Analysis of the potential consequences for the existing scheduled tribes of Assam arising from the GOM Report and recommendations.

Photo by Bodo Media

The report and recommendations submitted by the Group of Ministers (GoM) on 29 November 2025 in the Assam Legislative Assembly assert that the inclusion of six communities into the Scheduled Tribes list will not adversely affect the existing Scheduled Tribes of Assam. However, a close scrutiny of the recommendations reveals several legal, constitutional, administrative, and socio-political implications that may significantly undermine the rights, entitlements, and protections currently enjoyed by the Scheduled Tribes (Plains) and the Scheduled Tribes (Hills) in Assam.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

1.1 Restriction to Preservation of “Current Entitlements” (Clause 6.1)

The GoM claims that the reorganisation of reservations in Parliament, State Assembly, and Local Bodies will not affect the current entitlements of ST(P) and ST(H).

This wording is legally problematic because:

The guarantee is limited only to “present” entitlements, creating an implied possibility of dilution in future delimitation and reservation restructuring.
Future political rearrangements in existing and proposed Sixth Schedule areas (including BTAD/BTR, KAAC, DHAC, Mising AAD, Rabha AAD) remain unprotected.
No constitutional mechanism is proposed to ensure that future reservation cycles will permanently safeguard the existing Scheduled Tribes.

Thus, the constitutional and political position of existing STs becomes contingent and unstable.

1.2 Absence of Explicit Protection for Land and Forest Rights (Clause 6.1 – Second Part)

Under existing laws—including the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (ALRR), Chapter X, Tribal Belts and Blocks provisions, and the Forest Rights Act, 2006—any addition to the ST list creates automatic statutory entitlements, unless amended.

There is no explicit provision in the GoM report ensuring that the existing rights and privileges of Scheduled Tribes in respect of land and forest rights will remain unaffected. In the absence of such a safeguard, the vast forest areas within the three Sixth Schedule regions—namely the Bodoland Territorial Area District, the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, and the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council—stand exposed to legal claims by individuals who are presently unauthorised occupants. Under the applicable legal framework, such areas may effectively be regularised in favour of these encroachers once they are accorded Scheduled Tribe status.

Consequently, the existing ST(P) and ST(H) communities face the grave risk of losing both protected land and forest land, which are presently secured under the laws in force.

1.3 Reservation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Clause 6.3)

The recommendation to reserve additional constituencies for ST(Valley) has major consequences:

The six proposed communities numerically exceed the combined total population of existing ST(P) and ST(H).
Once seats are reserved in proportion to their population, the political influence of existing tribes will drastically decrease.
Even if present ST-reserved seats remain, the creation of a large new ST category will dominate electoral politics, marginalising the existing Scheduled Tribes.

The GoM does not clarify that:

Reserved constituencies within all Sixth Schedule areas—existing and proposed—will remain exclusively for existing STs.
Communities added under ST(P) will be eligible to contest from seats currently reserved for existing ST(P), directly threatening their political representation.

2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSEQUENCES

2.1 Reduction of General Category Vacancies (Clause 6.4)

Adding large populations to the ST category will significantly reduce opportunities in the general quota.

This affects:

Small indigenous non-ST communities
Economically weaker non-reserved groups

Even with separate rosters:

ST(Valley) will demand population-based reservation share.
They possess far greater numerical strength.

Thus, existing STs lose effective representation in employment and education, irrespective of nominal quota protection.

2.2 Central-Level Reservation Consequences (Clause 6.5)

The GoM admits that no mechanism exists to maintain separate ST(P), ST(H), and ST(Valley) categories at the Central level.

Consequences:

All newly included communities will automatically enter the national ST pool.
Existing STs nationwide (not only in Assam) will face competition from an enormously large group (approx. two crore population).
Many of the six communities possess:

Higher literacy rates
Better economic resources
Stronger urban representation

Result:

Marginalised ST communities lose competitive parity in UPSC, SSC, RRB, Central Universities, Central PSUs, Armed Forces, etc.

This is the single most detrimental national-level consequence.

2.3 OBC Reservation in Local Bodies (Clause 6.10)

Introducing OBC reservation in Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies may directly affect:

Proposed Sixth Schedule areas

Consequences:

OBC communities—including the six groups—will obtain reserved seats in local governance structures within tribal areas.
Existing STs may lose political control over their constitutionally protected autonomous regions.

