Assam: Uncertainty Shrouds ST Status for Six Communities
Isfaqur Rahman
SIX communities of Assam — Koch Rajbongshi, Tai Ahom, Moran, Matak, Chutia and the tea-tribes/Adivasi — have been agitating for decades for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. The Koch Rajbongshi movement assumed an organised political form as early as 1968–69, and has continued for nearly six decades. The demands of Moran and Matak communities are even older, going back to 1947. By the late 1970s, the Chutia and the Adivasi/tea-tribe communities began articulating similar demands, and in the 1990s the Tai Ahom mobilisation for ST status also gained momentum.
From socio-economic and anthropological perspectives, the demands of these six communities are justified. Ethnographic studies and socio-economic backwardness of these communities are well-documented. The CPI(M) and other Left-democratic parties have consistently been supporting their demand. The Left parties have also publicly affirmed that granting ST status to these six communities must not dilute or harm the rights of existing ST groups. In spite of popular movements and struggles, successive governments, including the present BJP-led administration at the Centre, have repeatedly withheld or deferred the decision on various pretexts.
The BJP-led Assam Government placed the Group of Ministers (GoM) Report on the floor of the Assembly on November 29, 2025. Immediately, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his publicity machinery attempted to project the impression that ST status for the six communities was virtually guaranteed. But this is deceptive.
ELECTORAL OPPORTUNISM
Final authority to grant ST status lies exclusively with the Central Government through a constitutionally prescribed process. It requires political will from the ruling dispensation. However, the experience of the six communities, and of the people of Assam, has been bitter.
Prime Minister Modi, before coming to power in 2014, repeatedly thundered in rallies that his government would grant ST status to the six communities within six months of coming to power. BJP’s election manifestos in 2016 and 2021 Assembly elections reiterated this promise. During 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha election campaigns too similar assurances were repeated. Yet none of these promises materialised. The BJP’s track record of making grand proclamations and then allowing them to evaporate has created deep disillusionment.
As the 2026 Assam Assembly election approaches, attempts to revive this promise have resurfaced. It appears that the GoM Report was tabled at the last moment of the recent Assembly Session, primarily for electoral optics. Only one representative from each party was given a copy of the report, bypassing basic democratic procedure. The Assam Government ought to have convened an all-party meeting, and meetings involving community organisations and civil society groups, to build a broad consensus before placing the report in the Assembly. That essential step was entirely ignored.
A PROBLEMATIC REPORT
In January 2019, ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, the Modi Government introduced The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2019 in the Rajya Sabha. Two days later, the NE Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs asked the Assam Government to form a GoM and submit a report. A GoM headed by Himanta Biswa Sarma, then a minister in the Sarbananda Sonowal led Assam Government, was formed. It was publicly stated that the report would be prepared within six months. After the elections, the promise quietly disappeared. In May 2021, after Sarma became Chief Minister, a new GoM headed by Dr. Ranoj Pegu was constituted.
The GoM claims the report is the outcome of an "extensive and consultative process", "sustained deliberations" and “rigorous analysis”. Yet it fails to address two of the three main issues the Centre had sought clarity on. These issues were - determining the quantum of reservation for the six communities and adjusting reservation quantum for other backward sections (OBCs). The GoM report simply ignores both. It only mentions that the rights and benefits of existing ST communities will not be diluted—something already affirmed in earlier memoranda submitted to the Prime Minister by all-party Assembly delegations in 2007 and 2014. Therefore, the GoM report adds nothing new; it merely restates known positions while avoiding its core responsibilities.
CONSTITUTIONAL HURDLES
At present, Scheduled Tribes in Assam are classified into two categories - ST (Plains) and ST (Hills). The GoM report proposes an additional category – ST (Valley). The report proposes recognising the Moran, Matak and the Koch Rajbongshis of undivided Goalpara district as ST (Plains), while creating the new category — ST (Valley) for the Adivasi/Tea-Tribes, the Tai Ahoms, and Koch Rajbongshis outside undivided Goalpara. Critically, this three-fold classification cannot be operationalised without Constitutional amendment and legislation passed by Parliament, as the report itself admits.
The proposal to divide the Koch Rajbongshi community geographically — placing one section under ST (Plains) and another under a newly created ST (Valley) — is anthropologically and ethnographically unjust and socially disruptive. The Koch Rajbongshis constitute a culturally, historically and socially coherent group. Dividing them on the basis of district boundaries risks weakening their legitimate claims and fostering internal divisions.
It may be recalled that the Centre issued ordinances multiple times in 1996–97 granting ST status to the Koch Rajbongshis, but each time they lapsed due to non-passage in Parliament. A Select Committee of Parliament reviewed the 1996 Bill and strongly recommended granting ST status to the Koch Rajbongshis. Its report was submitted in 1997. Yet nothing materialised.
The GoM’s approach to the tea-tribe/Adivasi community is even more problematic. Instead of directly addressing the demand for ST status, the Report proposes a prolonged process. First, it will list 35 sub-groups of the community as OBCs, and only later consider some selected sub-groups for ST or SC status. This is an evasive strategy that complicates the issue for one of Assam’s most socio-economically deprived populations.
RESERVATION AND REPRESENTATION: AMBIGUITIES PERSIST
On the issue of reservations in education, employment, and political representation, the GoM recommends that reservation for ST (Valley) would apply separately at the State level and that safeguards for existing ST communities would remain intact. Yet it also clearly states that the current constitutional framework does not permit reservation for three separate ST categories in Central services or Central educational institutions. This admits that the three-fold categorisation is largely unworkable without major constitutional restructuring.
The Report notes that Lok Sabha constituencies falling within Sixth Schedule areas will remain permanently reserved for ST (Hills) and ST (Plains) categories, such as Diphu for ST (H) and Kokrajhar for ST (P). While unobjectionable, the Report remains silent on the actual mechanism for enhanced reservation for the newly classified groups. The Report says, "for ST(Valley), additional seats will be reserved in Parliament as the number of reservations will automatically increase in view of the fact that a large number of people will now be recognised as Scheduled Tribes in the state of Assam".
THE BROADER GOAL
Fundamentally, the purpose of the six communities’ demand for ST status is rapid socio-economic upliftment, guaranteed political representation, preservation and development of language and culture, and security over land and traditional habitat. Yet the GoM Report barely engages with these structural issues. Ground realities such as land alienation, erosion of livelihoods, corporate acquisition of resources, agrarian distress, rising unemployment, and the deteriorating public health and education systems lie at the heart of marginalisation. On these pressing matters, the Report remains evasive.
Given the incompleteness and interim character of the Report, its lack of internal coherence and the massive constitutional hurdles involved, the Central Government may either reject it or let it lapse. Even if accepted, implementation would take an extended period. No indication has emerged that Parliament will revive the 2019 Bill or introduce a new one in the current session.
THE PATH AHEAD
Under these circumstances, the communities concerned, and the people of Assam, must continue the struggle for rights, social justice and dignity must continue in a united manner, cutting across tribal and non-tribal identities. The politics of ethnic division must be firmly resisted, and the deceptive tactics of the BJP-led governments at the Centre and State must be closely scrutinised and challenged.
Reservation, at this stage of India’s social reality, is indispensable for building an equitable and democratic society. But reservation alone cannot resolve the structural crises facing the people — unemployment, land dispossession, agrarian collapse, and shrinking access to basic services. These require broad-based and united democratic struggle. If people remain divided and embroiled in internecine conflict, power-hungry reactionary forces will exploit the divisions. Unity, vigilance and sustained democratic mobilisation are the only alternatives.
