As the House census phase of the Census 2027 is going on in Assam, a significant debate has emerged within the state’s Bodo community over a seemingly simple question: what should a Bodo who follows Bathouism, Christianity, Hinduism or another religion write in the religion column of the Census?
At the heart of the controversy is Bathou, the traditional religious system of the Bodos. The question has become particularly contentious after the Centre decided that Bathou would receive a separate religious code in the Census, a development welcomed by Bodo organisations as long-overdue recognition of an indigenous faith. But the recognition has also generated a new dispute. Some organisations advocating the preservation of indigenous religions have urged Bodos to record their religion as Bathou in the Census, regardless of their religion, while Christian organisations have objected to any appeal asking Christian Bodos to declare themselves as followers of Bathou.
The disagreement is not simply a quarrel between religious organisations. It reflects more than a century of transformation within Bodo society, during which different sections of the community adopted Vaishnavism, Brahma Dharma, Christianity and organised forms of traditional Bathou culture. It also raises a difficult question faced by many indigenous communities: can an ancestral religion remain an important part of an ethnic group’s cultural identity even when large sections of that community now follow other religions?
The answer matters because, for many Bodos, Bathou is not merely a religion. It is closely associated with their history, traditions, language and cultural identity. At the same time, a Christian Bodo is still a Christian, and asking such a person to report a religion he or she does not profess would undermine the very purpose of religious enumeration.
The dispute is therefore ultimately about where the line should be drawn between religious affiliation and cultural inheritance.
Census 2027 is being conducted in two phases. Assam’s first phase, the Houselisting and Housing Census, began with self-enumeration on 2 August 2026, followed by door-to-door enumeration from 17 August to 15 September. The second phase, Population Enumeration, in which individual information including religion will be collected, is scheduled for February 2027.
The issue of Bathou had already acquired importance before the Census exercise began. In October 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced that Bathou would receive a separate code in the form for the forthcoming Census. The decision was hailed by Bodo leaders as a historic recognition of their indigenous religion. Former Bodoland Territorial Council chief Pramod Boro, for example, thanked Union Home Minister Amit Shah for what he described as national recognition of the ancient Bathou faith.
The decision, however, needs to be understood correctly. Bathou was not completely absent from earlier Census records. The Census of India has historically recorded a wide range of religious beliefs and sects, and the 2001 Census database, for instance, lists “Bathau / Bathew / Bathou” among religious communities. However, it was not allotted a specific code number. The significance of the new arrangement is that Bathou is now being given distinct recognition with a code for the Census rather than being lost within a broad category.
The Government has also made it clear how religion is supposed to be recorded. Census instructions state that the religion of each individual is to be recorded according to the answer provided by that person or the respondent. Enumerators are specifically instructed not to presume that every member of a household follows the religion of its head. For religions other than the six numerically major religions, the enumerator is instructed to record the actual name given by the respondent and not to argue with the household over the answer. This principle is central to the current controversy.
In June 2026, UPPL’s Kokrajhar MP Joyanta Basumatary addressed a seminar organised by the Bathou Traditional & Cultural Centre in association with the Dularai Bathou Gouthum in Kokrajhar. In his speech, he urged Bathou followers to ensure that their religion was correctly recorded in the religion column during Census 2027, arguing that accurate census data was important for recognition of Bathouism and for preserving the demographic position of its followers. Basumatary said that the census provides an important opportunity for the community to assert its religious identity and ensure that Bathouism receives due recognition in official records.
However, this appeal subsequently became broader and more contentious when Bathou groups made calls urging Bodos, including those who had adopted Christianity or other religions, to record Bathou as their religion in the census. Although the formal appeal was to followers of Bathou to record their religion properly, several leaders of Bathou Traditional & Cultural Centre and Dularai Bathou Gouthum (All Bathou Mahasabha) made comments saying that all Bodos should list their religion as Bathou during the census, regardless of their actual religion.
This appeal prompted a reaction from the National Boro Christian Council (NBCC), a conglomeration of Bodo Christian denominations. At a press conference at the Kokrajhar Press Club, NBCC adviser Sushil Daimary said that while preservation and promotion of indigenous faith and culture was a legitimate aspiration, Christians should record their correct religion. He said that asking people who profess another religion to declare themselves followers of Bathou raises constitutional, legal and ethical concerns. The NBCC maintained that Christians should record Christianity rather than Bathou in the Census.
