Critical Analysis of NITI Aayog’s Ayurveda Globalisation Roadmap

NITI Aayog’s 2026 roadmap proposes a global practitioner register, international clinical trials, stronger manufacturing standards, insurance pilots and Ayurveda centres abroad. However, India will need verified data, independent scientific oversight and adequate funding before it can turn these proposals into measurable results.

New Delhi (ABC Live): NITI Aayog’s Strategic Roadmap for Making Ayurveda Global presents an ambitious plan to expand Ayurveda beyond India. In particular, the report seeks to move Ayurveda from cultural promotion, herbal exports, and wellness tourism towards a regulated, evidence-based global healthcare system.

At present, Ayurveda enjoys visibility in many countries. However, visibility does not always mean legal recognition, clinical acceptance or insurance reimbursement. The roadmap outlines a phased strategy covering professional licensing, product regulation, scientific research, education, manufacturing, exports, medical value travel, and global health diplomacy.

Moreover, the report arrives when the World Health Organisation Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 calls for safer, evidence-informed and people-centred use of traditional medicine. Consequently, India has an opportunity to influence emerging international standards. Nevertheless, global acceptance will depend on evidence, safety and regulatory compliance rather than cultural history alone.

Although the document provides a useful policy direction, it remains a research report. It is not a law, an approved budget or a binding government programme. As a result, its success will depend on whether the Union Government converts its recommendations into funded schemes, regulatory reforms and measurable institutional duties.

Summary

The NITI Aayog report makes one central argument: Ayurveda cannot become globally accepted merely because it is ancient, natural or culturally important.

Instead, India must demonstrate that Ayurvedic products and treatments are:

• safe and consistently manufactured;
• supported by an appropriate level of scientific evidence;
• delivered by properly trained professionals;
• compliant with the laws of each country;
• monitored for adverse reactions; and
• capable of producing measurable health outcomes.

The report identifies regulation, manufacturing quality, scientific research, and professional standards as the main gateways to global acceptance. At the same time, however, the document carries an important limitation.

The disclaimer states that PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted the study with financial assistance under NITI Aayog’s research scheme. Furthermore, NITI Aayog says it does not confirm the authenticity of the data or the accuracy of the methodology. Responsibility for the findings, therefore, rests with PwC.

Consequently, the Government should independently verify the report’s major figures before it allocates public money, establishes overseas institutions or negotiates international healthcare arrangements.

Key Data at a Glance

Together, these figures show that India has a substantial domestic Ayurveda base. Nevertheless, they also reveal a wide gap between international visibility and formal integration into national healthcare systems.

What Does the NITI Aayog Roadmap Propose?

The roadmap organises Ayurveda’s globalisation around three pillars.

Within these pillars, the report examines 12 areas. These include professional mobility, exports, manufacturing, international research, education, regulatory compliance, insurance, localisation, branding and medical value travel.

Moreover, the roadmap divides implementation into three periods.

Ultimately, the plan seeks to integrate Ayurveda into at least 20 national health systems. In addition, it aims to obtain insurance coverage for selected treatments in at least 10 markets.

Therefore, the roadmap is not limited to selling herbal products. Instead, it seeks to build an international ecosystem involving practitioners, universities, laboratories, hospitals, insurers, regulators and diplomatic institutions.

Ayurveda’s Present Global Position

Practitioner and Recognition Data

According to the report, around 30 countries permit Ayurveda through licensing systems, academic partnerships or national health policies.

India has more than 3.55 lakh Ayurveda professionals. Yet approximately 95% of them continue to work within India. As a result, the number of formally trained practitioners available abroad remains limited.

However, these overseas figures may include different categories of service providers. For example, some may work as wellness advisers, therapists or health coaches rather than licensed medical professionals.

Accordingly, future data should distinguish among licensed physicians, complementary health practitioners, wellness therapists, health coaches, nutrition advisers, and unregulated providers.

Without such classification, practitioner counts may exaggerate Ayurveda’s actual availability as a medical service abroad. Furthermore, the report should separately identify practitioners who may legally diagnose illness, prescribe medicines or perform procedures.

Otherwise, the same dataset may combine regulated medical practice with non-medical wellness services.

Different Countries Apply Different Rules

Ayurveda does not enjoy a uniform legal status worldwide.

Therefore, an Indian Ayurveda degree does not automatically create a legal right to practise in another country.

The WHO Benchmarks for the Training of Ayurveda and WHO Benchmarks for the Practice of Ayurveda can help governments assess training, competencies, facilities and safety.

Nevertheless, each country retains the authority to regulate healthcare practice within its territory. Consequently, India must negotiate country-specific recognition arrangements.

