The debate on how to relate to tribal communities in India during the 1930s and 1940s had two main sides with contrasting arguments.

The protectionists, mainly British administrator-anthropologists, believed that tribal societies were primitive peoples with a distinctive culture far from mainstream Hinduism. They argued that the innocent and simple tribals would suffer exploitation and cultural degradation through contact with Hindu culture. Therefore, they felt the state had a duty to protect the tribes and help them sustain their way of life, which was facing constant pressure to assimilate.

On the other side, nationalist Indians, led by scholars like Ghurye, passionately believed in the unity of India and the need for modernising Indian society. They argued that attempts to preserve tribal culture were misguided and would result in maintaining tribals in a backward state as 'museums' of primitive culture. Ghurye insisted on characterizing tribes as 'backward Hindus' rather than distinct cultural groups.

The nationalists cited evidence showing that tribes had been involved in constant interactions with Hinduism over a long period. They believed tribes were simply further behind in the same process of assimilation that all Indian communities had gone through.

Regarding the impact of mainstream culture, protectionists believed that assimilation would result in severe exploitation and cultural extinction of tribals. However, nationalists argued that these ill-effects were not specific to tribal cultures but were common to all backward sections of Indian society, representing inevitable difficulties on the road to development.