The debates around the status of Lingayatism arise at the intersection of theology, history, and social reform. On one side stand those who see in Basavanna’s movement a radical departure from key Hindu concepts: a rejection of caste hierarchy, priestly ritualism, and Vedic authority, and an affirmation of an egalitarian path centered on the personal iṣṭaliṅga, the Vachanas, and distinctive rites of passage. On the other side are those who regard these features as an internal reform within Shaivism rather than the birth of a new religion, pointing to shared devotion to Śiva, participation in broader Hindu festivals, and overlapping ritual forms. This tension is deepened by differing readings of scripture, with some treating Lingayat texts as complementary to Hindu philosophy and others as a decisive alternative to it.

A further layer of controversy lies within the community itself, particularly in the relationship between Lingayats and Veerashaivas. Some voices insist that Lingayat and Veerashaiva identities are not identical, portraying Veerashaivas as more closely aligned with Vedic and Āgamic traditions, and arguing that only the Basava‑centric stream constitutes a distinct path. Others maintain that Lingayats and Veerashaivas share a single heritage and should not be separated, fearing that any formal division would fracture communal solidarity and weaken both religious and social influence. These internal disagreements reveal that the question is not merely how outsiders classify the tradition, but how its own adherents understand their lineage and purpose.

Political and legal dimensions add yet another strand to the controversy. Efforts to obtain minority or separate religion status have been accused of being driven by electoral calculations, with critics warning of “vote‑bank” politics and the instrumental use of religious identity. Governmental recommendations and refusals have sparked disputes over how a “religion” is to be defined in law, and what criteria—doctrinal, ritual, or sociological—should be decisive. At stake are not only census categories but also access to minority benefits, reservation policies, and the regulation of powerful religious and educational institutions associated with the community.

Beneath these institutional questions lies an unresolved historical and spiritual inquiry: whether Basavanna intended to found a new religion or to purify and reform an existing one. Some interpret his teachings and the Anubhava Maṇṭapa as the seed of a distinct, self‑sufficient religious tradition; others see them as a clarion call for ethical renewal within the broader Hindu fold. The persistence of caste‑like stratifications among followers, despite an explicit anti‑caste ideal, is also invoked by critics to question how far the movement has truly broken from the social patterns it challenged. In this sense, the controversy mirrors a deeper spiritual tension between the aspiration to transcend inherited structures and the enduring pull of historical and cultural continuity.