Opinion You can set up a new AIIMS, but can you also replicate its empathy?

Yet a simple truth confronts us today: The newer campuses — from Bhopal and Raipur to Gorakhpur and Bilaspur to Rishikesh and Patna— have not been able to cultivate the ethos that defined the first AIIMS. The absence is not merely academic; it is felt intimately by patients who continue to flock to Delhi because they “trust AIIMS”— meaning AIIMS Delhi.

Why has the hardware expanded while the software — the humane character of the institution — remained stubbornly unreplicable? The answers lie deep within our policy design, our priorities, and our understanding of what makes an institution great. The first AIIMS was born from a visionary imagination. It was conceptualised as an apex medical institution combining clinical excellence, research leadership, and ethical education. Its founding faculty consisted of pioneers who returned from abroad, inspired by global standards but committed to building an Indian institution with an Indian ethos. Over time, AIIMS Delhi developed a unique internal culture comprising rigorous training, high ethical expectations, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a deep sense of accountability to India’s poorest patients.

This culture was not built in a year or two but was shaped through decades of mentorship, institutional autonomy, continuity of leadership, and a cohesive academic community. When governments hurried to open multiple new AIIMS, they attempted to replicate the infrastructure but not the conditions that had produced the culture. Most new AIIMS struggle with shortages of faculty, nurses, technicians, and support staff. Many departments are functional only on paper. It is not unusual to see key specialties run with one or two doctors navigating impossible workloads. In overburdened and understaffed environments, compassion does not die out of intention but out of exhaustion as well. AIIMS Delhi, despite its huge patient load, still retains senior faculty, long-standing mentorship networks, and a stable system for training postgraduates.

One of AIIMS Delhi’s greatest strengths has been its relative autonomy, though this has also thinned in multiple ways and at multiple levels. Nevertheless, it has enjoyed the freedom to decide on academic policies, research priorities, hiring practices, and internal governance. Insulated from political and bureaucratic interference, it evolved organically. The new AIIMS, in contrast, have been tethered more tightly to bureaucracy. Decisions often get delayed, directors change frequently, procurement gets stuck in administrative loops, and faculty recruitment becomes an ordeal. In environments where governance is unstable and micromanagement is high, academic freedom suffers — and with it, the moral ethos that sustains compassionate care.

Let us also remember that AIIMS Delhi is a research institution that attracts some of the country’s brightest young minds. Here postgraduate students learn not only to treat patients but to ask questions, pursue innovations, and think ethically about public health. The intellectual stimulation fuels a sense of pride and purpose. The new AIIMS, without a vibrant academic environment, risk becoming well-funded district hospitals rather than premier institutions of national excellence.

The crisis is larger than AIIMS alone. Across India, medical education increasingly emphasises examinations, protocols, and efficiency — while humane skills such as communication, empathy, listening, and ethical reasoning receive far less emphasis. Students emerge as competent clinicians but not necessarily as compassionate healers. AIIMS Delhi — because of its history and mentorship— retains a stronger internal culture of bedside manners and ethical responsibility. The younger faculty at the new AIIMS, who graduated in an increasingly technical era, struggle to transmit values they were not sufficiently trained in.

There is no denying that the AIIMS brand has political value as I have myself demanded AIIMS in the region I come from. Announcing a new AIIMS in a state carries electoral appeal. The problem arises when symbolism supersedes substance. When governments focus on inaugurations rather than institution-building, the long-term values necessary for excellence are compromised.

One of the first lessons you get on entering AIIMS Delhi from any of its gates is why it still receives overwhelming patient inflows. It is certainly not because it has the best infrastructure — several private hospitals surpass it — but because patients trust the commitment, compassion, and competence of the people inside it. To cultivate such trust in new AIIMS, governments must invest not only in budgets and beds but in people, values, and continuity. India does not merely need more hospitals. It needs institutions that embody the spirit of compassionate public service. Buildings can be unveiled with fanfare, but values cannot be inaugurated. They must be fostered consistently through service, accountability, and humane governance.

The writer is MP (Rajya Sabha), Rashtriya Janata Dal