Kumarjeeb Pegu
In this study, the author explores the socio-legal dynamics of the characterisation of Indian tribes. The research begins by analysing international law to identify common traits among Indigenous Peoples and comparing these traits with those of Indian tribes. This approach aims to evaluate how Indian tribes align with the broader discourse on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and determine the extent to which they fit within this framework. This analysis establishes a foundation for examining Indian tribes as socially marginalised groups within the larger society, with a focus on their advocacy for internal autonomy and land rights. Although the study itself does not address land rights or internal autonomy, it observes these themes to reflect on the historical marginalisation of Indian tribes. This reflection paves the way for a broader discussion on the social evolution of Indian tribes and the role of the state in this process.
The author then assesses India’s constitutional arrangements designed to protect and promote affirmative action for Indian tribes. While the Scheduled Tribes classification is intended to facilitate affirmative action and enhance the social mobility of these groups, it has significant limitations. These limitations often stem from the political machinery's historical failures or indifference in implementing necessary reforms to address the evolving needs and identities of these communities. The essay also explores the impact of the Indian caste system on tribes, noting that tribes are classified separately from castes and referred to as ‘jana,’ indicating distinct and separate groups. Although there have been attempts to categorise tribes within a religious context, the author argues that this approach does not align with the criteria for defining Scheduled Tribes under the constitutional framework.
On the whole, this work seeks to understand the evolving nature of Indian tribes, particularly in the context of their increasingly dynamic interactions with mainstream society. It examines how socio-legal factors and governmental attitudes contribute to the assimilation of these groups and assesses whether the state's approaches adequately address their needs or fall short.
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: Search for Identity within the Plural
In international law, the term ‘peoples’ is used to acknowledge diversity. This ‘plural’ form of address also provides support for India's tribal groups.[1] Each group possesses unique cultures, beliefs, social systems, and racial characteristics within the Indian context. Characteristics typical of Indigenous Peoples (‘IPs’) are evident among India’s tribes. These include a historical connection to ancestral lands, strong ties to traditional practices and natural resources, distinct cultural and socio-political institutions, and unique languages and beliefs. Fundamentally, these groups perceive themselves as non-dominant within society and advocate for preserving their systems through self-determination or internal autonomy.[2] It has been noted that IPs have frequently encountered challenges arising from externally imposed definitions. Therefore, the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples (WGIP) has refrained from insisting on a strict definition, acknowledging its limitations.
One aspect lies in the interpretation of Indigenous groups by Western liberal democracies established by settler states. These states were colonised by European migrants who settled in these regions and whose descendants have remained politically dominant over the indigenous populations. These countries have historically operated under political systems that feature democratic regimes with a focus on individual rights, the rule of law, and an institutional framework that includes the separation of powers, and checks and balances to protect civil liberties. McHugh has noted that the CANZUS states namely, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States being settler states are affluent liberal democracies with constitutional and legal similarities, a legacy stemming from British imperial expansion in the 19th century. In these nations, Indigenous Rights have often been framed as ‘collective’ or group rights, contrasting with the emphasis on individual rights otherwise followed in these national systems. These conflicts have been particularly evident in land settlements and redistribution efforts historically undertaken by the state. For example, Gover argues that settler politics has grappled with the issue of insufficient indigenous consent to settler governance. This has led to efforts to address these issues by negotiating indigenous consent through the restoration of Indigenous property and governance authority. However, such measures can also result in the redistribution of public goods in ways that may appear to disadvantage non-indigenous individuals and communities.
In general, the Western liberal approach has previously succeeded in categorising the Indigenous groups and their traits. However, such an approach is limited to these states and overlooks the realities faced particularly by saltwater states in Asia and Africa including in the case of India, where the contentious process of defining specific groups as Indigenous continues to this day. It may be noted that saltwater states have been affected by what is termed ‘saltwater colonialism,’ from which their name originates. This concept denotes a type of colonial dominance where an external authority exploits and suppresses Indigenous populations, often from a distant location or overseas. This form of colonisation typically involves economic exploitation, cultural imposition, and political control imposed upon the colonised ‘Other.’
In India, there is a general belief that ‘Adivasi,’[3] meaning ‘original inhabitants,’ largely corresponds to India's Scheduled Tribes (‘STs’), who demonstrate significant geographic and cultural diversity. The emphasis lies in the fact that these tribes are characterised by distinct attributes such as language, religion, community ties, minimal reliance on monetary systems, self-governance, and an egalitarian society that opposes the hierarchical structure of the Hindu caste system.
It is worth recalling that states often customise their own definitions of who constitutes IPs to suit local circumstances. Hence, terms such as ‘Indigenous,’ ‘aboriginal,’ ‘native,’ ‘original,’ ‘first nations,’ and ‘tribal’ have often been used interchangeably. A similar trend has also been observed in Indian literature with the romanticism of the term ‘Adivasi’ with tribes. A few reflections on this aspect are also highlighted in this work. In fact, there is always a conceptual challenge in defining 'tribe,' and hence its use is often an administrative practicality rather than indicating original inhabitants. All tribes may not be the first settlers in the pan-Indian context but are certainly within their regions.[4] This remains particularly true when such groups are deemed marginalised, and they assert precedence in access to natural resources compared to outsiders and the dominant caste.