In response, Ganesh Daimari, the chief adviser of the Dularai Bathou Gouthum, expressed concern about the controversy surrounding Bathouism and urged Bodos to avoid turning the issue into a divisive confrontation between religious communities. He argued that Bathou is the original religion of the Bodo people and questioned the growing tendency to treat it merely as one religious organisation among many.
His argument went beyond the question of who should enter Bathou in the Census. He pointed to the historical relationship between Bathou and Bodo literature, culture and the Bodo language, essentially asking why a community should disregard the religious tradition from which much of its cultural heritage has emerged. He stressed that people could follow other religions while still recognising Bathou as the original religious and cultural heritage of the Bodo people
He also referred to the work being undertaken by Dularai Bathou Gouthum and other organisations to ensure that Bathou receives recognition in the Census and to establish the religion within the official and digital framework of the enumeration.
This distinction is important because the dispute can otherwise easily be reduced to the simplistic question of whether Bodo Christians are being asked to “convert” to Bathou. The deeper argument is about whether Bathou can function simultaneously as an ancestral cultural identity and a present-day religion.
The controversy has also become part of a wider debate among tribal organisations in Assam. The Coordination Committee of the Tribal Organisations of Assam (CCTOA) has also urged tribal communities to correctly record their indigenous languages and religious faiths in the Census, arguing that official recognition of indigenous identities is important for their social, political and constitutional interests. CCTOA chief coordinator Aditya Khakhlary has similarly argued that the Census provides an opportunity for indigenous communities to ensure that their languages and faiths are properly reflected in government data.
This is the background against which Bodo religious organisations are now debating what Bathou should mean in the Census.
The Bodo religious landscape before the arrival of modern organised religions was considerably more diverse than the contemporary term “Bathouism” might suggest.
Traditional Bodo religious life was centred on a complex system of beliefs concerning deities, spirits, ancestors, nature and supernatural forces. Bathou was associated with the supreme or principal deity, commonly referred to as Bathou Bwrai or related forms of the name. The Sijou plant, a plant of the Euphorbia species, became the principal living symbol associated with Bathou worship.
Traditional ceremonies such as Kherai and Garja were closely integrated with community life. Religion was not necessarily a separate sphere of life in the modern sense. Rituals were connected with agriculture, health, fertility, marriage, death, the protection of villages and relations between the living and the supernatural world. This is important because the modern understanding of Bathou as a clearly defined religion with a standardised theology is partly a product of more recent religious reform.
A major study by Roshni Brahma in Modern Asian Studies points out that early colonial observers such as J.D. Anderson and Sidney Endle identified Bathou as an important deity of the Bodos and associated it with the Sijou plant, but did not necessarily describe the existence of a single, uniform “Bathou religion” in the modern sense. They recorded a diverse religious world in which Bodo practices also incorporated elements that colonial observers considered Hindu.
By the colonial period, the question of whether Bodos were “Hindu” had become increasingly complicated. Colonial administrators and anthropologists attempted to fit diverse communities into broad religious categories. The result was a historical ambiguity. Some colonial classifications placed Bodos among animists, while others regarded them as Hindu or partly Hinduised. This reflected the difficulty of fitting an indigenous religious system into the rigid categories of colonial census administration, which were more familiar with Abrahamic religions.
As Bodos interacted increasingly with caste-Hindu Assamese society, some Bodo leaders came to regard the social position of their community as a problem. Traditional Bodo practices such as rice-beer consumption, animal sacrifice and certain forms of traditional ritual were increasingly described by reformers as obstacles to social advancement.
This produced an important paradox. Some Bodo leaders did not want the community to simply disappear into the Hindu population, yet they wanted Bodos to shed practices that caste society regarded as “backward”. Modern Bathou reformers eventually responded to this problem by attempting to consolidate the diverse practices into a distinct and recognisable religion.
Long before the modern Bathou revival, however, sections of the Bodo-Kachari population had come under the influence of Hindu religious traditions, particularly the Ekasarania or Neo-Vaishnavite movement associated with Srimanta Sankardeva.
The process was gradual and varied from one region to another. In parts of Lower Assam, Bodo-Kachari communities came into contact with Vaishnavite satras (monasteries) and some accepted initiation into the religious tradition. Those who entered this stream came to be associated with the term Sarania Kachari.
Religious incorporation also had consequences beyond worship. In some areas, adoption of Vaishnavism went together with increasing adoption of Assamese language and cultural practices. Over generations, sections of the population became increasingly integrated into wider Assamese society.
This demonstrates an important feature of Bodo religious history: religious conversion or religious incorporation could also become a process of linguistic and cultural assimilation.
