Telangana JUDA slammed the Centre’s push to integrate modern medicine with Ayurveda, calling it “regressive and unscientific."
Published Jun 01, 2025 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 01, 2025 | 7:00 AM
Synopsis: Union Minister Prataprao Jadhav announced plans for a new integrated MBBS-BAMS course during his visit to JIPMER, Puducherry. Still in development, the proposal has sparked strong opposition from doctors, who warn of compromised medical standards and drug interaction risks. Critics argue that Ayurveda and modern medicine must remain distinct, calling the integration concept both dangerous and unscientific
On an otherwise routine Tuesday, Union Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare and AYUSH (Independent Charge), Prataprao Jadhav, made a striking announcement during his visit to JIPMER in Puducherry: The Centre is planning a new integrated medical course combining MBBS (modern medicine) and BAMS (Ayurveda).
Speaking after inaugurating the renovated Emergency and Trauma Care Centre, Jadhav said the course is still in its conceptual stage, with work underway to develop a fresh syllabus.
The idea builds on signals from 2023, when the National Medical Commission introduced modules on AYUSH systems and the history of medicine into the MBBS foundation course and electives.
However, the proposal has triggered strong opposition from several leading voices in the medical fraternity.
“If I put it mildly—it’s crazy. Honestly, it’s a crime against humanity,” said Dr RV Asokan, former president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA). “These systems—modern medicine and Ayurveda—have their own distinct foundations. They can coexist, but cannot be fused.”
The United Doctors Front (UDF) also raised alarms. “This integrated course could compromise the rigorous standards of modern medical education,” its national president Dr Lakshya Mittal told South First. He stressed the need for broad consultations before implementing any major curriculum overhaul.
“Combining Ayurvedic and allopathic treatments also carries the risk of dangerous drug interactions,” warned Dr Mittal.
As debate around ‘mixopathy’ resurfaces, the proposed course at JIPMER may mark a contentious new chapter in India’s medical education system.
Dr. Asokan emphasized that modern medicine is grounded in rigorous, evidence-based practices. “Nothing is accepted unless it’s backed by double-blind controlled studies,” he explained. These studies ensure that neither the doctor nor the patient knows the treatment being given, eliminating bias. Medical practices undergo layers of scrutiny, millions of research papers, and a global consensus before they become standard treatment or are included in textbooks.
He highlighted how modern medicine evolves—if something is proven harmful, like thalidomide, it is swiftly corrected. Conversely, when aspirin showed benefits in preventing heart attacks, doctors began prescribing it even before trials concluded.
Dr. Asokan also stressed reproducibility—a discovery in India should be replicable globally under the same conditions. “Evidence and reproducibility are non-negotiable. They are the backbone of modern medicine,” he affirmed.
Dr. Asokan expressed concern over the government’s push to blend traditional medicine with modern medical practices, disrupting the long-standing balance between the two systems. “Traditional medicine has its place in history, but it doesn’t align with the principles of modern medicine, like microbial theory or vaccination,” he explained. Though the systems have coexisted peacefully, the government’s actions now risk undermining both.
He questioned the motivation behind promoting traditional medicine alongside modern approaches, “Is this pseudo-nationalism? Are we trying to elevate Ayurveda to be equal with modern medicine?” He warned of a dangerous attempt at appropriating scientific discoveries and presenting them as traditional knowledge, blurring the lines between fundamentally different systems.
Dr. Asokan cited the example of BAMS graduates being allowed to perform 64 modern surgical procedures, including neurosurgery, gastrointestinal surgery, and administering anesthesia—procedures that even BDS graduates are not qualified to perform. “This is a clear attempt at blending modern and traditional medicine,” he said, pointing out that the inclusion of modern medical textbooks in Ayurveda curricula is an effort to claim ownership of modern medical advancements under the umbrella of Ayurveda.
He argued that this move dilutes Ayurveda, undermines its core principles, and could compromise public health. “This is not development—it’s ideological dilution with catastrophic consequences for people’s health,” he concluded.
