7 Guru-Shishya Parampara
Guru-Shishya Parampara A Critique of the Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, New Delhi (National Academy of Ayurveda) Introduction
205
Survey on Perceptions of Gurus and Shishyas
207
Conclusions and Recommendations
211
Annexures Annexure-IA: Recommendations of the Review Committee of 213 Department of ISM, Government of India which had reviewed the performance of RAV Annexure-IB: Recommendations of the International Management Institute, New Delhi on the future growth options for Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeetha (RAV), New Delhi
215
Annexure-II: Details of Gurus and Shishyas associated with RAV since the time of inception
217
Annexure-III: Covering letter of the PI with Questionnaire issued to MRAV/CRAV alumni/Shishyas
218
Annexure-IV: List of Gurus and Shishyas who responded/did not respond
220
204  Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
7 Guru-Shishya Parampara A Critique of the Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, New Delhi (National Academy of Ayurveda) Introduction Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth (RAV) was established in 1988 with the broad objective of promoting knowledge about Ayurveda. The allied goals included a focus on continuing education, raising the standards of Ayurveda education by introducing new methods of teaching and to provide a platform for recognizing talent and merit among scholars. The Vidyapeeth started a unique course which was a revival of the Gurukula system of informal education of India i.e., Guru Shishya Parampara. All the classical texts of Ayurveda viz., Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Ashtanga Hridaya which were the result of such informal education. This approach is absent from the teaching imparted in the modern educational institutions where courses are naturally circumscribed by the curriculum and syllabus. The basic idea behind the RAV courses was therefore to provide an in-depth knowledge to young scholars who were already proficient in the Ayurveda texts so that the tradition of Ayurvedic education and skill
learning continues. Basis for the Selection of Gurus and shishyas Initially the identification and recommendation of Gurus for both the courses CRAV1 and MRAV2 was being done by a Search Committee comprising of experts nominated by the Governing Body or the President of the Governing Body of RAV. In the last 12 years besides conducting a search through the Committee, the CVs received by the institute have also been considered. The Gurus are finally selected after ensuring that training facilities are available where they work. During the last four years advertisements have been issued on an all India basis inviting applications from eligible Vaidyas. The Committee scrutinizes the bio-data of the Vaidyas and scholars and selects the Guru. The selection is made after physical verification of the clinic/hospital and the patient load and facilities available. Initially for 2-3 years the Gurus used to select their students but from 2002 the selection of Shisyas is also made on all India basis by inviting application from registered Ayurvedic practitioners. The
1. Chikitsak Guru Shishya Parampara - One-year/Six month’s course of Certificate of Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth (CRAV) includes Learning of Ayurvedic Clinical Practices. 2. Acharya Guru Shishya Parampara - One-year Course of Member of Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth (MRAV) includes Learning of Texts of Ayurveda.
Guru-Shishya Parampara  205
selection of Shishyas is based on merit and they are allocated to Gurus on the basis of the position in the entrance test and speciality selected. Evaluation method adopted by RAV The Shihsyas are expected to prepare patient case sheets on a daily basis and submit the same to RAV as a monthly record, followed by a quarterly follow-up report on the patients. Internal assessment tests are conducted by the Gurus and these are sent to the RAV for scrutiny. Each student has to submit a ‘Monograph’ on a particular disease/disorder, and the history of cases he treated during the training period. Students are allowed to appear in the final examination only on submission of all documents. The monograph as well as performance in the examination are assessed by a Board of Examiners appointed by the Governing Body. Viva-voce is also conducted by the Board in which students are judged on the basis of their performance in the written exam as well as assignments submitted. Duration of the membership of the Governing Body (GB) of RAV and names of the members The tenure of the Governing Body and Standing Finance Committee is for 5 years. The tenure of last Governing Body expired on 19th January, 2011 and a new Body is yet to be reconstituted by Department of AYUSH. The tenure of the SFC is co-terminus with that of GB. However, the Department takes necessary decisions on finance and policy matters, as and when required, in the absence of a Governing Body meeting. A list of Governing Body members for the last term can be viewed at http://ravdelhi.nic.in/ index1.asp?linkid=348&langid=1