A single certificate issued in India, therefore, cannot override the healthcare laws of a foreign country.

Export Data: Growth Is Real, but Value Addition Remains Limited

The report states that Ayush and herbal exports increased from USD 1.09 billion in 2014 to USD 2.16 billion in 2023.

At first sight, this growth appears impressive. However, the export basket still depends heavily on raw materials, plant extracts, dietary supplements and wellness products.

Top Export Destinations in 2023–24

The United States remains far ahead of every other individual destination. Yet much of this trade enters foreign markets as herbs, extracts, dietary supplements, cosmetics or nutraceuticals rather than approved medicines.

Composition of the Export Basket

Psyllium and turmeric dominate medicinal and aromatic plant exports. By contrast, pharmaceutical exports remain much smaller than exports of raw materials and extracts.

Thus, rising exports do not necessarily show that foreign health regulators recognise Ayurveda as a medical system. Instead, the growth may largely reflect demand for botanical ingredients and general wellness products.

For this reason, the roadmap correctly recommends a shift towards standardised, higher-value finished products. Moreover, India should measure the share of exports that secure medicine registrations rather than counting all herbal products under one broad category.

The United States and Europe Require Different Strategies

The report rightly rejects a single global regulatory strategy.

In the United States, dietary supplements follow a different pathway from products intended to diagnose, treat or prevent disease. The US Food and Drug Administration’s Botanical Drug Development Guidance explains the requirements for botanical products intended to become regulated medicines.

Therefore, a company cannot sell an Ayurveda product as a supplement while making unrestricted disease-treatment claims. Instead, the product, evidence and advertising must match the relevant regulatory category.

Similarly, the European Union provides a traditional-use registration route for certain herbal medicines. The European Medicines Agency’s herbal medicinal products framework describes that pathway.

Even so, applicants must provide acceptable evidence concerning quality, safety, manufacturing and traditional use. Consequently, historical use alone does not remove the need for reliable product documentation.

Meanwhile, Gulf countries may apply licensing, import and professional-practice rules that differ from both the United States and Europe. Accordingly, India needs separate regulatory dossiers and compliance playbooks for each major market.

Why Quality Standards Matter

Foreign regulators closely examine botanical identity, raw-material traceability, pesticide residues, microbial contamination, heavy metals, manufacturing consistency, product stability, labelling, health claims and post-market safety.

Accordingly, the roadmap proposes stronger manufacturing standards, chemical fingerprinting, batch-level certificates and improved testing systems.

Proposed Quality and Trade Targets by 2029

In addition, the report recommends QR-linked batch certificates showing contaminant tests, identity and potency information.

This proposal could increase transparency. Nevertheless, regulators must also audit laboratories, manufacturers and certification bodies independently.

Otherwise, digital certificates may become marketing tools rather than reliable safety safeguards. Furthermore, a batch certificate remains useful only when authorities can verify the laboratory, testing method and sample chain.

Therefore, the Government should publish the names, accreditation status and audit history of approved testing laboratories.

ABC Live has also examined the need to connect traditional knowledge with modern laboratories and scientific validation in Explained: How India Can Benefit from Integrated Pharmacology.

Research and Evidence Data

The report states that the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences has generated scientific evidence relating to approximately 182 classical formulations for 40 disease conditions.

Furthermore, it refers to more than 150 studies conducted during the COVID-19 period, around 1.35 crore responses collected through the Ayush Sanjivani application, three WHO collaborating centres in India and Ayurveda-related research in nearly 70 countries.

However, large datasets do not automatically prove clinical effectiveness. For example, an application-based survey may show public use or self-reported experience. Yet it cannot replace a controlled clinical trial.

What Different Forms of Evidence Can Show

Therefore, official communication must not treat historical use, surveys and controlled clinical trials as equal forms of proof.

Moreover, evidence should be assessed separately for each medicine, formulation, procedure and health condition. A positive result for one therapy, consequently, cannot validate every Ayurveda product or treatment.

Proposed Research Targets

By 2029, the roadmap seeks ten registered multi-country trials, publication of at least half of them in indexed journals, a national real-world data registry, standard regulatory dossier templates and selected candidates for US and European pathways.

Subsequently, by 2035, the roadmap proposes at least 25 traditional registrations and two investigative botanical-drug applications.

This approach is sensible because regulators normally assess a defined product or protocol for a defined medical purpose. They do not approve an entire medical tradition through one general claim.

Nevertheless, trial registration alone will not establish credibility. In addition, researchers must publish complete protocols, disclose negative results and report adverse events.

