THE CRISIS IN AYURVEDA EDUCATION: Applying Prof. Arun Kumar’s Critique of India’s Higher Education System to Traditional Medicine Training

The Crisis in Ayurveda Education: Applying Prof. Arun Kumar’s Critique of India’s Higher Education System to Traditional Medicine Training

Abstract

This review article examines the systemic failures in India’s Ayurveda education system through the analytical framework provided by economist Prof. Arun Kumar’s critique of Indian higher education. Drawing upon Kumar’s insights about top-down approaches, bureaucratic control, and the suppression of critical thinking, this analysis reveals how the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) education system mirrors the broader dysfunction in India’s higher education landscape. The article argues that the centralized, regulation-heavy approach to Ayurveda education has created graduates who lack clinical competence, critical analytical skills, and the ability to integrate traditional knowledge with contemporary healthcare needs.

Introduction

Prof. Arun Kumar, the distinguished economist and former Sukhamoy Chakravarty Chair Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, has extensively critiqued India’s higher education system for its top-down approach, excessive bureaucracy, and systematic undermining of academic autonomy (1,2). His observations about the decline in knowledge generation, the suppression of critical thinking, and the transformation of educational institutions into compliance-driven bureaucracies resonate powerfully when examining India’s Ayurveda education system (3).

With over 240 Ayurvedic colleges across India offering the BAMS degree, the traditional medicine education sector represents a significant component of India’s healthcare education infrastructure (4,5). However, as research consistently demonstrates, this system produces graduates with inadequate clinical skills, poor integration of traditional and modern knowledge, and limited capacity for independent thinking—problems that mirror Kumar’s broader critique of Indian higher education (6,7).

The Top-Down Regulatory Stranglehold

Centralized Control and Institutional Autonomy Deficit

Prof. Kumar’s analysis of how excessive centralization undermines educational excellence finds its most vivid expression in Ayurveda education (8). The Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), established as the primary regulatory body, exemplifies what Kumar identifies as the “bureaucratized mindset” that “only curbs autonomy” (2).

The CCIM’s approach to curriculum design and institutional governance reflects what Kumar describes as the fundamental problem with India’s education system: “institutions of higher learning need to be led by intellectuals of high standing rather than by those with a bureaucratised mindset who only curb autonomy” (2). Instead of allowing Ayurvedic institutions to develop context-sensitive curricula that respond to regional health needs and emerging global health challenges, the CCIM enforces rigid, standardized syllabi that treat diverse institutions as identical units (9).

This centralized control has created what research identifies as a crisis of clinical competence. A comprehensive study involving 1,022 participants from 32 Ayurvedic institutions found that graduates possess inadequate exposure to basic clinical skills, with “the mushrooming of substandard Ayurvedic colleges” being “the most important factor responsible for this kind of erosion in standards” (6).

Compliance Over Excellence

Kumar’s observation about the tendency of bureaucratic systems to prioritize compliance over academic excellence is starkly evident in Ayurveda education (3). The CCIM’s regulatory framework focuses primarily on infrastructure requirements, student-teacher ratios, and administrative procedures while failing to ensure meaningful learning outcomes. This mirrors Kumar’s broader critique of Indian higher education, where “genuine autonomy will only come then and that is the need of the hour to improve quality” (3).

The result is a system where “theoretical constructs are not taking place adequately” in practical applications, and “unless the theory-oriented and textbook-oriented teaching is not transformed into clinically oriented practical training, the problem is probably not going to be solved” (6). This theoretical bias reflects what Kumar identifies as the fundamental flaw in India’s knowledge generation system: the separation of academic learning from practical problem-solving (1).

Suppression of Critical Thinking and Knowledge Innovation

The Anti-Critical Education Paradigm

Kumar’s most damning critique of Indian higher education concerns the systematic suppression of critical thinking. He emphasizes that “education has to be critical” and “if I keep saying Amartya Sen is the last word, then economics will not advance. If I keep saying Einstein is the last word, then physics will not advance” (1). This principle is particularly relevant to Ayurveda education, where ancient texts are often treated as immutable authorities rather than sources for critical examination and contemporary application.

