Context

A recent online debate between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master regarding whether traditional medicine practitioners can identify as doctors has reignited a long-standing and complex discussion. This issue concerns not only the titles used by practitioners of Ayurveda, Unani, and other traditional systems, but also involves critical questions of public health policy, legal clarity, and cultural identity in India.

Historical Context: Committees and Governmental Shifts

• The debate on traditional versus modern medicine in India dates back nearly eight decades.
• The Bhore Committee (1946) strongly advocated for modern, evidence-based medical practices, reflecting global shifts away from traditional systems.
• Traditional practitioners, however, framed this push as a threat to India’s cultural heritage, calling for the preservation of ancient systems like Ayurveda.
• Responding to this resistance, the government formed the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which in 1948 endorsed traditional medicine as part of a Hindu nationalist narrative.
• Although Prime Minister Nehru initially withheld official recognition, policy direction changed in the 1970s under Indira Gandhi.
• This led to the enactment of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, which granted formal recognition and regulatory status to Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani systems.
• The framework was updated through the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020.

Conceptual Incompatibility and Integrative Medicine Challenges

• One of the core difficulties lies in the fundamental philosophical divergence between traditional and modern medicine.
• Ayurvedic education combines ancient theories—such as doshas, prakriti, and metaphysical notions like the soul—with selected aspects of modern medical science, including anatomy and cell physiology.
• This blending presents a scientific conflict: traditional systems view illness as an imbalance of internal energies, while modern biomedicine attributes disease to identifiable causes like germs, genes, and pathophysiology.
• As a result, efforts to promote integrative medicine—a synthesis of both traditions—face serious conceptual and clinical challenges.

Legal Authority and the Right to Prescribe Medicines

Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945

• This rule allows State governments to authorize certain non-MBBS practitioners to prescribe modern (allopathic) medicines.
• Several states have used this provision to extend prescribing powers to AYUSH practitioners, causing friction with allopathic doctors and resulting in legal disputes.

Key Judicial Ruling: Mukhtiar Chand vs State of Punjab (1998)

• The Supreme Court ruled that the authority to prescribe drugs from a particular medical system is inseparable from the right to practice that system.
• This decision effectively barred traditional medicine practitioners from prescribing modern drugs.
• Despite this ruling, state governments have continued issuing permissions under Rule 2(ee), leading to repeated legal challenges by bodies such as the Indian Medical Association (IMA).
• Patients have also filed lawsuits alleging they were misled about practitioners'' qualifications, particularly when modern drugs or interventions were used.

Procedural Rights and Emerging Controversies

• The debate also encompasses procedural rights, such as performing surgeries.
• A 2020 government notification allowed post-graduate Ayurvedic practitioners to carry out 58 types of surgical procedures, including operations like gallbladder and appendix removals.
• This move has drawn legal scrutiny, especially concerning the use of modern surgical tools, anaesthesia, and antibiotics.
• Additionally, to reduce operational costs, some hospitals reportedly employ AYUSH graduates in roles typically reserved for MBBS-qualified doctors, raising concerns about the standard of care.

Conclusion

The issue at hand is not simply about whether AYUSH practitioners can be called “doctors.” It cuts deeper—into questions of medical ethics, legal clarity, healthcare quality, and patient safety.

The inconsistency in legal interpretation, combined with political endorsements and blurred professional roles, poses a risk to evidence-based healthcare and may undermine public trust in medical services.

As debates unfold across courts and public platforms, the central concern must remain the protection, informed consent, and well-being of Indian citizens. These issues demand sustained attention, policy coherence, and public accountability beyond momentary controversies.