ABC Live’s Critical Analysis of the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Amendments 2026 provides further context on why faster research must still protect evidence quality and patient safety.

The Research-Funding Gap

The roadmap compares India’s Ayurveda research resources with China’s Traditional Chinese Medicine system.

These figures highlight a substantial difference in institutional scale. However, they are not directly comparable.

A ministry-wide budget, an institute allocation and the total income of a foreign research system may cover very different activities. Accordingly, a fair comparison should examine expenditure per trial, spending per approved product, laboratory investment, peer-reviewed output, foreign registrations and technologies translated into clinical practice.

The report also estimates that a high-level international clinical and regulatory programme for one product may cost more than USD 20 million, or approximately ?180 crore.

Given this cost, India cannot develop every formulation for regulated markets at the same time. Instead, it should select a limited number of products and medical indications with the strongest prospects for standardisation and evidence generation.

Furthermore, the Government should disclose how research priorities will be selected. Otherwise, commercial influence may direct public funds towards marketable products rather than important public-health needs.

Education and Professional Mobility

The report records a large domestic education base.

Even so, the principal challenge is not the number of colleges. Rather, foreign universities and professional regulators must recognise the curriculum, competencies and scope of practice.

For that reason, the roadmap proposes short modular courses, micro-credentials, Ayurveda electives, dual-degree programmes, objective skills assessments and a Global Ayurveda Register.

Education and Registration Targets

Nevertheless, inclusion in an Indian-maintained register will not automatically grant a legal right to practise overseas. Host-country regulators must still recognise the qualification and define the permitted professional role.

Moreover, the register must clearly display qualifications, training hours, disciplinary history and current registration status. Otherwise, foreign regulators may view it as a promotional directory rather than a professional verification system.

International Cooperation: Many Agreements but Limited Outcome Data

The report refers to approximately 75 memoranda of understanding with foreign governments and institutions. It also records Ayush Information Cells in 39 countries.

However, the number of agreements does not reveal whether they produced recognised qualifications, functioning courses, completed trials, approved products, accredited treatment centres or insurance arrangements.

Therefore, the report correctly recommends milestone-based agreements and public dashboards.

How International Agreements Should Be Measured

Without such indicators, the Government may count diplomatic activity rather than actual healthcare integration.

Moreover, each memorandum should identify the responsible Indian institution, foreign partner, budget and completion deadline. As a result, Parliament, researchers and the public could evaluate whether international cooperation produced meaningful results.

Insurance Coverage Remains Limited

The report identifies six countries where some form of Ayurveda reimbursement reportedly exists: the UAE, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and South Africa.

Still, the nature of coverage differs greatly. In some countries, supplementary private insurance may reimburse selected complementary treatments. Elsewhere, annual limits, provider qualifications and co-payments may apply.

Accordingly, the phrase “insurance coverage” should not suggest universal reimbursement for all Ayurveda treatments.

The roadmap proposes insurance pilots in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Australia and selected US health plans. These pilots would test whether standardised Ayurveda protocols can improve outcomes and reduce total treatment costs.

The proposed indicators include at least five insurance pilots, projected cost offsets of 15% to 20% and measurable improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Importantly, these figures remain targets. They are not established savings. Therefore, the Government must present them as hypotheses that require testing.

Furthermore, the pilots should compare Ayurveda-supported care with usual care through transparent methods. Otherwise, cost-saving claims may reflect patient selection, short follow-up periods or incomplete accounting.

For wider context, ABC Live has examined insurance, quality and public expenditure in Critical Analysis of Ayushman Bharat and AB-PMJAY.

Medical Value Travel and the Ayush Visa

The Ayush Visa aims to facilitate travel for Ayurveda and other Ayush treatments.

However, the report states that only around 2,000 regular Ayush Visas had been issued by December 2024.

This limited uptake may reflect weak international awareness, difficult documentation, unclear treatment packages, inadequate accreditation, limited insurance portability and incomplete data on patients using other visa categories.

Therefore, the roadmap proposes bundled packages combining visa assistance, initial assessment, treatment, transparent pricing, accredited hospitals, patient follow-up and teleconsultation after departure.

Such packages may support medical travel. Nevertheless, patient protection must remain more important than tourism promotion.

Every package should clearly disclose the evidence supporting the treatment, known risks, expected duration, total cost, prescribed medicines, follow-up requirements and complaint mechanisms.

In addition, India should collect reliable data on international patients, treatment types, complications and outcomes. Without such information, the economic and clinical value of Ayurveda medical travel will remain uncertain.

