The latest issue of Times Crest features the story ‘Who’s afraid of the Shrink’– why more and more Indians are experiencing counselling or therapy; and more worrying, why an increasing number of Indians, across classes, are popping anti-depression pills.
The feature reproduces a lot of the predictable information quoted by marketing-savvy counsellors and eager-to-get-business therapists. But one of the articles in the feature presents some interesting insights. My writer friend Namita Devidayal in her article titled ‘The Shrink Wrapping of India’ expresses concerns over the over-prescription or inappropriate diagnosis by psychiatrists. To illustrate this, Devidayal gives an example: “Routine anxiety from day-to-day affairs may be “over diagnosed” as depression or an anxiety disorder and the patient may be told to start popping a pill, when in fact a regular walk in the park or a holiday or some counselling could easily be the solution.”
Devidayal tells us about the flip-side to the growth of the non-pharmacological area of therapy too. Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar in an interview to Namita warns: “Since modern psychological remedies are Western in origin, they also incorporate some basic assumptions which the therapist may be passing on to the client without being fully aware of their implications. The most important of these assumptions is of a person being an individual- which is true enough- while downplaying (the fact) that the person is also a part of his social order and cultural context. The danger of individualism, for all its pleasures, lies in encouraging a tendency towards narcissism, the ‘looking out for a number one’, and an addiction to psychological navel-gazing in which the therapist is a willing colluder.”
Nobody is disputing that psychiatric help helps in extreme cases; or that counselling helps to some extent. But while help from a psychologist may be presumed to be the panacea of all ills or mental challenges, it is time someone does a reality check to talk about the limitations of the approach adopted by Indian counsellors; and why everyone should not always depend on any counsellor for quick analyses or solutions. Devidayal in her article states: “One of the problems with the profession is lack of regulation. For instance, anyone can get a short diploma, put up a shingle, and start calling himself a ‘counsellor’ even though he may not be qualified to navigate the complexities of another person’s brain space.” Little wonder, in schools, commercial organisations and neighbourhoods, people often talk about why the child psychologist, the organisational psychologist, or the family counsellor are most complex and insecure and that they desperately need counselling, more than their clients.
In another article in the same issue, psychoanalyst Madhu Sarin talks about the limitation of the solution-approach which most counsellors or therapists offer. She explains: “The difference between other therapies and a psychoanalytic approach is that the former is solution-based and, therefore, limited in approach, whereas the latter helps the patient grow as a person. And psychological problems can only be resolved through psychological growth.” Sarin is obviously referring to the mushrooming mind-clinics and the limitations of their quick counselling or healing sessions which may give a temporary high or calm, but may offer no psychological growth.
While ambitious mental health professionals make huge attempts to educate the general public (through articles in publications or quotes to the media) on how psychiatry, psychotherapy, clinical psychology or counselling can ‘solve’ complex human problems, it’s time experienced and senior writers like Namita Devidayal donned the shrink’s hat to continue writing insightful articles on how and when therapy or counselling can help, and not give us mere reports on the burgeoning business of counselling.