them titles of doctors, then we have no right to speak against them. We only criticise the wrong practices that are quite prevalent across India."
The cultural and historical context
The debate extends beyond professional recognition to encompass India's cultural identity and healthcare heritage. Dr Sahoo posed a challenging question: "If the entire country uses it, rich and poor, educated as well, and when the government is promoting it, then why is this debate emerging, which criticises other branches when they do not have enough knowledge about the said branch's practice, working, and results?"
Prof Patwardhan acknowledged quality concerns while defending the fundamental legitimacy of traditional systems: "I have many reservations about how Ayurveda is being taught. There is a critical lack of clinical skills to which they are exposed. But as long as they are considered healthcare professionals, there should be no question. Institutionally trained people who have undergone clinical training in recognised institutions – how can you say that they are not doctors?"
The artificial hierarchy
Dr Sahoo identified what he called "an artificial hierarchy that has been built between the medical branches," suggesting that professional divisions may be more about power dynamics than medical efficacy.
The debate reveals a healthcare system grappling with multiple challenges: ensuring quality care while respecting traditional knowledge, maintaining professional standards while addressing accessibility, and reconciling modern scientific methods with centuries-old healing practices.
Beyond the social media storm
While the original exchange between Gujrathi and Dr Philips may have been personal, it has opened a broader conversation about India's healthcare landscape. The chess master's final response captured the emotional core of the debate: "You and trolls like you do not get to decide who is a doctor. You have no authority to define others' lives or dismiss their work."
As India continues to invest in AYUSH systems while maintaining modern medical education, the question of professional recognition remains complex. The debate underscores the importance of nuanced discussions about medical legitimacy that take into account historical context, institutional recognition, government policy, and, most importantly, patient outcomes.
Rather than dismissing entire systems of medicine, experts suggest focusing on improving training standards, preventing malpractice, and ensuring that all healthcare providers, regardless of their medical tradition, maintain the highest standards of patient care and professional ethics.
