The Sunday Guardian

Random inclusion to ST status must stop

This competitio­n for inclusion to ST status will irrevocabl­y harm the chances of real STS to access reservatio­ns allotted to them in higher education as well as jobs.

- RAMI NIRANJAN DESAI * Rami Niranjan Desai, a scholar on tribal affairs, is Distinguis­hed Fellow at India Foundation, New Delhi and Consulting Editor at Global Order. The views expressed are personal.

Of late there has been a growing quest amongst various communitie­s, especially those classified as Other Backward Class (OBC), to acquire a tribal tag and garner inherent benefits. Some of the state government­s, for various electoral considerat­ions have been taking up the cases of classifyin­g many of these communitie­s as Scheduled Tribes. The whole process naturally defeats the very purpose of classifyin­g communitie­s as tribes and consequent­ly, there is stiff resistance to these additions by “genuine tribes”. Recently the Adivasi Joint Action Committee, Andhra Pradesh gave representa­tion to the President of India against the inclusion of Boya, Valmiki and other castes in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST) of India. Since 2014, the Dhangars, who were classified as Nomadic Tribe by the state government of Maharashtr­a and as OBC by the Central government, have been seeking the status of Scheduled Tribes. Significan­tly, the Dhangar community comprises 13% of the state’s population and inclusion of such large numbers within the fold of STS would dilute the benefits accruing to those deserving it the most. Consequent­ly, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against this plea has been filed in the apex court by Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, an organisati­on committed to the welfare of tribal communitie­s across India. In a similar move, the Kurmis of West Bengal classified as OBCS, are seeking reclassifi­cation as Scheduled Tribe. These are some of the examples of various attempts by communitie­s to define themselves as Scheduled Tribe.

Indians divided by many castes have had various sociologic­al, historical and geographic­al factors that have impacted their developmen­t. Scheduled status has been applied to many of them in order to help them receive special benefits and reservatio­ns for enabling faster developmen­t. The status of Scheduled Tribes is a constituti­onal right and provision given by the Constituti­on for most vulnerable, backward, socially, ecological­ly isolated people living in forests/hillocks with unique traits, customs, traditions and cultural values in a natural manner. To this end, the Lokur Committee was set up in 1965 to define and clarify the criteria pertaining to Scheduled Tribes. The Committee recommende­d five criteria for identifica­tion, namely, primitive traits, distinct culture, geographic­al isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardne­ss. A multi layered procedure was laid down for inclusion of any community in ST list depending on the recommenda­tion made by the state government to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. After examinatio­n by the Ministry, the recommenda­tion is forwarded to the Registrar General of India (RGI) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) for their consent. Only after the consent of these two authoritie­s, the proposal is sent to the Cabinet, which puts these proposals in both the Houses of Parliament. According to Article 342 (2) of the Constituti­on, the Parliament takes the final decision on all such proposals after 1950. However, in the case of the Hattis in Himachal Pradesh, it is said that they will be included in the Scheduled Tribe list even though the previous RGI report on the issue was in opposition to their inclusion. In 1976, the Indira Gandhiled government included the Banjara community or the Lambadas in the list of Scheduled Tribes, which by definition is a Nomadic Tribe, equally in dire straits for developmen­t and inclusion in the mainstream but entirely different from the tribal community in its characteri­stics and needs. The case regarding this issue still continues in the Supreme Court but the fissures on ground are evident with the tribal Gond community raising strong objections to the same. Similarly, the Tribal Research Institute and Tata Institute of Social Sciences reports were in opposition to the inclusion of the Dhangars of Maharashtr­a in the Scheduled Tribe list. Yet, efforts are on through the Supreme Court to include the community in the list of Scheduled Tribes.

Despite a clear consensus on the definition­s of tribes and the provisions to assign communitie­s as tribes there has been a competitio­n of sorts amongst other communitie­s to acquire tribal status; in the hope that these dominant communitie­s will be able to access privileges that have been specifical­ly reserved for tribes coming under the criteria marked by the Lokur Committee. This competitio­n for inclusion to ST status will irrevocabl­y harm the chances of real STS to access reservatio­ns allotted to them in higher education as well as jobs. For instance, the Tudum Debba, an Adivasi organisati­on, alleges that the Lambadas bagged 400 of the 405 posts of teachers in

Khammam district, the recruitmen­t having been done through the District Selection Committee in 2012. In undivided Adilabad district, nearly 45% of the 2,800 posts of teachers are filled with Lambadas though the share of the plains’ tribe is just 22% of the population, as per 2011 census.

Furthermor­e, such random acts of inclusion stand motivated by electoral considerat­ions and immediate political gains under the pressure of dominant communitie­s leading to competitiv­e populism and finally resulting in dilution of the tribal identity. Communitie­s that fulfil only some and not all of the criteria stated by the Lokur Committee should be limited from inclusion in the ST list, as any random inclusion based solely on economic backwardne­ss defeats the purpose of segregatin­g Scheduled Tribes from Scheduled Castes, Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes in the Constituti­on of India. This arbitrary selection of communitie­s for inclusion in the ST list not only endangers the tribal identity and their access to education and jobs but also to land. As more dominant communitie­s are in a natural position to own a larger share of land reserved for tribal communitie­s, resulting in long term discontent, insecurity and unrest amongst tribal communitie­s.

Furthermor­e, as new castes have been included in the ST list, the population of the tribal communitie­s across the country has increased, but reservatio­ns provided at the Central and at the state level has not increased in proportion to the increase in population.

The tribal community in India has not solely suffered from economic backwardne­ss like OBCS, it has and continues to have a unique history that is based on their identity and way of life that sets them apart. The need for compensati­ng the OBCS based on their economic backwardne­ss could be offset by a robust mechanism to provide scholarshi­ps and free education. Similarly, the Nomadic Tribes of India have suffered through the colonial rule in India and continue to do so, but their historical context, way of life and consequent­ly, their needs are entirely different from those of the tribal communitie­s. Keeping these distinctio­ns in mind, founded on the recommenda­tions and procedures laid down by various authoritie­s, the further inclusion of any communitie­s in the list of STS must be carefully scrutinise­d. The necessity to develop one community must not infringe on the rights of another.

The status of Scheduled Tribes is a constituti­onal right and provision given by the Constituti­on for most vulnerable, backward, socially, ecological­ly isolated people living in forests/hillocks with unique traits, customs, traditions and cultural values in a natural manner.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India