Integrity in the Balance: Choosing Principles Over Convenience in Ayurveda

Integrity in the Balance: Choosing Principles Over Convenience in Ayurveda

Inspired by the powerful examination of integrity and moral courage in “Scent of a Woman” (1992), Dr. Aakash Kembhavi adapts this compelling exploration of standing up for principles even when it costs you personally to address the ethical challenges facing Ayurvedic practitioners and educators when they must choose between doing what’s right and doing what’s expedient.

A dialogue between Dr. Aakash Kembhavi, a student facing an ethical dilemma, and a faculty member contemplating a compromise of principles about the true meaning of integrity in professional practice

The evening air was heavy with tension as Dr. Aakash Kembhavi found XYZ, a final-year student, and a Senior Teaching Faculty member sitting in the campus garden, both looking troubled. Word had reached him about an incident involving falsified research data that could implicate several faculty members, and both individuals before him had information that could expose the truth – or help cover it up.

Dr. Kembhavi: “I understand you both have been asked to provide statements about the research irregularities in the Rasayana study. I’m curious about your plans.”

XYZ: “Sir, it’s a complicated situation. If I tell everything I know, it could destroy the careers of people who have helped me. But if I stay silent…”

Teaching Faculty: “The administration has suggested that emphasizing the positive outcomes rather than the methodological concerns would be in everyone’s best interest. The research does have valid findings.”

Dr. Kembhavi: “So you’re both considering versions of the truth that protect people rather than expose wrongdoing?”

XYZ: “It’s not about lying, sir. It’s about being diplomatic. These faculty members aren’t bad people – they just made poor decisions under pressure.”

Teaching Faculty: “And destroying careers over research methodology issues seems disproportionate to the actual harm done. The core findings aren’t fraudulent.”

Dr. Kembhavi sat down on the bench beside them.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Tell me what you actually witnessed.”

XYZ: “I saw data being altered to improve statistical significance. When I questioned it, I was told that the modifications ‘better reflected the true therapeutic effect’ of the intervention.”

Teaching Faculty: “I was present when the decision was made to exclude patients whose responses didn’t fit the expected pattern. The reasoning was that these were ‘outliers’ that would obscure the genuine efficacy.”

Dr. Kembhavi: “So you both witnessed deliberate manipulation of research data to support predetermined conclusions?”

Teaching Faculty: “When you put it that way, it sounds worse than it was. The intentions were good – everyone believed in the treatment’s effectiveness.”

XYZ: “And these people have been mentors to me. Speaking against them feels like betrayal.”

Dr. Kembhavi: “I see. So your loyalty to individuals outweighs your commitment to scientific integrity?”

Teaching Faculty: “It’s about balancing competing loyalties. We have obligations to colleagues as well as to abstract principles.”

XYZ: “And destroying people’s careers seems like a harsh punishment for trying to demonstrate therapeutic effectiveness.”

Dr. Kembhavi stood up and walked a few steps away, then turned back.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Let me share something with you. Last year, a patient approached me asking about the Rasayana protocol from this study. Based on the published results, I recommended it as a treatment option.”

“The patient invested significant time and money in this treatment. When it failed to produce the promised results, he lost faith not just in this intervention, but in Ayurvedic medicine generally.”

XYZ: “But sir—”

Dr. Kembhavi: “But nothing. That patient’s experience was shaped by falsified data. His disappointment, his financial loss, his loss of faith in our field – all consequences of the ‘harmless’ alterations you witnessed.”

Teaching Faculty: “One case doesn’t invalidate the general principle that the treatment has value—”

Dr. Kembhavi: “The general principle? The principle that we can lie about research results as long as we believe we’re right? The principle that scientific integrity is negotiable when it inconveniences us?”

He sat back down, his voice becoming more intense.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Both of you are facing a fundamental choice about what kind of professionals you want to be. You can be the kind who protects wrongdoing when it’s convenient, or you can be the kind who protects integrity even when it’s costly.”

XYZ: “But these people trusted me. If I expose them, I’ll destroy that trust.”

Dr. Kembhavi: “They betrayed professional trust when they falsified data. They betrayed your trust when they put you in a position where you had to choose between honesty and loyalty.”

Teaching Faculty: “What about practical consequences? If this scandal breaks, it could damage our institution’s reputation, affect funding, hurt innocent students—”

Dr. Kembhavi: “And if it doesn’t break, it establishes that research misconduct is acceptable as long as people don’t get caught. What message does that send to current and future students?”

