Issue-32 Vol.1II, Jul.-Sep.2025 pp.65-78 Paper ID-E/D32/353 The Need for Greater Representation of AYUSH In the National Health Policy

Issue-32 Vol.1II, Jul.-Sep.2025 pp.65-78 Paper ID-E/D32/353

The Need for Greater Representation of AYUSH In the National Health Policy

Dr. R. Achal¹, Dr.K. Anamika¹

₁Gen.Sec. Swadeshi Vigyan Sansthanam Deoria.

₂Assit. Prof. SPM Women College, University of Delhi

Abstract

India has a rich tradition of indigenous medical systems—Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy—collectively known as AYUSH. Yet, despite their historical and contemporary significance, these systems continue to receive minimal representation in national health policy. The present paper examines the imbalance between India’s modern health framework and its indigenous medical heritage, tracing the historical evolution, economic influences, and policy neglect that have marginalized AYUSH.

Drawing upon ancient precedents such as Acharya Nagarjuna’s Ayurvedic innovations during the Magadha famine, the paper highlights how traditional science once played a central role in public welfare and crisis management. In contrast, contemporary health policy, shaped largely by bureaucrats and global pharmaceutical corporations, prioritizes profit over people. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this imbalance when Ayurveda was sidelined, and foreign protocols were imposed on India’s diverse population.

Post-independence, successive National Health Policies (1952, 1983, 2002, 2017) progressively replaced community participation with privatization, concentrating healthcare benefits among urban elites. Meanwhile, rural and marginalized populations—who still depend largely on indigenous medicine—remain underserved. Despite AYUSH becoming an independent ministry in 2014, its budget allocation in 2025–26 stands at only ₹3,900 crore (≈3.8%) out of a total national health budget exceeding ₹1 lakh crore, indicating chronic underfunding.

The paper argues that corporate-driven policies have weakened traditional health systems, depleted medicinal resources, and neglected preventive care. It also links antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and rising lifestyle diseases to overdependence on allopathic drugs, suggesting that Ayurveda offers safer and sustainable alternatives through herbal, mineral, and nano-based therapies.

To achieve true health sovereignty, India must reintegrate AYUSH into mainstream policy, expand research collaborations, ensure adequate funding, and restore public trust in indigenous systems. A balanced health strategy—rooted in India’s ecological diversity and cultural wisdom—is essential for building an equitable and resilient healthcare model for the 21st century.

Keywords: AYUSH, Ayurveda, National Health Policy, Indigenous Medicine, Health Budget, Public Health, Antimicrobial Resistance, Traditional Systems of Medicine

सारांश

भारत में चिकित्सा की समृद्ध स्वदेशी परंपरा—आयुर्वेद, योग, यूनानी, सिद्ध, सोवा-रिग्पा और होम्योपैथी—सामूहिक रूप से आयुष (AYUSH) के नाम से जानी जाती है। किंतु ऐतिहासिक और व्यावहारिक महत्व के बावजूद इन चिकित्सा प्रणालियों को राष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य नीति में आज भी बहुत कम स्थान प्राप्त है। प्रस्तुत शोधपत्र आधुनिक स्वास्थ्य नीति और भारत की स्वदेशी चिकित्सा विरासत के मध्य असंतुलन का विश्लेषण करता है, तथा यह दर्शाता है कि आर्थिक प्रभाव, प्रशासनिक दृष्टिकोण और औद्योगिक हितों ने आयुष को कैसे हाशिए पर पहुँचा दिया है।

प्राचीन उदाहरणों जैसे आचार्य नागार्जुन द्वारा मगध में अकाल के समय आयुर्वेदिक रसायन-विद्या से किए गए नवाचारों के माध्यम से यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि कभी परंपरागत चिकित्सा प्रणाली लोककल्याण की मुख्य धारा में थी। इसके विपरीत आज की स्वास्थ्य नीतियाँ मुख्यतः नौकरशाहों और वैश्विक औषधि कंपनियों द्वारा संचालित हैं, जो जनहित के बजाय लाभ-केन्द्रित दृष्टिकोण अपनाती हैं। कोविड-19 महामारी के दौरान आयुर्वेद को उपचार प्रणाली से बाहर रखा जाना इस असंतुलन का प्रत्यक्ष उदाहरण है।