206 Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
External evaluation of the functioning of RAV The performance of the RAV has been evaluated twice by two separate Committees. A Committee appointed by the Department of AYUSH had conducted review in 2001 and another was done by an independent agency, International Management Institute (IMI), New Delhi in 2011. The outcomes in the form of recommendations enclosed at Annexure-IA & B. Details of Gurus and Shishyas since inception The chronological lists given at Annexure-II. Scientific papers published by RAV – Standards prescribed Every year RAV holds a national seminar, on a health problem, research outcomes and the experiences of Vaidyas intended to keep Ayurvedic practitioners updated. The papers which are received are scrutinized and selected by a Committee usually consisting of a member of Governing Body, a technical officer of the department and two experts from the Ayurveda Research Council. The Committee examines the papers and selects them (about 50) for publication. When the papers are placed before the selection Committee, the names of the authors are removed to generate unbiased assessments. Out of the papers selected, a few (20-22) cover the experiences of vaidyas which are presented at a two-day Seminar. List of Seminars and workshops held so far are available at: http://ravdelhi.nic.in/ index1.asp?linkid=350&langid=1 Benchmarks for Continuing Medical Education (CME) programmes RAV is the Nodal Office to monitor and implement a scheme run by the Department of AYUSH whereby grants are released
to selected AYUSH institutions for running CME programs. The selection of institutions is done by the Department of AYUSH, where after the grantee institutions conduct separate CMEs for teachers, doctors, paramedics, heads of institutions according to the prescribed guidelines. Details of CMEs organized during the 11th Plan period are available at http://ravdelhi.nic.in/index1. asp?linkid=347&langid=1 Survey on Perceptions of Gurus & Shishyas The Principal Investigator sought detailed information about the achievements of the Institute in different areas. A questionnaire was issued with instructions that the respondents (both Gurus & Shikshyas) send their responses directly to the PI. Methodology: Two different questionnaires were evolved by the PI and sent to all the Gurus nominated for MRAV, CRAV courses as well as Shishyas who had completed the courses. The questionnaires focused on the utility of the courses and suggestions, if any, for the improvement in future. The questionnaires are at Annexure-III. The questionnaires were sent to 36 Gurus and 94 Shishyas. In response, 31 Gurus and 42 Shishyas sent their responses (Annexure-IV). Response received from the Gurus On being asked to give reasons for agreeing to be a Guru, maximum percentage said they agreed so as to pass on experiences to the next generation. Other reasons mentioned were propagation of Ayurveda; their interest in teaching and because they were proud to be a part of RAV’s Guru-Shishya tradition; remaining said they agreed to be a Guru on the request of the institution. As for the benefits of training under Guru - Shishya
training program in addition to the regular course, maximum percentage opined that practical training was the main benefit of the programme. Some felt that the students get an opportunity to discuss ideas with Senior Physicians which is the best way to transfer advanced knowledge to students. Other reasons included:- inadequate exposure given in most Ayurvedic Colleges; Self-confidence of Shishya increases; Students get individual attention and learn skills needed for private practice. The remaining respondents opined that it led to in-depth understanding of the basic concepts of Ayurveda. When asked about the relevance of Guru-Shishya type of training in today’s context, maximum percentage of respondents expressed that it was relevant to have a practical understanding of the subject. Other points were that such training increased the Shishya’s confidence in Ayurvedic practice because superficial knowledge is given in regular colleges; the transfer of personal experience from seniors to juniors in a “1 to 1” situation is the best way to study; the lack of good full-time teachers in most colleges were the other reasons given. That the training helped overcome difficulties in managing “new” ailments was also response. There was a feeling that such training allowed young students to remain free from stereotyped examination pressure permitting free discussions with the teachers which added to knowledge and understanding. Maximum respondents expressed satisfaction with the existing RAV system. Regarding students performance after the course, most of the Gurus said that their Shishyas started their own clinic and had begun diagnosing patients on the basis of Ayurveda; the remaining students got selected in MD and still others were engaged in teaching or as physicians in Ayurveda hospitals.
