With the demand to make Sarna a separate religion for vanvasis—primarily concentrated in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Bihar, and parts of West Bengal—gaining momentum, a dangerous narrative is being pushed—one that seeks to detach our forest-dwelling tribes from Sanatan Hindu Dharma and fragment Hindu society from within. For decades, organisations like the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram have emphasised that vanvasis are the “pillars of Sanatani society”, living deeply rooted in “Aranya Sanskriti” – the forest culture – where worship of nature, deities, and ancestors has always been an intrinsic part of Hinduism. This article explores the historical, constitutional, and civilisational dimensions of the debate, exposing the conspiracy behind portraying tribals as separate from Hindu society. It demonstrates why the demand for a separate Sarna religion is both unnecessary and strategically harmful to Hindu unity.
Colonial Engineering: Divide Hindus, target vanvasis
The roots of the conspiracy to divide Hindus go back to the British colonial rulers, following their infamous policy of divide and rule. Britishers understood that Hindu unity was the greatest obstacle to their imperial project. To weaken Hindu society, they promoted artificial divisions—caste as a rigid hierarchy, Aryans vs. Dravidians, and Hindus vs. vanvasis. They targeted the most vulnerable communities—the vanvasis and forest dwellers of Bharat.
During colonial censuses, the British deliberately categorised forest-dwellers as animists, aboriginals, or vanvasi religions, rather than as Hindus. This was not ethnography—it was their strategy. These terms were not derived from vanvasi self-understanding, but were imposed colonial categories, designed to separate tribals from mainstream Hindus. By labelling them as ‘non-Hindus’, the British could target them for Christian conversion.
The word Adivasi (indigenous people) itself was popularised in the 20th century for imperialist politics. This term created several narratives:
Reinforcing the discredited Aryan Invasion Theory—that vanvasis were “original” inhabitants, while Hindus were foreign.
Creating an identity vacuum furthers the cause of evangelical proselytisation.
Feeding separatism and secessionism, causing long-term threats to national security.
The colonial ploy was clear: divide Hindus, detach vanvasis, and convert them. Once separated on paper, vanvasis became the first target for missionary expansion.
The recent demand to make Sarna a separate religion is nothing but a repackaging of this colonial plot. What the British began in the census of 1871 is now being advanced through the demand to make Sarna a separate religion.
Manufactured justifications behind the Sarna demand
The advocates of a separate Sarna religion argue that it is essential to preserve the unique identity of vanvasi communities, which practice nature worship. They claim that the traditions of Sarna followers differ from Hinduism or any other religion, and hence deserve independent recognition. They maintain that inclusion under the broader Hindu fold leads to cultural dilution and threatens their unique rituals centred on sacred groves, local deities, and community festivals. A separate religious code, they insist, would not only protect these traditions but also counter conversions, ensure their distinct identity in official records. The demand is further fuelled by identity politics, with regional parties like Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) projecting the Sarna Code as a symbol of vanvasi pride and autonomy.
From Division to Conversion: The real agenda behind the demand for Sarna religion
While these justifications, prima facie, may appear convincing, they collapse under closer scrutiny. Vanvasi traditions are not outside Hindu Dharma but deeply embedded within it. Moreover, recognising Sarna as a separate religion will not unify but fragment the vanvasi community itself: – while some follow Sarna groves, other vanvasis like Nagas, Khasis, and Bhils have distinct practices. If every such vanvasi group demands a separate religion, then the whole vanvasi community will disintegrate into micro-religions – eroding their collective strength.
Along with political opportunism missionary organisations—driven by ideological prejudice against Sanatan Dharm—promote the narrative that vanvasis are not Hindus. This false claim is a calculated strategy to weaken Hinduism from within, create identity crises among vanvasis, and eventually ease their path to conversion – from division to conversion.
Safeguards Already in Place: No justification for a separate religion
The argument that vanvasi identity and practices are not protected unless a separate Sarna religion is recognised is fundamentally flawed. Under the Constitution, vanvasis are already recognised as Scheduled Tribes by the President under Article 342, and enjoy extensive safeguards. They are granted reservations in education and public employment, ensuring access to opportunities for upliftment. The Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provide special provisions for their administration and governance. Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 vanvasi communities have been given rights to use and enjoy forest produce, safeguarding their traditional livelihood. Many state legislations bar the transfer of tribal land to non-vanvasis, thus protecting their ownership and cultural connection to land.
Even in the sphere of personal laws, their customary practices remain intact. Hindu personal laws (like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) do not automatically apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the union government otherwise directs. This enables vanvasis to continue practising their own customary laws relating to marriage, divorce, succession, adoption and other family-related matters. In totality, these provisions already secure the distinct traditions and interests of the vanvasis communities within the broader Hindu framework.
It is, of course, possible that some vanvasis practices or concerns may not yet be fully recognised. But in such cases, the correct remedy is to enact new laws or amend existing ones to safeguard those interests. To cite the absence of specific recognition as a justification for carving out a separate religion is both unnecessary and dangerous.