Dr. Asokan also criticized the ‘Ayush-ification’ of modern medicine, pointing out the legal space now being created for hybrid doctors trained in both systems, “This was never intended when the IMA shaped the NMC Act,” he said.
Dr. Asokan criticized modern medicine practitioners who prescribe Ayurvedic treatments, calling it “legally wrong.” He explained that “a modern medicine doctor is not qualified to prescribe Ayurvedic drugs or practice in any other system.” Doing so violates the law, just as it would be wrong for an Ayurvedic practitioner to prescribe modern antibiotics.
He clarified that the Indian Medical Association (IMA) stands firmly against “crosspathy”, the blending of traditional and modern medicine, and the creation of ‘hybrid doctors.’ He stressed that each medical system has its own distinct philosophy and training, and practitioners should not mix them, even if they believe in the approach.
Dr. Asokan also reminded that the government’s earlier plan was to train all MBBS graduates as mixed doctors by 2030, signaling a larger, troubling policy shift. “This is not about personal gain, but about defending public health and our profession,” he asserted.
The IMA is considering a strong response to the minister’s recent statement, emphasizing their commitment to “stand our ground” on this issue.
The Telangana Junior Doctors Association (JUDA) strongly criticised the government’s push to integrate modern medicine with Ayurveda, describing the move as “regressive and unscientific.” They pointed out that since independence, evidence-based interventions have transformed India’s healthcare, raising life expectancy from 32 years in 1947 to 70.8 years today. Achievements such as disease eradication, advancements in maternal and child healthcare, and the use of antibiotics have been key to this progress.
JUDA expressed concern over reports that JIPMER, a premier institution in Puducherry, will introduce an MBBS-BAMS integrated course. They warned that this approach could mirror the failed model of China’s attempt to blend modern medicine with Traditional Chinese Medicine, which ultimately weakened its indigenous system.
India is a global leader in medical education with over 779 medical colleges and 136,000 MBBS graduates annually. The southern states already exceed the WHO-recommended doctor-to-population ratio, proving the effectiveness of the current system. “We strongly oppose this move,” JUDA stated, emphasising that it risks undermining both modern medicine and Ayurveda without scientific or public health rationale.
JUDA also raised concerns about “mixopathy” compromising patient choice and producing “inadequately trained, hybrid practitioners.” They called for the immediate withdrawal of the proposal, urging the government to “respect the autonomy of each medical system” and preserve their purity and heritage. JUDA appealed for a transparent, science-driven approach to healthcare policy.
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has strongly criticised the Union Government’s reported move to introduce an integrative medical course combining MBBS and BAMS, likely to be piloted at JIPMER, Puducherry. In an official statement, the IMA termed the proposal an “unscientific mixing of systems” and a potential “irreversible catastrophe” for India’s healthcare system.
Highlighting India’s progress in public health since independence—when life expectancy was just 32 years—the IMA credited modern, evidence-based medicine for raising it to 70.8 years in 2025. The statement cited the eradication of smallpox and neonatal tetanus through vaccination, advances in maternal and child care, the role of antibiotics in controlling infectious diseases like tuberculosis, and breakthroughs in managing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke as key achievements of modern medicine.
The IMA also pointed to China’s failed attempt to blend modern and traditional systems, which it said led to the collapse of Chinese traditional medicine. “India is not China, nor should China be our role model in healthcare,” the IMA stated, asserting that India already has a strong public health network, 779 medical colleges, and over 136,000 new MBBS graduates annually.
“India is at the frontier of modern medicine,” the statement said, adding that the nation has the infrastructure and expertise to deliver cutting-edge medical care at a fraction of global costs, with Indian doctors playing key roles in health systems across the world.
The IMA warned that the government’s move could undermine both allopathy and Ayurveda, creating a generation of “hybrid doctors” who are “only qualified quacks.” It urged the government to abandon what it called a “misadventure” that could set healthcare back by a century.
(Edited by Ananya Rao)