The BAMS curriculum, as currently structured, discourages the kind of questioning that Kumar sees as essential for knowledge advancement. Students are expected to memorize classical Sanskrit texts without developing the analytical skills necessary to adapt these principles to contemporary healthcare challenges (10,11). This approach directly contradicts Kumar’s assertion that “when I got my students to research, I’d say take this paper of Samuelson or this or that and critique it. So you have to be critical about what is going on in society for it to be improved” (1).

Stagnation in Research and Innovation

The impact of this anti-critical approach is evident in the research output of Ayurvedic institutions. Studies reveal that “the current curriculum of BAMS does not include the relevant and essential topics like laws governing the intellectual property rights, patenting procedures, basic methods of standardization of medicinal products, fundamental principles of evaluating the toxicity of the medicinal products and basics of pharmacovigilance” (7).

This curriculum gap reflects Kumar’s broader observation about the failure of Indian higher education to prepare students for contemporary challenges (2). The absence of research methodology, critical analysis skills, and innovation frameworks in BAMS education produces graduates who become consumers rather than creators of knowledge—precisely the problem Kumar identifies in his critique of India’s educational approach (3).

The Faculty Crisis and Intellectual Stagnation

Quality of Academic Leadership

Kumar’s emphasis on the need for intellectual leadership in educational institutions is particularly relevant to the Ayurveda education crisis. He argues that educational institutions must be “led by intellectuals of high standing rather than by those with a bureaucratised mindset who only curb autonomy” (2). However, the CCIM’s appointment and promotion criteria for Ayurvedic faculty often prioritize administrative compliance over scholarly achievement and innovative thinking (12).

The result is a faculty structure that mirrors what Kumar describes as the broader problem in Indian academia: the replacement of intellectual leaders with administrative functionaries (2). This has created a self-perpetuating cycle where faculty members who have themselves been trained in rigid, non-critical environments are unable to foster critical thinking in their students.

The Decline of Scholarly Tradition

Traditionally, Ayurvedic education followed a guru-shishya (teacher-student) model that emphasized critical inquiry, debate, and personalized learning. This approach, which encouraged students to question, analyze, and contribute to the evolving body of knowledge, has been replaced by what Kumar would recognize as the “standardization” approach that mistakes uniformity for quality (3).

The current system’s emphasis on standardized examinations and predetermined outcomes prevents the kind of intellectual exploration that Kumar sees as essential for academic excellence. As Kumar notes, “rapid change also prevents individuals and society from anticipating what is likely to happen in the future; even in the not too distant future. This results in short termism and that is another danger facing society” (3).

Clinical Incompetence and Practical Disconnection

Theory-Practice Divide

Kumar’s critique of the disconnection between academic learning and practical application finds its most troubling expression in Ayurveda education’s clinical training failures (1). Research reveals that BAMS graduates show “poor performance” in handling “clinical emergencies of primary level healthcare” and have inadequate “clinical exposure to certain basic procedures like incision and drainage, suturing and catheterization” (6).

This clinical incompetence reflects what Kumar identifies as a fundamental flaw in Indian educational philosophy: the privileging of theoretical knowledge over practical problem-solving capacity (3). The BAMS curriculum’s heavy emphasis on Sanskrit text memorization and philosophical discourse, while neglecting hands-on clinical training, exemplifies the kind of academic disconnection that Kumar sees as endemic to Indian higher education (13).

Integration Challenges

The failure to integrate traditional Ayurvedic knowledge with contemporary medical science represents another manifestation of Kumar’s critique. Rather than developing graduates who can critically synthesize different knowledge systems, the current approach creates what the World Health Organization describes as “separate and parallel” systems at “the levels of governance, organisation, education and service delivery” (4).

This separation reflects the kind of compartmentalized thinking that Kumar argues undermines effective problem-solving (1). Contemporary research acknowledges that “training programs must prioritise equipping teachers with the ability to impart a critical understanding of Ayurveda’s philosophy without undermining modern scientific concepts” (10).