Roadmap Targets for 2029, 2035 and 2047

Targets up to 2029

These short-term goals focus mainly on institutional preparation. Therefore, progress up to 2029 should be judged by completed systems rather than announcements.

Targets up to 2035

By 2035, however, the Government will need to demonstrate regulatory and clinical outcomes. Merely establishing buildings or signing agreements will not meet the roadmap’s larger purpose.

Targets up to 2047

These targets make the roadmap measurable. Even so, the report does not provide a consolidated estimate of the money required to achieve them.

Consequently, the roadmap needs a financial annexure. That document should state the capital cost, annual operating cost, funding source and expected output for every major proposal.

What the NITI Aayog Roadmap Gets Right

It Moves Beyond Cultural Promotion

First, the report correctly recognises that heritage and popularity cannot replace evidence, safety and regulatory compliance.

Moreover, the document treats globalisation as a health-system project rather than only a branding campaign. This approach is essential because regulators assess products, professionals and treatment claims separately.

It Supports Market-Specific Strategies

Second, the United States, European Union, Canada, Australia and Gulf countries apply different rules. Therefore, India needs separate regulatory and commercial strategies for each market.

In addition, country-specific playbooks can help small manufacturers avoid costly filing and labelling errors.

It Connects Research With Insurance

Third, insurers require defined treatments, measurable results and cost data. Consequently, the proposed clinical trials and real-world evidence systems are relevant.

Nevertheless, reimbursement should follow reliable evidence rather than promotional pressure.

It Introduces Quantitative Targets

Furthermore, the 2029, 2035 and 2047 milestones could support public accountability if the Government publishes annual progress reports.

Likewise, a public dashboard could reveal delayed trials, unused funds and failed international partnerships.

It Recognises Domestic Quality Gaps

Finally, the roadmap accepts that India cannot build global credibility without improving inspections, manufacturing, testing and enforcement at home.

Therefore, export standards should not become higher than the standards applied to products sold to Indian patients.

Major Weaknesses in the Report

NITI Aayog’s Disclaimer Weakens Institutional Confidence

The disclaimer states that NITI Aayog does not confirm the authenticity of the data or the accuracy of the methodology.

This limitation matters because the report proposes public spending, regulatory reforms and international institutions.

Therefore, an independent technical panel should verify export figures, practitioner numbers, country-recognition claims, insurance data, education statistics and research baselines.

Moreover, the verification report should be publicly available. Without such disclosure, future policy decisions may rest on figures that the publishing institution itself has not authenticated.

The Methodology Needs Greater Disclosure

The report says that researchers used secondary material, interviews, focus groups, descriptive statistics, thematic coding and international benchmarking.

However, it does not clearly state the total number of interviews, participant-selection methods, countries represented, coding rules or independent verification procedures.

Consequently, outside experts cannot easily reproduce or audit the research process.

Furthermore, the consultation appears heavily focused on ministries, institutions, industry bodies and service providers. By contrast, patients, consumer groups and independent safety experts receive less visible attention.

The Roadmap Is Not Fully Costed

The proposed centres, laboratories, trials, overseas units, digital registers, regulatory helpdesks and campaigns will require substantial investment.

Nevertheless, the report does not provide one consolidated financial plan covering capital expenditure, annual operating costs, public funding, private investment, host-country contributions and expected returns.

As a result, policymakers cannot easily judge whether the roadmap is financially realistic.

Moreover, the absence of costing makes it difficult to compare alternatives. For example, one major overseas centre may cost more than several international clinical collaborations.

Some Targets Could Encourage Under-Reporting

The roadmap proposes “no critical quality breaches” as a long-term indicator.

However, a zero-breach target may discourage open reporting. Instead, the Government should measure adverse events, investigation time, recalls, laboratory failures, corrective actions and repeat violations.

In practice, a system that detects and corrects problems may be safer than one that simply reports no incidents.

Therefore, the mission should reward transparent detection and quick correction rather than an unrealistic claim of zero failures.

Patient and Consumer Representation Is Weak

The roadmap focuses heavily on ministries, regulators, manufacturers, universities, hospitals and exporters.

By contrast, patients, consumer organisations, independent toxicologists, epidemiologists and public-health researchers receive less attention.

Therefore, the Government should include them in scientific review, safety monitoring and mission governance.

In addition, the mission should establish an independent patient grievance system. Such a mechanism would be especially important for foreign patients receiving treatment in India.

ABC Live Recommendations

Independently Validate Every Baseline

Before implementation, a technical panel should verify the report’s data and publish a validation note.

Moreover, the panel should include biostatisticians, regulatory experts, toxicologists, health economists and independent clinical researchers.

