Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi’s recent reference to an IIT-Director as a “gau mutra expert” has ignited a debate that extends beyond politics. The issue is not whether one believes in its traditional remedies, but whether scientific inquiry should be encouraged or ridiculed. Science advances by testing hypotheses, not by mocking them.
Throughout history, many medicines originated from traditional knowledge. Aspirin traces its origins to willow bark. Artemisinin emerged from traditional Chinese medicine, and numerous modern drugs have their roots in indigenous medical systems.
The correct scientific approach is to investigate traditional claims objectively, accepting those supported by evidence and rejecting those that fail rigorous testing. For the sake of dispelling ignorance, it is worth noting that 50 per cent to 70 per cent of chemicals used in modern medicine are phytochemicals, originating from plants.
Contrary to claims that there is “no science” behind gaumutra, several peer-reviewed studies have investigated cow urine and cow urine distillate. Published research has reported antibacterial activity against certain bacteria, antifungal activity, antioxidant properties, immunomodulatory effects, and potential bio-enhancer properties that may improve the effectiveness of some antibiotics in laboratory conditions.
Most of this evidence comes from laboratory (in vitro) and animal studies, and in India it has been practised on humans as part of traditional medicine. Rather than ridiculing such research, the scientific response should be to subject these findings to rigorous human clinical trials and determine, through evidence, whether they translate into safe and effective treatments.
The two US patents highlighted by Parliamentarian Sudhanshu Trivedi in the Lok Sabha relate to cow urine distillate. One covers pharmaceutical compositions using cow urine distillate as a bio-enhancer, while the other concerns bioactive fractions of cow urine distillate intended to enhance the activity of anti-microbial and anti-cancer agents.
Research involving cow urine or cow urine distillate has been carried out by scientists affiliated with institutions in several countries, including India, Nepal, the US and the UK, often through collaborative studies. The research has largely focused on antimicrobial compounds, antioxidant activity, bio-enhancer effects, veterinary applications and antiviral screening.
Recent laboratory work has investigated whether compounds isolated from cow urine distillate demonstrate anti-viral activity against viruses such as Chikungunya under laboratory conditions. This illustrates an important scientific principle: traditional medicinal claims deserve scientific investigation to identify positive laboratory findings. If sceptics question such claims, the answer lies in more research and rigorous clinical testing to determine whether laboratory findings translate into safe and effective treatments for humans.
The issue is bigger than cow urine. When parachute or hereditary politicians ridicule scientific investigation because the subject originates from traditional knowledge, which they lack, they risk discouraging legitimate research. The scientific method requires openness, scepticism, replication, and evidence. The appropriate response is therefore not blind acceptance or blanket dismissal, but rigorous evaluation.
Politics of scientific research
Priyanka’s description was intended as political criticism, but it raises a deeper question: Should scientific inquiry be dismissed because its subject appears unconventional or rooted in traditional knowledge? The remark has drawn criticism from hundreds of academicians, who argued that reducing a distinguished scientist to a single label undermines academic discourse. History reminds us that many scientific ideas initially faced ridicule before they were properly evaluated.
I am reminded of astronomer and physicist Galileo, who did not become famous because he was always right. He became famous because he insisted that evidence—not ridicule or authority—should decide scientific questions. When Galileo argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun, many dismissed or opposed his work because it challenged accepted beliefs. Over time, observations and evidence established the heliocentric model.
The appropriate response to controversial research is not to dismiss researchers with labels, nor to accept every traditional claim uncritically. It is to let evidence decide. Whether future research validates, refines, or disproves claims about gaumutra should be determined in laboratories and clinical trials and not in political speeches.
Also read: India wanted a space industry. Scientists quitting ISRO is how that happens
Legitimate scientific endeavour
What the global scientific community agrees is that cow urine contains biologically active compounds that merit scientific investigation. Second, laboratory and animal studies have reported anti-microbial, anti-oxidant, and immunomodulatory effects. Scientists in India, such as Suman Preet Singh Khanuja, have led research on cow urine distillate as a bio-enhancer that may improve the absorption and effectiveness of antibiotics and anticancer drugs. Khanuja is also a co-inventor on US patents relating to the use of cow urine distillate.
Mahendra Pandurang Darokar, a medicinal plant and natural products researcher, worked on antimicrobial and pharmaceutical applications of cow urine distillate as part of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) team. This balanced perspective allows one to argue that research into gaumutra is a legitimate scientific endeavour, also recognising that extraordinary medical claims require extraordinary clinical evidence.
In 2026, researchers at IIT Roorkee reported that an Ayurvedic cow urine distillate (Gau Mutra Ark) significantly reduced the chikungunya virus in laboratory experiments. According to the institute, viral load was reduced by over 90 per cent, with an optimised formulation achieving up to 99.85 per cent reduction under laboratory conditions. Research on cow urine has involved multiple Indian scientific agencies, including the Department of Science & Technology (DST), Department of Biotechnology (DBT), CSIR, ICMR, ICAR, and the Ministry of AYUSH under collaborative research programmes.
The 200 academicians who issued an open letter criticising the comment made by Priyanka argued that reducing a scientist to a dismissive label undermines academic integrity and discourages scientific inquiry. The question is whether scientists should be mocked for investigating traditional knowledge.
Research on cow urine has also opened doors to agricultural applications.
As a political worker, I tried to analyse the Gaumutra Visheshagya jibe at Kamakoti, concluding that it was a slur of choice to mock Hindus and associated practices of their faith. In addition, it was also a jibe at the institution which functions under his leadership. I am citing my post on X:
“Priyanka Gandhi probably doesn’t know about Aryabhatt, but surely she would’ve visited her Nanihal and the famous Galileo Museum. I’m sure she would have seen how Galileo was imprisoned for saying the Earth goes around the Sun. It may be shocking for some that “cow worshippers” and “gau mutra visheshgya” had already discovered this centuries before Galileo!! And no one was imprisoned for life for “blasphemy”.
The contribution of ancient Hindu civilisation in the field of science is unparalleled. The pedigree of rishis and their parampara is such that none of the imported or dogmatic Gandhis or Vadras can either compete or undermine it. I have my suspicions about their ability to comprehend.
I pray to my lord that wisdom and knowledge, along with compassion, prevail amongst biased and ignorant people.
Meenakshi Lekhi is a BJP leader and lawyer. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Saptak Datta)