Listen to this article:

In Assam, six major communities – Tai Ahom, Chutia, Koch-Rajbongshi, Moran, Matak and Tea tribes/Adivasis – are seeking inclusion into the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list. Together, they account for approximately 27% of Assam’s population.

The demand has once again brought an old but unresolved question to the forefront: who qualifies as a scheduled tribe in India?

At first glance, the answer appears straightforward. Article 342 of the constitution of India empowers the president, after consultation with the governor of the concerned state, to specify “tribes or tribal communities, or parts of groups within them, as Scheduled Tribes.”

However, the constitution does not actually tell us what makes a community a ‘scheduled tribe’ in the first place. A set of administrative criteria that date back more than six decades seek to address this question. Importantly, that criteria increasingly appear out of step with the realities of India’s tribal communities today. 

The six communities currently demanding ST status in Assam are classified as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). They argue that OBC status, while providing reservations in education and employment, does not provide the same constitutional protections guaranteed under the ST status, particularly provisions concerning ancestral land rights, cultural heritage and political representation.

Therefore, their demand extends beyond reservation, reflecting a broader claim to constitutional recognition and protection as distinct communities.

Yet the process through which such recognition is determined continues to rely on criteria developed decades ago under the Lokur committee. Among these are “geographical isolation” and “primitive traits,” concepts that have become increasingly outdated and difficult to reconcile with the realities of communities that have, and continue to, face migration, urbanisation, political participation and economic change.

The Assam controversy thus raises a serious question: is India’s current framework for determining the ST status still adequate?

The question matters because ST status is not simply an administrative classification. It determines access to a range of constitutional and statutory protections, including reservations, political representation and safeguards concerning land and resources. Deciding who qualifies as a scheduled tribe is therefore, in effect, a decision about who is entitled to the full benefit of those constitutional guarantees.

A framework built around ‘primitive traits’

The constitution does not provide a substantive........

© The Wire