New Delhi: The question of providing Scheduled Caste (SC) status to the Nishad and other riverine communities currently classified as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) has shadowed Uttar Pradesh’s politics for the last two decades.As the crucial 2027 Assembly election approaches, the unresolved issue threatens to strain the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) alliance with the Nishad Party while also raising doubts about the saffron party’s commitment to fulfilling an implicit promise made to the Nishads.On August 16, Nishad Party chief Sanjay Nishad issued yet another warning to his ally: deliver on the reservation demand or risk losing the community’s votes. Amid slogans of “Hum Leke Rahenge Arakshan (We will ensure that we get reservation)” from his supporters, Nishad, while addressing the party’s 11th foundation day, appealed to BJP minister Dayashankar Singh – the chief guest at the event – to take up the matter with the BJP leadership. Nishad warned that the ruling party could lose power next year if it failed to pay heed to the demand. ‘Act before it is too late’ was Nishad’s ultimatum to his ally.Why Sanjay Nishad’s warning is significantThe warning is significant not because it is new, but because it comes with barely six months left before the election – and because the legal and constitutional route to granting SC status lies largely beyond the control of the Uttar Pradesh government. This also puts the BJP in a politically uncomfortable position, evoking Union home minister Amit Shah’s address at a rally in Lucknow hosted by the Nishad Party in December 2021, just eight weeks before voting in 2022.The supporters of the party, mobilised by Sanjay Nishad, expected Shah to make an official announcement regarding their longstanding demand. In his speech, Shah recounted the work done by the government for the community and promised to “fulfill all the agendas” of the Nishad Party if voted back to power. However, he made no mention of reservation.Disappointed and agitated, Nishad Party supporters, who had gathered from various corners of Eastern UP, broke chairs at the venue in protest. Troubled by the scene, the chief minister Adityanath-led state government wrote to the Registrar General of India and the Census Commissioner of India a few days later, seeking guidance on granting the community SC status.In March 2022, the BJP won the state with another handsome, albeit reduced, majority. The Nishad Party managed to win six seats, and its chief, Sanjay Nishad, was rewarded with a cabinet berth heading the fisheries department. The question of Machhua or Nishad reservation was subsequently put into cold storage, barring the occasional public meeting, letter, or media statement by Sanjay Nishad. Almost five years after Shah’s assurance, the NDA’s promise remains unfulfilled.Nishad’s warning can be read in two ways. It may be an attempt to placate an increasingly impatient support base and recover his political credibility. It may at the same time also be a bargaining tactic aimed at extracting a better deal for his party in seat distribution from the BJP ahead of the 2027 election. Either way, the responsibility ultimately falls on the BJP and its ‘double-engine’ governments.The cautious silence from the ruling party, particularly in response to Nishad’s latest threat, shows that the subject remains a political hot potato. While it cannot ignore the Nishads, it is also unable to guarantee them what they want. Nishad is a cabinet minister in the Adityanath government, and his party is a crucial ally with loyal pockets of influence across Eastern UP, especially in the Gorakhpur division where it is based.The larger East UP is also the region where the Samajwadi Party-led Opposition has done particularly well in the last two elections (2022 and 2024).The Nishad reservation question in UPThe Nishad reservation question in UP is tied to the broader demand involving 17 OBC communities – politically categorised among the Most Backward Castes or MBCs: Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah, Nishad, Kahar, Kumhar, Prajapati, Dheevar, Bind, Dheemar, Batham, Turha, Godiya, Manjhi, Machhua, Bhar, and Rajbhar.Thirteen of these are riverine communities traditionally and historically engaged in fishing, boating, sand mining, and allied aquatic activities. They are found across the state.Bandit-turned-politician Phoolan Devi and Nishadraj – the mythical boatman who ferried Lord Ram across the Ganges in the Ramayana – are among their most prominent socio-political and cultural icons. While Phoolan Devi symbolises backward-caste resistance against dominant caste violence, Nishadraj represents the bond between the Nishad caste, the Hindu faith, and, more recently, Hindutva politics. On the other hand, proponents of Mandal and Bahujan politics often invoke the story of Eklavya – the master archer who sacrificed his thumb for Dronacharya so he would not surpass Arjuna – to argue that marginalised castes have historically been denied equal access to education and opportunity.The remaining four communities among the 17 castes fall into two distinct groups. First are the Bhar and Rajbhar, represented politically by the Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (SBSP) of Om Prakash Rajbhar, another BJP ally. However, Rajbhar has