Abstract This article looks at how ‘indigenous’ medical systems, particularly Ayurveda figured in the official discourse of the Government of India in the post-independence period. In doing so, it studies the recommendations of the committees set up in the first few decades after independence to prepare reports on ‘indigenous’ medicines in India. By studying these reports, we may gain some insights on the paths that were cleared in the professionalisation of Ayurvedic medicine and its institutionalisation in colleges and hospitals. The focus here is on the recommendations and analyses of five committee reports. This article analyses the similarities and near consensus in their approach to the issue of research in Ayurveda. What accounts for such a consensus despite the constitution of different committees over a period of time? How are some of the differences in the recommendations and analyses of the reports resolved in ways that maintain an overall similarity? This article engages with these questions in its analysis of the committee reports.

中文翻译：

---

复兴还是监管？独立印度的“土著”医疗实践

摘要 本文着眼于“本土”医疗系统，特别是阿育吠陀在独立后印度政府官方话语中的地位。在这样做的过程中，它研究了独立后最初几十年成立的委员会的建议，以准备关于印度“本土”药物的报告。通过研究这些报告，我们可以对阿育吠陀医学的专业化及其在大学和医院的制度化中清除的路径有所了解。这里的重点是五份委员会报告的建议和分析。本文分析了他们在阿育吠陀研究问题上的相似之处和接近共识。尽管在一段时间内成立了不同的委员会，但为什么会达成这样的共识？如何以保持整体相似性的方式解决报告的建议和分析中的某些差异？本文在对委员会报告的分析中涉及这些问题。