<p>The aim of this article is to describe the contemporary dynamics of Ayurveda under the condition of globalization, based on case studies from Kerala State in India. Particular attention will be paid to cultural politics concerning the question of to whom Ayurveda belongs as a medical resource. Moreover, I aim to present an alternative argument regarding the appropriation of local medical culture, suggesting that the state does not necessarily encompass the culture unilaterally from above, and illustrating the point of view of the local people, who sometimes invite the protection of the government from below. Ayurveda, which was originally confined to the Indian subcontinent and its vicinity, is now becoming a global medical practice, spreading to different areas of the world and acquiring new meanings in theory and practice. The globalization of Ayurveda has also had a great impact on India. Many patients go there from abroad to receive treatment. In the state of Kerala, many residential institutions have sprung up for such patients, and Ayurveda is rapidly growing into a huge industry. It seems that the practice of Ayurveda in India is undergoing reconstruction through contact with the outside world. However, some of those involved in Ayurveda in India are worried about its dependency on industry and the fact that the process is led by economically developed countries. In order to protect the rights to the knowledge and practice of Ayurveda at the state level, and extend the possibility of Ayurveda as a form of medicine and industry led by India on a worldwide scale, a movement is accelerating to place those intellectual properties and technologies in the context of Indian "national resources." I would like to analyze the cultural politics over the belongingness" of Ayurveda, in which it is redefined as national intellectual property and becomes an object of state intervention. Today we can distinguish between two kinds of Ayurvedic practitioners in India: namely vaidya, who have learned therapeutic techniques through local apprenticeship, and "Ayurvedic doctors," who have graduated from Ayurvedic courses in colleges. That distinction reflects the modern history of the reformation of Ayurveda. There are many differences between those two kinds of practitioners. In Kerala state, many vaidya who practice in villages see marma as the basic principle of treatment. Marma is also part of the everyday recognition of the body familiar to the village people. So, the vaidya's treatment is trusted by villagers. On the other hand, Ayurvedic doctors use various instruments of contemporary medicine for diagnosis instead of marma practices. They do not share the same concept of the body as the village people, and tend to practice at some distance from village society. As a result, the patients of Ayurvedic doctors often visit India from abroad. That has especially been the case in recent years, with Ayurveda being promoted at the government level as a tourist attraction. There is a tendency for many Ayurvedic doctors to go abroad for new opportunities. But they face mainly two obstacles in practicing in advanced countries. First, Ayurveda is not officially recognized as formal medicine there. Second, Ayurveda is sometimes treated by those countries as a "spiritual" or "healing" technique, making it is difficult for Indian doctors to practice. However, there is not much those doctors can do, even if the therapeutic practices are changed or distorted in ways that are difficult for them to accept. People involved in Indian pharmaceutical companies face a similar situation. Today, the increase in worldwide interest in herbal medicines has led to an increase in herbal industries, but has also resulted in many cases of biopiracy and exploitation of local knowledge. People in developing countries have thus started to demand state action to</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>