primarily focused his efforts on demanding the sub-categorisation of the OBC quota and seeking Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for his community. Second are the Prajapati and Kumhar castes, historically associated with pottery and craftsmanship.For several years now, Nishad leaders have demanded that these communities be moved out of the OBC category and reclassified as SCs. Two social justice reports over the last 25 years, both by BJP-led governments, recommended separate sub-quotas for them within the existing 27% OBC reservation. In 2018, a social justice committee appointed by Adityanath recommended a three-way division of the OBC quota. These 17 castes were among 33 categorised as Atyant Pichda (Most Backward) and allocated a 9% sub-quota.The committee found them to be the most deprived sections, characterised by low political representation and extreme social, economic, and educational backwardness, with most members employed in lower-tier Group C and D government jobs or completely unrepresented. However, the Adityanath government never implemented the recommendations. Implementing them posed a major political risk, as the committee clubbed dominant OBCs – such as Yadavs, Kurmis, and Jats – into a single bracket. By doing so, the BJP risked disrupting its anti-Yadav consolidation strategy and alienating Kurmi and Jat voters, whose support is vital for its political dominance.Less share in government jobsSimilarly, the 2001 social justice committee led by Hukum Singh under the government of then chief minister Rajnath Singh had recommended dividing the OBC quota while controversially capping the share of Yadavs at 5%. The report revealed that the Kewat, Mallah, and Kahar communities held government jobs far below their numbers.While Kewat and Mallah groups constituted 4.3% of the state’s OBC population, their share in government jobs stood at just 1.36%. Kahars made up 3.31% of the OBC population but held only 2.63% of jobs. In contrast, Yadavs held 33% of jobs while constituting 19.4% of the OBC population, Jats held 6.85% of jobs at 3.61% of the population, and Kurmis accounted for 12.49% of jobs while representing 7.46% of the OBC population.Scholar Rama Shankar Singh, author of Nadi Putra: Uttar Bharat Main Nishad Aur Nadi, notes that the demand for SC status stems from the belief among Nishad leaders that their communities cannot compete fairly within the OBC pool against dominant castes like Yadavs and Kurmis, who absorb most of the benefits and jobs. However, Singh argues that inclusion in the SC list may not prove advantageous, as it could ignite conflict with existing SC communities reluctant to share their quota.“The inclusion of Nishads will inevitably create a situation of direct conflict with established Dalit communities,” Singh told The Wire.Moreover, moving these castes into the SC category involves serious legal hurdles. The sheer scale of such a shift would drastically alter the existing political balance, making it highly improbable under current circumstances. Sanjay Nishad’s primary argument has been that the Nishad communities were erroneously omitted from the SC list after Independence and subsequently pushed into the OBC category.According to him, the Nishad and allied sub-castes are simply regional synonyms for the Majhwar and Turaiha castes, which are already listed as SCs. He contends that because individuals use varying regional sub-caste titles, they are systematically denied SC certificates by the state.Unsuccessful attempts in the past to include these communities in SC listOver the years, successive state governments have made moves to include these communities in the SC list. However, the Union government – first the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime and now the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) – has remained reluctant to take it forward. The judiciary, too, has consistently stalled or quashed these attempts.In 2005, Mulayam Singh Yadav amended the UP Public Services Act, 1994, to facilitate the inclusion of the 17 castes into the SC list. The move was subsequently challenged and quashed by the Allahabad high court because states lack the constitutional authority to alter the SC list. Mayawati’s government withdrew the benefits offered under the proposal after coming to power in 2007. In 2008, she sent a recommendation to the Centre, but with the condition that the inclusion of the 17 communities should be complemented with a corresponding increase in the total quota for Dalits.The Akhilesh Yadav government revived the proposal in 2013 with the state assembly passing a resolution urging the Union government to approve the inclusion. But the proposal was rejected after the Registrar General of India declined to endorse it.In a desperate bid months ahead of the 2017 Assembly election, Akhilesh Yadav reopened the issue again in December 2016. However, the decision to reclassify the 17 castes was stayed by the Allahabad high court. After the BJP won power in 2017, it too attempted to address the issue. It must be recalled that the party had promised in its 2012 election manifesto to “strongly recommend to the central government” the inclusion of these castes in the SC list, pledging that a state BJP government would provide them with equivalent benefits in the interim.In June 