Current Procedure, Criteria, and Challenges for Inclusion in India’s Scheduled Tribes (ST) List
Current Procedure
The Government of India considers the existing framework for granting ST status to communities as sufficient. The process involves:1. Initiation: States/Union Territories (UTs) submit proposals to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) after consultations with marginalized communities.
2. Interagency Review:
- Registrar General of India (RGI): Examines demographic, ethnographic, and historical data to verify tribal characteristics.
- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST): Assesses eligibility based on socio-cultural and legal parameters.
3. Legislative Approval: Approved proposals are sent to the Union Cabinet, followed by Parliament, which amends the *Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950* through legislation.
Core Criteria (Lokur Committee, 1965)
Communities must meet the following benchmarks:- Primitive Traits: Retention of traditional practices and subsistence-based livelihoods.
- Distinctive Culture: Unique social, linguistic, and religious identity.
- Geographical Isolation: Historical habitation in remote or forested regions.
- Reluctance to Integrate: Limited interaction with the wider population due to socio-cultural barriers.
- Socio-Economic Backwardness: Marginalization in education, employment, and development indices.
Key Criticisms and Challenges
1. Procedural Inefficiencies:- Multi-layered scrutiny by the RGI, NCST, and Parliament leads to delays (often spanning decades), depriving communities of affirmative action benefits like reservations.
- States’ uneven capacity to prepare robust proposals exacerbates disparities.
2. Obsolete Criteria:
- The 1965 guidelines fail to account for urbanization, migration, and cultural assimilation, leaving modern marginalized groups ineligible.
- Ambiguous terms like “primitive traits” lack clear definitions, leading to subjective interpretations.
3. Exclusion of Stakeholders:
- Affected communities are rarely consulted during the decision-making process, raising concerns about transparency and equity.
4. Political Interference:
- Allegations of inclusion demands being politicized to appease vote banks, rather than addressing genuine marginalization.
5. Equity Concerns:
- Prolonged exclusion perpetuates cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement, particularly for groups like Gond Sub-Castes or Hindu Kush Himalaya tribes awaiting recognition.
Government’s Position:
The Centre defends the process as constitutionally sound and emphasizes rigorous interagency checks to prevent arbitrary inclusions. It argues that frequent revisions could destabilize existing reservations.
Critics’ Counterarguments:
Advocates and legal experts demand:
- Modernization of criteria to reflect contemporary realities.
- Statutory timelines for processing proposals.
- Greater involvement of anthropologists and community representatives in evaluations.
Conclusion:
While the government maintains the procedure’s adequacy, systemic reforms are urged to balance bureaucratic rigor with inclusivity, ensuring historically marginalized groups are not denied their rights due to procedural or conceptual antiquities.
