Criteria for Identification of Tribals in India and Its Relation to Religion

 

Criteria for Identification of Tribals in India and Its Relation to Religion

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

Recently, on May 24, 2026, a Tribal Cultural Conclave was organized by the Rashtriy Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Delhi. During this event, demands were raised to create a rift within the tribal community and to exclude tribals who have converted to Christianity from the list of Scheduled Tribes. Through this initiative, an attempt was made to foster the misconception that if a tribal individual converts to Christianity, they should be stripped of the reservations and other benefits accorded to tribals as a Scheduled Tribe. In this regard, the constitutional position is that religion serves as no criterion for individuals belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category. There are distinct criteria for determining their identity—criteria which are discussed in detail in this article—so that the RSS's attempt to sow division and conflict among tribals on the basis of religion can be fully understood.

The tribal communities of India constitute one of the most diverse and historically significant sections of Indian society. Officially recognized as “Scheduled Tribes” (STs) under the Constitution of India, these communities possess distinct social, cultural, linguistic, and historical identities. India is home to more than seven hundred tribal groups spread across different regions, particularly in Central India, the Northeast, the Himalayan belt, and parts of South India. The question of how tribal communities are identified and whether religion plays any role in such identification has been a matter of academic, constitutional, and political discussion for decades.

The identification of tribal communities in India is not primarily based on religion. Rather, it is linked to historical, cultural, ethnic, geographical, and socio-economic factors. Tribal identity is understood as a socio-cultural category rooted in a distinct way of life and a history of marginalization. Religion may influence tribal culture in some contexts, but it is not the constitutional criterion for recognizing a community as a Scheduled Tribe.

Historical Background of Tribal Identification

The process of identifying tribal communities began during the colonial period. British administrators and anthropologists classified certain communities as “tribes” because of their relative geographical isolation, distinct customs, traditional occupations, and different social organization from caste-based Hindu society. Colonial ethnographers often treated tribes as “primitive” or “backward,” reflecting the racial and evolutionary theories prevalent at that time.

After independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution recognized that tribal communities had suffered from historical neglect, exploitation, displacement, and lack of access to education and economic opportunities. Therefore, special constitutional protections were provided to them under the category of Scheduled Tribes.

However, the Constitution did not provide a precise definition of the term “tribe.” Instead, Article 342 empowered the President of India to specify which communities would be recognized as Scheduled Tribes in consultation with state governments and the Parliament.

Criteria for Identification of Scheduled Tribes

Although there is no rigid constitutional definition, certain criteria evolved through administrative practice and committee recommendations. The most influential among them was the Lokur Committee (1965), which suggested the following characteristics for identifying tribal communities:

Primitive traits, Distinctive culture, Geographical isolation, Shyness of contact with the larger community and Backwardness

These criteria reflected the anthropological thinking of that period. However, modern scholarship criticizes some of these expressions, especially terms such as “primitive,” as colonial and derogatory. Contemporary understanding places greater emphasis on cultural distinctiveness, historical marginalization, and community identity rather than notions of primitiveness.

Today, tribal communities are generally identified through the following features:

Distinct ethnic and cultural identity, Traditional customs and social practices, Separate languages or dialects, Strong connection with forests, hills, or specific territories, Community-based social organization and Historical deprivation and socio-economic marginalization

Examples of major tribal communities include the Gond Tribe, Santhal Tribe, Bhil Tribe, Munda Tribe, and various Naga Tribes. Each of these communities has its own language, customs, myths, rituals, and traditional institutions.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

The Constitution of India provides several safeguards for Scheduled Tribes. Article 342 authorizes the identification of ST communities. The Fifth Schedule provides for the administration and protection of tribal areas in central and peninsular India, while the Sixth Schedule grants autonomy to tribal areas in parts of Northeast India.

Additional safeguards include:

Reservation in education and government employment, Political reservation in Parliament and state legislatures, Protection against exploitation and land alienation and Special development programs for tribal welfare

The constitutional approach recognizes tribal communities as historically disadvantaged socio-cultural groups requiring affirmative action and protection.

Relationship Between Tribal Identity and Religion

Religion is not an official criterion for the identification of Scheduled Tribes in India. A tribal community retains its ST status regardless of the religion practiced by its members. Tribal identity is linked to ancestry, ethnicity, culture, and historical experience rather than to any specific religion.