Guru-Shishya Parampara 207
Main findings of the Survey on the perceptions of Gurus
208  Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
Responses received from the Shishyas On being asked to give reasons for joining the course, maximum respondents expressed the reason for joining course as “out of interest in Ayurvedic chikitsa karma”, and other reasons expressed were “to know the subject in depth”, “to gain higher qualification” and the least was “to do research work”. Most of the respondents were aware of the course through the Newspaper advertisement, and the remaining said they came to know through friends, seniors, teachers, the website and ex-students. The lowest number came to know through the college. Reasons expressed for selecting a particular Guru in order of decreasing priority were “Guru being renowned in his field” ; “due to interest in the subject” ; “Guru being nearest to my place” ; “By chance got selected under the Guru” and “ Guru’s Institute is having good exposure to patients” . Many expressed their expectation before joining the course as “To gain clinical
exposure”; others said “To be well-acquainted with the subject”; and some others as “to increase professional skills.” Some also said it was to get an added qualification, stipend or to do research work or to obtain a certificate which would be helpful for joining Government service. The maximum number of respondents said their reasons for joining the course as well as for working with the selected Guru had been fulfilled and agreed that the course improved their knowledge. All of them are apparentlyemployed by the Government or are in private practice or pursuing post graduation. Many respondents suggested that the certificate should be recognized and preference should be given in gaining entry to MD or the PSC exams; also that there should be a common syllabus for each subject. Some felt that the duration of the course should be increased. Research work should also be done as a part of the training and the stipend should be increased.
Main Findings of the survey on the perceptions of the Shishyas
Guru-Shishya Parampara 209
Summary of Suggestions given by the Shishyas
210  Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
Conclusion and Recommendations It would appear from the responses received and the PI’s conversations with a crosssection of knowledgeable people working in the Ayurveda Sector that RAV is doing commendable work. However, the suggestions made by certain Committees (Reports annexed) do not appear to have been acted upon. The suggestion that a Diplomate of a National Board of Ayurveda may be instituted should have been taken forward. The other option of seeking affiliation with different Universities also has not received much attention. The alternative goal suggested was to aim for deemed university status, which too was abandoned. The PI sought the reasons and she found the goals to be achievable if proper guidance was given. Mainly there are two reasons for little followup: RAV does not have the exposure or experience that is required to understand the concept of running DNB type of training programs. Whatever efforts were made were being planned on the basis of the experience of the allopathic health sector. Because that itself got into a controversy, a good model seems to have been abandoned by RAV. The advantage of introducing DNB would be that students pass a rigourous examination to get placement into higher-level hospitals and facilities which are doing continuous work with patients. That exposure had been equated with undergoing regular postgraduate education because ultimately an examination has to be passed. The concept is good and needs to be revived regardless of the controversy that continues on the side of allopathy. The second architectural issue is that the President of the Governing Body is usually a non-institutionally qualified vaidya who is held in high regard. However such a person would have competence to provide
a direction to the Guru-Shishya strategy that RAV has been promoting but may not be able to give a direction to opening channels with universities and hospitals. The advantage of RAV trying to upgrade its status in the field of education already forms a part of the recommendations of earlier committees. But for those recommendations to become a reality, it requires a different level of exposure and orientation to mould the concepts to suit prevailing conditions. If this institution is to grow, a person who is conversant with the higher education sector and preferably one who has served as a Vice Chancellor or a similar position is needed to provide leadership for such new areas. RAV can also be made the functional body to regulate and accredit paramedical education (Diploma of two years) in Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Ayurveda Nursing, Panchakarma technician’s practical training as well as Ayurveda Education for modern medicine doctors. This is the right time to think about the regulation of para medical education in AYUSH systems on an all India basis. RAV can enter into MoUs with state colleges and state pharmacies to impart education while acting as a Board to give certification until regular Councils for standard setting are established under law. In addition to ongoing work, the Governing Body could authorize the aims and objectives of RAV to be expanded to provide practical knowledge about Ayurveda to visiting students from any discipline. The Institute could then arrange lecture/ tours to different places where Ayurveda is popular. A number of Universities abroad are looking for summer visits for their undergraduates which give them an exposure to other countries and their approaches to service delivery. This would be a good way of marketing Ayurveda. A number of second generation children of NRIs have an interest in different aspects of
