TERMINOLOGY

It is useful to understand a few critical terms around the topic of Siddha medicine. The first of these is Traditional Medicine (TM). Although it is unclear when this term became common parlance, it is generally used to describe that which is not Western biomedicine. According to the World Health Organization’s definition of TM, there is a

“diversity of health practices, approaches, knowledge and beliefs incorporating plant, animal and/or mineral based medicines, spiritual therapies, manual techniques and exercises, applied singly or in combination to maintain well being as well as to treat, diagnose or prevent illness” (WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002-2005).

TM is further qualified by such terms as local, indigenous, and in the case of India, there is even the appellation ISM, or Indian Systems of Medicine. These include Unani, Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Siddha. Ayurveda and Siddha are considered indigenous to India, while Homeopathy and Unani are considered exogenous, imported from European and Middle-Eastern countries respectively. However, there is at least 150 years of documented use of Homeopathy in India and a few centuries of the use of Unani. Nevertheless, Siddha and Ayurveda are considered to be the oldest practices which have been used for thousands of years rather than hundreds.

There is even continual debate about whether or not Siddha medicine came before Ayurveda or vice-versa, as Harmut Scharfe writes in his article: “The Doctrine of the Three Humors in Traditional Indian Medicine and the Alleged Antiquity of Tamil Siddha Medicine” (Scharfe 1999, 609). The next important distinction or classification is the difference between a classical and folk tradition. Here, classical is understood to be a codified or written system that is characterized by “institutionally trained practitioners, a body of texts and highly developed theories to support their practices.” The folk tradition on the other hand is that “which is an oral tradition passed on from father to son or mother to daughter (or daughter in-law) or from guru to sishya” (Balasubramanian 2000, 1).

According to the Indian Government, there are approximately 14,000 registered practitioners of Siddha medicine in South India as well as Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore (AYUSH website). Of these, an overwhelmingly large percentage are hereditary, or “Folk” practitioners (12,000). The remaining 2,000 are institutionally qualified. Within the folk tradition, there are various approaches and practitioners, including: bone-setters, birth attendants, folk/tribal practitioners, and other specialists who treat specific diseases (Balasubramanian 2000, 2).

These terms are worth discussing not only because they frame and delineate the scope of Siddha medical practice, but also because of the connotation of these words in the larger socio-cultural context of medical practice as a whole.