Thousands of Christians across Arunachal Pradesh have taken to the streets demanding repeal of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978, turning a long-dormant statute into a flashpoint over constitutional freedoms, tribal identity and the future of inter-faith relations in the border state.Rallies, sit-ins and dharnas led by the Arunachal Christian Forum and allied church bodies have been reported across Itanagar, Pasighat, Lower Dibang Valley, West Siang, East Kameng, Kamle, Changlang and other districts. Protesters have argued that the law, framed nearly five decades ago to curb conversions by force, inducement or fraud, risks being used to stigmatise voluntary religious choice and deepen mistrust between communities.
Christian organisations say their demand is not aimed at weakening indigenous cultures but at preventing a legal framework that, in their view, treats religious change with suspicion. They have described the Act as discriminatory and incompatible with the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. Church leaders have also warned that any attempt to operationalise the law without broad consensus could unsettle a state where tribal affiliations, clan customs and faith practices often overlap.
Government leaders have sought to calm tensions by saying the Act is not directed against any religion. Chief Minister Pema Khandu has stated that rules will be framed only after consultations with all religious groups and stakeholders, and that the administration is not rushing the process. The government has also indicated that it will seek more time from the Gauhati High Court to complete the rule-making exercise.
The immediate trigger lies in a 2024 order of the Gauhati High Court’s Itanagar bench, which asked the state authorities to finalise rules under Section 8 of the Act within six months. The petition, filed in 2022, argued that successive governments had failed to frame the required rules even after more than four decades. Without rules, the law had remained largely unenforced despite being on the statute book.
The Act was passed in 1978 during the tenure of Arunachal Pradesh’s first Chief Minister P. K. Thungon and received presidential assent on 25 October that year. It prohibits conversion from one religious faith to another by force, inducement or fraudulent means. A violation can attract imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to ₹10,000. It also requires that conversions be reported to the deputy commissioner within a prescribed period.
Supporters of implementation argue that the law is necessary to preserve indigenous traditions, including Donyi-Polo practices and other community faith systems that predate organised missionary activity in the region. They contend that tribal belief systems, rituals and social institutions have come under pressure from organised religious expansion and need legal protection.
The debate is sharpened by Arunachal Pradesh’s changing religious profile. The 2011 Census recorded Christians at 30.26 per cent of the state’s population, followed by Hindus at 29.04 per cent, persons listed under other religions and persuasions at 26.2 per cent, and Buddhists at 11.77 per cent. Christianity grew from 0.79 per cent in 1971 to more than 30 per cent four decades later, a demographic shift that continues to influence political and cultural arguments around conversion.
Protests by Christian groups have been matched at different moments by mobilisation from indigenous faith organisations seeking implementation of the Act. This has created a politically sensitive balance for the state government, which must respond to judicial directions while avoiding a perception that it is favouring one religious bloc over another.
Arunachal Pradesh’s social fabric is complex, with dozens of tribes, clan-based customary systems, Buddhist communities in parts of the western and eastern belts, and Christian-majority pockets across several districts. Many families also retain cultural customs even after adopting another religion, making rigid categories difficult to apply in everyday life.
Opponents of the Act fear that mandatory reporting of conversion could expose individuals to social pressure and administrative scrutiny. Supporters counter that the law targets only coercive or fraudulent conversions, not voluntary belief. The unresolved issue is whether the rules can draw a clear line between protection and intrusion.