Economic and Social Implications

Employment and Relevance Crisis

Kumar’s analysis of economic inequality and employment generation provides important context for understanding the limited career prospects of BAMS graduates (14). Studies indicate that “there are no opportunities for BAMS graduates” in many countries where “practicing Ayurveda is not legally allowed” (7). Even within India, graduates face significant challenges in finding meaningful employment that utilizes their training effectively.

This employment crisis reflects Kumar’s broader argument about the failure of India’s education system to prepare graduates for economic reality. Kumar emphasizes that “new technologies being introduced are leading to mechanisation in agriculture and automation in industry and services. Labour is being displaced on a massive scale, resulting in fewer jobs” (14). The BAMS education system’s failure to adapt to these changing employment patterns exemplifies the kind of short-sighted planning that Kumar criticizes.

Social Relevance and Public Health Impact

The disconnect between Ayurveda education and public health needs reflects Kumar’s critique of elite-oriented education that fails to serve broader social interests. Kumar argues that “Indian elite in control of power since Independence has mostly been self-serving” and has pursued “modernization” that benefits only a narrow segment of society (14).

Similarly, the current BAMS education system produces graduates who are poorly equipped to address the healthcare needs of India’s rural and marginalized populations, where traditional medicine could play a vital role in improving health outcomes and reducing healthcare costs (15).

Structural Reforms: Learning from Kumar’s Framework

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom

Following Kumar’s emphasis on institutional autonomy, Ayurveda education reform must begin with fundamental changes in governance structure. Research on higher education governance identifies “excessive centralization, lack of autonomy, and bureaucratic inefficiencies” as primary obstacles to educational excellence (16).

Ayurvedic institutions should be granted significant autonomy in curriculum design, faculty selection, and research prioritization. This would enable them to develop specialized programs that respond to regional health needs and emerging global health challenges, rather than implementing rigid, nationally standardized curricula (17).

Critical Pedagogy and Research Integration

Kumar’s emphasis on critical thinking as the foundation of quality education provides a roadmap for reforming Ayurvedic pedagogy. As Kumar argues, “we teach the children to critique we teach the children to say this is what is lacking in the knowledge. This is what is lacking in the policy and this is how it can be reformed” (1).

BAMS curricula should be restructured to emphasize critical analysis of classical texts, comparative evaluation of different treatment approaches, and evidence-based assessment of therapeutic outcomes (10). Students should be encouraged to question traditional assumptions, test hypotheses through rigorous research, and contribute to the evolving understanding of Ayurvedic principles.

Faculty Development and Intellectual Leadership

Following Kumar’s call for intellectual leadership in educational institutions, Ayurveda education requires a fundamental transformation in faculty recruitment and development. Priority should be given to appointing faculty members who combine deep knowledge of traditional texts with contemporary research skills and critical analytical abilities (2).

Kumar emphasizes that teachers “will have to play a leading role in guiding the direction of change in society,” which requires them to be equipped with both traditional knowledge and contemporary analytical tools (2).

Integration and Interdisciplinary Approach

Kumar’s critique of compartmentalized thinking suggests that Ayurveda education should move toward genuine integration with other health sciences (1). Rather than maintaining artificial boundaries between traditional and modern medicine, BAMS programs should develop graduates who can critically evaluate and synthesize different knowledge systems.

Research supports this approach, arguing for “bridging epistemological differences by integrating modern scientific methodologies with Ayurvedic concepts” and “comprehensive curriculum revisions considering contemporary healthcare needs” (10).

Technology and Innovation in Traditional Medicine Education

Digital Transformation and Knowledge Access

Kumar’s recognition of rapid technological change and its implications for education is particularly relevant to Ayurveda education reform. He argues that “the world is entering uncharted territory as technology is rapidly changing” and that educational institutions must prepare students to “learn how to learn” (2).

Ayurvedic institutions should leverage digital technologies to create comprehensive databases of traditional knowledge, develop virtual clinical training platforms, and facilitate global collaboration among researchers and practitioners (18). This technological integration could help address some of the practical training deficits that currently plague BAMS programs.

