The statement "Tribes are backward Hindus" encapsulates a controversial perspective put forth by Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, a prominent Indian sociologist. Ghurye argued that many tribal groups in India were not distinct from Hindus but were rather an "imperfectly integrated part of Hindu society." He believed that tribes had been assimilated into the Hindu fold over centuries, adopting Hindu customs, deities, and social practices, albeit in a less refined or 'backward' form. He viewed them as "Hindu castes in the making" or "imperfectly assimilated classes of Hindus." Ghurye advocated for the assimilation of tribes into mainstream Hindu society, believing that their distinct identity was a result of isolation and lack of development. He opposed policies that sought to preserve tribal distinctiveness, such as separate electorates or reservations, viewing them as divisive and hindering national integration.

Critical Commentary on Ghurye's View:

1. Assimilationist Bias and Denial of Distinct Identity: Ghurye's perspective is heavily criticized for its strong assimilationist bias. It largely denies the unique cultural identity, distinct social structures, religious beliefs (often animistic or nature-worshipping), linguistic heritage, and economic practices of numerous tribal communities. Many tribes have their own distinct kinship systems, egalitarian social structures, and customary laws that differ significantly from the hierarchical caste system of Hinduism. Labeling them as 'backward Hindus' overlooks this rich diversity and uniqueness.

2. Oversimplification of Complex Interactions: His thesis oversimplifies the complex historical and ongoing relationship between tribal and non-tribal societies. While some tribes have indeed interacted with and absorbed elements of Hindu culture (a process often termed 'Hinduization'), this process has been varied, often involving both assimilation and resistance, and has not erased their fundamental distinctiveness. The interaction has been a two-way street, with tribal cultures also influencing regional Hindu practices.

3. Ignoring Exploitation and Marginalization: Ghurye's view tends to overlook the historical processes of exploitation, marginalization, displacement, and discrimination that many tribal communities faced at the hands of dominant non-tribal groups, including Hindus. It frames their 'backwardness' as an internal deficiency or a stage of development rather than a consequence of external pressures, power imbalances, and the loss of their traditional lands and resources.

4. Influence of Colonial and Nationalist Discourses: Some critics argue that Ghurye's ideas were influenced by colonial administrative categories and the broader nationalist project of defining a unified Indian identity. In the context of nation-building, there was often a desire to incorporate diverse groups under a dominant cultural umbrella, which in India often meant a Hindu one.

5. Alternative Perspectives and Tribal Agency: Later anthropologists and sociologists offered alternative perspectives. Scholars like Verrier Elwin advocated for the preservation of tribal cultures and a policy of 'isolation' or 'protection' to safeguard their unique way of life from the negative impacts of mainstream society. Others, like B.K. Roy Burman, emphasized the need for a nuanced approach that recognizes tribal agency, their right to self-determination, and the diverse ways in which they interact with and adapt to external influences, rather than simply being passive recipients of 'Hinduization'.

In conclusion, while Ghurye's work was influential in its time and highlighted some aspects of cultural interaction, his "backward Hindus" thesis is largely rejected today for its ethnocentric and assimilationist stance. It fails to acknowledge the rich diversity and distinct identity of India's tribal populations and overlooks the socio-economic and political factors that have shaped their historical trajectory. It represents a perspective that sought to homogenize diverse groups under a dominant cultural paradigm, rather than celebrating their unique contributions and recognizing their right to cultural autonomy.