Yet it would be wrong to suggest that every Bodo who became a Vaishnavite ceased to be culturally Bodo. The boundaries were much more fluid. Traditional customs survived in many communities, while new religious practices were incorporated alongside older ones.
By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Bodo society was undergoing much more profound social change. Colonial rule, increasing contact with neighbouring communities, economic changes, the spread of education and the growing influence of caste society all affected traditional Bodo institutions.
It was in this environment that Kalicharan Brahma emerged as one of the most influential Bodo reformers. Kalicharan Brahma came into contact with the teachings of Swami Sibnarayan Paramahansa in Calcutta and was initiated into the Brahmo religious tradition by him. He subsequently brought the movement to Bodo society and adapted its ideas into what became known as Brahma Dharma among his followers in western Assam.
The movement had an important social dimension. Kalicharan Brahma believed that practices associated with traditional Bodo religion were contributing to what he regarded as the social and economic backwardness of the community. He therefore advocated reform, education and changes in religious practice. Kalicharan Brahma’s project was not simply “convert the Bodos to Hinduism”. It was a programme of social reform, education and upward mobility through a Vedic-oriented religious framework.
Academic research has emphasised that Brahma Dharma offered Bodos a route towards social mobility at a time when caste prejudice was considerable. Its followers could participate in rituals such as offerings to the sacred fire that had otherwise been associated with Brahminical ritual authority. In this sense, Brahma’s movement was not simply about religious belief; it was also a challenge to the low social position assigned to Bodos by sections of the surrounding caste society.
The movement consequently became much larger than a conventional religious conversion. It developed into a programme of social, educational and cultural reform. Some Bodos were attracted to Brahma Dharma because it offered a way to reform their society while improving their social standing.
Others, however, feared that abandoning traditional practices would mean abandoning Bodo identity itself. While Kalicharan Brahma was trying to reform Bodo society through a Vedic religious framework, another stream of Bodo reformers began trying to reform and consolidate Bathou itself. That eventually produced the modern Bathou revival.
Christianity among Bodos developed along a different path. Christian missionary activity in Assam began during the colonial period, and missionaries gradually established contact with Bodo populations. Baptist and Lutheran missions became active in Bodo-inhabited areas during the 1850s, while Catholic missionary activity among Bodos expanded particularly from the late 1920s.
The spread of Christianity cannot be explained simply by missionary preaching. Education was one of its most important instruments. Christian missionaries established schools and promoted literacy at a time when formal education among Bodo communities was limited. Historical research on Bodo education acknowledges the important role played by Christian missionaries in spreading Western education among the Bodos.
This produced a powerful combination of religious and social change. Mission schools provided access to literacy and education, while Christian institutions offered new forms of community organisation and, in some cases, pathways towards employment and social mobility.
Early Christian growth was relatively slow. One study citing Assam Mission records gives the number of Bodo converts as only three in 1851, 70 in 1861, 130 in 1871 and 210 in 1881. These figures illustrate that the eventual growth of Christianity among Bodos was not an overnight mass conversion but a process that developed over generations.
By the 20th century, however, Christian missions had become established in several Bodo areas, and Bodo Christians developed their own churches, educational institutions and community networks.
The importance of education is especially relevant when comparing Bodo Christianity with the experience of neighbouring communities. Christianity did spread among other tribal groups in Assam, but its impact varied greatly, according to geography, missionary access, existing social structures and local circumstances. The 2011 Census-based figures show a particularly substantial Christian population among Bodos, while the proportion among other tribes like Rabhas was much smaller.
For Bodos, therefore, Christianity became another route through which sections of the community entered the modern educational and institutional world.
Crucially, however, Christian conversion did not necessarily erase Bodo ethnicity. Bodo Christians continued to speak Bodo, participate in Bodo social organisations and contribute to Bodo literature and political movements. Consequently, Christianity became one of several religious identities existing within the broader Bodo ethnic identity.
The scale of Bodo Christianity is particularly interesting because other neighbouring communities in Assam did not experience conversion at quite the same level.
The explanation is unlikely to be a single factor. Geography played a role because missionaries established networks in areas in Western Assam inhabited by Bodos. Education played an important role because mission schools created sustained contact with Bodo communities. Social conditions also mattered because Christianity offered an alternative institutional and educational framework at a time when Bodo society was undergoing rapid transformation.