Guru-Shishya Parampara  211
Indian culture and the practice of Ayurveda is one of the most interesting- particularly when a range of approaches are presented accompanied by explanations. It would give NRI parents great confidence if the tours are managed by a reputable Government Institute and the students are shown something specific (AUS practice) as well as general (Culture) of India. In each city where a study tour is planned RAV would find former shishyas who could attend to local liaison and co-ordination issues with the State Culture and Tourism departments and the travel agency. The Institute should work with a good travel agency to draw up a plan which gives students an exposure to how Ayurveda and other systems are being managed in different places in India. The Institute could identify around 10 places which represent a crosssection of good work being done e.g. the Gujarat Ayurvedic University, AVS Kottakal, the Choudhary Brahm Prakash Hospital at Kheda Dabur, the State Siddha Medical College and the TAMCOL manufacturing facility, the Himalaya Drug Company’s research facility, one or two good units of CCRAS which could form part of the exposure-cum-lecture series. If the concept is approved by RAV's Governing Body, the Institute should give its credentials on a website and offer to run exposure visits in coordination with the state tourism corporations which can take care of board and lodging and the logistics of travel. In this way, RAV need not burden itself with logistics. This suggestion is being made as it would give primacy to the Indian systems of medicine and would satisfy the needs of a niche clientele which has the means to pay for such study
212 Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
tours. It would however give recognition to India’s special strengths. A full-time officer should be engaged on contractual basis to exclusively manage this work under the Director RAV. A steering committee should be set up to oversee the programme and other details so that all questions are anticipated and responded to on the website. The Science Counsellor in the Indian Embassy in the US to start with and other missions abroad in due course should be requested through the Embassies to identify institutions and colleges which would like to avail of such exposure tours. Since such an initiative would only function during the summer break no more than two batches need to be covered over two months each year. The objective would be to engage groups of students of Indian origin to understand how widespread the use of Indian medicine is and also see something of the country. It is too niche an area to attract general tourists except as an add on option. But it would be of interest to students of Indian origin and would be encouraged by the University/ college who would get funded for this activity. A part of the funding would naturally come to RAV to defray the costs. The budgeting would have to be done so that all aspects of travel, transportation as well as board and lodging are factored in. RAV should not be bound to run the study tour unless the threshold of applicants is sufficient enough to justify the organizational work. In due course if RAV builds up experience it would be able to develop a range of packages for different kinds of visitors interested in Ayurveda. The bottom line is that RAV needs to reinvent itself while continuing with its core activities.
Annexure-IA Recommendations of the Review Committee of Department of ISM, Government of India which had reviewed the performance of RAV. (vide an order Ref. No. V.26012/2/99 – N.I.Desk, dated 16-5-2000 and extended its terms up to 6-1-2001 by another order of even number, dated 9-10-2000) The committee after careful scrutiny and evaluation of work done in RAV recommended the following also: •
The Vaidyas possessing special treatment skills like Agnikarma, Raktamokshana, Kshara Sutra, Panchakarma, bone setting, Marma Chikitsa, Dentistry, Visha Chikitsa etc. are to be preferred for appointment as Chikitsak Gurus, to preserve such procedures prevalent in India which are vanishing gradually.
•
Teacher and student both are expected to devote their maximum time (at least 8 hours per day) in achieving the goals and to produce concrete results. The philosophy behind this is to preserve the knowledge possessed by traditional and eminent Vaidyas which was earlier vanishing out with the Guru because of lack of transfer to the new generation and to prepare the scholars having eminent knowledge of texts of Ayurveda, so that they can become good teachers.
•
The committee feels that while selecting Shishyas preference may be given to teachers for MRAV course and physicians working in dispensaries and hospitals for CRAV course on leave/deputation basis.
•
The committee advised that the topics of all theses may be circulated to all P.G. Colleges and Institutions for their information and utilization. The material available may also be scrutinized for publication.
