Editor,
I am writing to express my deep concern over the growing attempts to divide the tribal communities of Arunachal Pradesh along religious lines. Recently, certain groups have demanded the revocation of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for tribal individuals who practice Christianity. Shockingly, there are even discussions about barring them from participating in local festivals and wearing our traditional attire.
There is a genuine fear that under the guise of enforcing the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), these fringe groups will act as self-appointed lawmakers. This dangerous overreach could easily incite violence in the name of ‘saving indigenous faiths’.
We must remind ourselves of a fundamental truth: a tribe in Arunachal is defined by its rich linguistic heritage and unique cultural practices, not by religions. Our shared traditions are what bind us together. We cannot allow religious differences to erase our collective cultural identity or destroy the peaceful coexistence of our people.
Critics and legal experts argue that the implementation of APFRA -originally passed in 1978 but left dormant without framing rules until recently – could lead to several adverse socio-political consequences:
Ä Bureaucratic harassment: Mandating prior permission from a deputy commissioner for religious conversion creates a bureaucratic bottleneck, opening the door for state harassment.
Ä Weaponisation by political fringe groups: The law can be misused by vigilante groups to file false complaints against minorities or rivals.
Ä Erosion of individual liberty: It infringes on the constitutional Right to Freedom of Conscience (Article 25) by allowing the state to police deeply personal spiritual choices.
Ä Criminalisation of charity: The vague definition of ‘inducement’ could result in charitable acts (healthcare, education) by Christian missionaries being misconstrued as illegal conversion tactics.
Ä Increased communal polarisation: The enforcement of the Act risks dividing communities that have coexisted peacefully for generations along religious lines.
Ä Surveillance culture: It may foster an environment of suspicion, where neighbours monitor and report on each other’s religious practices.
Ä Targeting of indigenous converts: Tribal individuals who willingly choose to convert may face state scrutiny, stigmatisation, and legal intimidation.
Ä Diversion of state’s resources: Administrative and police resources may be wasted on investigating religious affiliations rather than addressing core developmental issues.
Ä Stifling of free speech: Open theological discussions or the sharing of one’s faith could be criminalised under the guise of ‘attempted conversion’.
Ä Legal burden on the innocent: Individuals falsely accused of forceful conversion will face heavy financial and psychological burdens fighting state-sponsored legal battles.
Ä Disruption of tribal harmony: Intra-tribe and inter-tribe relations may fracture if families are divided by state-monitored religious disputes.
Ä Minority alienation: Christians, who make up roughly 30% of the state’s population, may feel increasingly alienated and targeted by the state apparatus.
Ä Threat to educational institutions: Minority-run schools and colleges may face heightened scrutiny or closure threats over unfounded conversion allegations.
Ä State overreach: It establishes a dangerous precedent of the government dictating what constitutes a ‘valid’ or ‘invalid’ spiritual belief.
Ä Suppression of tribal agency: The Act implicitly assumes that tribal populations are incapable of making informed, independent decisions about their own faith.
ÄEmboldening of majori-tarian politics: It can be used as a political tool to consolidate majoritarian vote banks by creating a manufactured narrative of demographic threat.
Ä Damage to the secular fabric: The selective application of the law could severely damage the secular credentials of the state government.
Ä International reputational damage: Human rights organisations frequently flag such anti-conversion laws as violations of international religious freedom standards.
Ä Discouragement of NGOs: Secular and religious NGOs might withdraw vital social services from the state out of fear of legal prosecution.
Ä Distraction from real issues: The intense focus on religious legislation distracts from pressing indigenous issues like land rights, unemployment, and infrastructure development.
Hinduism vs Christianity in Arunachal

1. Clergy and leadership:
Ä Christianity: Highly localised. Pastors, deacons, and missionaries are overwhelmingly local Arunachalis. They preach in local dialects and understand the tribal context.
Ä Hinduism: Caste-restricted. In orthodox Hindu temples, priesthood is traditionally reserved for the Brahmin caste. Tribal Arunachalis, falling outside the traditional Varna system, are structurally excluded from becoming head priests.

2. Financial control
ÄChristianity: Decen-tralised. Tithes and offerings are collected and managed by local church councils. The revenue is used to build local infrastructure, pay local staff, and fund community welfare.
Ä Hinduism: Centralised/non-local. Funds collected at major Hindu temples are often managed by centralised trusts or non-local administrators. The revenue rarely cycles back directly into the socioeconomic upliftment of the specific tribal locality.

3. Social structure
Ä Christianity: Generally egalitarian within the church structure; tribal identity does not explicitly bar one from holding the highest religious office within the state.
Ä Hinduism: Hierarchical by design. The caste system inherently places tribal populations at the periphery of religious authority.
The examples of Nagaland and Mizoram: Faith and culture coexisting
The 2011 census places Nagaland at 88% and Mizoram at roughly 87% of the Christian followers in state.
Despite this massive religious shift, both states are prime examples of how embracing Christianity does not equate to erasing indigenous culture. In fact, many argue that their tribal identities are fiercely protected and dynamically practiced. Here is how they maintain this balance:
Ä Customary laws and governance: Both states successfully negotiated special constitutional protections (Article 371A for Nagaland, Article 371G for Mizoram). Village councils, traditional tribal authorities, and customary laws remain the primary ways disputes are resolved; land is owned, and communities are governed. Religion did not replace traditional tribal governance.
Ä Cultural festivals: The Hornbill Festival in Nagaland and Chapchar Kut in Mizoram are massive, state-backed celebrations of indigenous culture. They involve traditional attire, tribal folk dances, indigenous music, and ancestral brews. The church does not suppress these festivals; rather, the community participates in them alongside their faith.
Ä Linguistic preservation: The church in these states has actively aided in preserving tribal culture. The Bible was translated into local dialects, and church services are conducted in indigenous languages like Mizo, Tenyidie, or Ao. This has standardised tribal languages and preserved them in writing.
Ä Tribal attire and lifestyle: It is completely normal in these states to see people wearing traditional handwoven shawls (like the Mizo puan or Naga tribal shawls) over modern clothing, even to Sunday church services. The social fabric – such as the tight-knit clan systems and community mutual aid – remains intrinsically tribal.
Ä The takeaway: The examples of Mizoram and Nagaland demonstrate that cultural preservation does not necessarily require legal restrictions on religious freedom. Instead of legislation, they rely on constitutional safeguards for land and customs, strong community institutions, and a cultural pride that adapts to, rather than fights against, religious evolution.
In contrast, enforcing an Act like the APFRA under the guise of ‘saving culture/indigenous faith’ conflates religious stasis with cultural preservation. Culture is saved through language preservation, celebrating folklore, protecting tribal land rights, and institutionalising indigenous arts – none of which require a state apparatus dictating which god a person is legally allowed to pray to.
Musa,
Guwahati