Udaipur — A recent controversy has highlighted the complex and contentious issue of tribal identity in India, with significant political and social repercussions.

This dispute centers on claims about the religious identity of tribal communities and their demands for greater autonomy. The controversy intensified following remarks made by Rajasthan's education Minister Madan Dilawar and a teacher, leading to a series of political and legal responses.

Meanwhile, in response to a question posed by Udaipur MP Dr. Mannalal Rawat in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjunram Meghwal stated that tribal people are also considered Hindus.

Dr. Rawat had inquired whether the term 'Hindu' is defined within Indian laws and if so, what is the definition provided under the Civil Rights Protection Act of 1955. He also asked if tribal people are included under the definition of 'Hindu' in the said Act.

In his response, Minister Meghwal clarified that the term 'Hindu' is defined in various central legislations. According to Sections 3 and 4 of the Civil Rights Protection Act, 1955 (Act No. 22 of 1955), the term 'Hindu' includes individuals who follow Buddhism, Sikhism, or Jainism, as well as those who adhere to any form or evolution of Hinduism. This definition encompasses followers of various sects such as Veerashaiva, Lingayat, tribal communities, Brahmo Samaj, Prayer Society, Arya Samaj, and the Swaminarayan sect.

The DNA controversy

Last month, Bharat Adivasi Party MP Rajkumar Roat sparked a heated debate by asserting that tribal communities in India are not Hindus and advocating for their autonomy. Roat’s statements included a call for the creation of a new state called Bhil Pradesh, to be carved out of 49 districts spanning Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. Roat’s claims were based on the belief that tribal cultures and identities differ significantly from mainstream Hindu practices.

The demand for Bhil Pradesh has been controversial and met with strong reactions from various quarters. The idea of creating a new state for tribal communities has been viewed as a challenge to the existing political and social structures in these states.

The controversy further escalated when Rajasthan’s Education Minister Madan Dilwar made a sarcastic remark in response to Roat’s claims. Dilwar suggested that a DNA test should be conducted to determine who is a Hindu and who is not. This comment was intended as a critique of the divisive nature of Roat’s statements, but it inadvertently fueled further tensions.

In a protest to Dilwar’s remark, hundreds of youths from the indigenous community took to social media and other platforms, sending their blood and nail samples for DNA testing. This gesture was a form of protest against the suggestion that their ancestory should be questioned.

Teacher’s Statement and Suspension

The controversy continued to gain momentum when Menaka Damor, a government teacher based in Dungarpur, made a statement. Damor claimed that Adivasis (tribals) are not Hindus and suggested that tribal women and girls should prioritize education over traditional practices such as wearing Mangalsutra and Sindoor. Damor’s comments were intended to promote education and challenge traditional gender roles within the tribal community.

In response to Damor’s statements, the education department suspended her from her position. The suspension was met with criticism from various groups who viewed it as an attempt to suppress open discussion on tribal identity and educational empowerment.

Following her suspension, Menaka Damor approached the High Court seeking relief. The High Court issued a stay on the education department’s suspension order and issued a notice seeking an explanation from the department regarding the action taken against Damor.