•
The committee recommends that persons possessing MRAV or CRAV qualification after undergoing training for two years and one year respectively under the tutelage of Gurus should be given preference/weightage for academic posts especially in promotion to the posts of Reader or Professor or in recruitment to the post of Lecturer, so that the knowledge gained by them can be disseminated to other students of Ayurveda.
•
In order to establish linkage and coordination with the premier institutions of Ayurveda, representatives of faculty of Ayurveda, I.M.S., B.H.U., Varanasi, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur and Director, CCRAS may also be nominated on the Governing Body of the Vidyapeeth as ex-officio members.
•
Keeping in view the aspirations of a large number of Ayurvedic graduates and to meet the requirement of specialists in teaching and research institutions, the Committee recommend that the Vidyapeeth may start Diploma of National Board in Ayurveda (DNB (Ay.) courses in clinical subjects like Kayachikitsa, Shalya, Shalakya, Prasuti Tantra and Bala Roga on the pattern of DNB courses run by National Board of Examinations. A selected number of hospitals in Ayurveda may be accredited by the RAV, where the students can take clinical training to pass DNB courses in Ayurveda. A separate committee may be constituted by the
Guru-Shishya Parampara 213
Government to prepare comprehensive proposal/project report on rules and regulations, syllabus etc. for the DNB (Ay.) course. •
It has been seen that most of the products of RAV i.e. MRAV and CRAV passed Vaidyas gained specialized knowledge but their services are not fruitfully utilized for advancement of Ayurveda. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the MRAV holders have been doing literary work on a particular Samhita/Commentary; hence the MRAV course may be recognized as equivalent to M.Phil. Degree (in Ayurveda).
•
The CRAV holders appear to have gained good clinical knowledge under the tutelage of eminent Vaidyas so the course of CRAV may be recognized as Post Graduate Diploma in Ayurvedic Clinical Practices.
•
Vidyapeeth has been functioning under Plan Scheme of the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy for about a decade. The growth of the Vidyapeeth in terms of staff is limited though sizeable work has been done under the scheme. The status of the Vidyapeeth needs to be strengthened and established permanently in terms of its standing for a long period in furtherance of Ayurvedic education and health management. Hence, the Committee recommends that required portion of the Grant-in-aid under Plan may be transferred to Non-Plan grant to Vidyapeeth.
214 Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
Annexure-IB Recommendations of the International Management Institute, New Delhi on the future growth options for Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeetha (RAV), New Delhi (2010-11) The key recommendations of Consultancy work are: 1.
RAV needs to immediately upgrade its current manpower and infrastructure keeping in mind the constant pressure on the existing employees and the proposed growth targets.
2.
The demand for recognition of RAV programs by a University or other relevant statutory Body is legitimate.
3.
RAV is doing useful work for the revival of traditional system of Ayurveda to enter into era of medicinal pluralism and integrated preventive health care as envisaged in the policy statement of WHO. It has been estimated by WHO that “ by 2010 more than two-thirds of the world would have tried some form of alternative medicine. Four in five developing nations already rely on traditional system of health care” (Mint. Sep. 29, 2010). If the system is not revived with full vigour, it will languish and so will its practitioners and researchers.
4.
The Secretary, AYUSH has suggested that there is need for scaling up of activity of training being conducted now along with new activities like training of teachers. Doctors, paramedical staff etc. on the lines of National Institute for Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW). RAV should put serious efforts in reviving its MRAV (2years) course. To facilitate such large scale training, RAV should have its own campus, buildings and infrastructure with necessary divisions and man-power so that it can be upgraded as a National Institute of Training in Ayurveda.
5.
We have given our recommendations regarding setting up of a campus of RAV. Effort should be made to acquire a plot measuring 5 acres or less through allotment or purchase from DDA. A competent architect should prepare the campus plan that could finally fit into the requirement of Deemed University. The Campus buildings with good landscaping should be eco-friendly and the various divisions/faculties/departments as recommended in this report should be established with a provision for further expansion. The campus should be conceptualized as an interdisciplinary, or a multiversity educational venture. DPR (detailed project report) for this purpose should be prepared along with implementation of other recommendations.