There was also a broader identity question. Bodos were simultaneously experiencing pressure from surrounding Assamese society and from the increasingly influential institutions of Hinduism. Vaishnavism and later Brahma Dharma offered routes into wider Hindu society, but Christianity offered another route into education and modernity without necessarily requiring cultural assimilation into Assamese Hindu society.
This is not to suggest that Bodos converted simply to obtain education or employment. Religious belief, personal conviction, family networks and missionary activity were all important. But education gave Christianity a particularly powerful institutional presence.
The historical pattern is therefore better understood as a combination of religious conviction, social reform, education, institutional access and changing ethnic identity. It also explains why the descendants of Bodo converts can today be deeply Christian while remaining equally conscious of being Bodo.
The modern revival of Bathou emerged against this background of religious fragmentation and social transformation. The objective was not simply to preserve every traditional practice unchanged. Bathou reformers themselves wanted to reform what they regarded as undesirable practices and create a more organised and disciplined religious system.
The Bathou Bodos were also divided into different sections, such as Swrjigiri Bathou, Bwli Bathou, Rupamoni Bathou, Narayan Bathou, and Aroj Bathou. While different groups had different rituals and religious practices, they shared the same core beliefs and principles of Bathouism.
The All Bathou Mahasabha, or Dularai Bathou Gouthum, was established in 1992 with the objective of reforming and consolidating the traditional religion of the Bodos. The organisation has worked to consolidate religious practices, make rituals more uniform and promote Bathou as a distinct religious identity. Another organisation, All Bathou Religious Union (ABRU), was formed in the same year with the aim of reforming and bringing institutional and formal status to Bathouism.
This means that modern Bathou is simultaneously old and new. Its roots lie in an indigenous religious heritage that predates modern organised religions, but the attempt to define Bathou as a single, standardised religion is itself part of modern Bodo identity politics.
That process remains ongoing. There is substantial variation among Bathou followers even now, including different understandings of the nature of the deity and the relationship between Bathou and Hinduism. Some Bathou followers consider it part of Hinduism, while organisations such as the All Bathou Mahasabha explicitly seek to establish Bathou as a distinct religion.
Thus, even within Bodo society, Bathou is not necessarily understood in exactly the same way.
From the standpoint of Census accuracy, the National Boro Christian Council has a strong argument. The Census is supposed to record the religion a person actually professes. The official Census methodology explicitly states that religion is to be recorded individually and faithfully according to the respondent’s answer. Enumerators are not supposed to substitute an ancestral religion for the religion actually mentioned.
Therefore, if a Bodo is a practising Christian, entering Christianity is the accurate Census response. If another Bodo follows Brahma Dharma, that is the appropriate response. If someone follows Hinduism, Hinduism should be recorded. If someone follows Bathou, Bathou should be recorded. There is no statistical justification for replacing a person’s present religious identity with the traditional religion of his or her ethnic community. This will lead to incorrect data being entered in the census database.
But that does not make the concerns of Bathou organisations meaningless. Their argument stems from a different understanding of what Bathou represents. For many of them, Bathou is not merely a theological system. It is connected to Bodo history, traditional practices, community institutions, language, literature, festivals and the relationship between the Bodo people and their ancestral land.
They argue that Bathou is part of larger Bodo society, and adoption of a different religion does not separate a person from this identity. For them, Bathou is an extension of Bodo identity.
This is a familiar problem for indigenous communities in the region. A religion that is deeply embedded in culture can be weakened by conversion even when the converts retain their ethnicity. When religious rituals disappear, the cultural practices attached to them can also decline. An oral tradition may become harder to transmit. Traditional ceremonies may survive only as cultural performances rather than living religious practices. For a small ethnic community, this can create a genuine fear of cultural erosion.
The Census therefore has symbolic importance. If Bathou receives a separate code but only a small number of people identify themselves as Bathou followers, the resulting statistics could demonstrate just how far the traditional religion has declined. Bathou organisations understandably want the religion to be visible and properly recognised.
The Bodo debate reflects a wider problem faced by indigenous communities across the Northeast. The region contains numerous communities whose traditional religions were historically inseparable from their ethnic identity. In many cases, Christianity, Hinduism or other organised religions subsequently became dominant among sections of these communities.
The result is a complicated situation in which ethnicity and religion no longer correspond neatly. A person can be ethnically Khasi and Christian, ethnically Garo and Christian, ethnically Mising and Hindu or Christian, ethnically Rabha and Hindu or Christian, or ethnically Bodo and Christian, Hindu, Brahma Dharma or Bathou.
