The facts regarding to new MSR regulation for Ayurveda Colleges notified by AYUSH Department

August 21, 2012 in News

Dr.V.G.Udayakumar, Member CCIM,Kerala

The Minimum Standard Requirement (MSR) Regulation notified by CCIM published in Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India (Extraordinary) 18.07.2012 invites lot of protests all over India that it may cause degradation in education standards in Ayurveda and mushrooming of Ayurveda Colleges. The allegation is true in the sense but the current reality is worse and intolerable.

At present in many colleges majority of teaching faculties are in on paper only. Even though the student bed ratio is 1:2 not a single patient is available for clinical training in majority of teaching hospitals. Most of the colleges are in remote areas for the availability of required land where patients are unable to reach, the main cause of non availability of patients. There is an acute shortage of senior faculty which is major cause of non recommendation by CCIM.

But this is not the way by which the issues to be managed.  The current approach of diluting the standards will damage the quality of education at large. In such situation instead of controlling the allocation of colleges and courses Govt allows mushrooming of colleges by reducing the basic requirements is objectionable.

To facilitate this department of AYSUH is gradually taking control over CCIM and  dictating the council in all activities regarding college affiliation, recognition etc: Last few years we have witnessed the colleges were not recommended by CCIM for lack of facilities are permitted by AYUSH through hearing. This year the responsibility of recommendation has been shifted from CCIM and the whole exercise of recognition is carried out in department of AYUSH.

The road map of new MSR and our suggestions

It was drafted in department of Ayush and convened a discussion with CCIM officials on 24.04.2011. This draft was send to all state Governments for comments on 06.09.2011. After obtaining the comments it was submitted to Ayush on 15.08.2011. This matter has been placed before the council on the 44th meeting of the Ayurveda committee on 18.10.2011, the first meeting of me after the CCIM election (29.07.2011). In the discussion I argued for one additional professor for Salakyathanthra department and the same was not considered due to the non availability of senior faculty in the concerned subject in the mean time one additional Professor/Reader was allotted for Samhita department, this was reported earlier in Apta.

AYUSH dictates to CCIM

As a part of the general attitude of the AYUSH towards CCIM, the MSR also forced to recommend by the council in a hurry. This is evident in the letter placed before the council on the 44th meeting of CCIM with the following comment.

“It was also noted that Govt. Of India vide D.O. Letter No.R.11011/8/2009 EP(IM-1) dated 10.10.2011 ( received on 18.10.2011 through fax )has asked the CCIM to send the Minimum Standards & Requirements of Ayurveda College and Hospital after consideration of the Ayurveda Committee/CCIM by 20.10.2011. Otherwise Govt. of India will presume that CCIM has nothing to say in respect of the letter dated 15.06.2011 and matter will be placed before the competent authority for approval and do the needful in the matter.”

Here we can see the kind of language in which the department is communicating with the CCIM. You may be note that the council meeting was scheduled on 18.10.2011. In the same day by sending a fax AYUSH is forcing the council to pass the recommendations immediately without giving sufficient time to discuss the matter.

According to IMCC Act 1970, CCIM is the only competent authority to decide the minimum standards for education in Ayurveda. Here the GOI dictate the minimum standards to the council and threaten them that if they fail to replay within one day they will place the matter before some other competent authority. Here the GOI is by passing the council and placing another centre of power other than CCIM. This approach became evident in declaring new MSR by overlooking the council recommendations in this matter.

Self financing College consortium‘s move and our response.

In May 2012 it was heard that self financing college consortium had approached Health Ministry to reduce the MSR and the Hon: Health Minister convened two meeting with Aush secretary in this regard. As soon as we got the information we informed the different organisations in Kerala and also met secretary of Ayush on 06.07.2012 to stop this movement. We also requested him to formulate separate standards to save Government Colleges and also clear the recognition prior to the central allotment by entrance commissioner. This was also reported in Apta July issue.

It also dilutes the recommendations made by the 48th council held on 19.10.2011. The above notification reduced the teaching faculty from 36 to 30 and 56 to 45 for the intake of 60 and 100 of students respectively. It also reduced the student bed ratio from1: 1.25 to 1:1 and bed occupancy from 60% to 40% and the superannuation of teachers rose from 65 to 70.

The major shifts can be summarised as follows 

Main pointsCouncil RecommendationNew MSR
Main pointsCouncil RecommendationNew MSR
Student bed ratio up to 60 students1.1.25 ( 75)1.1 (60)
Student bed ratio up to 100 students1.1.25 (125)1.1 ( 100)
Annual bed occupancy60%40%
Teaching Staff up to 60 students36 + 8 Modern Medicine Staff on contract basis 30+ 8 Modern Medicine Staff on contract basis
Teaching Staff up to 100 students56+ 8 Modern Medicine Staff on contract basis45+ 8 Modern Medicine Staff on contract basis
Age of superannuation of teachers6570

This shows that AYUSH is repeatedly interferes the activities of CCIM and is highly objectionable. In another move the yearly visits by CCIM also shifted to 5 yearly so that periodical monitoring also avoided. So after implementing the new MSR the CCIM will lose the control over the colleges once the recognition is granted.  It is also objectionable.

I wonder, it was alleged that current CCIM members are behind this MSR. Does a person fond of corruption support this?

Besides all the negatives there are many positives n the new MSR. It also gives 10 additional posts for graduates and one additional post of clinical specialists too. Apart from this the services of 8 modern medical experts in part time basis also made available. All these suggestions may help a lot if they are implemented as such. But there are loop holes to short cut the MSR as the biometric attendance is made desirable. Even though we know the biometric attendance is not a fool proof method there should be some other alternatives

Additional Staff suggested in MSR

Teaching staff in Modern Medicine on contract- Medicine-1,Surgery-1,Obstetrician & Gynaecology-1,Pathologist-1,Anaesthesiologist-1,Phthalmologist-1,Pediatrician-1,Radiologist-1,8
Deputy Medical Superintendent other than teaching staff1
Yoga teacher1
Emergency Medical officer2
RMO7
Clinical Registrar in Panchakarma1
Physiotherapist1

Any how the negative points should be modified to maintain the standards of education and the power of CCIM also reinstated so as to take appropriate decisions as and when it required.

AMAI is always against the dilution in educational standards and also in mushrooming of Ayurveda Colleges. We stand for quality not for quantity. Therefore we’re moving the council to reinstate the old faculty position and student bed ratio in the forthcoming council meeting.

zp8497586rq