Constitutional Caution Essential for Indigenous Rights in India

Itanagar, India Jul 13, 2026 ALN: Bompa Lomdak

has earned a reputation as one of India’s most peaceful and culturally vibrant states. Home to more than 26 major tribes and over 100 sub-tribes, the state is protected by constitutional safeguards that recognise its unique indigenous identity, customary laws, and traditional land rights. These protections were not created merely as welfare measures but to preserve communities that have lived on this land for generations. The importance of these constitutional provisions cannot be overstated, particularly in a country like India, where diverse cultures and communities coexist, each with their own historical narratives and claims to land and identity.

The recent discussion on extending Scheduled Tribe (ST) recognition to the Kachari and Sonowal communities, who are already recognised as Scheduled Tribes in Assam, has therefore generated widespread concern. This issue transcends political affiliations, as it touches upon fundamental questions of identity, rights, and representation. It is imperative that such matters undergo rigorous constitutional scrutiny, empirical research, and broad public consultation, rather than hasty decision-making that could have long-lasting repercussions.

The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 recognises Scheduled Tribes on a state-specific basis. This framework was designed with the understanding that tribal communities are historically, geographically, and culturally linked to particular regions. Consequently, any proposal that could alter the scope of tribal recognition within the state carries significant legal, demographic, and socio-political implications. The potential for overlap between communities, especially those that share similar ethnic identities, raises complex questions about eligibility for benefits and protections that are intended to support the indigenous populations.

According to the 2011 census, the state had a population of approximately 13.84 lakh, of which 68.8 percent belonged to Scheduled Tribes. This demographic structure highlights the importance of maintaining the unique identity of these communities. The state has successfully protected its indigenous character through constitutional safeguards and the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. These mechanisms were designed to preserve the demographic balance, customary institutions, and traditional rights of indigenous communities, ensuring that their voices are heard in the governance process.

Another important dimension that deserves serious policy consideration is the demographic size of the communities under discussion. Based on the 2011 census, the Kachari community in the state numbered approximately 20,000, whereas the corresponding population in Assam was around 2.5 lakh. While updated figures are unavailable, it is reasonable to expect that the population has increased over the past decade. This demographic growth raises critical questions about resource allocation, representation, and the capacity of existing institutions to accommodate new entrants without compromising the rights of long-standing residents.

This raises an important administrative question. If identical Scheduled Tribe recognition and benefits are extended in the state, how will the state government effectively distinguish between long-settled residents of the state and members of the same community residing in Assam for the purpose of constitutional benefits? Since both communities share the same ethnic identity, the challenge would not merely be legal but also administrative. Any ambiguity in implementation could give rise to disputes regarding eligibility, residency, reservation benefits, and access to other constitutional safeguards. The potential for conflict in this regard cannot be understated, as it could lead to social unrest and exacerbate existing tensions between communities.

The concern expressed by many indigenous organisations is not necessarily about the identity of any particular community; rather, it is about ensuring that the constitutional protections intended for the indigenous people of the state are not inadvertently diluted. Policymakers must therefore examine whether adequate legal and administrative mechanisms exist to prevent misuse while protecting the rights of genuine beneficiaries. This requires a nuanced understanding of the historical context and the specific needs of each community, as well as a commitment to uphold the principles of justice and equity.

The experience of Manipur since May 2023 offers an important lesson. The conflict has claimed over 250 lives, displaced more than 60,000 people, and caused extensive destruction of homes and public property. The causes of that conflict are complex and cannot be attributed to a single issue. Nevertheless, it demonstrates how questions involving identity, constitutional safeguards, land rights, and public perception require exceptional sensitivity. The state should learn from this experience – not by drawing direct comparisons, but by recognising the importance of preventive dialogue and transparent governance. The lessons from Manipur highlight the need for proactive measures to address grievances before they escalate into violence.

Any policy affecting Scheduled Tribe status should therefore be preceded by consultations with tribal apex bodies, student organisations, customary institutions, constitutional experts, civil society organisations, and representatives of all affected communities. Decisions concerning indigenous rights should never be perceived as unilateral. Public confidence is strengthened when policy emerges from consultation rather than confrontation. This approach not only fosters trust among communities but also enhances the legitimacy of the decision-making process.

The state has remained a beacon of communal harmony in the Northeast precisely because successive governments have respected the delicate balance between development and indigenous rights. That balance must continue to guide future policy decisions. Constitutional safeguards are not obstacles to development; they are essential instruments for protecting the identity, dignity, and heritage of the state’s indigenous communities. The recognition and protection of indigenous rights should be viewed as integral to the broader development agenda, rather than as a competing interest.

The Government of the state has consistently affirmed its commitment to peace, inclusive development, and the welfare of its people. This commitment can be further strengthened by ensuring that any proposal concerning Scheduled Tribe recognition is examined transparently, supported by legal opinion, demographic evidence, and meaningful stakeholder consultation. Such an approach would not only enhance the credibility of the government but also contribute to social cohesion and stability.

History has repeatedly shown that conflicts rooted in identity are far easier to prevent than to resolve. The state has been fortunate to preserve peace amidst immense cultural diversity. That legacy must not be compromised. In matters concerning indigenous rights and constitutional protections, prudence, transparency, and dialogue remain the strongest safeguards for ensuring that peace and social harmony continue to flourish for generations to come. The need for a careful, considered approach is paramount, as the stakes are high for the communities involved and the future of the state as a whole.