6.
In order to ensure proper training at national level and ensuring its effectiveness, there is a need to establish regional centers. There can be 4-5 regional centers, each manned with a technical officer and one administrative staff to oversee the functioning of training centers in the region.
7.
As a long term solution RAV should aim at acquiring a Deemed University status under De novo category. We have dealt with the subject of University status of RAV in details and it is possible by the end of 12th plan, provided the campus building gets ready in a year’s time.
Guru-Shishya Parampara 215
8.
Pending the grant of Deemed University status, RAV can affiliate its programs either with a State Ayurvedic University or Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, a State University or with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)-a Central University. Affiliation of IGNOU would be more appropriate because the IGNOU procedures for affiliation are not time consuming.
9.
RAV should also explore the possibility of upgrading itself to acquire a status like National Board of Examinations (NBE), to seek equivalence of its Diploma with DNB. RAV may start courses as equivalent to those of National Board of Examinations for postgraduate training in recognized Ayurveda hospitals with same duration of training and methods of evaluation. It is possible to have this in place provided conditions as mentioned in the report are fulfilled. Ayurvedic hospital can be roped in to help RAV to move in this direction.
10. CCIM may be approached for due recognition for its courses. Simultaneously the Department of AYUSH may send letter to all States governments and other recruitment agencies for considering the courses of RAV under desirable qualifications for appointment to teachers, medical officers or other personnel. As far as recognition by CCIM is concerned, it is a must, before or after affiliation with a University. 11. In due course of time RAV should strive for Deemed university status with various departments of AYUSH and allied sciences for carrying out all kinds of training courses besides inter-disciplinary research.
216  Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
Annexure –II Details of Gurus and Shishyas associated with RAV since the time of inception
Year
MRAV Course No. of Gurus
CRAV Course
No. of Shishyas
No. of Gurus
No. of Shishyas
1994 - 95
8
8
-
-
1995 – 96
4
6
-
-
1996 – 97
4
5
-
-
1997 – 98
5
6
-
-
1998 – 99
5
12
-
-
1999 – 2000
9
9
8
15
2000 – 01
4
5
7
11
2001 – 02
5
7
5
21
2002 – 03
1
1
6
18
2003 – 04
1
2
6
18
2004 - 05
2
4
4
4
2005 – 06
2
5
12
25
2006 - 07
1
1
11
31
2007 – 08
-
-
13
24
2008 – 09
-
-
16
19
2009 – 10
-
-
16
23
2010 – 11
-
-
76
228
2011 - 12
-
-
24
31
51
71
204
468
Total
Guru-Shishya Parampara 217
Annexure - III Covering letter of the PI with Questionnaire issued to MRAV/CRAV alumni/Shishyas RAV Questionnaire Preamble Project: Status of Indian Medicine & Folk healing with a focus on the benefits the systems have given the public. The Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has supported the above project titled “The Status of Indian Medicine & Folk healing in India” with a focus on the benefits the systems have given the public to be undertaken by Smt. Shailaja Chandra (IAS Retd.,) former Secretary (1999-2002) in the Department of AYUSH, GOI and former Chief Secretary Government of NCT of Delhi. The project is being executed in collaboration with and with the support of the Research Councils of AYUSH namely CCRAS and CCRUM. As the Project Investigator (PI) Smt Chandra has already given Part I of the Report to the Government and is now pursuing work on Part II. The PI is required to give a comprehensive report on the current status of the Indian systems (in this case Ayurveda) with special reference to whether the developmental efforts are translating into improved public benefit. The Rashtriya Ayurved Vidyapeeth (RAV)is one of the institutions engaged in improving the competencies and skills of the practitioners in the Guru-Shishya parampara. The enclosed questionnaires seek to find out your views on the experiences gained at RAV. This questionnaire is being sent through the Director of RAV but it is requested that responses may be sent by name directly to the PI at the address given below. The responses will be tabulated but no names would be revealed in the Report or otherwise. However the number of Gurus and Shishyas who were contacted and who did/did not respond will be given in the Report. Kindly have the questionnaire as applicable filled up and sent so as to reach the PI no later than 31st July 2012. (Shailaja Chandra) Principal Investigator, Room 502, CCRUM, Central Council of Research in Unani Medicine, 61-65 Institutional Area, Opposite D Block, Janakpuri. New Delhi 110058
218 Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
Questionnaire for MRAV/CRAV alumni/Shishyas 1.
