Why the Rights of the existing scheduled tribes of Assam must remain intact

Sources: Bodo Media

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

The earliest known settlers of the Brahmaputra Valley comprise several indigenous communities, largely belonging to the greater Bodo–Kachari and cognate Tibeto-Burman groups. Among them, the Kachari peoples — one of the oldest ethno-linguistic groups in Assam — formed the core of the ancient Kachari civilisation and established prosperous kingdoms such as Heramba/Hidimba, Dimapur, Maibong and Khaspur. The Karbi, Rabha, Tiwa, Bodo, Dimasa, Sonowal Kachari, Deori, and other indigenous communities inhabited the region since antiquity, with their settlements predating the emergence of several later dominant populations. Collectively, these early settler groups shaped the foundational cultural, linguistic, and political landscape of ancient Assam.

Throughout history, however, the indigenous communities faced successive waves of invasion, occupation, displacement, discrimination, and marginalisation—arising from external aggressions as well as from the expanding dominance of later-arriving social and political groups within the region.

Their historical experiences include:

being invaded, looted, dispossessed, and forcibly displaced from ancestral lands;
being subjected to systematic discrimination, ridicule, and cultural suppression;
being pushed into geographical margins and economic backwardness;
being made victims of historic injustice by successive governments and dominant social groups.

In the contemporary era, domination is no longer executed with swords, spears, and physical force, but through policy mechanisms, legal frameworks, and political manoeuvring that threaten the survival of vulnerable and minority groups. These modern legal instruments, when misused, can function as tools of demographic takeover, land alienation, and political subjugation.

Even though the Kacharis and other Bodo–Kachari tribes were recognised as Scheduled Tribes immediately after independence, and Tribal Belts and Blocks were created in 1947 to prevent land alienation, the protective mechanisms remained weak. Decades of illegal occupation and encroachment occurred, facilitated by state inaction despite judicial directions, including from the Gauhati High Court, mandating eviction.

Thus, the Kacharis and other indigenous tribes remain compelled to defend their historical, natural, constitutional and legal rights in their own homeland. Over the decades, thousands have sacrificed their lives in movements seeking recognition, identity and protection. The ongoing struggle is a struggle for:

· land and territorial security;

· cultural and traditional continuity;

· customary practices and indigenous institutions;

· traditional food culture and ecological knowledge;

· political representation and relevance;

· equitable educational opportunity;

· economic advancement and livelihood security;

· preservation and promotion of language; and

· the right to exist as distinct indigenous communities.

If the present rights of the existing Scheduled Tribe communities are diluted by granting equal legal and land-related protections to large, populous and socially advanced communities through constitutional amendments or new legislation, the Kachari people and other indigenous tribes will once again face the risks of erasure, marginalisation and demographic domination. In such a scenario, the Government’s proposal

to confer Scheduled Tribe status on six additional communities functions less as a measure of protection and more as a direct encroachment upon the rights, safeguards and constitutional space of the existing Scheduled Tribes.

CONSEQUENCES:

1. Loss of Protection under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Once the six populous communities are included under the ST category, they will also become beneficiaries of the protections under the PoA Act.
Existing STs will lose the ability to seek legal remedies under the Act for atrocities committed by members of these socially and politically advanced communities.
This will likely increase incidences of harassment, violence, threats, and social intimidation against smaller tribes.

2. Legalisation of Illegal Encroachment on Tribal Belts and Blocks

Extending Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 to the six new groups will legitimise decades of illegal encroachment already carried out by them.
Existing ST communities will lose large portions of Tribal Belts and Blocks, leading to displacement, landlessness, and permanent alienation from ancestral territory.
The legislative intent behind Chapter X — protecting vulnerable tribes from land alienation — will be defeated by extending these protections to advanced and populous communities.
This will inevitably generate land disputes, litigations, administrative paralysis, and long-term conflict over tribal land quotas.

3. Threat to Sixth Schedule and Proposed Sixth Schedule Areas

A legally sanctioned demographic influx will alter the population profile of Sixth Schedule areas (BTAD/BTR, KAAC, DHAC) and proposed Sixth Schedule territories (demanded by Mising, Rabha, and others).

Tribal-majority status — the constitutional basis for Sixth Schedule autonomy — will be diluted.
This risks weakening autonomous governance, financial powers, customary institutions, and land administration.

4. Demographic Takeover of Protected Tribal Regions

Forest areas, belts and blocks, and autonomous councils will face demographic penetration legitimised through legal instruments.
Indigenous communities may permanently lose ownership and control over land and resources traditionally belonging to them.
The demographic shift may lead to loss of cultural landscapes, customary livelihoods, sacred sites, and socio-political space.

5. Dilution of Reservation Benefits in Education and Employment

Inclusion of larger and socio-economically stronger groups under ST quotas will drastically reduce opportunities for existing ST youths.
Access to higher education (IITs, NITs, central universities, medical colleges) and public employment will shrink severely.
Reservation — meant as a remedy for backwardness — becomes meaningless when shared with groups that are not historically marginalised.

