Madhya Pradesh politics was thrown into turmoil after Leader of Opposition Umang Singhar declared that tribals should not be considered Hindus, a statement that triggered fierce reactions and intensified the debate around identity, religion, and politics in the state. Speaking at a Tribal Development Council event in Chhindwara, Singhar, who belongs to the Bhil community, openly asserted that he took pride in identifying as an Adivasi rather than as a Hindu. He even drew upon mythology to support his stance, pointing to Shabari—an Adivasi woman in the Ramayana who served Lord Ram—to highlight the distinctiveness of tribal traditions within the broader cultural fabric of India.
In his remarks, Singhar made it clear that he did not intend to demean or disrespect any religion, including Hinduism. Instead, he underlined the need for recognition of tribal culture, traditions, and heritage, which, according to him, have their own unique identity and must not be subsumed under other religious frameworks. He insisted that Adivasis should be respected for who they are, irrespective of which party comes to power, because their customs and way of life form an integral part of India’s diversity.
The comments, however, drew an immediate and strong response from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Chief Minister Mohan Yadav accused the Congress and its leaders of consistently working against Hindus and Hindutva, calling Singhar’s statement shameful and divisive. In a video statement, Yadav demanded that both Singhar and the Congress party tender a public apology, warning that voters would not forgive attempts to question or undermine the idea of Hindutva.
Faced with mounting criticism, Singhar doubled down on his position, arguing that the BJP and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), were attempting to erase tribal identity by forcing it under the umbrella of Hinduism. He accused them of interfering with tribal customs, such as the worship of nature, which forms the spiritual foundation of many Adivasi practices. According to Singhar, while tribals respect all religions—including Hinduism—they deserve the right to preserve their distinct cultural and spiritual identity without being pressured into assimilation.
Raising pointed questions, Singhar challenged the ruling party’s sincerity toward tribal empowerment, asking why the RSS, despite its influence, had never elevated a tribal leader to the position of chief. He further alleged that the BJP sought tribal votes for political gains but failed to genuinely respect tribal religion, society, and traditions. By attempting to homogenize Adivasis into Hinduism, he argued, the party was effectively working to dilute their centuries-old identity.
Singhar’s statement carries significant weight, given his influence as a four-time legislator and a prominent leader of the Bhil community, which alone constitutes the largest share of Madhya Pradesh’s tribal population. His voice resonates across a state where tribals are not just a sizable demographic group but also a political force, making up over 21 per cent of the population according to the 2011 Census. Out of 230 assembly constituencies, 47 are reserved for Scheduled Tribes, ensuring that tribal politics plays a decisive role in electoral outcomes.
With Madhya Pradesh home to more than 1.53 crore tribals, identity politics has always been a critical battleground. Singhar’s remarks and the ensuing controversy highlight the delicate balance between religion and tribal identity, a balance that could have far-reaching consequences in the state’s political arena. As the war of words between the Congress and BJP escalates, the issue of whether tribals are Hindus is no longer just a cultural debate but a central question in shaping the future of electoral politics in Madhya Pradesh.