2019, shortly after returning to power at the Centre, and now bolstered by the support of the Nishad Party, the BJP-led UP government revived the issue to satisfy its ally. Adityanath directed district officials to issue SC certificates to the 17 MBCs following verification of historical records. However, the order was challenged in court, and in September 2019, the high court issued a stay. The court ruled that caste certificates must strictly conform to the Presidential Notification for Uttar Pradesh, asserting that the state government lacked the constitutional authority to alter, add to, or clarify entries in the Presidential list. In other words, only the Union government could add a caste to the SC list. The state has no such authority.In August 2022, while deciding the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Granthalaya Evam Jan Kalyan Public Interest Litigation (filed in 2017) and the Gorakh Prasad petition (filed in 2019 against the Adityanath order), a division bench of the Allahabad high court led by Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal formally quashed the executive orders issued on December 22, 2016 (under Akhilesh Yadav) and June 24, 2019 (under Adityanath).The court ruled that a parliamentary law alone can include in or exclude from the list of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended in 1976, a particular caste. The court said: The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order has to be made by the President of India. Under Article 341(2), any change to the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the President’s order can only be made by Parliament by law.A similar principle was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2024 in the Tanti-Tantwa case in Bihar, where it held that inclusion, exclusion or reclassification within the Scheduled Castes list must be undertaken strictly through parliamentary legislation under Article 341.The Bihar government had passed a resolution including “Tanti-Tantwa” Extremely Backward Class with ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’ under entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes, arguing that it was not an alteration but a mere clarification. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bihar government’s attempt to merge the “Tanti-Tantwa” EBC into the Scheduled Caste list under the guise of a “clarification” was patently illegal and beyond state authority.Setback from Allahabad HCIn June 2026, the Allahabad high court rejected the argument that Nishad, Mallah, Kahar, Kashyap and Bind communities could simply be treated as synonyms or sub-castes of Majhwar, which is already included in the SC list. The petitioner Chandra Shekhar Nishad had sought SC status for the Nishad communities, arguing that the Nishad, Kewat, Mallah and Bind were synonymous with Majhwar due to shared traditional occupations as boatmen, and were thus entitled to similar benefits.The court, however, observed that these Nishad communities were officially recognized as OBC in UP and could not be integrated into the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 alongside the Majhwar caste by treating them as sub-castes, generic equivalents, or synonyms without an act of parliament. The high court also noted that if parliament had intended to group these sub-castes with Majhwar, they would have been listed explicitly under the 1950 Order.Despite remaining non-committal on delivering it through legislation, the BJP has consistently used the reservation issue as a political carrot. In January 2023, during a Nishad Party event in Gorakhpur, Adityanath claimed that the reclassification process was underway and in its final stages.The pressure on Sanjay Nishad is also personal. His party emerged shortly before the 2017 Assembly election by presenting itself as the political voice of backward riverine communities and even led an agitation from Gorakhpur. He started branding himself as the “political godfather of the fishermen community”.Machhua Arakshan or SC reservation for Nishad was its central demand. However, opponents including rival Nishad leaders in opposition parties have often accused Sanjay Nishad of using his alliance with the BJP, and consequently power in Lucknow, to secure political positions for himself and his family without delivering on the core issue of his party.His younger son, Sarvan Nishad, is a BJP MLA from Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur. His elder son, Praveen Nishad, was elected to the Lok Sabha from Sant Kabir Nagar in 2019 but lost the seat to Samajwadi Party candidate Laxmikant “Pappu” Nishad in 2024. Since winning the Sant Kabir Nagar seat, Laxmikant Nishad has repeatedly raised the demand for Nishad reservation in Parliament, although the issue is not formally a central pillar of the Samajwadi Party’s PDA – Pichda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak – political strategy.Following the BJP’s reduced tally in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Sanjay Nishad himself reminded the party of the unfulfilled reservation promise and attributed part of the coalition’s loss of seats and vote share to dissatisfaction among Nishad voters.While Sanjay Nishad officially joined the state government in 2022, the BJP has been in power at the Centre since 2014 and in UP since 