The recent uproar following a pastor’s provocative statement during the Arunachal Christian Forum (ACF) protest on March 6 at Naharlagun, allegedly declaring Arunachal a “Christian land” that will soon become a Christian state, has sparked deep concerns. This statement has not only drawn strong condemnation from the Indigenous Faith and Cultural Society of Arunachal Pradesh (IFCSAP), but has also triggered public outrage. It has fueled concerns about a broader agenda aimed at altering Arunachal’s demographic and cultural fabric, a move some critics label as part of a “covert operation” designed to create a separate Christian nation in Northeast India. Adding to the complexity, the state government has so far remained silent, providing no official statement to either confirm or refute these allegations.
The larger context: Religious demography and conversion concerns
Arunachal Pradesh is renowned for its rich heritage of indigenous cultures, languages, and traditions. Historically, the state has been a meeting point of diverse communities, such as Donyi-Polo, Rangfraa, and other animist practices, each contributing to a pluralistic social fabric that forms the core of its identity. Unlike organized religions with structured doctrines, indigenous belief systems are intertwined with nature worship, oral traditions, and ancestral reverence.
In such a setting, any attempt to redefine the region along a singular religious line can be perceived as an existential threat to its cultural heritage. The past few decades, has witnessed a significant rise in Christian missionary activities, leading to a growing Christian population in the state. While conversion is a personal choice, indigenous faith organizations have raised concerns about the methods used by missionaries, often alleging coercion, financial inducements, or social pressure. This has led to tensions between Christian groups and followers of indigenous religions, with both sides accusing each other of intolerance.
To protect indigenous traditions from external influence, the Arunachal Pradesh government introduced the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA) in 1978. The law was meant to prevent forced conversions and safeguard the cultural heritage of the state. However, Christian organizations view this legislation as discriminatory, arguing that it restricts their constitutional right to propagate their faith. The recent protests by ACF demanding the repeal of APFRA-1978 reflect the growing divide on this issue.
The controversy and its immediate reactions
The recent gathering organized by the ACF on March 6, 2025, at NIIS Nyokum Ground, Borum Village, was meant to be a peaceful protest calling for the repeal of APFRA-1978. However, the event took a controversial turn when a pastor publicly declared Arunachal Pradesh a “Christian Land” and predicted that it would soon become a Christian state. The video of this moment quickly spread, triggering sharp reactions from indigenous faith organizations and community leaders.
The Indigenous Faith and Cultural Society of Arunachal Pradesh (IFCSAP) strongly condemned the statement, calling it a direct attack on the religious and cultural identity of the region. IFCSAP President Dr. Emi Rumi, along with Assistant General Secretary Tadar Chachung and other leaders, demanded strict legal action against the pastor for making inflammatory remarks. They argued that such statements disrupt communal harmony and could lead to unrest. Dr. Rumi further emphasized the importance of APFRA-1978, stating that any attempt to repeal the law would be opposed by indigenous groups.
On the other hand, the ACF attempted to defuse tensions by clarifying that the pastor’s remarks were not part of their official agenda. ACF President Tarh Miri stated that the statement was merely a “prophetic prayer” and not a declaration of intent. However, despite this clarification, the controversy has continued to fuel debates about religious identity and conversion in Arunachal Pradesh.
At the heart of this controversy lies a crucial question: Are these provocative declarations merely individual expressions of personal faith, or do they signify a deliberate, well-orchestrated agenda aimed at altering the social and cultural fabric of a region celebrated for its deep-rooted indigenous traditions? Some observers contend that the rhetoric is symptomatic of a political strategy where religion is used to rally a particular segment of the population. By asserting that “Arunachal belongs to Jesus” and predicting a future Christian state, the speaker is not only appealing to the devout but is also potentially laying the groundwork for a more radical redefinition of the state’s identity. This, in turn, has fueled concerns that such rhetoric might serve as a precursor to actions aimed at altering the region’s cultural and demographic landscape.
Rising tensions and the risk of communal unrest
The recent controversy is not an isolated incident but part of a growing pattern of verbal provocations and inflammatory rhetoric in Arunachal Pradesh. Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable rise in provocative speeches from both sides, Christian leaders making bold claims about the state’s religious future, and indigenous faith leaders responding with equally strong rhetoric. This cycle of verbal sparring has deepened mistrust and widened the social divide.