स्वतंत्रता के बाद बनी स्वास्थ्य नीतियाँ (1952, 1983, 2002, 2017) धीरे-धीरे सामुदायिक सहभागिता को समाप्त कर निजीकरण की ओर बढ़ीं। परिणामस्वरूप, शहरी अमीर वर्ग को स्वास्थ्य सुविधाओं का अधिक लाभ मिला, जबकि ग्रामीण और वंचित समाज आज भी परंपरागत चिकित्सा पर निर्भर है। यद्यपि 2014 में आयुष को स्वतंत्र मंत्रालय का दर्जा मिला, परंतु 2025–26 के बजट में कुल ₹1,02,211 करोड़ के स्वास्थ्य व्यय में से आयुष का हिस्सा केवल ₹3,900 करोड़ (लगभग 3.8%) है—जो इसकी लगातार उपेक्षा को दर्शाता है।

यह अध्ययन स्पष्ट करता है कि कॉरपोरेट-प्रेरित नीतियों ने पारंपरिक स्वास्थ्य प्रणाली को कमजोर किया, औषधीय संसाधनों का क्षय किया, और निवारक चिकित्सा (preventive care) की अवधारणा को पीछे धकेला। साथ ही, एंटीमाइक्रोबियल रेजिस्टेंस (AMR) और जीवनशैली-जनित रोगों की बढ़ती समस्या यह संकेत देती है कि आयुर्वेद जैसी प्रणालियाँ हर्बल, खनिज तथा नैनो आधारित औषधियों के माध्यम से स्थायी और सुरक्षित विकल्प प्रदान कर सकती हैं।

भारत को यदि स्वास्थ्य-स्वराज्य (Health Sovereignty) प्राप्त करना है, तो आयुष को मुख्यधारा की नीति में पुनः समाहित करना होगा, शोध-संस्थाओं के साथ सहयोग बढ़ाना होगा, और बजटीय आवंटन व जन-विश्वास दोनों को सुदृढ़ करना होगा। भारत की भौगोलिक विविधता और सांस्कृतिक ज्ञान पर आधारित संतुलित स्वास्थ्य नीति ही 21वीं सदी के लिए न्यायसंगत एवं सशक्त स्वास्थ्य मॉडल का निर्माण कर सकती है।

मुख्य शब्द: आयुष, आयुर्वेद, राष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य नीति, स्वदेशी चिकित्सा प्रणाली, स्वास्थ्य बजट, सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य, प्रतिजैविक प्रतिरोध (AMR), पारंपरिक चिकित्सा

INTRODUCTION

An incident from ancient India highlights the importance of Ayurvedic Rasa Shastra (alchemy and medicinal mineral science). Once, the Magadha Empire was struck by a severe famine. Due to the failure of rains, crops, herbs, and plants withered. Starvation set in, and the people, weakened by malnutrition, began suffering from various diseases.

In this crisis, the ruling king convened a council of scholars at Nalanda University. Many scholars presented their views. Finally, Acharya Nagarjuna suggested that mercury could be extracted from cinnabar (Hingula) and realgar (Singarfa), and gold could be prepared from mercury. Through the trade of gold, the royal treasury would prosper, enabling the king to provide relief to the starving masses. Furthermore, gold ash (Swarna Bhasma) could be used to cure diseases, thereby rescuing the empire from famine and sickness.

The king accepted Acharya Nagarjuna’s proposal. With his experiments, Magadha was liberated from poverty and disease, and once again became a prosperous and healthy empire. Pleased with his success, the king appointed Acharya Nagarjuna as the Chancellor of Nalanda University. From then onwards, Nagarjuna’s fame spread across Asia.

But times have changed. Today we live in a democracy, where everyone knows how scholars and vice-chancellors are appointed in universities. Perhaps that is why governments, instead of trusting their own scholars, often spend crores of rupees to hire foreign agencies for solutions.

