Lakshman Koya’s article, “The Unseen Faith: A Call for Distinct Adivasi Religious Identity”, published in The Hans India on 9th August 2025, raises some intriguing issues. He advocates a distinct religious identity for tribal groups, arguing that they risk losing their identities when classified as “Hindus.” Koya also points to the Christian conversions within these communities, particularly in the Northeast, as a threat to their identity and culture. However, the article highlights numerous issues in the scholarly misunderstanding of Indian culture over centuries, starting with the colonials.
What is Hinduism? What is religion? Does India have religions? Do the many traditions of India really qualify as religions? There is a lack of clarity at all levels regarding the term “Hindu” (and by extension, “Hinduism” and “Hindutva”). In 1874, the Inspector of General Registration in Bengal observed that distinguishing between the various Hindu races and aboriginal tribes was impossible. Orientalist scholars and the British Raj implemented policies that presumed the existence of Hindus (with a common ancestry) and Hinduism (as a religion) but failed to delineate the specific characteristics of these groups.
Surprisingly, the Indian Constitution has not explicitly defined the term ‘Hindu’. A vague sense of clarity indirectly emerges from various acts, such as the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), which essentially offers a ‘neti-neti’ definition of a Hindu individual: someone who is not a Muslim, not a Christian, not a Jew, and not a Parsi. The word “Hindu” encompasses Lingayats, various Samajis, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, while excluding Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Jews, or any group shown not to fall within the ambit of Hindu law or custom. However, what exactly constitutes Hindu law or custom? The Constitution overlooks the geographical, historical, and cultural connotations and focuses solely on religion in its identification of a Hindu.
Excluding the scheduled tribes (Article 366) from Hinduism has sparked considerable debate, particularly since they are now a significant target for proselytisation. The ambiguities surrounding the definitions of “majority Hindus” and “minority non-Hindus,” as established by our founding fathers, have led to ongoing controversies regarding whether Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, or tribals should be categorised as Hindus. The policies aimed at minority appeasement and protection have prompted even the Ramakrishnaites and the Lingayats to assert their status as minorities and non-Hindus, as these statuses grant them various advantages, especially in terms of governmental non-interference.
This lack of clarity in defining Hindus and non-Hindus becomes a tool for academic scholars and proselytisers in placing Hindus always on the defensive. They dismiss concerns about a declining demographic by referring to Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and tribals as Hindus. However, for purposes of proselytisation, these groups, particularly the tribals, are often deemed non-Hindu.
Dr SN Balagangadhara explains in his classic work, The Heathen in His Blindness, that the phenomena of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and animism—colonial classifications and categories—differ markedly from what are conventionally regarded as religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Religions, characterised by doctrines, a singular prophet, and a single God, prioritise the pursuit of “truth” and the imperative to convert individuals from a “false” to a “true” faith. In contrast, traditions centre around rituals and tend to exhibit indifference towards differences. They often view conversions as unethical, illegal, and disruptive to the social fabric. Fundamentally, religions say, “I am true, and you are false,” while traditions say, “I am true, but you are not false.”
Sanatana Dharma, a broad self-description of Indians, embodies a vast amalgamation of Vedic and non-Vedic traditions that have coexisted harmoniously within the rich tapestry of Indian culture for millennia. Alien religions were assimilated into Indian culture as another addition to the many Indian traditions. This “traditionalisation of religions” is the Indian approach to multiculturalism. When intellectuals attempt to redefine Indian traditions as formal religions, it often leads to a paradoxical rise in intolerance and fundamentalism.
Dr SN Balagangadhara highlights how Indological scholars have whimsically described Hinduism as many things: a religion, a culture, an inverted tree, a mathematical empty set, an unnatural creation, lasagna, or whatever else the scholar deems fit. His strong, simple, radical, yet unrefuted thesis posits that “Hinduism” was an Orientalist experiential construction, arising from the inability of foreigners to comprehend the diverse traditions present in India. They provided a meta-narrative explanation to unify many practices under the labels of Hinduism, Buddhism, animism, and others.
Scholars failed to consider that both non-orthodox darshanas, such as Jainism and Buddhism, and certain orthodox darshanas, like Samkhya and Vaisesika, lack a specific conception of God; nevertheless, they are still recognised as religions. Presently, there exists a significant circularity in the definition of Hindu: “Someone who practices the Hindu religion is defined as Hindu. But what is the Hindu religion? It is simply a religion practiced by Hindus.”
The ongoing debate regarding the status of tribals and their relationship to mainstream Hinduism serves a singular purpose: to fragment India. As Koenraad Elst explains in his works, the term “Adivasi” (adi, original; vasi, inhabitant), coined in the 19th century and rarely a self-description of the tribals, has become one of the most successful disinformation campaigns of modern times, propagated by colonial powers, Christian missionaries, and Indian secularists. In settler colonies (such as America, New Zealand, and Australia), the term ‘aboriginal’ was useful for distinguishing European settlers from natives. However, in non-settler colonies like India, the term ‘aboriginal’ has become a purely colonial construct.
A narrative now pits the Hindus (as the original foreign invaders) against the original inhabitants as a permanent colonial legacy. One scholar says, “This colonial categorisation as ‘tribal’ is at best out of place and, at worst, ahistorical and sociologically groundless.” Interestingly, many tribes of Jharkhand and Northeast India migrated much later from the surrounding countries than the indigenous non-tribal peasant population. Hence, the historical data do not support the division of India’s population into aboriginal tribals and non-tribal invaders.
Today’s narratives at a national and international level introduce an internal coloniality and a permanent faultline where the “minority” tribal communities became racially and culturally distinct from the “majority” national communities. These now distinctly separate communities have become the focus of intense evangelical activity. Conversion-driven disruptions have never occurred in the interactions between the ‘mainstream’ and the ‘minor’ traditions of a traditional pagan landscape.
The concept of ‘tribe’, akin to ‘race’, remains a crucial yet outdated term from the early history of anthropology, primarily serving colonial, administrative, and ideological purposes that depicted local groups as primitive or backward. The Hindu religion is, in fact, as “aboriginal” as tribal populations due to its ancient nature. The fundamental polytheistic nature and paganism (which includes the deifying of the feminine, nature, and animals) of most Indian traditions distinguish them from prophetic-monotheistic religions.
Tribal communities and the “mainstream” Vedic-Sanskritic traditions share numerous common elements, stemming from distant common roots, the integration of tribal components into Sanskritic civilisation, and the incorporation of aspects from the Vedic-Puranic Tradition into tribal traditions. As Balagangadhara points out, anthropologists have spent decades attempting to eliminate harmful and incoherent concepts like ‘tribe’, only to observe its resurgence through Indology and other social sciences, ultimately reappearing in the Indian Constitution, Indian legislation, and its administration. The call to provide tribals a separate religious identity is divisive. The pagan nature of India naturally allows diversity without any individual group losing identity. It would do so well to reunderstand India with our own lenses rather than Western lenses.
RANDOM MUSINGS 