Why People Are Suppressing Siddha and Promoting Ayurveda

Why Promoting Ayurveda?

The traditional healing systems of Siddha and Ayurveda, both deeply rooted in Indian culture, have coexisted for millennia, offering holistic approaches to health and wellness. Yet, in modern times, Ayurveda has gained widespread recognition and global acceptance(thanks to RSS-BJP), while Siddha remains relatively obscure, often overshadowed and underappreciated (thanks again to RSS-BJP). This disparity raises a compelling question: Are people deliberately suppressing Siddha in favor of promoting Ayurveda? While no grand conspiracy may be at play, historical, cultural, and systemic factors suggest that Siddha’s marginalization is not entirely accidental. Below, we explore the reasons behind this phenomenon.

Historical and Linguistic Divide

One of the primary reasons for Siddha’s suppression lies in its regional and linguistic origins. Siddha emerged from the Tamil-speaking Dravidian culture of South India, attributed to the Siddhars—ancient Tamil sages and alchemists. Its foundational texts, such as the Tirumantiram and works of Agastya, are written in classical Tamil, a language less accessible to the broader Indian and global population. In contrast, Ayurveda, rooted in the Sanskrit-based Vedic traditions of North India, benefits from the widespread historical influence of Sanskrit as the liturgical and scholarly language of ancient India. The Vedas, including the Atharvaveda from which Ayurveda draws inspiration, were propagated by the Brahmanical elite, giving Ayurveda a pan-Indian appeal that transcended regional boundaries.

This linguistic divide has practical implications. Sanskrit’s prominence in Indian academia and its adoption by colonial scholars during British rule made Ayurveda more translatable and palatable to outsiders. Siddha, confined to Tamil Nadu and its diaspora, lacked the same level of exposure, leaving it vulnerable to being sidelined.

Colonial Legacy and Western Validation

The British colonial period played a significant role in shaping the modern fates of Siddha and Ayurveda. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, British scholars and administrators cataloged and studied Indian knowledge systems, often favoring those that aligned with their own frameworks. Ayurveda, with its structured texts like the Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita, resembled Greco-Roman medical traditions (e.g., humoral theory), making it easier for Westerners to interpret and validate. This led to early translations and integration into colonial medical discourse, laying the groundwork for Ayurveda’s global rise.

Siddha, with its esoteric blend of medicine, alchemy, and spirituality, was less comprehensible to colonial observers. Its reliance on oral traditions, secretive practices (such as the preparation of muppu, a mystical substance), and lack of standardized texts in a widely understood language rendered it “unscientific” or “mystical” in Western eyes. As a result, Siddha received little institutional support or documentation during this pivotal period, while Ayurveda was elevated as India’s flagship traditional medicine.

Political and Cultural Prioritization

Post-independence, India’s efforts to unify its diverse cultural heritage under a national identity further tilted the scales. Ayurveda, tied to the Sanskrit-Vedic narrative, aligned with the idea of a cohesive “Indian” tradition, appealing to policymakers and nationalists eager to promote a unified heritage. The establishment of institutions like the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) and the inclusion of Ayurveda in national healthcare frameworks cemented its dominance. Siddha, despite being recognized as one of India’s traditional systems under the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy), often receives less funding, research, and promotional efforts compared to Ayurveda.

This disparity is also reflected in popular culture. Bollywood, mainstream media, and wellness tourism heavily market Ayurveda as India’s ancient gift to the world, while Siddha rarely features in such narratives. The lack of visibility perpetuates a cycle of neglect, as fewer people—both within India and globally—become aware of Siddha’s potential.

Commercialization and Global Appeal

Ayurveda’s rise has been fueled by its adaptability to modern commercial markets. From herbal supplements to spa treatments, Ayurvedic principles have been repackaged into a wellness industry worth billions globally. Companies like Dabur, Patanjali, and Himalaya have capitalized on Ayurveda’s accessible terminology (e.g., doshas, prana) and its emphasis on diet and lifestyle, which resonate with Western holistic health trends.

Siddha, however, is less amenable to such commercialization. Its practices, such as the use of heavy metals (e.g., mercury and arsenic) in rasayana (alchemy-based medicines), require rigorous expertise and have raised safety concerns in modern regulatory contexts. While these techniques reflect Siddha’s sophisticated understanding of pharmacology, they clash with contemporary standards, limiting its appeal to mass markets. Additionally, Siddha’s spiritual undertones—linked to Tamil Shaivism and yogic practices—make it less secular and harder to commodify compared to Ayurveda’s more universal framework.

Academic and Research Disparities

The academic infrastructure supporting Ayurveda far outstrips that of Siddha. Universities across India offer robust Ayurvedic programs, producing practitioners and researchers who further its development. Siddha, while taught in Tamil Nadu institutions like the Government Siddha Medical College, lacks the same level of investment and international collaboration. Research into Siddha’s pharmacopeia, such as its use of rare herbs and minerals, lags behind Ayurveda, partly due to funding biases and partly because its practitioners have historically guarded their knowledge, resisting standardization.

Perception of Complexity and Accessibility

Finally, Siddha’s perceived complexity may contribute to its suppression. Its integration of medicine with astrology, alchemy, and spiritual purification requires a deep cultural and philosophical understanding, which can deter casual learners or practitioners. Ayurveda, while profound, offers a more straightforward entry point with its focus on balancing vata, pitta, and kapha. This accessibility has made Ayurveda the preferred choice for both practitioners and patients, sidelining Siddha as a niche or “mysterious” alternative.

Conclusion

The suppression of Siddha in favor of Ayurveda is not necessarily a deliberate act of malice but a consequence of historical biases, cultural priorities, and modern market dynamics. Siddha’s Tamil roots, esoteric nature, and lack of institutional support have confined it to the margins, while Ayurveda’s alignment with Sanskrit, colonial validation, and global wellness trends have propelled it to prominence. To reverse this trend, greater awareness, research, and investment in Siddha are needed—lest a valuable piece of human heritage fades into obscurity. Both systems offer unique insights into health and healing; it’s time Siddha received the recognition it deserves alongside its more celebrated counterpart.