Research Infrastructure and Innovation Ecosystem

Following Kumar’s emphasis on knowledge generation and innovation, Ayurveda education requires significant investment in research infrastructure and innovation support systems. Current curricula lack “basics of research methodology” and fail to prepare graduates for “quality education and research” (7).

Institutions should establish dedicated research centers, provide funding for student and faculty research projects, and create partnerships with international research institutions to advance the scientific understanding of Ayurvedic principles and practices (19).

Policy Recommendations and Systemic Change

Regulatory Reform and Institutional Autonomy

The CCIM’s regulatory framework should be fundamentally restructured to emphasize outcome-based assessment rather than process compliance. Institutions that demonstrate excellence in graduate competency, research output, and community health impact should be granted greater autonomy in curriculum design and academic management (20).

This approach aligns with Kumar’s argument for reducing bureaucratic control and empowering educational institutions to respond dynamically to changing needs and opportunities (3).

Funding and Resource Allocation

Kumar’s analysis of economic inequality and resource distribution suggests that Ayurveda education funding should prioritize institutions and programs that serve marginalized communities and address pressing public health challenges (14). Research indicates that “more funding must be accompanied by fundamental governance reforms – enhanced autonomy, accountability, and transparency mechanisms” (21).

Public investment in Ayurveda education should focus on building research capacity, improving clinical training facilities, and supporting faculty development programs that enhance both traditional knowledge and contemporary analytical skills.

International Integration and Global Standards

Following Kumar’s emphasis on preparing students for global challenges, Ayurveda education should be restructured to meet international standards while maintaining its traditional foundations (2). This includes developing research methodologies that can generate evidence acceptable to global health communities and creating graduates who can contribute to international health initiatives.

Conclusion: Toward a Renaissance in Traditional Medicine Education

Prof. Arun Kumar’s critique of India’s higher education system provides a powerful analytical framework for understanding the systemic failures in Ayurveda education. The top-down regulatory approach, suppression of critical thinking, bureaucratic strangulation of institutional autonomy, and disconnection from practical problem-solving that Kumar identifies in the broader education system are all starkly evident in the BAMS education crisis (1,2,3).

The path forward requires fundamental structural reform that prioritizes intellectual autonomy, critical inquiry, and practical competence over regulatory compliance and standardized outcomes. As Kumar argues, “decolonisation has to mean generation of socially relevant knowledge by the current institutions of higher learning and for that they will need autonomy” (2).

For Ayurveda education, this decolonization process must involve reclaiming the tradition’s emphasis on critical inquiry and empirical validation while integrating contemporary research methodologies and global health perspectives. Only through such fundamental reform can India’s traditional medicine education system fulfill its potential to contribute meaningfully to global health challenges while preserving and advancing its rich intellectual heritage.

The stakes are particularly high given Ayurveda’s potential role in addressing contemporary health challenges and the growing global interest in integrative medicine approaches (22). As Kumar emphasizes, “knowledge generation is receiving a big setback because without critique, you cannot develop knowledge generation” (1). The urgent need is to transform Ayurveda education from a system that produces compliant graduates into one that nurtures critical thinkers, innovative researchers, and competent practitioners who can advance both traditional knowledge and contemporary healthcare.

This transformation requires political will, institutional courage, and sustained commitment to the principles of academic freedom and intellectual autonomy that Kumar identifies as essential for educational excellence (2). The alternative—continued decline in educational quality and growing irrelevance of traditional medicine in contemporary healthcare—represents not only a loss for India’s cultural heritage but also a missed opportunity to contribute meaningfully to global health innovation and improved human wellbeing.