Shared Practices: Hinduism and Vanvasis Traditions
The alleged gulf between vanvasis and Hindus disappears once we look at their actual practices
Nature Worship: Vanvasis worship jal, jangal, zameen (water, forest, land)—echoing the Vedic reverence for the five essential elements (Panchbhuta or Panchtatva, which consists of earth, water, fire, air, and space).
Mother Earth: Vanvasis treat Earth as their mother, exactly as in Hindu Dharma. The Atharva Veda declares:
“Mata bhumiḥ putro’haṃ pṛithivyaḥ” — “The Earth is my mother and I am her son.” Village and Family Deities: Both worship Kul Devta (family deity), Gram Devta (village deity), and Sthan Devta (local deity).
Snake Worship: A common denominator in both traditions, reflected in pan-Indian festivals like Nag Panchami.
Sacred Rivers and Groves: Rig Veda, other ancient Hindu scriptures call rivers divine, and Hindus like the vanvasis worship them as their mother, while the Sarna groves are analogous to sacred spaces in Hindu villages and akin to Hindu dev van (sacred divine forests) mentioned in Puranic texts. Festivals like Sarhul (celebrating the ‘sal’ tree), and Karma resonate with Hindu festivals and nature worship.
The practice of venerating ancestors mirrors Hindu shraddha rituals.
The Rig Veda declares:-
“Ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti”—Truth is one, expressed in many forms.
Vanvasi traditions are exactly such forms—diverse expressions of the same Dharma. To project them as alien religion is to deny their true essence. Even the claim that vanvasis do not follow the Vedas collapses upon inspection. Their worship of forests, rivers, and the whole nature (“Prakriti”) is explicitly described in Vedic texts.
Forests, Vanaprastha, and the vanvasis connection
The Hindu worldview has always revered the forest as a sacred and civilisational space. In Hindu tradition, life is divided into four ashramas: Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, and Sannyasa. During Vanaprastha, householders, after fulfilling their worldly duties, would retire to the forest for spiritual practice. Kings, queens, nobles, and commoners alike embraced this stage of life. Many took residence in forest hermitages, alongside rishis and sages who made the forests their permanent home.
The Aranyakas, a distinct category of Hindu scriptures, were composed specifically for those living in the forests. The very word “Aranyaka” means ‘that which belongs to the forest.’ They form the bridge between the ritualistic Sanhitas and the philosophical Upanishad.
Forests were not wilderness outside Hindu Dharm—they were its living heart. Rishis, hermits, and seekers worshipped nature, performed yajnas, meditated, and passed down wisdom in these sacred spaces. The Vanavasis—forest dwellers—carried forward this sacred lifestyle as an integral part of Sanatan Dharma. They are those who chose the forest as their home, just as the sages and seekers of ancient times did. To suggest today that they are ‘outside’ Hinduism is to erase this unbroken civilisational continuity. The people who lived in the forests then, and those who live there now, are all part of the larger Hindu Dharmic family; they are the inheritors of the most authentic traditions of the Sanatan Dharma.
Lessons from the Past: Fragmentation weakens dharma
History shows us how granting separate religious status to communities within Sanatan Dharma has created division and confusion. Under Hindu personal laws—the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956—Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists are all legally recognised as Hindus. Similarly, Article 25 of the Constitution explicitly clarifies that references to Hindus include these traditions. In law, they are part of one and the same Hindu Dharmic fold.
Yet, in practice, the story is very different. Census forms, government categories, political discourse, etc. list Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists as separate religion. Over time, this has encouraged some people of these communities to see themselves as distinct from Hindu Dharma, which is not true. Moreover, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have been granted minority religion status, despite their shared origin in Sanatan Dharma. If they are Hindus in law, how and why are they treated as minorities separately in practice? This contradiction has fuelled division within the larger Hindu society.
The same dangerous precedent now threatens to repeat with the people following the Sarna tradition. If Sarna is granted separate religious status, it will artificially detach tribals from Hindu Dharma. This is not only historically untrue but also civilisationally disastrous, for it sows division within the very communities that have always been part of the Hindu fold. Just as the categorisation of Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists weakened Hindu unity, the Sarna code would fragment Hindu society even further—this time from within its deepest roots.
Demand for separate Sarna religion for tribals is not just a regional or political issue—it is a test of Hindu civilisational unity and foresight. If accepted, it will institutionalise the lie that vanvasis are not Hindus, reduce Hindu numbers in the census– fragment the Hindu fold, and create an open door for mass conversion.
The vanvasis of Bharat are not outsiders; they are the living guardians and children of Sanatan Dharma –preserving ancient traditions of nature worship and ancestor reverence that are core to Hindu civilisation. To alienate them as a “separate religion” is to betray both them and ourselves.
The battle against the Sarna demand is not about denying vanvasis identity—it is about affirming that identity as part of the vast and eternal family of Sanatan Hindu Dharma. We must remember – The Vedic seers had already anticipated the diversity of worship within Hinduism. Therefore, whether one bows to Bhagwan Shiva in Kashi, worships Tulasi in a courtyard, or gathers under a Sarna grove in Jharkhand, all remain within the same eternal continuum of Sanatan Hindu Dharma.
Comments