Editor,
Much has been said about the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), especially in the recent debates around its interpretation and scope. It’s important to clarify: the Act, in its essence, is not against any religion. It was introduced with the intent to safeguard the unique cultural and spiritual identities of the many indigenous communities that call this state home.
However, a closer reading – particularly of Section 3(c) – raises difficult but necessary questions. The section lists Buddhism and Vaishnavism as ‘indigenous’ faiths. On the surface, this may seem harmless, even inclusive. But is it accurate? Are these religions truly indigenous to Arunachal?
Buddhism and Vaishnavism are undeniably ancient Indian traditions, but they are not native to Arunachal in the same way as Donyi-Poloism, Rangfraism, or other tribal belief systems that have been practiced here since time immemorial. Yes, these newer faiths may have been embraced by certain communities for several decades, but it’s equally true that their arrival came through conversion, not continuity. So, how many years does it take for a faith to be considered ‘indigenous’? Is time the only measure, or should we also ask how deeply a belief system is rooted in the land, language, rituals, and worldview of a people?
I urge policymakers, scholars, and civil society to revisit this clause and engage in an honest, inclusive dialogue. If we genuinely wish to protect Arunachal’s indigenous religions, we must first understand what makes them indigenous, not just in terms of geography but also in spirit, history, and lived tradition. Let us honour all faiths but protect our own without bias, without dilution, and with the dignity they deserve.
Mai Dol