MBBS-BAMS Integration

In a decision that has left many in India’s medical and academic communities deeply unsettled, the Government of India has proposed integrating MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery), the standard degree for physicians trained in modern medicine, with BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery), which is rooted in ancient Indian medical traditions. The idea is sold as a push toward ‘holistic’ medicine. But beneath the language of integration lies a troubling reality: the proposal risks undermining scientific rigour, medical safety, and even the very ethos of medical education in India.

The notion that a student can–or should–master both these paradigms simultaneously is, to put it mildly, ambitious. More accurately, it’s pedagogically incoherent. The already overwhelming MBBS course is one of the most rigorous academic programmes in the country. To saddle students with an entirely separate and philosophically divergent body of knowledge is not only academically unsound, it is reckless. The likely result: a generation of medical graduates proficient in neither system, ill-equipped to diagnose or treat with confidence or clarity.

The integration plan does not exist in an ideological vacuum. Over the past decade, India’s ruling party has actively promoted a brand of cultural nationalism aimed at reviving and elevating ‘Hindu civilizational heritage.’ Initiatives to reintroduce Sanskrit in schools, rewrite history textbooks, and embed ‘Indian Knowledge Systems’ into university curricula are part of a broader cultural project.

The MBBS-BAMS merger must be read within this context. Ayurveda, which is deeply intertwined with Hindu philosophy, is being positioned as more than just a medical alternative–it is becoming a proxy for identity politics. The state’s elevation of Ayurveda appears less concerned with improving healthcare access and more with projecting a majoritarian narrative. In doing so, it risks marginalising non-Hindu communities and medical practitioners, for whom Ayurveda may not be culturally or spiritually relevant.

Such politicisation of healthcare is not merely symbolic–it carries consequences. Public health policy ought to be guided by outcomes, not ideology. When a government begins to define scientific validity through cultural allegiance, it places symbolic assertion above substance. And in the realm of healthcare, symbolism can be fatal.

The dangers of this policy are not just academic. In clinical practice, ambiguity can be deadly. Imagine a doctor trained in both modern pharmacology and herbal treatments being asked to treat a diabetic patient with fluctuating blood sugar and renal complications. Should they prescribe metformin or a traditional kadha? The risk of confusion, contraindications, and compromised care is not just real–it is inevitable.

India is already struggling to contain a growing epidemic of noncommunicable diseases, from heart disease to cancer. Add to this the global crisis of antibiotic resistance and the chronic shortfall in rural healthcare infrastructure, and the need for clarity, not fusion, becomes painfully evident. Instead of reinforcing one robust system, the government seems intent on diluting both. Furthermore, the legal and ethical frameworks for evaluating malpractice in an integrated model are undefined.

The Indian Medical Association (IMA), the country’s largest body of doctors, has also warned that the proposed reforms will degrade the quality of medical education and erode public trust in the profession. Without a clear consensus among stakeholders or any substantive expert consultation, the reform appears not just ill-advised but dangerously autocratic.

Worse still, it creates a false dichotomy: that modern science is somehow foreign, while Ayurveda is “truly Indian.” This is a dangerous binary. Rationalism has no nationality. And medical credibility should not be contingent on cultural resonance.

[Contributed by Kurian Mathew]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 58, No. 1, June 29 - Jul 5, 2025