Tribal communities in India follow a wide variety of faith traditions. Many continue to practice indigenous religions based on nature worship, ancestor worship, and animistic beliefs. Others have adopted Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam over time.

For example:

A large number of tribes in Northeast India are Christian, many tribal groups in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha follow Sarna or other indigenous faith traditions, some tribal communities have incorporated Hindu rituals and deities into their cultural life, small sections have embraced Buddhism or Islam.

Despite these differences, their constitutional recognition as Scheduled Tribes remains unaffected because the basis of recognition is socio-cultural and historical rather than religious.

This position differs from the Scheduled Caste category where constitutional provisions historically linked eligibility to certain religions. In the case of Scheduled Tribes, no such religious restriction exists.

Debate Over Tribal Religious Identity

Although religion is not a constitutional criterion, tribal religious identity has become an important political and cultural issue in contemporary India. There are debates regarding whether tribal communities should be regarded as followers of independent indigenous faiths or as part of the broader Hindu fold.

Two terms often appear in this debate:

“Adivasi,” meaning original inhabitants or indigenous people. “Vanvasi,” meaning forest dwellers

Many tribal movements, scholars, and activists prefer the term “Adivasi” because it emphasizes the distinct historical and indigenous identity of tribal peoples. On the other hand, organizations associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh often use the term “Vanvasi,” arguing that tribal communities are culturally connected with the wider Hindu civilization.

Critics argue that such approaches may dilute distinct tribal identities and assimilate tribal religions into mainstream Hinduism. Supporters contend that these efforts strengthen national integration and social unity. This debate reflects larger questions about identity, culture, indigeneity, and political representation in India.

Contemporary Challenges

Tribal communities today face numerous challenges despite constitutional protections. These include:

Displacement due to mining, dams, and industrial projects, Loss of forests and traditional livelihoods, Poverty and lack of access to quality education and healthcare, Cultural assimilation and erosion of indigenous languages and Political marginalization and exploitation

At the same time, tribal movements across India are increasingly asserting their rights over land, forests, culture, and religion. Demands for recognition of separate tribal religions in the census and protection of indigenous traditions have gained importance in several states.

Conclusion

The identification of Tribals or Scheduled Tribes in India is fundamentally based on socio-cultural distinctiveness, historical isolation, ethnic identity, and socio-economic marginalization. Religion is not the determining factor in tribal recognition. Tribal communities may follow indigenous faiths, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or other religions, yet their constitutional status as Scheduled Tribes remains intact.

The Indian constitutional framework recognizes tribal communities as unique cultural groups deserving protection, autonomy, and affirmative action. At the same time, debates over tribal identity, religion, and cultural assimilation continue to shape contemporary political and social discourse in India. The challenge before Indian democracy is to ensure that tribal communities can preserve their distinct identities while enjoying equality, dignity, and development within the broader national framework.

PROPERTY AND THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES IN INDIA

 

PROPERTY AND THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES IN INDIA

 Bhagwan Das,  July 20,1985.

Property gives security, power and prestige. Desire to own property has become one of the most powerful motivating urges of human-kind. So long as man remains master of 'property' it does not prove to be harmful; it is when property becomes the master of man that the problems begin to arise. Buddha the greatest teacher of man was not in favour of accumulating property and yet like most saints of medieval India he did not glorify property. He advocated the middle path and because of his teachings in the countries which follow Buddhism, the disparity between rich and poor is not as wide as it is in countries where theistic religions are followed.

Concentration of property in few hands leads to or results in exploitation and impoverishment of a large number of people. To perpetuate their hold, the propertied classes use all means at their command especially religion, education, and laws. Disparities in all spheres of life give birth to conflicts culminating in violent upheavals. This is inevitable because changes cannot be brought about through peaceful means. Although political revolutions eat up their own children yet there is a kind of romance attached to the word revolution.

India is one of the poorest countries of the world where fifty to sixty percent people live below poverty line and a large majority of the people own no property. Yet in India we have a small number of people who own most of the property in the form of land, industry and real estate.

