In late December 2025, the Andhra Pradesh government approved a policy allowing post-graduate Ayurvedic doctors with specialized training to independently perform 58 defined surgical procedures, including general surgery, ENT, ophthalmology and related interventions. The move builds on existing national norms such as the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Amendment Regulations, 2020 and National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine (NCISM) guidelines. These rules already provide a framework for surgical training in Ayurveda disciplines like Shalya Tantra and Shalakya Tantra. Qualified practitioners must have a BAMS degree, postgraduate training and clinical exposure before being allowed to operate.
Point of Conflict: Modern Medicine vs Traditional Practice
The proposal has drawn sharp opposition from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and many modern medicine doctors. They argue that surgical procedures demand rigorous and structured training in anatomy, physiology, anesthesia, perioperative care and complication management — components embedded in MBBS and MS/MD curricula but not traditionally covered in Ayurveda training. Critics warn that extending surgical rights without matching competency and standardization risks patient safety and clinical outcomes. The IMA describes the move as “unscientific” and potentially a form of “mixopathy,” stressing that classical Ayurveda should remain distinct and not be merged with modern medical surgery.
In addition, medical associations have started petition movements and non-cooperation actions and even proposed that modern surgeons and anesthesiologists not assist Ayurvedic practitioners in surgeries, highlighting the intensity of current dissent.
Is There Strong Evidence Supporting the Change?
Supporters of the proposal point to Ayurveda’s long historical legacy and the existence of Shalya and Shalakya disciplines in classical Indian medicine. However, there is limited contemporary scientific evidence or widespread peer-reviewed data demonstrating that Ayurvedic surgical training, as currently structured, achieves results equivalent to modern surgical education. Most evidence remains protocol-based or descriptive, and concerns remain about uniform training quality, operative infrastructure, anesthesia management and postoperative care.
Addressing Major Concerns: Regulatory Pathways
To ensure quality patient care, several regulatory safeguards could help:
-
Standardized surgical curricula co-designed with modern surgical educators
-
Mandatory certification and examinations audited by an independent body
-
Strict clinical governance, including supervision by qualified surgeons
-
Data-driven evaluation of outcomes and complication rates
-
Clear limits on procedures allowed based on training level
Well-designed regulations like these could address concerns about safety and competency, while providing a structured pathway for integrating surgical practice responsibly within Ayurveda without compromising patient welfare.
Summary: The proposal to allow Ayurvedic doctors to perform surgeries has ignited a debate on professional boundaries, training standards and patient safety. While it aims at integration and expanded access, ensuring regulated, evidence-based practice will be key to resolving the ongoing conflict.
MBH/PS