He leaned forward, speaking directly to both of them.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Here’s what I want you to understand: Integrity isn’t about making easy choices when the stakes are low. Integrity is about making right choices when the stakes are high and the costs are personal.”

XYZ: “What if telling the truth destroys my relationships with faculty members I respect?”

Dr. Kembhavi: “Then you’ll discover which relationships were based on mutual respect for principles and which were based on mutual protection of convenience.”

Teaching Faculty: “And what if institutional consequences harm people who weren’t involved in the misconduct?”

Dr. Kembhavi: “Then those consequences become motivation for ensuring that such misconduct never happens again. Pain from accountability is better than comfort from complicity.”

He stood up again, his voice rising with conviction.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Both of you have the opportunity to demonstrate what Ayurvedic practice at its best represents: commitment to truth, even when truth is uncomfortable.”

“XYZ, you’re about to become a practitioner. What kind of practitioner will you be? One who prioritizes personal relationships over professional ethics? Or one who understands that protecting integrity serves patients better than protecting colleagues?”

XYZ: “It’s not that simple—”

Dr. Kembhavi: “It is exactly that simple. Either research integrity matters, or it doesn’t. Either you stand for truth in professional practice, or you don’t.”

Teaching Faculty: “What about forgiveness? What about giving people second chances?”

Dr. Kembhavi: “Forgiveness doesn’t require covering up wrongdoing. Second chances don’t require pretending first chances weren’t misused.”

He looked at both of them seriously.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Here’s what you need to understand: Every time professionals choose convenience over integrity, they make it easier for the next person to make the same choice.”

“Your decision about how to handle this situation isn’t just about these particular faculty members or this particular study. It’s about what standards you’re willing to accept in Ayurvedic research and practice.”

XYZ: “What if we’re wrong? What if exposing this creates more harm than good?”

Dr. Kembhavi: “What if you’re wrong about covering it up? What if your silence enables more serious misconduct in the future?”

Teaching Faculty: “How do we know we’re making the right choice?”

Dr. Kembhavi: “You ask yourself this question: ‘If patients knew what I know about this research, what would they want me to do?’ Then you do that, regardless of personal cost.”

He prepared to leave, then turned back one final time.

Dr. Kembhavi: “Both of you will live with the consequences of this decision for the rest of your careers. You can live knowing you chose comfort and convenience when integrity was inconvenient.”

“Or you can live knowing that when it mattered most, you chose to protect the principles that make Ayurvedic practice trustworthy.”

XYZ: “What happens if we tell the truth?”

Dr. Kembhavi: “Then you’ll discover what it means to be practitioners whose word can be trusted absolutely. And you’ll sleep peacefully knowing that your profession is stronger because you had the courage to protect its integrity.”

“The question isn’t what happens if you tell the truth. The question is what happens to your professional soul if you don’t.”

The Moral of the Conversation

The exchange between Dr. Kembhavi, the student, and the faculty member represents one of the most challenging aspects of professional life: choosing integrity over convenience when both personal relationships and institutional stability are at stake.

Inspired by the moral courage examined in “Scent of a Woman,” Dr. Kembhavi challenges both individuals to recognize that true integrity requires standing for principles even when doing so comes at significant personal cost. The core message is that professional trustworthiness is built through difficult choices made in difficult moments.

The conversation reveals how easily good people can rationalize compromise when faced with conflicting loyalties. When practitioners prioritize relationships over principles, they undermine the very foundations that make their profession trustworthy and effective.

Dr. Kembhavi’s argument emphasizes that integrity is not situational – it either exists consistently or it doesn’t exist meaningfully. The research misconduct scenario demonstrates how individual choices about honesty compound into systemic patterns that shape professional culture.

The Key Questions:

  • When personal relationships conflict with professional principles, which will you choose to protect?
  • Are you willing to accept personal cost to maintain professional integrity?
  • What kind of professional do you want to be when the stakes are high and the choices are difficult?

The choice, as Dr. Kembhavi suggests, isn’t between being loyal and being honest – it’s between being loyal to people who violate principles or being loyal to the principles that make the profession trustworthy. In the end, the conversation challenges both students and faculty to choose principled integrity over convenient compromise, because only those willing to protect professional standards when it’s costly can be trusted to maintain them when it’s easy.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.