Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine

India Hosts Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine: A Lofty Vision with Complex Realities

On December 20, 2025, New Delhi became the epicentre of global discussions on traditional medicine as India hosted the Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine. With the theme, “Restoring Balance for People and Planet: The Science and Practice of Well-Being”, the summit unveiled ambitious initiatives like the My Ayush Integrated Services Portal (MAISP), the Ayush Mark, and the Traditional Medicine Global Library (TMGL). These efforts were anchored in the Gujarat Declaration of 2023 and aligned with WHO’s Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034.

Why This Summit Marks a Break from the Norm

The focal ambition of the summit was not merely domestic. Unlike the 2023 summit held in Gandhinagar, which highlighted India's leadership, this second summit projected a globalized approach to codifying and institutionalizing Traditional Medicine Systems (TMS). Three key outcomes demonstrate this shift:

• The announcement of the Ayush Mark as a global quality benchmark prepares Indian products for scrutiny against international standards, a major departure from the previous reliance on unilateral regulatory mechanisms.
• Collaborations such as the India–Japan partnership in traditional medicine and the establishment of a Centre of Excellence for BIMSTEC countries signal a transition to transnational health diplomacy.
• The world’s largest digital repository, the Traditional Medicine Global Library (TMGL), aims to consolidate scientific and practitioner-level evidence on TMS worldwide, potentially placing India at the epistemological forefront of global health policies.

Digital health tools, including AI for research and data generation, were elevated in discussions, underscoring the intention to merge ethnomedicine’s experiential foundations with cutting-edge technology.

The Institutional Mechanics Behind the Plans

Several institutional stakeholders are central to these outcomes. The recently inaugurated WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (GTMC) in Jamnagar, Gujarat acts as the fulcrum of India’s institutional alignment with WHO priorities. The GTMC derives operational authority from WHO’s Strategy 2025–2034, emphasizing evidence-based frameworks for Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine (TCIM). At the national level, the Ministry of Ayush continues to champion traditional medicine under the provisions of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which govern the regulation of herbal products.

Yet, even with such ambitious mechanisms, implementation complexities loom large. Will centralized portals like MAISP deliver meaningful impact at the grassroots level with India’s health sector already grappling with systemic undercapacity? As of today, less than 7% of India’s total health budget is allocated to Ayush despite sustained rhetoric on its integrative promise.

What the Data Actually Reveals

The government claims Ayush services have grown exponentially—citing an almost 40% increase in AYUSH practitioners between 2017 and 2023. But the CAG Report, 2024 on Ayush expenditures paints a mixed picture: though allocations increased annually, less than 60% of dedicated funds were absorbed by state implementation agencies in 12 states. For instance, Tamil Nadu utilized only 42% of Ayush budget allocations last year, lagging behind states like Gujarat (83%) and Karnataka (78%). Regional disparities are glaring.

Equally problematic is regulatory enforcement. The Ayush Mark, while an aspirational benchmark, risks falling victim to the same fragmentation that plagues quality control in herbal medicines. According to the WHO Global Report on Traditional Medicine, 26% of global herbal remedies are deemed substandard due to lax regulations—even in countries considered leaders in ethnopharmacology.

Uncomfortable Questions Linger

The summit’s emphasis on AI for research and global digital libraries invites an obvious concern: what safeguards exist for intellectual property rights (IPR) within TMGL’s expansive database? India has long struggled to protect indigenous knowledge within market-driven models of health innovation, as seen in the protracted neem and turmeric patent battles of the late 1990s.

Moreover, the practical integration of Ayush into public healthcare remains constrained by the absence of trained tertiary specialists who can effectively combine biomedicine and ethnomedicine. Less than 35% of PHCs in rural districts report having Ayush practitioners on staff—a limitation exacerbated by weak incentives and poor career pathways within India’s public health infrastructure.

The summit’s international partnerships also warrant scrutiny. How robust will the India-Japan collaboration prove, given Japan’s high regulatory thresholds for health products under its Pharmaceutical Affairs Act? India’s export ambitions for Ayush products might meet serious compliance obstacles.

How South Korea Avoided Regulatory Pitfalls

In 2018, South Korea addressed similar challenges with its Korean Medicine Globalization Initiative. Recognizing the risk of fragmented standards, it implemented stringent certification systems under the Korean Medicine Promotion Act, ensuring a seamless integration of traditional remedies into universal healthcare. Unlike India, which struggles with state-level variation, South Korea centralized quality oversight, enabling the export of $1.2 billion worth of herbal products by 2022. India could consider adopting elements of Korea’s strategy, particularly in establishing unified regulatory frameworks.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions