Secularism, enshrined as a basic feature of the Constitution of India (as affirmed in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1), guarantees equal respect for all religions while ensuring that the State maintains a principled distance from religion. In the tribal regions of Andhra Pradesh, however, the interplay between constitutional values, religious practices, and indigenous traditions has given rise to unique challenges. While tribals are often referred to as Adivasi, Vanavasi, or Mulavasi, their constitutional identity is formally recognized as Scheduled Tribes under Article 342. Clause (25) of Article 366 defines Scheduled Tribes as “such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.” This recognition is not merely symbolic—it affirms the constitutional obligation to safeguard their traditions, culture, and governance.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The Supreme Court, in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 677, clarified that this right includes the freedom to spread one’s religion but does not extend to coercive conversion. At the same time, Articles 25–28 ensure a balance between individual freedom of religion and the State’s duty to maintain secular governance. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) 7 SCC 368, the Court reiterated that secularism does not mean irreligion but equal respect for all faiths. The principle was further reinforced in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615, where the Court protected the right of Jehovah’s Witness schoolchildren to refrain from singing the national anthem on grounds of conscience, affirming that the Constitution protects both majority and minority religious expressions.
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, inserted Part IX into the Constitution, institutionalizing Panchayati Raj across rural India. However, by virtue of Article 243M(1), its provisions did not apply to Scheduled Areas. Recognizing the need to adapt local governance to tribal customs and traditions, Parliament enacted the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA). Section 4 of PESA vests the Gram Sabha with powers to safeguard and preserve traditions, customs, cultural identity, community resources, and customary modes of dispute resolution. The Supreme Court in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 191 held that the transfer of tribal lands to non-tribals, including corporations, is unconstitutional as it violates the spirit of the Fifth Schedule and undermines tribal self-governance. This case established that tribal control over land and resources is intrinsic to constitutional protections.
In the erstwhile Srikakulam District, some tribal elders began promoting the Savara script as a deity (Mathar Bhanum), framing it as the foundation of a separate religion called Madeer. This created divisions, as some tribals who followed other religions distanced themselves. In response, Savara elders emphasized that the script symbolized cultural identity rather than a religion, forming the Savara Language Script Protection Committee to preserve linguistic and cultural heritage, according to K. Prakash, who works on constitutional values. Despite constitutional safeguards, complexities persist. For instance, in Devaram village, Devipatnam Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju (ASR) District, religious divisions have increasingly overshadowed traditional practices.
Devaram has 200 families, of which 80 are ST households. Historically, tribals collectively celebrated agricultural and seasonal festivals such as Pappu, Sama Kotha, Budama Kotha, Bhu Devi, Vana Panduga, Chukkudu Festival, and the Mango Festival—all closely tied to crop cycles and nature worship. However, with the spread of Christianity among a section of tribals (10 households), tensions surfaced. Christian households refrained from participating in tribal festivals, considering them “Hindu practices,” while Hindu-practicing tribals saw this withdrawal as disregard for shared traditions. This cultural tension came to light when a tribal youth, Baby, failed to speak in her mother tongue, Koya, during a health worker interview—an incident highlighting the erosion of cultural identity and raising concerns over the loss of tribal roots.
In a village meeting, youth leader Tellam Sekhar reminded members that Scheduled Tribes are constitutionally recognized as distinct communities, not divided by Hindu, Muslim, or Christian identities. He invoked the constitutional framework of unity based on culture, not religion. His stance echoes the reasoning in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217), where the Court held that affirmative action must preserve the identity and advancement of disadvantaged groups without being diluted by external classifications. Sekhar also cited the example of non-tribal Muslim households in the same village who, despite their faith in Allah, collectively installed a Vinayaka idol during Vinayaka Chavithi and organized Santarpana (offering food) with community donations. This demonstrated that shared traditions could transcend rigid religious lines, aligning with the spirit of S.R. Bommai that secularism means equal respect and not hostility to any faith. Following deliberations, the committee resolved to celebrate tribal festivals collectively, with contributions from all ST households irrespective of religion. The celebrations successfully revived a sense of unity and reinforced the constitutional mandate of secularism and self-governance.
A recurring debate in tribal areas concerns whether Scheduled Tribes (STs) lose their constitutional status if they profess and practice Hinduism, Christianity, or any other religion. The question gained attention after a recent Supreme Court ruling (2024 SC ruling on conversion and reservation), which held: “The conferment of Scheduled Caste communal status to the appellant, who is a Christian by religion but claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution.” This principle, however, applies to Scheduled Castes, where caste identity is closely linked with religious practice. For Scheduled Tribes, the Ministry of Home Affairs clarified as early as 1975 (File No. 35/1/72-R.U. (SCT.V)) that “if the person claims to be a Scheduled Tribe, he may profess any religion.” This distinction arises because tribal identity is rooted in ethnicity, culture, and language rather than religion, a position consistent with the Court’s reasoning in State of Kerala v. Chandramohanan (2004) 3 SCC 429, where community and traditional identity were upheld as crucial determinants in constitutional classification.
The Devaram experience shows that upholding secularism in tribal areas requires more than tolerance of multiple religions. It demands conscious efforts to preserve tribal cultural identity while respecting individual freedom of faith. The constitutional vision—reinforced through PESA and judicial pronouncements such as Samatha (1997), S.R. Bommai (1994), and the Niyamgiri case (Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476)—provides the legal and moral framework for this balance. In Niyamgiri, the Supreme Court held that the Gram Sabha has the authority to decide whether mining can affect their religious and cultural rights, affirming the centrality of tribal self-governance. As tribal youth increasingly campaign for constitutional values, their efforts embody the living spirit of India’s secularism—unity in diversity rooted in dignity, culture, and self-governance.
Comments