India's '1:811' doctor-population ratio: Why are AYUSH practitioners counted?
India says it has one doctor for 811 people, but experts argue the number is inflated by adding AYUSH practitioners. Is the real ratio much higher?
The Union Health Ministry has claimed that India now has one doctor for 811 people, a figure officials say surpasses the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommended standard. But this calculation includes over 7.5 lakh AYUSH practitioners alongside allopathic doctors, raising concerns over whether the numbers present an accurate picture of the country’s healthcare strength.
On December 2, Union Health Minister JP Nadda informed the Rajya Sabha that India has over 13.88 lakh registered allopathic doctors and 7.5 lakh practitioners of Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy. This, he said, creates a doctor-patient ratio better than the widely quoted 1:2000 mark. However, AYUSH practitioners are not trained as MBBS doctors and do not handle emergency, surgical or intensive-care cases.
Concerns over inflated figures
Health experts say the inclusion of AYUSH practitioners in the doctor count misrepresents the availability of trained medical professionals. Dr. Dhruv Chauhan, National Spokesperson, Indian Medical Association (IMA), said: “Basically, they are around 7 lakh plus Ayush traditional doctors and around 13 lakh of modern medicine doctors… These are not the doctors that work in the ICUs, these are not the doctors that work on the ventilator systems. So when you are including them with the other doctors, the ratio definitely is going to down… This is basically misguiding the people.”
Also read: One lakh children under 5 yrs died in India due to growth failure in 2023: Lancet study
The use of AYUSH practitioners to boost the doctor-patient ratio has also drawn criticism because they do not perform the critical tasks required in intensive medical setups. Many primary health centres continue to operate without MBBS doctors, leaving patients dependent on informal or underqualified practitioners.
What the numbers really indicate
If only allopathic doctors are considered, and if around 80 per cent are active, the doctor-patient ratio goes up significantly, to around 1:2,700. This differs sharply from the government’s claim of 1:811, which assumes all AYUSH practitioners function as doctors in the same capacity as MBBS graduates.
The so-called WHO standard of one doctor per 1,000 people has also been questioned. This figure first appeared in an Indian document in 2011 and has not been endorsed by the WHO.
WHO has clarified that it does not set specific doctor-population ratios, as requirements vary depending on each country’s health system.
Expert views on AYUSH inclusion
Dr. R Shanthi, a member of the Doctor’s Association for Social Equality, said the government has used inconsistent assumptions while calculating availability. She noted: “In the government of India… only 80 per cent are available (for allopathic doctors). But when considering the AYUSH doctors… they have taken 100 per cent. Let’s see — AYUSH doctors are doing Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha… such kind of medicine is called traditional medicine.”
She argued that modern scientific doctors provide preventive, primary, secondary and tertiary care, conduct night duty, perform post-mortems, handle accidents, and work in ICUs and neonatal units — responsibilities not carried out by AYUSH practitioners at present.
The bigger issue
While India faces a shortage of MBBS and specialist doctors in rural and tier-two areas, many trained doctors are simultaneously experiencing unemployment. This mismatch has raised concerns over policy direction and public health funding.
Until more qualified MBBS doctors reach underserved regions, and until the calculation methods become more transparent, experts say the celebration of a 1:811 doctor-patient ratio will remain misleading and fail to reflect the actual healthcare needs of the population.
(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)