In this context, when we examine today’s health policy, we find that it is largely imported in nature. Its benefits reach not the common people, but multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

It is a strange irony that health policies are drafted not by medical scientists, but by bureaucrats aligned with global pharma corporations. This was clearly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Ayurveda (AYUSH) was sidelined from medical practice. The then Health Minister openly declared that Ayurveda had no role in pandemic control. Shockingly, this insulting statement was silently accepted by the practitioners of Ayurveda. Instead of doctors, professors, and scientists, politicians and bureaucrats were pushed forward to issue statements on the pandemic. By imposing a one-size-fits-all policy, modeled after Western nations, upon a diverse country like India, they ended up causing greater damage.

NATIONAL DIVERSITY AND HEALTH

India is home to groups with diverse geography, social and economic conditions, food habits, and lifestyles. Naturally, their immunity levels also differ. Hence, no single medicine can be universally effective for all. The ancient Ayurvedic scholars understood this well. They designed different diagnoses and treatments suited to each region, knowing that nature, culture, and health are deeply interconnected.

That is why Ayurveda emphasizes varied preventive measures and therapeutic approaches. For example:

Ayurveda flourished in North India,
Siddha medicine in South India,
Sowa-Rigpa in the Himalayan regions,
and traditional tribal healers (Guniyas) in forested areas who relied on local resources for healthcare.

The Role of Corporates in Health Policy

In present-day India, alongside traditional-natural resource-based lifestyles, a new urban middle-class community has emerged in the era of economic development. This has turned India into a vast market for global corporates. The country’s health policy is largely shaped in accordance with these corporate interests, with the majority of the health budget focused on them.

As a result, every year marginalized sections of society continue to die from epidemics like encephalitis, diarrhea, anemia, malaria, and flu. After a few days of public uproar, the issue fades away. Now, due to corporate-driven products, diseases like high blood pressure, heart attack, diabetes, fatty liver, and brain hemorrhage are also turning into epidemics. The situation is becoming such that—first create disease, then create fear of disease, and finally sell vaccines and medicines.

There is little consideration given to permanent solutions. Indigenous systems of medicine are severely neglected, despite the fact that even today around 70% of the population depends on them.

At a seminar on encephalitis, a doctor friend explained that during the epidemic, his responsibility was to conduct surveys and compile data. After analyzing the statistics, he realized that the disease particularly affected families and regions struggling with poverty and malnutrition.

The root cause of malnutrition, however, is not merely poverty, but the corporate capture of natural resources and traditional lifestyles. First, they destroy indigenous-natural resources, then brand traditional lifestyles as “backward,” corrupting them. Finally, they establish their own markets. To access these markets, one needs purchasing power. Those who lack this purchasing power are condemned to die.

History and Present of India’s National Health Policy

After independence, health was defined as a social responsibility and a form of social welfare. For this purpose, the Bhore Committee presented its recommendations in 1952:

Health services should not be limited to curative treatment but must also focus on prevention and health promotion.

Health services should be available to all, regardless of ability to pay.

Services should be available at the nearest possible location.

Community participation should be increased.

Special attention should be given to disadvantaged groups such as women, children, and the socially and economically deprived.

Health would primarily be a state subject, but for epidemics and diseases with widespread impact, it would be a national responsibility. Under this framework, programs for malaria eradication, blindness prevention, leprosy, tuberculosis, diarrhea, mental illnesses, and immunization were placed under central responsibility.

This was the first draft of India’s National Health Policy. It included the establishment of a three-tier hospital system and separate departments for specific campaigns. However, due to lack of resources, progress was slow. Later, in 1983, the National Health Policy was formally drafted by Parliament, followed by revised policies in 2002 and 2017.

In the name of improving quality and aligning with global standards, community participation that existed in the early policies was gradually replaced with private sector involvement. The result today is widespread exploitation and profiteering.

