09/06/2026
Question to Mr. Tadak Nalo
You claim to be presenting a “rational” point of view, but I fail to see it in your argument.
First, your Ant analogy does not accurately represent the situation in Arunachal Pradesh. A more appropriate analogy would be this:
“A native group of ants lived in a place for generations. Over time, another group arrived, adapted better to changing conditions, and multiplied faster. The native ants ignored the demographic shift until they found themselves becoming a minority in their own habitat. When they demanded protective measures to preserve their identity and existence, they faced strong opposition.”
If analogies are to be used, they should reflect the full situation rather than only one part of the story.
Second, you argue that there is no mention of protecting indigenous rituals, Nyibus, fading languages, and other traditional practices in the Act. My direct question to you is: Do people who convert continue to practice their traditional indigenous rituals or employ Nyibus? Do they? Please answer.
Can you not see that religious conversion is often linked to the abandonment of traditional cultural institutions and practices?
The concern here is not about anyone’s right to choose a religion. The concern is about the cultural consequences when indigenous traditions, rituals, and institutions are no longer practiced by a growing section of the population due to a religious shift.
Moreover, it is incorrect to suggest that nothing is being done to preserve indigenous culture. In response to modern needs, indigenous culture is being documented, taught, and transmitted through institutions such as Nyubu Nyvgam Nyerko, Menjwk Meqkok Rwguu, Nilung Tungko, and others. Most importantly, these institutions are supported by the Indigenous Faith and Cultural Society of Arunachal Pradesh (IFSAP).
So, what rationality are you talking about if you overlook these facts and present only a limited view of the issue? Honestly, expected much better from you.
