Critiques of Baba Ramdev often begin with his medical and scientific claims. He is said to promote yoga and Ayurvedic remedies as cures for serious illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS, frequently without the kind of rigorous clinical evidence that modern medicine would require. This has raised concern that some followers might neglect or abandon conventional treatment in favor of his methods. Observers also note that his explanations of bodily processes and disease mechanisms can be oversimplified, and that many of the health benefits attributed to his techniques and products lack robust, peer‑reviewed validation. From a spiritual standpoint, this tension highlights the delicate boundary between faith in traditional wisdom and responsibility toward empirical truth.

A second area of criticism concerns the commercialization of yoga and Ayurveda through his large‑scale enterprises. Traditional practitioners and scholars argue that the practices are sometimes packaged in a highly market‑driven, mass‑produced form that may dilute their depth and subtlety. Public yoga camps that emphasize quick results are seen as at odds with the long‑term discipline and inward transformation emphasized in classical teachings. Related to this, questions have been raised about the quality control and standardization of some products associated with his name, including reports of regulatory failures and misleading or exaggerated advertising claims. For many spiritual observers, this raises the question of how far sacred disciplines can be integrated with commerce without losing their original ethos.

His role in the social and political sphere is another source of contention. Critics point to the use of a spiritual platform to advance particular political positions and ideological narratives, including elements of religious nationalism. This blending of spiritual authority with political messaging is seen by some as potentially polarizing, shifting yoga from a universal discipline toward a vehicle for specific agendas. Additionally, certain public statements on social issues, including sexuality and lifestyle choices, have been described as derogatory or discriminatory, and as shaping public attitudes in a dogmatic rather than open‑ended way. Such concerns reflect a broader unease about how spiritual influence is exercised in the public arena.

Questions are also raised about claims of authority and expertise. Although widely regarded as a charismatic teacher, he is criticized for presenting himself as an authoritative voice not only on spirituality and health, but also on broader social, economic, and political matters, without corresponding formal training in many of these fields. Medical associations and scholars have challenged his scope of practice, particularly when complex medical concepts are taught without conventional medical credentials. Some observers describe a tendency toward personality‑centric devotion, in which allegiance to the guru may overshadow critical examination of specific teachings or health claims. For a seeker, these critiques serve as a reminder that reverence for a teacher is most balanced when accompanied by discernment and careful inquiry.