The question is whether adopting another religion should mean abandoning the indigenous heritage. The answer need not be yes. Indeed, the experience of the Bodos demonstrates that cultural identity can survive religious change. Bodo Christians have contributed to Bodo-language education, literature and social organisations. Their religious affiliation does not automatically make them culturally non-Bodo.
At the same time, the Bathou revival demonstrates that some members of the community believe cultural survival requires maintaining the indigenous religion as a living faith rather than merely as folklore. Both concerns are legitimate.
The most useful way of understanding the current dispute is therefore to distinguish between two questions. The first is: What religion do you follow? The second is: What is your ethnic and cultural heritage? The Census needs an answer to the first question. Cultural organisations are concerned with the second. A Bodo Christian can truthfully say that he is Christian while also saying that Bathou is the traditional religion of his ancestors and an important part of Bodo heritage.
A Bodo Hindu can similarly participate in Bodo cultural life without claiming to follow Bathou. A Bathou follower can legitimately insist that Bathou is a distinct indigenous religion and have that religion recorded separately. There is no inherent contradiction in these positions.
Indeed, insisting that all Bodos must have the same religion could undermine the very ethnic unity that Bathou organisations say they want to preserve. This is also why the NBCC’s position should not automatically be interpreted as hostility towards Bathou. Its stated position is that preserving an indigenous faith is legitimate, but that a Christian should not be asked to describe himself as a follower of a religion he does not profess.
Similarly, the Bathou movement’s insistence that Bathou is central to Bodo heritage should not automatically be interpreted as an attempt to deny Bodo Christians their ethnic identity. The two sides are addressing different dimensions of identity.
The solution, from the perspective of both accuracy and religious freedom, is relatively simple: the Census should record what each person actually identifies as his or her religion. That is already how the official methodology is designed to work. The enumerator is required to record the religion mentioned by the respondent, and the Census does not instruct enumerators to determine whether that religion is sufficiently “authentic” for the person’s ethnic group.
The separate recognition of Bathou should therefore be welcomed precisely because it allows genuine Bathou followers to identify themselves without being absorbed into a larger religious category. There is a middle ground between the two positions: Bathou can be preserved as Bodo heritage without being imposed as the religion of every Bodo.
As Bathou is genuinely an integral part of Bodo culture, its language, rituals, festivals, traditional knowledge, music, literature and symbols can be preserved irrespective of whether every Bodo follows the religion. Bodos of all religions can participate in cultural preservation without being required to change their religious identity.
Conversely, Bathou followers should be able to insist that their religion is not simply a Hindu sect or an extinct remnant of the past, but a living indigenous faith deserving independent recognition.
The present dispute is ultimately the product of a long and complicated Bodo history.
The Bodos began with an indigenous religious world centred on Bathou and a variety of local beliefs and practices. Sections of the community subsequently entered the Vaishnavite fold. The Brahma Dharma movement sought to reform Bodo society through a Vedic framework while improving education and social status. Christian missionaries brought another route towards education, literacy and modern institutions, and Christianity eventually became a significant religion among Bodos. In the late 20th century, the Bathou revival sought to consolidate the indigenous religious tradition and give it a distinct institutional identity.
None of these developments completely erased what came before. That is why modern Bodo identity cannot be reduced to religion.
The Bodo community has already demonstrated that ethnic identity can survive religious diversity. Bodo Christians can remain Bodo. Bodo Hindus can remain Bodo. Followers of Brahma Dharma can remain Bodo. Bathou followers can remain Bodo. The challenge is to ensure that this diversity does not destroy the common cultural heritage that binds them together.
The Census can help by doing what it is supposed to do: counting people as they identify themselves.
The preservation of Bathou, meanwhile, is a larger cultural task that cannot be solved simply by increasing the number entered in a Census column. It depends on whether Bodo society continues to transmit its language, literature, traditional knowledge, rituals and historical memory to future generations.
The question facing the Bodos is therefore not really whether every Bodo must choose between Christianity and Bathou. It is whether Bodo identity is large enough to contain both.
Dadabhai Naoroji wasn’t just saying the British took India’s money. He was showing, with the actual records, how an entire monetary system could make a growing, trading economy poorer with every transaction, legally, quietly, and year after year.
Led by Varma and Ramayyan, the Travancore forces managed to strangle the Dutch supplies from all sides.
Marthanda Varma promoted a policy of strengthening his kingdom and expanding its borders. This angered the Dutch and led to the conflict.
Selected issues, clear explanations and thoughtful perspectives—delivered when we publish.
