20 Lucknowites return to India from Iran; 200 more still stranded in war-hit nation
Though the Government of India has begun phased evacuations, families are still separated and pleading for swift reunions.
Kaniz Sogra, a resident of Lucknow, returned to India on Monday morning with her 14-year-old son, but her husband Muzabir Hussain, 44, remains stranded in Iran.
'My husband is diabetic. He cannot live alone as often he gets the bouts of anxiety. He will soon tun short of medicines. I request the government to bring him home urgently,' says Kaniz Sogra worried for her husband.
She claims that she along with her husband, son and mother-in-law had gone to Iran with a travel group of 96 people on a pilgrimage. As per the government protocol, women and children were evacuated on priority; Muzabir could not return with them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Has Government Launched 'Blood On Call' Helpline? A Fact Check
New Delhi: The PIB Fact Check has debunked a claim circulating on WhatsApp about a pan-India helpline number 104 titled "Blood on Call" for blood requirements. According to the PIB, this claim is misleading, and the Government of India is not running any such scheme. The viral message, shared across multiple social media platforms and messaging apps, claimed that citizens could now dial 104 to request blood, which would be delivered within hours for a specified charge. Dismissing these claims, PIB Fact Check in a post on X said, "This claim is #misleading, GOI is not running any such scheme!! This number is used for various helpline services in some states." Claim: Government of India has launched a pan-India helpline number 1⃣0⃣4⃣ "Blood on Call" to meet the requirement for blood #PIBFactCheck ☑️ This claim is #misleading ☑️ GOI is not running any such scheme !! ☑️ This number is used for various helpline services in some states — PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) July 28, 2025 PIB also attached a graphic of the viral message with a red "MISLEADING" stamp to prevent the spread of disinformation. According to PIB Fact Check, while the number 104 may be active in some states for general health-related services, it is not associated with a central government initiative for blood supply. Meanwhile, on July 24, the PIB debunked any claims circulating on social media regarding the sealing of the official residence of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, saying that the former VP has not been asked to vacate his residence immediately. "It is being widely claimed on social media that the Vice President's official residence has been sealed and the former VP has been asked to vacate his residence immediately. These claims are Fake. Don't fall for misinformation. Always verify news from official sources before sharing it," the PIB fact check said on X. It is being widely claimed on social media that Vice President's official residence has been sealed and former VP has been asked to vacate his residence immediately #PIBFactCheck ❌ These claims are #Fake. ✅ Don't fall for misinformation. Always verify news from official… — PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) July 23, 2025 The post by PIB fact check urged the people "not to fall for misinformation" and always verify news from official sources. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
18 hours ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'
United News of India
18 hours ago
- United News of India
World Hepatitis Day 2025: Only 3 pc Hepatitis B Patients in India aware of their ailment
New Delhi, July 28(UNI) Just about three per cent of Hepatitis B Patients in India are aware about their ailment, and less than one per cent of them receive treatment, said Rajesh Bhushan, Former Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India today. "Only 3 pc of hepatitis B patients in India are aware of their condition, and less than 1% of eligible individuals are receiving antiviral treatment. These are not just statistics, they reflect a silent public health crisis that demands immediate, coordinated action,' said Bhushan while addressing the 'Illness to Wellness' Awareness Conference held in New Delhi on the occasion of World Hepatitis Day. The Illness to Wellness Foundation organised the conference in New Delhi today, to mark World Hepatitis Day, centred around the theme 'Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment for Hepatitis.' The event brought together medical experts, policymakers, and public health advocates to highlight the urgency of tackling India's growing hepatitis burden through policy reform, improved access, and greater public awareness. Bhushan underscored the need for bold, systemic efforts. He identified five urgent priorities to address the increasing hepatitis cases - expanded screening and surveillance, ensuring timely birth-dose vaccination, decentralisation of treatment access, driving community-level awareness, and using real-time data for action. He also stressed the need for robust partnerships and said, 'Strategic interventions must be driven not only by the government but also through collaboration with civil society, the private sector, public health professionals, and the medical community'. During the session, health experts highlighted alarming global data that only 45 per cent of new-borns receive the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth, which is a critical gap in prevention. They also emphasised that WHO's 2030 target to eliminate hepatitis, which calls for a 90% reduction in new infections and 80% treatment coverage, hinges on several key strategies: universal vaccination, timely diagnosis, people-centred care, and widespread public awareness to combat stigma. UNI RKM SSP
