In anthropology, a “tribe” is often defined by social structure, isolation, and culture. In Indian politics, however, it is defined by a schedule—a list that unlocks constitutional protection and power. In Assam, the state cabinet has just taken a major step to expand this list, approving the inclusion of six populous communities as Scheduled Tribes (STs). But instead of celebration, this has triggered torchlight rallies, university boycotts, and fierce protests by existing tribal groups like the Bodos. This case study explores the volatile politics of classification, asking: what happens when the definition of “tribe” is expanded to include groups that were once rulers and tea-plantation workers?
The Information Box
Syllabus Connection:
- Paper 2: Chapter 6.1 (Problems of Tribal Communities), Chapter 9.3 (Tribal Movements: Ethnicity and Unrest), Chapter 3.1 (The Caste-Tribe Continuum)
- Paper 1: Chapter 4 (Political Anthropology: Identity Politics, State), Chapter 2.5 (Social Stratification)
- GS-2: Social Justice, Reservation Policy, North East Insurgency/Politics
Key Concepts/Tags:
- Politics of Recognition, Retribalization, Scheduled Tribe (ST) Status, Zero-Sum Game, Bodo Students Union (ABSU), Tea Tribes, Tai Ahom
The Setting: Who, What, Where?
The setting is Assam, a state with a complex mosaic of ethnic identities. The State Cabinet, led by CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, has approved a report to grant ST status to six communities: Tai Ahom, Moran, Matak, Chutia, Koch-Rajbongshi, and the “Tea Tribes” (Adivasis). This move is being fiercely opposed by existing ST organisations, led by the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU). The conflict has spilled onto the streets of Kokrajhar and into universities, with existing tribes fearing that their constitutional safeguards are about to be diluted.
The Core Argument: Why This Study Matters
This situation perfectly illustrates the “Zero-Sum Game” of reservation politics in India.
- The “Dilution” of Rights: The core argument of the protesting Bodos and other existing tribes is mathematical and existential. The six aspiring communities are demographically massive. The “Tea Tribes” alone constitute a huge chunk of Assam’s population. Existing tribes fear that if these groups enter the ST list, they will swamp the reservation quotas in jobs, education, and political seats, effectively pushing the historically marginalised “original” tribes out of the competition.
- The “Advanced” vs. “Backward” Debate: Many of the aspiring groups do not fit the traditional image of a marginalised tribe. The Tai Ahoms and Chutias were historically ruling dynasties who governed Assam for centuries. The Koch-Rajbongshis also have a royal lineage. The existing tribes argue that granting ST status to these historically “advanced” or ruling classes undermines the very purpose of the Sixth Schedule, which was designed to protect the vulnerable, not the powerful.
- The Paradox of the “Tea Tribes”: The case of the “Tea Tribes” (Adivasis brought by the British from central India) highlights the arbitrariness of state classification. Communities like the Mundas and Santhals are STs in their home states (Jharkhand/Odisha) but are classified as OBCs in Assam. Their demand is for a restoration of their original status, adding a layer of historical justice to the debate.
The Anthropologist’s Gaze: A Critical Perspective
- “Retribalisation”: An anthropologist would analyse the demand of groups like the Tai Ahoms as a process of “retribalisation”. Historically, these groups underwent “Sanskritisation” (adopting Hindu/caste norms) to gain status. Now, in a modern political economy where ST status offers tangible benefits and protections, they are reasserting their indigenous/tribal identity. It shows that social mobility in India is no longer just about moving up the caste ladder, but moving into the constitutional schedule.
- The Elasticity of “Tribe”: This case exposes the lack of a rigorous, anthropological definition of “tribe” in Indian administration. Can a group be a “tribe” if it ruled an empire (Ahoms)? Can a group be a “tribe” in one state and a “caste” in another (Tea Tribes)? The political fluidity of the term allows the state to use ST status as a tool for electoral engineering, promising inclusion to gather votes, often disregarding anthropological criteria.
- Identity as a Resource: The conflict confirms the anthropological theory of Instrumentalism in ethnicity. Ethnic identity is not just a cultural given; it is a political resource to be mobilised. Both the aspiring groups and the resisting groups are mobilising their ethnic identities to compete for scarce state resources (jobs, funds, seats), turning identity into a battlefield.
The Exam Angle: How to Use This in Your Mains Answer
- Types of Questions Where It can be Used:
- “The definition of ‘Scheduled Tribe’ in India is administrative, not anthropological. Discuss with reference to recent demands.”
- “Analyze the causes of ethnic conflict in North East India.”
- “Discuss the phenomenon of ‘retribalization’ or reverse social mobility in India.”
- Model Integration:
- On Definition of Tribe: “The administrative nature of the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category often clashes with anthropological reality. In Assam, the proposal to include historically ruling groups like the Tai Ahoms and the Koch-Rajbongshis in the ST list has triggered protests from existing tribes, who argue that these ‘advanced’ groups do not fit the criteria of backwardness.”
- On Retribalization: “Contemporary Indian society is witnessing ‘retribalization,’ where communities seek ST status for political and economic security. The demand by six communities in Assam, including the Tea Tribes (who are STs elsewhere) and the Ahoms, exemplifies this trend, leading to conflicts with existing STs over the ‘dilution’ of benefits.”
- On Tribal Unrest: “Tribal unrest is often driven by a fear of losing constitutional safeguards. The recent agitation by the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) against the expansion of the ST list in Assam highlights the ‘zero-sum’ nature of reservation politics, where the inclusion of new, populous groups is seen as an existential threat to the rights of existing tribes.”
Observer’s Take
The turmoil in Assam forces us to ask a difficult question: what is the ST list for? Is it a tool to protect the most vulnerable and isolated, or is it a mechanism to distribute power among ethnic blocs? When former kings (Ahoms) and colonial laborers (Tea Tribes) both clamor for the same badge of “backwardness,” it suggests that our systems of social justice are buckling under the weight of political aspiration. It reveals a modern irony: in the race for development, the most coveted prize in Indian politics is often the official label of being “tribal.”
Source
- Title: Assam Cabinet approves panel report to grant ST status to six communities
- Publication: The Hindu