In response to what they perceive as a distortion of traditional practices to suit Christian interpretations, some indigenous faith organizations have even issued informal diktats, discouraging converted Christians from participating in certain cultural festivals and rituals. They argue that selective involvement and reinterpretation of indigenous customs by converts threaten the integrity of age-old traditions. While these measures are intended to safeguard cultural identity, they have also led to feelings of alienation among converts, who find themselves caught between faith and cultural belonging.
Additionally, there has been a growing demand from indigenous faith groups for the revocation of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for individuals who have converted to Christianity. They argue that the constitutional provisions meant to protect tribal identity and culture are being misused by those who, after conversion, continue to avail benefits while distancing themselves from indigenous traditions. According to them, retaining ST status without preserving indigenous faith and practices undermines the very purpose of these constitutional safeguards.
These tensions are now also reflected in the political arena. BJP MLAs from Arunachal have expressed their support for the APFRA-1978, viewing it as a crucial measure to protect indigenous culture from what they see as aggressive religious propaganda. In contrast, Christian legislators have strongly opposed the act, calling it discriminatory and outdated. This political fault line mirrors the broader social divide between communities.
In the absence of calm dialogue, such verbal confrontations and rigid posturing, both social and political, risk escalating into deeper divides. For a state that has long prided itself on peaceful coexistence, this growing environment of provocation and counter-provocation poses a serious challenge to Arunachal Pradesh’s communal harmony.
Understanding the government’s silence
Notably, amid these controversies, the Arunachal Pradesh government has not issued any formal statement addressing the remarks or the subsequent violence. This absence of a response can be interpreted in several ways. On one hand, it might be seen as a deliberate choice by state authorities to avoid lending legitimacy to extremist views. By not engaging directly with inflammatory rhetoric, the government might be attempting to keep the focus on broader governance issues and the preservation of regional integrity. On the other hand, the silence may also be perceived as a reluctance or inability to tackle a rapidly evolving situation that threatens social cohesion.
Government silence in the face of provocative statements can inadvertently create a vacuum in which rumors and extremist narratives thrive. Without an authoritative voice to clarify the state’s position and reaffirm its commitment to secular values and cultural diversity, public sentiment may polarize further. In a region where diverse traditions have long coexisted, this silence risks undermining the very pluralism that is a source of strength for Arunachal Pradesh.
A Call for constructive engagement and dialogue
The present crisis calls for a balanced approach, one that acknowledges the right of individuals to express their religious beliefs while also safeguarding the broader interests of social harmony and national unity. Constructive engagement is essential. Government officials, religious leaders from all communities, and representatives of indigenous groups should initiate an open dialogue aimed at addressing grievances on all sides. Such a forum could serve to clarify misunderstandings, defuse tensions, and pave the way for policies that protect both religious freedom and the region’s cultural heritage.
Authorities need to articulate a clear, unambiguous position that respects the diversity of Arunachal Pradesh while firmly opposing any attempts to redraw its demographic or cultural map through inflammatory rhetoric or violence. A measured and proactive intervention could help to restore calm and prevent the escalation of further conflicts.
The recent remarks by church leaders, coupled with a disturbing series of inflammatory speeches, have thrust Arunachal Pradesh into the spotlight as a region at risk of ideological and cultural polarization. While the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution of India, it must coexist with equal respect for local traditions, customs, and the cultural identity of the indigenous communities. Inflammatory speeches, whether from church leaders or from those responding in defence of indigenous faiths, only serve to widen the divide and threaten the social harmony that Arunachal has maintained for decades.
The demand by indigenous groups for stronger implementation of laws like APFRA-1978, and even the call for revoking ST status for converts, highlights the urgency with which these communities view the preservation of their cultural fabric. On the other hand, Christian organizations and believers seek equal treatment and freedom to practice their faith without suspicion or discrimination. The government’s silence so far, while understandable in such a delicate situation, cannot continue indefinitely. It must find a balanced approach that upholds constitutional freedoms while protecting the unique cultural identity of the state.
At this juncture, dialogue, not confrontation, is the need of the hour. Leaders from all faiths, civil society, and the state administration must come together to foster understanding, discourage provocative rhetoric, and build trust. Arunachal’s strength lies in its diversity and peaceful coexistence. Safeguarding that harmony, while respecting every citizen’s right to faith and identity, will be the true test of leadership and wisdom in the days ahead.