This is in direct conflict with the spirit of the Sixth Schedule.

3. LAND AND TERRITORIAL RIGHTS CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Extension of ST Land Privileges to Six Communities (Clause 6.12)

The recommendation to give the six communities the same land privileges as existing STs is extremely damaging.

Implications:

(a) Tribal Belts and Blocks (ALRR Chapter X)

· The proposal to extend the operation of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, to the six proposed communities is inherently prejudicial to the rights and interests of the existing Scheduled Tribes of Assam.

· Such extension will confer legal validity upon unlawful occupation and encroachment by persons belonging to these six communities within the duly notified Tribal Belts and Blocks, thereby nullifying the statutory protection guaranteed to the Scheduled Tribes under Chapter X.

· The regularisation of these illegal occupations would result in substantial diminishment of protected tribal land, leading to the erosion of the territorial, cultural, and socio-economic security of the existing Scheduled Tribes.

· The probable consequence is the dispossession and landlessness of existing ST communities, who will be deprived of lands specifically safeguarded for them through legislative mechanisms.

· The recommendation contravenes the spirit of the Gauhati High Court’s directions mandating the eviction of illegal encroachers from Tribal Belts and Blocks. Instead of complying with the judicial mandate, the proposal effectively subverts the Court’s order by seeking to legitimise such encroachment through legislative manipulation.

· This move revives and perpetuates the historic injustices, displacement, and marginalisation suffered by the earliest tribal settlers of Assam, thereby violating the principles of substantive equality and protective discrimination envisaged under the Constitution.

· The proposal, in effect, enables demographic invasion into legally protected tribal lands, weakening the protective legislative framework and exposing the existing Scheduled Tribes to long-term socio-economic and cultural threats.

This violates the purpose of Chapter X: protection of marginalised indigenous groups, not populous dominant groups.

(b) Proposed Sixth Schedule Areas

The proposed Sixth Schedule areas will face heightened vulnerability as a result of a legally sanctioned demographic influx, thereby threatening the demographic balance, land security, and territorial rights of the Scheduled Tribes—particularly the Mising and Rabha communities—who are seeking constitutional protection under the Sixth Schedule.

(c) Forest Rights Act, 2006

The FRA recognises ST forest rights based on existence prior to 13 December 2005.

Once six large communities become ST:

They automatically inherit forest rights in any forested region of Assam.
The existing Sixth Schedule areas — including the Bodoland Territorial Area District, the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, and the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council — as well as the proposed Sixth Schedule areas, will face heightened vulnerability due to a legally sanctioned demographic influx into forest lands, thereby undermining the constitutional autonomy, territorial integrity, and land security of the Scheduled Tribes residing therein.

This is legally unavoidable and cannot be restricted by State policy.

3.2 Community-Based Land Transfer Restrictions (Clause 6.13)

The proposed law restricting land transfer within each community only has several adverse consequences:

Existing STs will not be allowed to purchase land from newly added ST communities.
Their ability to expand landholdings within their homeland becomes legally restricted.

Economic mobility of existing ST individuals is severely reduced.
Tribal land protection becomes fragmented community-wise, not tribe-wise, undermining collective indigenous rights.

This is inconsistent with the intent of the Sixth Schedule and tribal land protection jurisprudence.

4. CONSEQUENCES FOR BODOLAND TERRITORIAL REGION (CLAUSE 6.6)

4.1 Demographic and Political Threat

If Koch Rajbongshis of undivided Goalpara—and eventually other populous groups—enter the ST(P) list:

Bodo political representation in BTAD/BTR will be diluted.
BTC elections will see domination by larger groups.
Protected lands, forests, and settlement rights within BTAD/BTR will be opened to new claimants.
The constitutional autonomy of BTAD/BTR under the Sixth Schedule becomes vulnerable.

4.2 Flawed Logic in Accepting Communities Based on “Lack of Opposition”

GoM states that inclusion of Moran, Matak, and Koch Rajbongshi is acceptable because there is “not much opposition”.

However, ST classification must be:

Based on the criteria
Not on political convenience
Not based on the presence or absence of objections from other communities

This approach undermines both legality and objectivity.

“In any society, it is the demography that shapes the democracy; the protection of land and its people remains the foundation upon which both must stand.”

Written by Bodoland Analyst

[Note: This article is written by a Bodoland Analyst. 'The Bodo Tribe 18' obtained the right to publish it here with their permission, and we are very thankful for that]