References

  • Kumar A. Why Is No One Talking About India’s Unorganised Sector? Economist Arun Kumar Explains. Neon Podcast. 2024. Available from: https://neon.fund/podcasts/why-is-no-one-talking-about-indias-unorganised-sector-economist-arun-kumar-explains/
  • Kumar A. Never in Independent India Has the Teacher’s Role Been More Difficult – Or Necessary. The Wire. 2024 Sep 5. Available from: https://m.thewire.in/article/education/never-in-independent-india-has-the-teachers-role-been-more-difficult-or-necessary
  • Kumar A. Quality in Higher Education, Role of Teachers and Challenge of Technology. Countercurrents. 2020 Dec 13. Available from: https://countercurrents.org/2020/12/quality-in-higher-education-role-of-teachers-and-challenge-of-technology/
  • Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery. Wikipedia. 2025. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Ayurveda,_Medicine_and_Surgery
  • What is BAMS?: Subjects, Course Fees, Admission 2025, Career Options. Shiksha. 2025 Jun 9. Available from: https://www.shiksha.com/bams-bachelor-of-ayurvedic-medicine-and-surgery-chp
  • Patwardhan K, Gehlot S, Singh G, Rathore HC. The ayurveda education in India: how well are the graduates exposed to basic clinical skills? Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:197391. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nep113.
  • Patwardhan K, Gehlot S, Singh G, Rathore HC. Global challenges of graduate level Ayurvedic education: A survey. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2010 Sep;7(3):317-25. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nen056.
  • Kumar A. Growing Economic Inequalities, Impact & The Way Forward. The Global Talk. 2025 Feb 14. Available from: https://theglobaltalk.com/2025/02/14/growing-economic-inequalities-impact-the-way-forward-prof-arun-kumar-retired-professor-of-economics-at-jnu-speaks-at-ludhiana/
  • BAMS Syllabus - AAPNA. Available from: https://www.aapna.org/bams-syllabus.html
  • Singh S, Kaur J, Kaul M. Ayurvedic practice, education and research, beyond dilemmas and confessions. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2023 Nov-Dec;14(6):100791. doi: 10.1016/j.jaim.2023.100791.
  • BAMS Syllabus 2024: Explore Subjects, Top Colleges & Books. Propelld. 2025 May 10. Available from: https://propelld.com/site/blog/bams-syllabus
  • New rules for Indian vice-chancellor hires ‘disastrous’. Times Higher Education. 2025 Jan 19. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/new-rules-indian-vice-chancellor-hires-disastrous
  • BAMS Course Complete Guide: Subjects, Eligibility, Admission, Career Opportunities, and Salary Insights. SAM Global University. 2024 Aug 24. Available from: https://www.samglobaluniversity.ac.in/bams-course-complete-guide-subjects-eligibility-admission-career-opportunities-and-salary-insights/
  • Kumar A. Growing Economic Inequalities, Impact & The Way Forward-Prof. Arun Kumar, Retired Professor of Economics at JNU Speaks At Ludhiana. The Global Talk. 2025 Feb 14.
  • Indian Higher Education - Study in India. Available from: https://studyinindia.gov.in/about-indian-higher-education-
  • Future of Indian Higher Education System. Drishti IAS. Available from: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/future-of-indian-higher-education-system
  • India’s Higher Education Landscape. NAFSA. 2022. Available from: https://www.nafsa.org/ie-magazine/2022/4/12/indias-higher-education-landscape
  • The Indian Higher Education System. SpringerLink. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-15-0032-9_59
  • The Crisis of Quality in Higher Education in India (2023). Education for All in India. 2024 Sep 2. Available from: https://educationforallinindia.com/the-crisis-of-quality-in-higher-education-in-india-2023/
  • Autonomy for Excellence in Higher Education in India. ResearchGate. 2016 Dec 19. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320985752_Autonomy_for_Excellence_in_Higher_Education_in_India
  • Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and Universities. NITI Aayog. 2025. Available from: https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-02/Expanding-Quality-Higher-Education-through-SPUs.pdf
  • Improving India’s School System: A Bottom-up Approach. RJMCEI. 2020 Aug 14. Available from: https://rjmceiblog.iima.ac.in/2020/08/14/improving-indias-school-system-a-bottom-up-approach/

This review article synthesizes insights from Prof. Arun Kumar’s extensive critique of Indian higher education with contemporary research on Ayurveda education challenges. The analysis draws upon peer-reviewed research, policy documents, and institutional studies to examine how systemic failures in India’s educational approach specifically manifest in traditional medicine training. The recommendations proposed here reflect both Kumar’s analytical framework and emerging best practices in medical education reform.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.