Most modern economists and historians attribute this to colonial rule which lasted barely 150 to 200 years but poverty of India goes back to thousands of years. According to ancient Brahminic laws, framed in the name of God or gods, a large number of people  who created wealth were not allowed to own property. They had to be kept perpetually in want and dependent in the name of religion. They were not allowed any leisure so that they may have no time and energy to think. They were not allowed to bear arms so that they may not revolt. Inspite of modern laws, independence of the country situation has not changed very much in the 568, 000 of villages where nearly 80 percent of people live.

Property in the form of land is owned by the upper land- holding castes. During the British regime India was divided into two groups, namely British India and princely states.

Princely states followed different land and property laws according to the laws of the rulers and the tradition of different states. British in the territories directly under their control introduced land reforms and property laws keeping in view their needs and interests. While originally it was collection of revenue in subsequent decades it was the desire to protect the interest of classes which provided the soldiers.

Scheduled Tribes people in certain areas rebelled against the new system introduced by the British and enforced through the members of exploiting classes. A compromise was reached and laws banning transfer of property to non-tribals were enacted. But enactment of law is one thing and its implementation is quite different. Tribals continue to be exploited by the 'plains people' whom they contemptuously call 'Dikko!

Scheduled Castes people in many states, provinces in India were not allowed to own property, land etc. In Punjab (Punjab, Delhi, Haryana included) their duties and responsibilities as 'menials’ were recorded. They could not purchase land so long as they remained within the Hindu-fold, by embracing Islam, Christianity or Sikhism they could get rid of this stigma. After the advent of independence these restrictions were removed but Scheduled Castes people did not even then have any right on the land on which they had built their huts while legal restrictions have been removed, majority of the Scheduled Castes still own no property.

When Constitution was being drafted Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was against inclusion of 'Right to Property' in the Constitution. But Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and Mr. K.M.Munshi were vehemently opposed to this suggestion. They belong to the propertied class. Majority of the members in the Constituent Assembly belonged to this class and no class can be expected to commit harakiri jeopardising its own interests, or sources of power and prestige.

Land reforms and introduction of new taxes and enhancement of taxes have been introduced as measures to control the fast-growing power of propertied classes but like all good laws these have not been properly implemented. Taking advantages of loop holes deliberately left by the law makers, the purpose of land-reform laws has been defeated.

To defeat the Laws landlords in some states have divorced their wives while they still continue to live with them. Some have got the land mutated in the names of fictitious persons or even in the names of dogs and cats owned by them.  In Punjab one can find names like 'Potato’ son of 'Tomato’ recorded in land revenue papers.

On the other hand, where land has been allotted with great pomp and show to the members of the Scheduled Castes what was given was 'patta! and useless sheet of paper and no the actual land. Himachal made an announcement that land shall be granted to all Untouchables but what was given was barren land where nothing could be grown.

Dr. Ambedkar in his famous book 'States and minorities had dealt with this problem. He had criticised Pundit Jawahar Nehru for in the resolution moved by him in 1946 there was mention of 'Socialism'. After his bitter experience in 1937 when mere mention of the word socialism had angered many of the Congressmen, Pundit Nehru did not want to antagonize his colleagues while he wanted time to consolidate his position after freedom of India.

Dr. Ambedkar’s remedy was 'nationalization of land' and allotment to landless people. He was not in favour of creating peasant proprietors with small patches of land which did not solve any problem at all. On the contrary fragmentation of land into small non-viable parcels created more problems and led to pauperisation of the farmers. He was in favour of allotment to 'collectives'. After the failure of collectives in Soviet Russia many people appear to be afraid of repeating the mistake but Dr. Ambedkar thought in the Indian circumstances this was the best solution. Besides this he desired creation of separate villages of Untouchables so that they may live in peace and security. Migration to the cities is the other alternative.

Untouchables were not allowed to own property. Now they have the right to own property but do not have the means to own property. Since India is now a socialist state the right way to make it socialist is not to encourage the growth of private property but to distribute it equitably and enforce laws which were framed to reduce the disparities. Peaceful and constitutional means have not produced the desired results. Socialism it appears cannot be brought about through peaceful and constitutional means. The classes which have no property and have no hope of security or end of exploitation cannot but think of violent means which is the only way through which socialism has been brought in countries where it is being practiced. By strengthening the propertied classes and weakening the landless and property-less people socialism can never be brought about in any country.