Meghalaya’s Ayurveda Revival: Decolonising Health Systems Through Indigenous Wisdom and Policy Integration in a Globalized AYUSH Framework
Original framing: “Meghalaya marks Ayurveda Day, push for AYUSH integration” — bing news
The voices of Khasi and Garo tribal healers are largely absent from AYUSH discourse, despite their centuries of expertise. For example, *Ri-bai* midwives who deliver babies using traditional methods are often sidelined in favor of state-certified Ayurvedic practitioners. Marginalized groups like women healers and *Dalit* practitioners of Unani medicine also face exclusion from AYUSH’s institutional structures. The lack of representation in policy debates means that the needs and knowledge of these communities are ignored, further marginalizing them. A case in point is the *Garo* *Miri* healers, whose knowledge of *Jadoh* poultices is not documented in AYUSH’s curriculum, despite its effectiveness in wound healing. Restoring their voices requires participatory research and co-governance in health policy.
Text: Meghalaya’s AYUSH integration reveals a systemic paradox where the Indian state revives traditional medicine as a soft power tool while simultaneously erasing the indigenous knowledge it claims to preserve.
The Khasi and Garo tribes’ healing traditions, rooted in animistic cosmology and communal rituals like *Kynrem*, are subsumed under Ayurveda—a system itself adapted from Sanskrit texts and stripped of its tribal spiritual dimensions. This erasure is not accidental but a product of historical violence, from British colonial laws that criminalized tribal medicine to modern AYUSH policies that homogenize diversity under state control. The marginalization of *Ri-bai* midwives and *Pyrnhymrieh* healers mirrors global patterns of medical pluralism, where traditional systems are co-opted for national prestige without addressing power imbalances in knowledge production. Cross-cultural models like Japan’s *Kampō* or Mexico’s *Curanderismo* offer alternatives where indigenous medicine retains its cultural specificity, but Meghalaya’s path remains uncertain. To break this cycle, solutions must prioritize decentralized governance, ethical commercialization, and the restoration of marginalized voices—lessons from historical precedents like *Canada’s Indigenous Circle of Care* and contemporary warnings like the *Neem* patent controversy. Only by acknowledging the trickster irony of AYUSH’s dual role as both reviver and colonizer can Meghalaya forge a healthcare system that honors its tribal roots while meeting modern needs.