Talking heads

Does a parliamentary standing committee need Aamir Khans expert intervention?

After his TV show Satyamev Jayate examined distortions in healthcare,Aamir Khans opinion has been solicited by none less than the parliamentary standing committee on commerce. By consulting Khan on the question of FDI in pharmaceuticals,the panel has made expert deliberation seem like a silly gimmick. Healthcare was merely the brow-furrowing concern of the week for Satyamev Jayate,and as with any show that flits from one subject to another,its mastery of the problem was less than perfect. While the use of affordable generic drugs may seem a no-brainer,it is a risky choice in the absence of solid regulation. Many doctors prescribe known,reputed drugs because they are assured of quality,not because they are sellouts to Big Pharma. The answer,clearly,lies in empowering the drug regulator,so that there are no questions about quality and then letting big-name companies compete with generics,which will automatically drive down prices. And while Khan and his viewers may have newly encountered these issues,there has been an entire edifice of arguments around them,given that India has long been a global hub of generic pharmaceuticals. Parliamentarians are well aware of the sorry state of drug regulation in India the standing committee on health delivered the most detailed study of that problem barely a couple of months ago.

Like a lot of good TV,Khans show drills down complex questions to their emotional core. It also has a grand,if occasionally garbled sense of mission Satyamev Jayate even congratulated itself on Lok Sabha passing a sharp bill on the sexual abuse of children,as though the law was enacted in a burst of understanding brought on by the show,rather than being the product of long deliberation,whose timing was entirely coincidental. Now,the standing committee has strengthened that saviour complex.

The parliamentary committee should,indeed,seek out a range of views. By picking Khan,though,it has chosen entertainment over edification,and snubbed the patient advocacy of lawyers,doctors,public health experts,policymakers and activists who have devoted much of their working lives to these questions.