Tribal people groups are in reality not homogenous group but belongs to diverse ethnic groups having their respective customs and cultural practices. For the people from outside the region like those living in the mainland India, it is difficult to differentiate the tribal people based on their ethnic identities. That is, they are generally labelled them as tribal people not by their specific tribes. However, tribal people are living together in the region since time immemorial upholding their similarities and differences. To state differently, despite having many similarities and commonalities that bind them together into one umbrella as tribal people, no one can deny that there are still numbers of distinctive qualities and cultural practices that each tribal group possess which are distinct from the other. No doubt it is these differences that enable them to identify themselves separately from the other. Some of the important points need to be discuss here.

First, one may notes that the term “tribal” is not a term that originated form the people who are labelled as tribal or to use the constitutional term “scheduled tribe.” Native people of the region prefers to identify themselves to the outside world by their respective tribe as Nagas, Khasis, Mizos, Kukis, Bodos, Garos etc rather than tribal. This points to the fact that the term “tribal” is foreign to them where as their community names are more preferable and attach to them both within and outside their community. This preference is not merely superficial or at face value but it comes from within. It is well connected to their histories, their continuous struggle as a community, their customary and cultural practices and even to their respective geographical territorial boundaries. Having said that, one cannot deny that it is not that easy to come together and have one singular identity as tribal people.

Second, it may be pointed out that tribal from mainland India prefer to call themselves as Adivasi rather than tribal people. They even developed their specific theology term as Adivasi theology. Hence, the term “tribal” in tribal theology remain confined to the tribal in North Eastern Region of India. But till today, tribal theologians still have some prejudices related using the term “tribal” in their writings and developing theology. Many prefer to use the term “indigenous” instead of the term tribal or use both the term interchangeably. Tribal theologians still wrestle with the debate either the term tribal or indigenous which is more appropriate. Having said that one have to remember that the term “tribal” or “scheduled tribe” are not only constitutional terms but there are many social or economic benefits associated with them. That means replacing the term may perhaps resulted to losing all the benefits attached to it. Hence, whether one likes the term “tribal” or not it is here to stay.

Third, there is continuous debate among tribal theologians either to use “tribal theologies” in plural or accepted the singular notion of the term “tribal.” The former signifies acceptance and recognizing the differences that are unique and distinct from each and every tribe. Whereas the latter means to have one common identity despite the differences and dissimilarities that exist between different tribes. However, a closer look and analytical evaluation of the two terms portrays that both the terms has their advantages and disadvantages that are either connotes positively or negatively not only to the tribe but to the entire region as well.

Tribal Theology– As stated above the term “tribal theology” in singular propose a common name or common identity for all the tribal group either big or small living in the region. One may argue that it is more binding, uniting, and pull together into one unit all the tribal groups in the region. It has the potentials not only to bring together different tribes into one single unit but to eventually unite them into one common platform as they identify themselves or expose themselves to the outside world. In reality, tribal people are becoming stronger and more resilient when they join together as one unit addressing their common issues that affects them rather than staying and confining separately distance from each other. In other words, their strength are more visible and felt and their voices are stronger and clearly audible whenever there is possibilities to raise their concern on behalf of the tribal people to the outside world.

However, coming together into one unit may hamper the growth and progress of distinctive cultural values and unique character each tribe possess. It may gradually erase the potentials and dynamic of respective cultural values as they have to sacrifices their differences and distinctiveness submitting their values to one common unit for mutual good and wellbeing. At the same time one may agree that each specific tribes has some customary practices that are not only applicable and appropriate to their respective tribe but at the same time may not be useful and meaningful to other tribes in general. Hence, there is a fear among many that coming together as one unit may resulted to the process of assimilation where the distinctiveness of each tribe may loss its value and importance,

Tribal Theologies- The term “tribal Theologies” in plural suggest the acceptance and recognition of different tribes with their respective cultural practices and territorial difference. It give rooms to each tribe to grow, to prosper, to thrive, to flourished, and to blossoms within their specific space. In turn, it enable the tribe to employ their potentials and dynamics that could not only strengthen their position but also exposed their uniqueness to the outside world as a tribe. Plurality is the intention of God since the beginning. It may be portrays as the beauty of different flowers blooming in one garden with their unique design, size, colour, types and so on. In sum, it could provide enough space for each tribe to develop their unique qualities thereby contributing towards the growth and progress of tribal theology.

However, as it was with the singular usage of the term, the plural aspect of the term has its respective difficulties. No doubt providing space to the tribe to enhance itself is appreciable and noteworthy. However, when each tribe are offered enough room to boost and heighten their position there is a tendency for any tribe to develop itself at the expense of the other especially the dominant tribe over the smaller tribe. This may not only resulted to hegemonic attitude of one tribe over the other but also the progress of one dominant tribe may lead to the inactive existence and lesser contribution of the smaller tribe.

From Tribal Theologies to Tribal Theology- Amidst the problems and difficulties associated with choosing the right term the shift from tribal theologies to tribal theology is perhaps the only alternatives available. In other words, the move from “theologies to theology” signifies that one common identity is perhaps the better option than separate identity within one single unit. But this does not mean that tribal theology surpassing or being developed at the expense of tribal theologies, thereby erasing their unique contents and distinct characteristics. Rather different tribal theologies could serve as strong and rich foundational background for tribal theology to find its roots and blossom as a genuine theology relevant to tribal local context. In other words, when tribal theologies flourished and prosper within their specific space they have but contribute positively towards the growth and development of tribal theology. Daniel Thikir rightly argues when he said that “rather than unity in diversity which has the tendency to emphasize homogeneity over identities, heterogeneity/diversities to unity must be the methodic position because plurality is a sheer reality and that particularity is the unassailable root of one dignity- the image and grandeur of divine’s making.” The most fitting approach of formulating tribal theology is to realize the “distinctive identity come first, and is the basis of identity which would subsequently find ways for commonality and solidarity.”⁸ Tribal theology are not supposed to take precedence over tribal theologies or it is not to be considered as superior to tribal theologies, for it may resulted to theological hegemony. Rather it is built up on a strong theological foundation laid by tribal theologies that could not only strengthen its roots but also facilitates its growth as one of the significant theology in the present day context. If tribal theology has to survive the test of time and continue to be a genuine and relevant to the need and aspiration of the people these significant challenges need to be taken into consideration.