Name:
2.
Qualifications:
3.
Have you completed your course? If yes, when?
4.
The name of your Guru and the subject of MRAV/CRAV:
5.
Reasons for joining the MRAV/CRAV course:
6.
How did you come to know about the course?
7.
Reasons for selecting a particular Guru:
8.
What had you expected before joining the course?
9.
Whether the reasons for joining the course were fulfilled? i)
Joining the course
ii) Working under the selected Guru 10. If expectations were not fulfilled, the reasons therefor: 11. If you were satisfied with the course what you learnt from the Guru, the reasons therefor: 12. Whether the course improved your knowledge of course you had completed or are still pursuing ? 13. Explain in a few words, what the impact of the course had on the patient can/education or research aspects of the work you do. 14. Are you doing any job/practice now ? If so has the course helped/is helping. 15. Your suggestions to improve the course: Address with contact numbers & e-mail:
Signature
Questionnaire for RAV Gurus (Past/Present): 1.
Name
2.
Qualifications, year of passing, Institution/University
3.
How long have you been a Guru under the RAV Programme
4.
Reasons for agreeing to be a Guru
5.
Benefits training under the guru-shishya program in addition to the regular course.
6.
Relevance of guru-shishya type of training in the to days context.
7.
Are you satisfied with the existing system of CRAV training or MRAV
8.
Have you assessed the impact of your training on patient care through your students?
9.
After the course, how are your students are performing? Give examples please.
10. Your suggestions for improving the course 11. Any other comments. Address with contact numbers & e-mail:
Signature
Guru-Shishya Parampara  219
Annexure-IV List of Gurus and Shishyas who responded/did not respond List of Gurus who responded
30. Vd. Ved Vrat Sharma
1.
Vaidya Suresh Chaturvedi
31. Prof. C. P. Shukla
2.
Dr. Premwati Tewari
List of Gurus who did not respond
3.
Vd. Jagdish Prasad Sharma
4.
Dr. N.P. Parameswaran Namboothiri
5.
Vd. Mahesh Dutt Sharma Shastri
6.
Dr. P. Madhavankutty Varier
7.
Prof. Ram Harsh Singh
8.
Dr. Ganjam Krishna Prasad
9.
Vd. Devendra Kumar Shah
10. Dr. Sudhakar M.Sathye
1.
Dr. Surya Prakash Sharma received after last date)
2.
Vd. Dayaram Awasthi (Reply received after last date)
3.
Vd. Maa Anantanand Tirth
4.
Dr. S.K. Dixit
5.
Dr. C. Suresh Kumar
6.
Acharya H.S.Kasture
11. Dr. Mukul Patel
List of Shishyas who responded
12. Vaidya Ashwani Kumar Sharma
1.
Dr. Nishan Deep Singh
13. Vaidya B.P. Gupta
2.
Dr.Sarvpreet Singh
14. Vd. Ravindra Vatsyayan
3.
Dr. Hetal Karkar d.
15. Dr. S.K. Balian
4.
Dr. Lalit Nagar
16. Dr. Surya Prakash Sharma
5.
Dr. Naveen Mahajan
17. Vaidya Rameshwarlal Sharma
6.
Dr. Ashwin Kumar K.G.
18. Dr. Raghuraj Chaturvedi
7.
Dr. Preeti Pahwa
19. Dr. K.V.S. Rao
8.
Dr. Nutan Deelip Chopda
20. Dr. Madhusudan Deshpande
9.
