Rethinking India's engagement with the World Health Organization

The recent decision by President Donald Trump to initiate the United States' withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) has sparked international debate—much of it focused on geopolitics and diplomacy. Yet behind the bluntness of his pronouncement—“World Health ripped us off. Everybody rips off the United States. It’s not going to happen anymore”—lies a concern that resonates well beyond American borders.

For decades, the WHO has projected itself as the moral compass of global health. But this self-image increasingly sits at odds with the criticisms leveled against it: bureaucratic inertia, a lack of transparency, disproportionate sway over national policies, and an apparent detachment from local realities. These are not abstract failings; they have had tangible consequences for countries like India, which have allowed the WHO significant influence in shaping domestic healthcare frameworks.

One particularly fraught area of this influence concerns India’s traditional systems of medicine—especially Ayurveda. Rooted in centuries of empirical knowledge and codified in the philosophical traditions of Sanatana Dharma, Ayurveda represents more than a health practice; it is a civilizational asset. Yet it has often been subjected to the evaluative frameworks of Western biomedical science—frameworks that may be ill-suited to understand or validate its principles.

When international bodies like the WHO—often shaped by Euro-American paradigms—seek to define the contours of what constitutes "scientific" or "effective" in healthcare, they risk reducing India’s indigenous systems to caricatures. This undermines both scientific pluralism and national sovereignty. A system such as Ayurveda, which emphasizes balance, prevention, and holistic well-being, deserves to be understood on its own terms—not reinterpreted or invalidated by alien metrics.

The question before us is not whether India should disengage from global health institutions. Rather, it is whether such engagement should continue unquestioned, particularly when it compromises our autonomy and intellectual heritage. In an age where health diplomacy is increasingly shaped by power asymmetries and ideological entrenchments, India must assert its own voice—not merely echo others.

It is time to reimagine India's participation in global health governance. This calls for a more self-reliant, context-sensitive approach—one that integrates scientific innovation with traditional wisdom, and national priorities with global responsibilities. Health, after all, is not just the absence of disease. It is the expression of life in harmony—with nature, with society, and with oneself. India’s vision of healthcare must emerge from this understanding, not from the policy prescriptions of distant institutions whose credibility stands on increasingly shaky ground.

End of History & Clash of Civilizations

The Hegelian “end of history” and the neoconservative “clash of civilizations” are two sides of the same ideological and mythological coin.

Those who believe in the end of history, must also subscribe to the idea of clash of civilizations. This is because, the end of history, in the Hegelian sense, can be achieved only after one perfect civilization has vanquished and converted every other civilization. Thus, clash of civilizations is the process by which the end of history is achieved.

End of history, or the vision of a perfect society, is rooted in our mythological and utopian imagination. Clash of civilizations is rooted in the history and memory of past conflicts, rivalries and wars. The internal dialectics of a civilization works out the strategy for using the vision of the end of history to drive a clash with other civilizations.

Being scientific & being religious

You don’t have to choose between being scientific and being religious. It is natural for human beings to be both. 

Reason, which is the driver of scientific thinking, coexists with faith, the driver of mystical thinking, in the mind of all mentally healthy human beings. Since ancient or prehistoric times, science has been driven by religious leaders and institutions. The ancient rishis or sages, the preachers of religious ideas, were also great scientists. 

There is no conflict between reason (science) and faith (religion) in the human mind, we use both to develop our view of the world. In fact, it is impossible for us to tell what views we accept on faith and what views on the basis of reason.

Modern man’s intolerance of uncertainty

Intolerance of uncertainty is the major problem that modern society faces. People have been brainwashed into believing that with modern science and technology they can be certain of how they and their society will fare in the foreseeable future. They feel shocked when they are struck by random events which they could not have foreseen.   

The tools of science and technology can provide a lot of information, but more information does not necessarily translate into certainty. In fact, excess information often creates confusion and makes it difficult to analyze a situation for taking the right decision. Those who know a lot about any subject, the so-called experts, are mostly wrong. 

The idea that man can overcome uncertainty is a mythology crafted by Western philosophers. This mythology has been propagated around the world by Western system of education and mass media. Schools, universities, newspapers and the news TV channels brainwash people into believing that the world is knowable and the future is decipherable. 

The only thing that mankind can be certain of is that much of the universe is unknowable to us and there will always be uncertainty in our life. There exists a universe inside our body and mind—much of this universe is unknown to us. There exists a universe outside our body and mind—of this universe we know hardly anything.

Is Western way of life antithetical to human nature?

Creatures living in their natural environment tend to procreate at a high rate resulting in a rise in their population. When deer, lions, wolves, zebras, species of fish and plants and other living creatures are in their natural habitat, their population rises. 

Thus, we can define natural habitat for a particular species as an environmental ecosystem which enables faster procreation and, thereby, rise in the population of the species. What does this definition of natural habitat tell us about humans and their societies? 

It tells us that the Western way of life is antithetical to human nature— it leads to decline in birth rate and paves way for the decimation of the original population. In every nation founded on the Western model the death rate is higher than the birth rate. 

Even the Asian countries which made the mistake of adopting the Western model, and diluting their original culture, are facing steep decline in their birth rate. In Japan, the birth rate has dropped to 1.26 births per woman, which is far below the death rate. 

All nations with high birth rates are non-Western. In fact, the degree of decline in population in nations is directly proportional to their level of Westernization. More Westernized a nation is, the sharper the decline in birth rate that it faces.

Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in Pursuit of Health by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, Dr. Steven Woloshin, Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz

Human beings are incapable of developing anything that will always be perfect, moral and useful. Every system, technology, process, product and movement that we developed in the past has, at some point of time, become inefficient, evil and corrupt. 

A hammer is a useful tool; it allows us to take care of a number of tasks. But it can also be used as a weapon to injure or kill.  

The analogy of a hammer applies to everything that humans have created throughout the history of civilization. Everything that we take for granted is necessary for leading a healthy, happy and fulfilling life has the potential to be used to plunder, enslave, loot, brainwash and destroy. 

In their book Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in Pursuit of Health, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, Dr. Steven Woloshin and Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz argue that while in some areas new medical technology and diagnostic methods are useful, there are several instances of overdiagnosis and overtreatment causing irreversible harm. 

The book argues that with the diagnostic threshold being moved lower and lower, there has been a phenomenal rise in the number of people being classified as sick. Millions of people who do not have any symptoms of disease and face little health risk are being classified as sick and are being put on treatments which can cause more harm than good.

With the low threshold for diseases, being mandated by the medical establishment, almost every human being on this planet can be diagnosed as sick and coerced to take regular treatments. Modern medical technology has the capacity to detect diseases in almost everyone, even though most people show no symptoms and face minor health risks.

The authors identify several instances where the treatment proved to be worse than the disease. They advise that people who are not having any symptoms, should avoid having full body scans. 

They write: “Patients could help by being a little less enthusiastic about scanning in general. In particular, they should avoid whole-body scans, which can open a Pandora’s box of incidentalomas. They could also be a little more hesitant about other scans and, when given the choice, choose the most anatomically focused exam to avoid stumbling onto things outside of the area of interest.”