[ Kina Kangnong ]
The ongoing debate in Arunachal Pradesh over the demand to delist Scheduled Tribe (ST) individuals who have converted to Christianity has once again brought questions of identity, culture, religion, and constitutional rights to the forefront of public discourse.
The issue has generated strong emotions across communities and deserves careful reflection, rather than reactionary conclusions.
In recent weeks, several indigenous organisations and public figures have expressed concern over the perceived erosion of indigenous tribal culture. Among them, Padma Shri awardee Techi Gubin’s remarks linking instability in the Tirap-Changlang-Longding (TCL) region to Christianity have sparked widespread discussion.
While every citizen is entitled to express concerns about the future of indigenous cultures, it is equally important to respectfully disagree when complex social realities are reduced to a single cause. The history of the TCL region demonstrates that its challenges are rooted in a combination of geographical isolation, historical neglect, insurgency, economic underdevelopment, border dynamics, governance issues, unemployment, and social transformation. To attribute instability primarily to Christianity risks oversimplifying a deeply complex situation, and unfairly associating an entire faith community with social problems.
The constitutional debate surrounding the demand for delisting tribal Christians raises an even more fundamental question: What exactly is the basis of ST status in India?
Unlike Scheduled Castes, whose constitutional framework has historically been linked to specific social disabilities associated with the caste system, ST status is not determined by religion. The Constitution recognises tribes based on their historical, geographical, social, and cultural characteristics. A tribal individual does not cease to be born into a tribe merely because he or she changes religious affiliation.
The argument that tribal Christians should lose ST status assumes that conversion automatically erases tribal identity. Yet the reality across Arunachal is far more nuanced. Thousands of tribal Christians continue to speak their indigenous languages, participate in customary institutions, observe traditional social practices, maintain clan relationships, respect customary laws, wear traditional attires during festivals, and identify strongly with their tribal heritage. Culture is not preserved merely through religious labels. It survives through practice, transmission, memory, and belonging.
The concept of indigeneity itself requires deeper understanding. True indigeneity is not measured solely by the religion one professes. Rather, it is rooted in a people’s historical relationship with their ancestral land, their shared memories, their cultural inheritance, their language, their customary institutions, and their collective identity as a community.
An indigenous person’s connection to the land of their ancestors does not disappear because they attend a church, a temple, or any other place of worship. To suggest otherwise risks narrowing a rich and diverse indigenous identity into a single religious framework.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly recognised that tribal identity and religious affiliation are not automatically synonymous. Courts have generally examined whether an individual continues to maintain genuine ties with the tribal community and its social structure, rather than treating religion alone as a decisive criterion. Across various states of India, tribal Christians continue to enjoy ST status because the constitutional basis of tribal recognition is ethnicity, historical identity, and community membership, rather than religious profession.
This principle reflects the constitutional vision of India as a nation that protects both cultural diversity and freedom of religion.
The present discourse therefore requires caution. What appears on the surface as a movement to save indigenous culture may unintentionally create divisions among communities that have coexisted peacefully for generations. Tribal societies in Arunachal have long been bound together by kinship, shared ancestry, customary institutions, and mutual respect, despite differences in religious beliefs. When public debates begin portraying one section of indigenous people as less indigenous than another, the risk is not merely legal controversy.
The greater danger is social fragmentation. History shows that cultural preservation movements succeed when they unite communities around a shared heritage. They fail when they transform cultural concerns into contests of identity and belonging.
Perhaps the most important question is whether Christianity is truly the primary reason for cultural decline. Evidence from around the world suggests otherwise. Indigenous communities across continents have experienced language loss, weakening of traditional institutions, declining use of traditional attire, erosion of folklore, and changing social values even in places where Christianity was not a major factor.
The more powerful drivers have been modernisation, urbanisation, globalisation, migration, digital media, changing economic aspirations, and the increasing integration of local communities into national and global systems. Young people today spend more time on smartphones than listening to elders narrate oral traditions. Many indigenous languages are disappearing because children increasingly communicate in dominant regional language like Hindi and global language, ie, English. Traditional attire is often reserved for festivals rather than everyday life. Oral folklore is fading because it is seldom documented.
These realities cannot be explained solely through the lens of religion. The challenge facing Arunachal is therefore not a battle between faiths. It is a challenge of cultural transmission in a rapidly changing world. The real question is not who should be excluded from tribal identity. The real question is how tribal identity can be strengthened for future generations.
The way forward lies in constructive action. Instead of demanding exclusion, society should focus on preservation. Schools should teach local history and indigenous knowledge systems. Community organisations should document oral traditions before they disappear.
Traditional languages should be promoted both at home and in educational institutions. Youth festivals should encourage participation in traditional songs, dances, crafts, and folklore. Research and documentation of tribal heritage should be expanded.
Traditional attire should be encouraged not only during festivals but as a source of pride in everyday life. Village elders should be supported in transmitting customary knowledge to younger generations. Government institutions, civil society organisations, religious groups, and community leaders should work together to safeguard indigenous heritage, irrespective of religious differences.
Arunachal’s greatest strength has always been its diversity within unity. The state’s tribes have preserved their unique identities while maintaining social harmony across different beliefs and traditions. This legacy should not be weakened by narratives that divide indigenous people into competing categories of authenticity. The preservation of culture is a noble goal. But culture cannot be protected through exclusion. It can only be protected through education, participation, documentation, and inter-generational transmission.
The future of Arunachal’s indigenous heritage will not be secured by deciding who belongs and who does not. It will be secured when every tribal community, regardless of faith, joins hands to ensure that their languages, traditions, folklores, customary institutions, and ancestral wisdom continue to thrive. (The writer is pursuing MA in geography at Banaras Hindu University)