The early policies succeeded in controlling several epidemics like malaria, blindness, polio, and diarrhea. Yet, to this day, basic health facilities have not reached 68% of India’s rural population. By contrast, the wealthy enjoy multiple options—from public hospitals like AIIMS, PGI, and medical colleges to private five-star hospitals like Vedanta, Fortis, and Escorts.

Transplanting all imported resources and technologies into a geographically, socially, and economically diverse country like India is not impossible, but it is highly difficult and capital-intensive. As this policy framework began failing, the government in 2002 opened the door to private sector participation, effectively allowing free exploitation in the name of healthcare. By 2018, the government had started withdrawing itself even further, moving towards a policy of stepping aside.

The outcome is clear: the healthcare of a nation of 1.4 billion people has effectively become limited to a small wealthy section of society. The vast majority will continue to die from diseases like encephalitis, acute encephalitis syndrome, anemia, jaundice, and more. The reason is simple: the private sector’s main goal is profit. It only works for those within its profit margins. The rest of the population is left at the mercy of fate—especially since their traditional natural resources have already been taken away.

Independence of AYUSH

In 2014, the Government of India took an important decision. Traditional systems of medicine practiced in India—Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Homeopathy, Siddha, and Sowa-Rigpa—were brought together under one umbrella, forming the AYUSH System of Medicine.

However, the process of separating indigenous systems of medicine from mainstream health sciences had begun much earlier, in 1995, during the Narasimha Rao (Congress) government. In that year, the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine & Homoeopathy (ISM&H) was created. Later, in 2003, the Vajpayee (BJP) government renamed it as the Department of AYUSH. Yet, this department continued to function under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW). Finally, in 2014, the Modi (BJP) government upgraded it to the status of an independent ministry.

For thinkers concerned with the nation’s health, this was an encouraging step. But within just five years, the initial enthusiasm faded. While AYUSH received extensive publicity, in reality neither its share in the budget significantly increased nor was it given due national participation. The reason lies in the fact that these traditional systems do not fit neatly into the government’s definition of “medical science.” They continue to be viewed as complementary or secondary forms of medicine.

Thousands of years of experiential knowledge, especially of medicinal herbs, are often subjected to modern validation processes, only to be handed over to allopathy. Ironically, despite the fact that nearly 60% of India’s population depends on these systems, they are still asked to prove themselves through “modern scientific data.” Meanwhile, very little effort is made to strengthen AYUSH educational institutions. To add to the problem, the entry of private players into AYUSH education and training has further weakened the system, producing practitioners with little hands-on knowledge who are forced to act as second-rate allopathic doctors.

Even Ayurveda—the most organized and resource-rich discipline within AYUSH—is legally restricted from practicing surgery, administering mineral medicines (Rasashastra), or conducting deliveries. At the same time, Yoga is promoted as though it alone holds the key to all health problems, while in reality, India’s poor, rural, and laboring classes need nutrition and wholesome food far more urgently than yoga exercises.

This shortsighted, imported health policy is gradually making India a sick nation. Pollution, depletion of natural resources, overconsumption among the wealthy, and malnutrition among the poor have together created a dual crisis:

In affluent groups, diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular disorders are becoming epidemics.
In poorer populations, ailments such as skin infections, respiratory disorders, anemia, bone weakness, cancer, tuberculosis, kidney and liver diseases are reaching epidemic proportions.

Meanwhile, modern allopathic drugs are becoming less effective, and artificial lifestyles are steadily weakening immunity.

In such a situation, only an indigenous health policy can save the nation. For this, existing laws must be reviewed, faith must be restored in indigenous systems of medicine, and budgetary allocations must be increased. What could be more shortsighted than the fact that AYUSH does not even receive one-tenth of the total health budget?

AYUSH in the National Health Budget

According to the official budget documents of the Government of India (https://www.indiabudget.gov.in), in FY 2024–25, the total health budget (MoHFW + AYUSH + other health programs) was approximately ₹85,244 crore. Out of this:

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW): ₹81,594 crore
Ministry of AYUSH: ₹3,650 crore

Thus, AYUSH’s share in the total health budget stood at around 3.3%.