Tribes and the Constitution
As per the Indian Census of 2011, more than 104 million people, comprising 8.6% of the population, are categorised as Scheduled Tribes. The designation of Scheduled Tribe status is detailed in Article 342 of the Constitution.[5] It empowers the President, in consultation with the Governor of a State where applicable, to specify by public notification the tribes, tribal communities, or specific groups within them as Scheduled Tribes for that State or Union Territory. The Parliament has the authority to include or exclude any tribe or tribal community from this list through legislation, but once listed, a community's status as a Scheduled Tribe remains unchanged unless otherwise specified by law.
Presently, the Office of the Registrar General of India maintains that the inclusion of the community to the Scheduled Tribes list continues to be based on the criteria established by the Lokur Committee in 1965. This report maintains that while the Indian Constitution does not explicitly outline principles for creating lists of Scheduled Castes (‘SCs’) or Scheduled Tribes (‘STs’), it suggests that ‘extreme social, educational, and economic backwardness’ qualifies a caste or tribe for inclusion in these lists. In general, the criteria include under the report indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large and backwardness.
It is essential to note that not every tribal group or subgroup qualifies for Scheduled Tribe status under the Constitution, which maintains a specific list (Scheduled tribe or the ST List). Amendments to this list are governed by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order of 1950 and subsequent Orders,[6] which delineate the communities recognised as Scheduled Tribes. Amendments to the list require approval from both houses of Parliament and the President’s assent. Ideally, the paramount focus should be on the historical and social disenfranchisement of the tribes to secure their recognition as Scheduled Tribes under India’s Constitution. Such categorisation hence aims to facilitate affirmative action for promoting the upward social mobility of these groups.
As of 1999, the process for including a community in the Scheduled Tribes List (‘ST List’) begins with proposals initiated by State or Union Territory governments. These proposals are reviewed and approved sequentially by the Office of the Registrar General of India (‘ORGI’), the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (‘NCST’), and finally, the Union Cabinet for amendment to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Orders under Article 342. Unlike inclusion, the Constitution does not specify a procedure for delisting Scheduled Tribes. However, current procedures permit proposals from State or Union Territory governments, subsequently vetted by the ORGI and NCST, to amend legislation under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Orders for delisting. Further, the Lokur Committee's observations remain crucial in the ongoing inclusion of Scheduled Tribes in Constitutional lists. Criticism has persisted regarding the criteria set by the Lokur Committee in 1965, which still shape decisions on the inclusion of Scheduled Tribes.
These criteria, particularly in today’s context, reflect a rather archaic and patronising tone, unwilling to allow evolution in understanding, portraying tribes as possessing primitive traits, distinct cultures, geographical isolation, limited interaction with mainstream society, and socio-economic backwardness. Despite widespread criticism, these criteria persist, even in the face of opposition from the Indian government's own Task Force on Tribal Affairs regarding their rigidity.
Particular to note here, the U.N. Dhebar Commission of 1960, while not without its flaws and sometimes criticised for its rigid definitions of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), similar to the criticisms faced by the Lokur Committee, nonetheless highlighted the profound challenges confronting tribal communities, particularly the adversity of land alienation, while pioneering the concept of PVTGs.[7] Originally labelled Primitive Tribal Groups,[8] PVTGs are delineated by stark criteria: pre-agricultural technology levels, low literacy rates, economic privation, and population decline or stagnation trends. The findings of the Dhebar Commission were significant as they led to the creation of a sub-category within the ST classification for PVTGs. This sub-category was established because it was recognised that affirmative actions for tribes listed under the ST category were not uniformly applied, resulting in unequal development rates among particularly vulnerable tribes based on the Commission's criteria. The Commission’s work increased focus on the socio-economic development of PVTGs, leading to targeted social schemes. However, while the state continues to implement various schemes, challenges such as inadequate implementation, limited awareness, resource constraints, and unequal distribution among PVTG groups — often due to incomplete state data surveys — still need to be addressed.
In essence, the classification and recognition of Scheduled Tribes in India follow a constitutional process governed by specific criteria and legislative procedures. However, this framework often appears stagnant, lacking necessary ongoing debates and reforms crucial for addressing the evolving needs and identities of these communities. At times, it seems more a product of political expediency than genuine advancement.
Tribes, Indigeneity, and Jana
The Indian Caste System is structured into four hierarchical categories known as ‘Chaturvarna,’ where individuals are assigned their caste at birth. These categories — Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra — not only define one's social standing and privileges but also dictate their occupation. Within these varnas, there are further divisions into sub-castes or ‘Jatis,’ each associated with specific occupations.