Dr. Kranti Kambhampati
21. Dr. A. V. Aravindakshan
10. Vd. Kshama Gupta
22. Dr. M.V.Vijayakumaran
11. Dr. Dinesh L. Borad
23. Dr. K. Chidambaram
12. Dr. Umesh Bajirao Kale
24. Dr. L. Sucharitha
13. Dr. Swapan Das
25. Dr. G. Purushothamacharyulu
14. Dr. Sujitha S.
26. Dr.Narendra Narayandas Gujarathi
15. Dr. Mamta Jain
27. Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta
16. Dr. Arjun P. S.
28. Dr. Dhanraj V. Gahukar
17. Dr. Vanita Thakur
29. Dr. Raman Singh
18. Vd. Himanshu Jitubhai Joshi
220  Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing
(Reply
19. Dr. Bhavana Ramesh Bhosale
5.
Dr. Vaishali Bhardwaj
20. Dr. Gaurav Verma
6.
Dr. Uday Narayan Singh
21. Dr. Majida Hyder Ali
7.
Dr. N. Raja Shekhar
22. Dr. Priyada K.
8.
Dr. Teneti Sambasiva Rao
23. Dr. Raghvendra Singh
9.
Dr. Kumud Tiwari
24. Dr. Shubhada I. Hegde
10. Dr. Seema Saxena
25. Dr. Mani Bhushan Kumar
11. Dr. Anita Khetabhai Patel
26. Dr. Naveen Kumar Chauhan
12. Dr. Nalawade Pallavi
27. Dr. Sunil Jagadishbhai Suthar
13. Dr. Mayank Umakant Shah
28. Dr. Abhishek Kumar Ojha
14. Dr. Amit Kumar
29. Dr. Chandra Prakash Verma
15. Dr. Jasir Ahammed. N.
30. Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh
16. Dr. Roy S. Devi
31. Dr. Jaiprakash Bholanath Ram
17. Dr. Sumi Jain
32. Dr. Vishnu Harit
18. Dr. Lipika Kulshrestha
33. Dr. Mohan Lal
19. Dr. Mahesh Kumar
34. Dr. N. Venugopal
20. Vd. Angel K. Vachhani
35. Dr. Achyut Kumar Tripathi
21. Vd. Prakruti Y. Vyas
36. Dr. Narendra Prasad Hota
22. Dr. R. Soumya
37. Dr. Shaliesh Nath Saxena
23. Dr. Bharti
38. Dr. Rangnath Mishra
24. Dr. Shruti
39. Dr. Chandrika S. V.
25. Dr. Gauraw Singh Baghel
40. Dr. Patel Tanuja
26. Vd. Aher Snehal Bhagarant
41. Dr. Kedar Nath Upadhyay
27. Vd. Syed Farhatunnisa A.
42. Dr. Manjeet Kaur
28. Dr. Praveena P. Nair
List of Shishyas3 who did not respond
29. Dr. Mukesh Rawat 30. Dr. Kshitij Sharma
1.
Dr. Vandana P. Raval (Reply received after last date)
2.
Dr. Jagannath Upadhyaya
32. Dr. Bharat Bhushan
3.
Dr. Kailash Chaubey
33. Dr. Dinesh Sharma
4.
Dr. Pratibha Sharma
34. Dr. Iqbal khan Goury
31. Dr. Mamta Thakur
3. All the Shishyas were reminded repeatedly and the messages were transmitted through the RAV also. The response from Shishyas was not encouraging.
Guru-Shishya Parampara  221
35. Dr. Sweta Kumari Shaw
43. Dr. Sumer Singh
36. Dr. Varinder Singh
44. Dr. Sanjay B. Thatere
37. Dr. Divya T. Namboothiri 38. Dr. Anurag Saxena 39. Dr. Geeta A. Odak 40. Dr. Meghna Punde
45. Dr. (Mrs.) Seema Joshi 46. Dr. Ashok Kumar Dixit 47. Dr. Darshna M. Rawal 48. Dr. (Mrs.) Alankruta R. Dave 49. Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh
41. Dr. Umesh Chandra Mishra
50. Dr. Lakshman Singh
42. Dr. Meenakshi Singh
51. Dr. Sanjay Raghabaji Talmale
222  Status of Indian Medicine and Folk Healing