For 2025–26 (BE):

Health (MoHFW): ₹98,311 crore
AYUSH: ₹3,900 crore
Total (Health + AYUSH): ₹1,02,211 crore

Despite a 20% increase in the overall health budget from 2024–25 to 2025–26, AYUSH’s share remains at only about 3.7–3.8%.

Looking back:

In 1995, when ISM&H was created, its budget was barely ₹50–60 crore.
For years, AYUSH’s share in the total health budget remained between 1.5–2%.
After 2000, it gradually rose to around 3%.
Between 2019–20 and 2025–26 (BE), the total health budget increased from ₹62,459 crore (2019–20) to ₹98,311 crore (2025–26).
During the same period, the AYUSH budget rose from ₹1,500 crore to ₹3,900 crore.

AYUSH’s share grew from 2.34% to a peak of about 4.37% (2023–24), but has since declined again to 3.81% in 2025–26.

The following table (not included here) presents these figures clearly.

In view of the impact of Ayurveda and the AYUSH systems following the COVID-19 pandemic, the government did increase the budget, but it remains far from adequate. At a time when the government publicly demonstrates its support and enthusiasm for AYUSH, it is reasonable to expect that its share in the health budget should be at least 10%.

In fact, the formula of allocating 1.5 to 2 percent of the total health budget is outdated and irrelevant today. Ironically, even after the establishment of the AYUSH Ministry, its budget share remained at just 2 percent from 2014 to 2020, despite the additional administrative responsibilities of a full-fledged ministry.

The most serious issue is that during any epidemic or disaster, practitioners of these medical systems are rarely utilized. This not only casts doubt on the capabilities of AYUSH but also exposes the neglect in policy-making. The time has come to grant AYUSH its appropriate responsibility within the national health system and a proportionate share of the budget, so that it can contribute meaningfully to mainstream healthcare rather than remain a decorative ministry.

Healthcare Infrastructure and Rural Dependence

Government general hospitals, clinics, specialized hospitals and clinics, private hospitals and clinics, and high-end commercial hospitals are all predominantly located in urban areas. In rural regions, healthcare still largely depends on traditional and untrained allopathic practitioners.

Generally, the AYUSH medical systems are viewed as alternative medicine, because both the public and policymakers consider allopathy the mainstream medical system. However, many diseases cannot be effectively treated through allopathy alone; these are often most effectively addressed through AYUSH systems. Therefore, specialized skills and training in these systems are essential.

Currently, lifestyle-related and pollution-induced diseases are spreading globally like epidemics, and Ayurveda, Yoga, and other AYUSH therapies have proven to be highly beneficial. As a result, Ayurveda is establishing a significant position in the healthcare market.

The Effective Significance of AYUSH

Ayurveda includes fast-acting medicines that require proper use and practice. Common ailments such as fever, vomiting, and diarrhea can be treated promptly with Ayurvedic therapies. Therefore, Ayurveda’s role should be strengthened even in emergency situations, with a focus on training and practical application.

Lifestyle-related diseases—such as diabetes, hypertension, age-related

conditions, stress, back pain, liver, spleen, kidney and urinary disorders, respiratory problems, reproductive issues, neuromuscular pain, insomnia, and gynecological and obstetric conditions—have shown notable responsiveness to Ayurveda and other AYUSH therapies.

Modern experience confirms a striking reality: a visitor suffering from viral fever may take 5–7 days and incur high costs under allopathic treatment, whereas Ayurvedic Rasa medicines can achieve recovery in 2–3 days at a fraction of the cost (₹300–₹500). Therefore, certification and wider adoption of Ayurvedic Rasa medicines should be promoted.

Unfortunately, the sources of Ayurvedic medicines are being depleted. In the blind race for development, forests and hills are being cleared, eradicating medicinal herbs entirely. While gold and mercury imports are restricted, importing Ayurvedic medicines is legally cumbersome, practically amounting to prohibition. Yet the government continues to promote Ayurveda rhetorically.