Traditionally, tribes have been classified separately from castes, referred to as ‘jana,’ signifying distinct and separate groups. This exclusion of tribes along with the Dalits from the varna order before India's independence underscored their marginalised status. It is important to note that, unlike the criteria for Scheduled Castes,[9] religious affiliation does not factor into determining who qualifies as a Scheduled Tribe. This distinction has been a contentious issue, fiercely opposed by many within the current wave of right-wing groups, particularly concerning the removal of those who have converted from Hinduism to other religions from the list.
Moreover, post-independence studies on India's tribes remain complex due to diverse scholarly interpretations with tendencies to associate tribes with the caste. Such classifications also reflect the varying degrees of tribal interaction with mainstream society, from maintaining traditional lifestyles to full assimilation into dominant social orders influenced by caste. In fact, recent studies go a step further to explore tribes in relation to broader societal dynamics, emphasising their integration into the mainstream, such as through caste, peasant, or class identities. However, this conceptualisation risks diluting tribal identity and uniqueness.
From the early 20th century, census classifications separated tribes from Hindu religion under the category ‘Animism,’ later renamed ‘Tribal Religions’ in the 1921 census. Post-independence efforts attempted to establish clearer distinctions between tribes and castes. However, the complexities in making such attempts will persist, as tribes are viewed from various perspectives — as a sociological, political, or administrative category — and can be perceived as either indistinguishable from or entirely distinct from Hindu society and religion. As observed earlier, constitutionally, individuals classified as Scheduled Tribes in India are not restricted by religious affiliation. This classification underpins specific provisions for socio-economic and affirmative actions, acknowledging the historical marginalisation faced by these groups.
Implications and Conclusion
In the end, the status and identity of tribes or Adivasis in India are intricately shaped by a combination of historical, social, political, and legal factors. These communities are examined through various lenses — sociological, administrative, and political — reflecting ongoing debates and reforms aimed at addressing their unique challenges while preserving their distinct cultural identities.
Currently, designating a community as a Scheduled Tribe under the Indian Constitution involves a complex process that can be influenced by political and administrative considerations. This official recognition holds significant importance, serving as a form of social representation due to the long-standing marginalisation of these communities as non-dominant groups within the broader national framework.
However, a paradox emerges from the strict criteria used to define a tribe’s identity, which rigidly defines cultural traits. Any deviation from these criteria, as observed in the ongoing cultural and social evolution of tribes and their increasing interaction with mainstream society today, can pose challenges in balancing individual rights and communal identity. This perspective implies that societal evolution is often deemed acceptable only when it aligns closely with dominant national norms, potentially marginalising those who deviate.
In essence, the ongoing discourse around tribes and Adivasis in India underscores the complexity of identity formation amidst evolving societal norms and the enduring struggle to balance cultural preservation with socio-economic advancement.
End-Notes
[1] The tribes of India primarily consist of various racial and linguistic groups, including Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austroasiatic, and Tibeto-Burman communities.
[2] Furthermore, the literature underscores the belief that Indigenous Peoples inhabit distinct territories with unique cultural practices and occupy non-dominant positions within broader national societies. Additionally, refer to Francesca Merlan, ‘Indigeneity: Global and local’ (2009) 50(3) Current Anthropology 303.
[3] The Sanskrit term 'Adivasi,' originating from 'adi' meaning 'primordial' and 'vasi' meaning 'dweller,' translates to 'aborigines' or 'indigenous'.
[4] This reference also applies to groups speaking Tibeto-Burman languages, among others, who may thus be referred to as the Aborigines.
[5] Also see the Constitution of India 1950, art 366(25). The Indian Constitution does not contain a definition of “tribe.”
[6] For more see, The Constitution (Part C States) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1951; The Constitution (Union Territories) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1951; The Constitution (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1959; The Constitution (Dadra and Nagar Haveli) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1961; The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Uttar Pradesh) Order, 1967; The Constitution (Goa, Daman, and Diu) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1968; The Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970; The Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1978; The Constitution (Jammu and Kashmir) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1989.
[7] The classification by the Government of India offers support for the upliftment of specific tribal groups experiencing the lowest levels of socio-economic development. For further details, see ‘The Report of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission, 1960–1961, Government of India.’
[8] The term ‘primitive,’ previously used, often carries a negative connotation, whether intended or not.
[9] SC listing may be retained even if a member converts from one religion within this group (Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist) to another. The identification of Scheduled Caste (SC) status is based on specific social stigma and associated disfranchisement. These communities are recognised under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Members of the SC community are provided the constitutional right to reservations in jobs and education.
Kumarjeeb Pegu presently serves as an Assistant Professor of Law at the National Law University Odisha, India. His primary academic focus is on Indigenous Peoples, with particular emphasis on their identity and land rights. He also teaches and conducts research in environmental law and international law. As the Director of the Centre for Tribal Studies at the university, he oversees research on the rights, welfare, and well-being of Indigenous and Tribal communities. He remains an avid nature traveller and seeks cultural exchanges through his journeys.
Feature Image: A displayed Mising Tribe traditional stilt house in Majuli, Assam (taken by the author).
This post is part of a series on 'Rights to the Forest'. Read the other posts here.
Comments