Today, I wish to reflect critically on a troubling contradiction; the Government of India’s denial of indigenous status to tribal peoples, and the rising appropriation of constitutional safeguards by dominant ethnonationalist groups. These two trends, though seemingly distinct, intersect in ways that undermine historical justice, constitutional integrity, and the principles of peoplehood, equality and non-discrimination in international law.
The Government of India asserts that all Indians are indigenous, that Scheduled Tribes are merely administrative categories, and that integration has erased our distinctiveness. It further equates nativeness with indigeneity. These claims are not only legally unfounded but also historically inaccurate and ethically indefensible.
India’s tribal communities—constitutionally recognised as Scheduled Tribes—are not simply socio economically disadvantaged. We are culturally distinct societies, often with our own languages, belief systems, ecological knowledge, customary governance, and ancestral territories. Historically, we have maintained self-governance and collective land ownership, often outside the dominant caste-state
frameworks.
This distinctiveness is explicitly acknowledged by the Indian Constitution. Provisions under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, and Articles 244, 371A, 371G, among others, safeguard tribal customary practices, indigenous institutions, and land rights. These provisions are not mechanisms for administering poverty, they are instruments for protecting unique identities and ways of life.
Reducing indigenous communities to mere administrative constructs erases the ongoing legacy of colonialism we have endured and continue to resist. Indigeneity, as recognised under international law—including ILO Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), is not defined by mere antiquity or nativeness. It is defined by a set of interrelated criteria: self-identification, historical continuity, non dominance, and distinct cultural and institutional systems among others.
India’s tribal peoples meet these criteria unequivocally. We are communities that have faced both external and internal colonisation, remain politically and economically marginalised, and retain deep cultural and spiritual ties to ancestral lands.
Indigeneity is not a symbolic label; it is a lived reality shaped by colonialism, structural inequality and dispossession. It is not a status one can conveniently claim, it is a condition one must survive.
Yet today, socially and politically dominant groups are seeking inclusion in the ST category. These are often groups with significant influence over state institutions, economic resources, and, at times, a history of subjugating tribal populations and, at times, accomplices or instruments of colonial domination. Such claims typically ignore the foundational logic of the ST classification, to protect communities that have historically remained outside dominant state structures and caste hierarchies.
This trend reflects what scholars call “reverse mainstreaming”, where dominant groups attempt to appropriate rights or benefits intended for historically oppressed communities. Opposition to these claims is not parochialism, it is a defence of constitutional clarity, international law and historical truth.
While the Constitution does not define “tribe” exhaustively, jurisprudence and committee reports, such as the Chanda Committee, have identified key indicators i.e., distinctive culture, geographical isolation, minimal interaction with the wider society, and structural marginalisation. These indicators, though dated in language, remain relevant in spirit. They emphasise that ST status is meant for
communities historically situated outside caste society and state governance.
Also read | Ambedkar’s Concept of Social Justice and its Relevance to Scheduled Tribes in India
As Dr B.R. Ambedkar—a key architect of the Constitution of India—pointed out while framing the concept of “Schedule Tribes”, many such communities lived in “tribal areas” and “partially excluded” areas under colonial rule—zones where tribal institutions persisted without absorption into caste hierarchies. This is the underlying logical construct of Article 342 in conjunction with Articles 340 and 341.
Ethnonationalist claims to ST status, especially by dominant groups, threaten the constitutional morality that underpins India’s democratic fabric. The Constitution does not offer rights as trophies in a contest among the powerful. It offers them as redress for historical wrongs. To dilute these protections through politically expedient inclusions is to reduce the Constitution to a tool of opportunism.
India’s Scheduled Tribes are Indigenous Peoples by every standard of international law, and by the very principles enshrined in its own Constitution. Our experiences of colonialism, dispossession, and cultural resilience place us firmly within the global indigenous struggle.
It is time the Government of India aligns its domestic policies with its constitutional commitments and its international obligations.
Now, let us reflect on ourselves. As Indigenous Peoples, we must move beyond resistance and towards the deeper work of reconstruction. We have inherited a rich legacy of collective life, moral leadership, and spiritual rootedness in the land. Yet we have too often failed to translate this inheritance into a clear and coherent vision for our political future. Instead, we have accepted frameworks handed down by those who once ruled over us—frameworks that do not reflect our truths, values, or ways of being. As a result, we continue to operate within systems built not for freedom, but for control—systems that fragment our communities, sever our moral compass, and stifle genuine self-governance. This is evident even in the so-called forms of autonomy offered through the Sixth Schedule and Articles 371 A, C, and G.
We have not sufficiently confronted the foundational flaws in our political thought and movements. This failure is reflected not only in the lack of shared institutional vision rooted in our cultural and historical foundations, but also in our lack of creative and progressive imagination. And more seriously, a moral failure to honour who we are.
It is morally indefensible to replicate the very systems that subjugated us. These systems, designed by colonial powers to extract, divide and dominate, have been adopted wholesale by post-colonial states like India. They are not neutral; they are the expression of a worldview that denies the agency and dignity of Indigenous Peoples. To reproduce them is to internalise the logic of our oppression.
Article | From Guests to Occupiers–II: A Forensic Examination of Kuki Expansionism in Northeast India
If our struggle is to have meaning, it must begin with rejecting that logic and building institutions grounded in our own sense of justice, responsibility, and belonging. Indigenous governance must not replicate the master’s tools, but an authentic expression of our memory, our suffering, and our enduring vision for a free and dignified life.
Around the world, Indigenous Peoples are rising reclaiming their narratives, rebuilding their institutions, and renewing their visions for the future. We are not alone in reimagining alternatives and deepening democratisation. If others can imagine and build anew from the strength of their roots, so too can we. The time to begin is now.
Thank you.
Gam A. Shimray is Secretary General, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact