Strange as it may sound, my entry into medical writing did not begin with a grand hypothesis or a randomized trial. It began with a single sheet of paper\u2014and a young boy with an unusual collarbone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was 1986. I had finished my MD five years earlier and had just been promoted as Reader in Medicine at MGIMS. A case report we had written\u2014\u201cCleidocranial Dysostosis with Grand Mal Epilepsy\u201d<\/em>\u2014was published in the Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To be honest, the paper was less my brainchild and more an accident of geography and seniority. I happened to be present, reasonably literate, and the youngest man in the room who could be trusted with a typewriter. The real engine was Dr. Sharad Pendsey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Pendsey was my senior from the 1971 batch at GMC Nagpur. Even back in my house-officer days, he was a man who had quietly carved out a unique reputation. Long before “super-specialist” became a fashionable label for visiting cards, he was perhaps the first physician in Central India to dedicate his practice exclusively to diabetology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He found his true calling in treating children\u2014young lives that revolved around the relentless cycle of syringes and glucose charts. He stood as a guardian for these families, providing insulin that often cost far more than they could comfortably afford.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While he had a flair for the dramatic and showcased his research at international conferences, he was equally at home in the modern era, remaining active on social media to share his knowledge. Yet, beneath the accolades and the public presence, he was a man of discipline; he simply showed up every day and did the work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Pendsey\u2019s presence was as striking as his medical reputation. With his remarkably fair skin and a distinctive tuft of hair, he possessed the charisma of a Bollywood leading man. But it was his eyes that truly defined him\u2014large, expressive, and perpetually dancing with a mischievous glint, as if he were sharing a private joke with the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He was a man of two worlds. On the international stage, he was the consummate professional, conducting himself with a polished grace that earned the respect of global peers. Yet, the moment he stepped back into the clinic, that sophistication transformed into a deep, grounded empathy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Dr. Pendsey, diabetology was not just about managing numbers; it was a crusade for the quality of life. He fought a tireless battle against the cruelest complications of the disease. He devoted his skill and heart to saving a patient\u2019s limb from amputation, protecting a child’s sight from blindness, and guarding fragile kidneys against failure. To his patients, he wasn’t just a “super-specialist”\u2014he was the hero who stood between them and a lifetime of disability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When he passed away from stomach cancer in 2023, the loss felt premature. He was a pioneer who still had much to give, and he left us all a bit too early.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n My own contribution to the paper was modest: I searched and manged to get the patient’s x-ray from the Radiology department, located references, corrected commas, and nodded wisely. In academia, this level of participation is sometimes enough to earn authorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the reprints arrived\u2014ten crisp pairs wrapped in brown paper\u2014they felt absurdly grand, like contraband or a government secret. I slit the packet open with unnecessary ceremony. Inside lay our names in print, black and permanent. I must confess my heart beat faster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I examined each copy the way a child inspects a new cricket bat, or, more accurately these days, the way people in India open Amazon parcels\u2014with suspicion first, then delight, and finally the quiet calculation of whom to show it to. I smoothed the pages, admired the typesetting, and briefly entertained the dangerous illusion that I had produced something of consequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For a few minutes, I was not a junior doctor with ink-stained fingers. I was, unmistakably, an author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then the ward bell rang, and reality resumed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My name sat at the end of a list of six authors. Not exactly the stuff of legends. But holding those reprints in my hands, I felt something shift. The ward work we did every day could live beyond the bedside. It could travel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And it could stay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n For the next decade, my \u201cresearch output\u201d looked different from what people usually mean by research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I wrote more for the MFC Bulletin (Medico Friend Circle) <\/strong>and the local press than for indexed journals. The topics were not glamorous\u2014rational use of drugs, the political economy of health, and the everyday unfairness of rural medical care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These pieces were not peer-reviewed in the strict sense, but they taught me something important: how to look at medicine with my eyes open. They trained me to ask why<\/em> things happen, not just what<\/em> happens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In those years, I did not have sophisticated tools. But I was learning to think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n The real change came in the mid-1990s, when I was exposed to McMaster University and later did my MPH at UC Berkeley.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Until then, like many doctors of my generation, I practised a lot of what can politely be called eminence-based medicine\u2014you trust your teachers, you trust the textbook, and you hope your experience fills the gaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n McMaster and Berkeley introduced me to evidence-based medicine and clinical epidemiology. It was exciting\u2014and slightly unsettling. Suddenly, \u201ccommon sense\u201d was not enough. A hunch needed proof. A treatment needed outcomes, not reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I returned to Sevagram with a different kind of confidence. Not the loud kind. The quiet kind that comes from knowing how to ask a question properly\u2014and how to test the answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n Back home, I realised one thing quickly: research in Sevagram could not be a solo hobby. It had to become a habit. A culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I began guiding a large number of residents for their MD theses. In many medical colleges, a thesis becomes a heavy file that nobody reads again. I wanted ours to become something else\u2014a piece of work that could stand outside the examination hall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We chose questions that grew out of daily practice: We did diagnostic accuracy studies, risk factor work, and prognostic studies. But just as important as the methods was the ethics of authorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My friend and collaborator Madhukar Pai <\/strong>gave me a rule that stayed with me: the student does the work, the student gets the credit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the resident became the first author. I stayed in the background as corresponding author. Watching young doctors see their names in print\u2014often for the first time\u2014gave me a satisfaction that no \u201cimpact factor\u201d can match.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n In the early 2000s, the horizon widened again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MGIMS became part of major international collaborations led by Dr Salim Yusuf <\/strong>and the Population Health Research Institute, through colleagues like Dr Prem Pais and Dr Denis Xavier at St John\u2019s, Bangalore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was a leap of faith. Could a rural hospital in Vidarbha match the discipline and documentation required for multicentric global trials?<\/p>\n\n\n\n We proved we could.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We contributed to studies like INTERHEART, INTERSTROKE, and POISE. What pleased me most was not the prestige. It was the thought that data from our patients\u2014farmers, labourers, housewives\u2014was helping shape global understanding of disease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wardha was quietly entering the textbooks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n No research journey is a one-man show. Mine certainly wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two collaborators shaped my work deeply: Rajnish Joshi and Madhukar Pai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rajnish was my student from the 1992 batch. Over time, the teacher-student line faded. He went on to Berkeley for his MPH and later a PhD, and eventually we worked as colleagues. Watching his growth\u2014from Sevagram to global health\u2014felt personal, like seeing your own story rewritten in a sharper script.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With Madhu, I entered the world of tuberculosis research and \u201cclinical operations research\u201d\u2014not only asking does it work?<\/em> but also can it reach the patient who needs it?<\/em> Some of that work contributed to questioning\u2014and eventually stopping\u2014the use of inaccurate TB serology tests. That felt like research doing its real job: protecting people from bad medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n Today, if I look at my PubMed list, it looks like a tidy record\u2014titles, journals, years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But I don\u2019t see it that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I see residents collecting data late at night, fighting sleep and ward chaos. I see patients in Kasturba Hospital allowing us to learn from their illness, without ever asking what they would get in return. I see long email threads with co-authors debating one line in a table as if it were a life-and-death decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My research journey began with a case report of a boy with a collarbone defect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It grew into something larger\u2014a way of thinking, a way of teaching, and a way of staying honest in medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And it taught me one lasting lesson: if you listen carefully at the bedside, the paper almost writes itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Before journals, the bulletin (late 1980s\u2013early 1990s)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n
The pivot: McMaster, Berkeley, and a new lens<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n
A simple rule: give students the credit<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n
Does this clinical sign really predict pneumonia?
How accurate is this rapid test for malaria?
What puts rural Indians at risk for heart attacks?<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhen Sevagram entered big trials<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n
The people behind the papers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n
What I see when I look back<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n