6. Drastic Reduction in Political Representation and Bargaining Power

Larger communities will dominate ST-reserved seats in Panchayats, ULBs, Autonomous Councils, Assembly, and Parliamentary constituencies.
Smaller tribes such as Boro, Dimasa, Mising, Rabha, Tiwa, Karbi, Sonowal Kachari, Deori, etc. will face political invisibility.
Indigenous tribes will lose collective bargaining power regarding laws, budgets, development priorities, cultural institutions, and land governance.

7. Social, Administrative, and Inter-Community Conflict

Overlapping land entitlements, forest rights, political claims, and identity disputes will intensify inter-community tension.
This will likely lead to widespread social unrest, law-and-order problems, campus disturbances, and destabilisation of peace in tribal regions.
Indigenous tribes may lose de facto control over their traditional resources — including ancestral lands, forests, rivers, and community commons — as well as their customary institutions such as village councils, clan authorities, resource-management bodies, and traditional justice systems that have historically governed their socio-cultural life.

8. Violation of the Constitutional Principle of Protective Discrimination

Scheduled Tribe status is intended exclusively for historically disadvantaged and marginalised communities.
Granting this status to advanced, populous groups negates constitutional intent and violates Article 14 by creating unreasonable classifications.
It sets a dangerous precedent allowing relatively powerful groups to claim benefits meant for the weakest.

9. Undermining of Peace Accords and Federal Commitments

Peace agreements signed with revolutionary groups and demand-based organisations representing communities such as the Bodo, Karbi, Dimasa, and Rabha were founded on the principle of safeguarding tribal-majority regions and ensuring their political and territorial security.
Demographic alteration violates the spirit of these accords and risks destabilising long-standing peace arrangements.
This may reignite regional tensions, mistrust, and future conflict between communities.

10. Reversal of Decades of Tribal Struggles and Sacrifices

Indigenous communities achieved constitutional protections after decades of movements, political struggles, martyrdom, persecution, and negotiations.
Extending ST status to dominant and populous groups erases these hard-won gains.
It undermines sacrifices made in movements such as the Bodoland movement, Dimasa homeland struggle, Mising autonomy movement, Karbi and Rabha movements, Tiwa and Deori rights movements, etc.

11. Permanent Loss of Land for Future Generations

Once protected tribal land passes into the hands of newly classified ST groups, the loss becomes irreversible.
Future generations will inherit a condition of landlessness, socio-economic vulnerability, cultural dislocation, and political marginalisation.
The survival of indigenous identity and the continuity of historical territory become uncertain.

12. Transformation of ST Category into a Political Bargaining Tool

Inclusion of large, politically influential communities lowers the credibility of the ST list.
The ST category risks becoming a political benefit rather than a constitutional remedy.
This could generate a floodgate of future claims, weakening the entire framework of protective discrimination in India.

ANALYTICAL QUESTIONS

1. Can granting Scheduled Tribe status to six advanced and populous communities genuinely protect Assamese identity if the Government has failed to protect the Tribal Belts and Blocks for 75 years?

2. Is ST status the only means to protect the culture, identity, and land of Assamese people, when alternatives such as constitutional amendments, ILP, or stronger land laws are available?

3. Why has Clause 6 of the Assam Accord not been fully implemented, despite being the legal backbone for protection of the identity of Assamese people?

4. Why should the rights of historically marginalised ST communities be diluted in the name of protecting Assamese identity, when more appropriate legal options exist?

5. Can the historical rights of the earliest settlers—Bodo-Kachari and other indigenous tribes—be justified if migrant-origin communities are granted equal Scheduled Tribe status?

6. Does reclassifying large populations as Scheduled Tribes not contradict India’s claim of being a “Viksit Bharat” and “Vishwaguru” after 75+ years of independence?

7. Will overlapping entitlements (land pattas, forest rights, community ownership) not lead to prolonged legal battles, administrative burden, and social conflict?

8. Does this mass inclusion not risk turning Scheduled Tribe status into a political tool rather than a constitutional protection meant for genuinely marginalised communities?

9. Has the Government studied the potential demographic impact on Sixth Schedule areas and proposed Sixth Schedule regions?

10. Should the historic injustice suffered by the Bodo–Kachari tribes be repeated under new legal mechanisms in the name of “equity”?

ANALYTICAL SUGGESTIONS

1. Strengthen enforcement of existing land protections under Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, and immediately implement Gauhati High Court directives on eviction from Tribal Belts and Blocks. Do not alter or expand the ST list in a manner that dilutes the rights and protections of existing Scheduled Tribes, as this amounts to legal invasion and demographic aggression

2. Provide special constitutional protection for Assam, similar to Article 371A (Nagaland) or Article 371G (Mizoram), if the true intention is to protect land, culture, language, and identity.

3. Introduce Inner Line Permit (ILP) or similar mechanisms to regulate demographic pressure and preserve indigenous land rights without disturbing the ST list.

4. Create a separate category of protection for large communities, such as “Special Backward Category” or “Protected OBC,” without granting ST status.

5. Commission a judicial or expert committee to evaluate the historical marginalisation of existing STs vis-à-vis the socio-economic status of the six proposed communities.

6. Protect the autonomy and demographic composition of Sixth Schedule and Tribal Autonomous Councils, preventing any legal mechanism that may weaken tribal-majority representation.

7. Ensure that no law or amendment infringes upon Articles 342, 371B, 244(2), and the Sixth Schedule, which collectively secure the rights of indigenous tribes.

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]