Prepare a Costed Mission Document

Each action should identify the responsible authority, annual budget, funding source, completion date, performance indicator and corrective mechanism for delays.

Additionally, the Government should publish annual expenditure and outcome reports. Consequently, public spending could be compared with completed trials, product approvals and patient outcomes.

Begin With Limited Priority Areas

Rather than pursuing every product and therapy, India should initially focus on areas where standardisation and evidence generation are realistic.

The roadmap identifies possible research areas such as chronic lower-back pain, knee osteoarthritis, digestive disorders, rehabilitation, stress, sleep management, metabolic health and selected women’s health conditions.

However, each condition requires a separately designed research programme. Therefore, the Government should avoid broad claims about Ayurveda as a whole.

ABC Live has discussed supportive wellness approaches in Explained: How Ayurveda Supports Women at Menopause. Even so, every report must distinguish supportive guidance from clinically proven treatment.

Apply Strong Quality Rules Within India

Domestic consumers deserve the same level of quality protection that foreign regulators expect.

Accordingly, manufacturers should not operate under weaker standards for Indian sales while producing higher-quality export batches.

Separate Wellness Claims From Medical Claims

Companies should not market a general wellness product as a disease treatment without adequate evidence and regulatory approval.

Likewise, government campaigns should clearly separate cultural promotion, general wellness advice and clinically evaluated treatment claims.

Strengthen Pharmacovigilance

The Government should publicly disclose adverse reactions, contamination alerts, recalls, herb–drug interaction warnings, inspection failures and corrective action.

Furthermore, healthcare professionals should receive simple reporting tools. As a result, safety signals could be detected earlier.

Make International Agreements Outcome-Based

Every memorandum of understanding should contain clear milestones, timelines and financial disclosures.

For example, an agreement should specify the number of courses, trials, registrations or licensed professionals it seeks to produce.

Protect Patient Data and Rights

Global registers, telemedicine, trials and real-world data systems must include informed consent, privacy protection, cybersecurity, cross-border data safeguards and complaint mechanisms.

Moreover, patients should know who controls their medical data and whether companies may use those records for research or marketing.

Protect Medicinal Plants and Traditional Knowledge

Finally, export growth must not cause overharvesting, biodiversity loss or unfair commercial use of community knowledge.

Therefore, the mission should track sustainable cultivation, supply-chain traceability and benefit-sharing with traditional knowledge holders.

Overall ABC Live Assessment

NITI Aayog’s Ayurveda globalisation roadmap identifies many of the correct challenges. In particular, it accepts that India must improve scientific evidence, manufacturing, professional standards, regulation and institutional coordination.

Moreover, the roadmap provides useful numerical targets for clinical trials, registrations, practitioners, international centres, factories and insurance markets. Therefore, it offers a meaningful starting point for policy discussion.

However, the document is not yet a complete implementation plan. Its data require independent validation. Likewise, its methodology needs greater transparency, while its recommendations require a consolidated financial framework.

Most importantly, India should not treat globalisation as a branding exercise. Ayurveda will gain lasting international acceptance only when every product, treatment and professional qualification can withstand scientific, ethical and regulatory scrutiny.

Accordingly, the correct sequence must remain:

quality first, evidence second, regulation third and promotion thereafter.

How We Verified

ABC Live reviewed the report’s executive summary, methodology, workforce data, export statistics, research funding, education indicators, medical travel figures and stakeholder-wise targets.

In addition, the analysis distinguishes among current data reported by the study, government-policy recommendations, future targets, ABC Live’s assessment and claims requiring independent verification.

Furthermore, ABC Live compared the roadmap’s regulatory approach with official material published by the World Health Organization, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

Sources and Resources

1. NITI Aayog: Strategic Roadmap for Making Ayurveda Global
2. WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034
3. WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre
4. WHO Benchmarks for the Training of Ayurveda
5. WHO Benchmarks for the Practice of Ayurveda
6. US FDA: Botanical Drug Development Guidance
7. US FDA: What Is a Botanical Drug?
8. European Medicines Agency: Herbal Medicinal Products
9. EMA: Herbal Medicinal Products—Questions and Answers

Related ABC Live Reports

• Explained: WHO Traditional Medicine Summit and Health Soft Power
• Explained: How India Can Benefit from Integrated Pharmacology
• Explained: How Ayurveda Supports Women at Menopause
• Critical Analysis of Ayushman Bharat and AB-PMJAY
• Critical Analysis of the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Amendments 2026
• Critical Analysis of the Draft National Pharmacy Commission Bill 2026

ABC Live — Making Complex Public Issues Simple.