Abstract Objectives: To investigate and explore conceptual, diagnostic, and therapeutic intersections between Ayurveda, conventional medicine, biomedicine, and other modern health sciences in the understanding and management of Colorectal Motility Disorders (CMDs), including chronic constipation, slow‑transit constipation, Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation (IBS‑C), and pelvic floor dyssynergia. To synthesizes Ayurvedic principles with modern health sciences to propose an integrated diagnostic and therapeutic model for CMDs. Design: Narrative review. Data Sources: Narrative synthesis of literature from PubMed, EMBASE, and classical Ayurvedic texts (e.g., Charaka Samhita). Classical Ayurvedic texts, peer‑reviewed biomedical literature, integrative medicine research, and global health system reports. Eligibility Criteria: Sources describing CMDs ‑ including chronic constipation, slow‑transit constipation, Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation (IBS‑C), and pelvic floor dyssynergia ‑ from Ayurvedic, biomedical, or integrative perspectives. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A thematic synthesis approach was used to map conceptual parallels, diagnostic frameworks, and therapeutic strategies across systems. Results: Ayurveda and biomedicine describe CMDs through distinct epistemologies but share convergent themes: dysregulated motility, neuromuscular dysfunction, altered lubrication, microbiome imbalance, and psychosomatic contributors. Ayurvedic constructs such as Vata dosha, Apana Vayu, Agni, and Srotas dysfunction parallel biomedical concepts including enteric nervous system dysregulation, gut‑brain axis imbalance, microbiome alterations, and colonic transit abnormalities. Integrative approaches combining dietary modulation, herbal formulations, behavioural therapies, pelvic floor retraining, and pharmacological agents show promise but require rigorous evaluation in rigorous clinical trials. Conclusions: Ayurveda offers a systems‑based, functional framework that complements reductionist biomedical models. A pluralistic, evidence‑informed approach may enhance diagnostic precision, personalise therapy, and improve outcomes for CMDs. High‑quality comparative effectiveness research is needed.