Global Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and Opportunities for Ayurveda

Currently, a positive factor for Ayurveda is that global research agencies report antibiotics are becoming increasingly ineffective and sometimes harmful. Nonetheless, many antibiotics banned in developed countries are being sold in India without approval, increasing the incidence of liver, kidney, bone, and neuromuscular disorders. Ayurveda is often unfairly blamed for these consequences.

Such unregulated antibiotics threaten the global fight against superbugs. Recent research in the UK warned that 64% of antibiotics sold in India are illegal. Studies published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and recent global reports confirm that India leads both in antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Multinational companies continue to sell dozens of unapproved antibiotics in India, directly endangering public health.

According to the WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) – 2024, India’s antibiotic consumption rate is approximately 13–14 Defined Daily Doses (DDD) per 1,000 people per day, compared to 8.4 DDD in the USA, 10.2 DDD in China, and 9.6 DDD in Europe. It is estimated that over 1 million people in India are affected by AMR-related infections annually.

A study from 2007–2012 found 118 types of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) antibiotics being sold in India, of which 64% were not approved by the Indian drug regulator (CDSCO). By contrast, in the USA, only four FDC antibiotics were available. Of 86 single-dose formulations (SDF) available in India, 93% were legally approved. Compared to other countries, India has the highest consumption, resistance, and sale of unregulated FDCs.

China, due to strict pharmaceutical regulations and traditional medicine, maintains some control over antibiotic use. In the USA and Europe, stringent FDA and EMA regulations ensure limited, scientifically validated antibiotic use. In Africa and Southeast Asia, drug availability is limited, but weak monitoring has increased resistance.

This crisis is escalating: The Lancet (2023) reported that in 2019, approximately 5 million deaths worldwide were associated with AMR, with 1.3 million deaths directly caused by AMR infections. In India alone, more than 290,000 deaths were recorded due to AMR-related infections. If this trend continues, by 2050, over 1 million annual deaths in India could result solely from antimicrobial resistance.

Strategic Role of Ayurveda in Global Health

Addressing this problem requires awareness campaigns for both patients and doctors to prevent misuse of medicines. Simultaneously, AYUSH and Ayurveda therapies—such as phased therapy and herbal-nano technologies—must be promoted. India can take a policy-level leadership role on AMR through forums like WHO and G20.

Ayurveda has a vast potential global market for research and development. Collaboration with other scientific disciplines—such as biochemistry, botany, chemistry, and IT—is essential. Coordination among Ayurvedic institutions and national research institutes, including the Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI), National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), and universities, is crucial. Experienced private practitioners of both allopathy and Ayurveda should also be involved.

To achieve this, governments must focus on the quality of Ayurvedic education and training institutions, ensuring that Ayurveda receives its due role and budgetary allocation in the national health policy.

References

Government of India, Ministry of Finance – Expenditure Budget, Volume II (Various Years: 2000–01 to 2013–14).
Demand for Grants, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health, Department of AYUSH).
Available: https://www.indiabudget.gov.in
Government of India, Lok Sabha Secretariat – Demands for Grants, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2005–2013).
Lok Sabha Documents (Parliament Library).
Planning Commission of India (2007, 2012) – Eleventh and Twelfth Five-Year Plan Documents.
National Health Profile (NHP) – Central Bureau of Health Intelligence (CBHI), MoHFW (2005–2013).
Government of India, Ministry of Finance – Union Budget, Expenditure Profile & Expenditure Budget Vol. II (2020–21 to 2025–26).
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and Ministry of AYUSH – Demands for Grants.
Available: https://www.indiabudget.gov.in
Lok Sabha Secretariat (Parliament of India) – Demands for Grants (Demand No. 45: Ministry of AYUSH) (2020–2025).
Documents available on the official Lok Sabha website.
Economic Survey of India (2020–21, 2021–22, 2022–23, 2023–24, 2024–25).
Summary of Health and AYUSH expenditure.
National Health Profile (CBHI, MoHFW) – 2020–2023.
Updated data on health and AYUSH expenditure, institutions, and human resources.