2017, stripping him and the ruling BJP of the excuse that alliance partners were uncooperative.UP govt’s efforts to woo the Nishad communityThe BJP has so far relied on a familiar combination of welfare measures, religious symbolism, and political representation to woo the Nishads. The government has promoted Nishadraj as a cultural icon, including through the construction of a statue and park. Earlier this year, former BJP MP and a prominent Nishad leader Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, who lost her election in 2024, was appointed chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes. However, the party has been reluctant to take any legislative steps regarding Nishad reservation.It was little surprise that following Sanjay Nishad’s show of strength on August 16, the BJP’s response was focused more on political management of an ally than addressing the question of reservation. Narendra Kumar Kashyap, UP’s Backward Classes Welfare Minister and a BJP leader from the same caste group, suggested that Sanjay Nishad’s public posture was merely an attempt to regain lost ground.“He may be facing some disappointment because his son lost the Lok Sabha election from Sant Kabir Nagar, and the people did not support him. He may also feel that his candidates might not win in the upcoming Assembly elections, which could be a source of concern for him. In such a situation, a person may try to reach out to voters and people to gain their support,” Kashyap told a news agency.Reclassifying these 17 castes as Scheduled Castes could open a Pandora’s box for the government. Other backward communities would likely make similar competing demands. Rajbhars of east UP under the banner of ‘Jago Rajbhar Jago’ are already demanding ST status.More importantly, any such move would face fierce resistance from existing Dalit communities, threatening the BJP’s broader effort to consolidate marginalised and upper-caste Hindu voters under the banner of Hindutva.Uttar Pradesh is home to 66 recognised Dalit castes, with Jatavs/Chamars, Pasis, Valmikis, Khatiks, Dhobis, Koris, and Dhanuks making up the majority of the SC population. Dalit leaders, including Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati, have consistently asserted that if new communities are added to the SC list, the overall SC quota must be expanded proportionally to prevent the dilution of benefits for existing Dalit groups.Nishad leaders often frame their community as a crucial swing vote in UP’s complex caste landscape, where certain groups are aligned rigidly with specific political parties while others remain fluid. The ‘floating’ support of these riverine communities to any party shifts the balance in its favour. “Nishad jidar, satta udhar” (Where the Nishads vote, power follows), says Lautan Ram Nishad, a Samajwadi Party leader and former head of its UP backward class wing.‘The BJP took their votes but failed to honour its promises’Lautan Ram dismissed Sanjay Nishad’s latest statements as political drama intended to retain leverage within the ruling alliance while deflecting community anger away from the BJP. Lautan Ram noted that Sanjay Nishad has raised the same demands for years without securing any concrete results from the BJP governments in Lucknow or Delhi.“The BJP took their votes but failed to honour its promises. During election season, Sanjay Nishad projects himself as the political godfather of the community and fans the flames of reservation. Now that the 2027 election is approaching, he is engaging in pure gimmickry at the BJP’s behest. The BJP is rattled because the Nishad community is deeply angry and is drifting toward the SP,” Lautan Ram told The Wire.He added that while riverine voters supported the BJP in 2017 and 2022, Sanjay Nishad has lost the faith of the community. “They cannot mislead Nishads again. Kaath ki handi ek baar chadhti hai (A wooden pot can only be put on the fire once). The anti-Nishad face of the BJP stands exposed,” he said. The SP recently appointed Phoolan Devi’s sister Rukmini Devi as the president of its women’s wing.Adding to the BJP’s challenges, Vikassheel Insaan Party chief Mukesh Sahni, a prominent Nishad leader and former minister from neighbouring Bihar, is currently touring UP, urging voters to make reservation a decisive polling issue under the slogan: “Arakshan nahi toh vote nahi” (No reservation, no vote).Addressing a public gathering in Kushinagar recently, Sahni argued that the government would only grant SC status if it feared the collective strength of the community. Holding Ganges water in their hands and invoking their ancestors, Sahni and others took a collective pledge not to vote for the BJP if SC reservation is not granted before the state goes to the polls. “Vote for NOTA or support your own brothers, but do not vote for those who break promises. Defeat them once, and they will be forced to listen to you,” Sahni said.Given the legal and political hurdles surrounding SC status, scholar Rama Shankar Singh suggests that a more realistic approach for the Nishad community would be to demand an increase in the overall 27% OBC quota.With the Opposition actively courting disgruntled riverine voters, Sanjay Nishad mounting internal pressure on his ally, and Mukesh Sahni campaigning across UP, the Nishad reservation issue is poised to remain a major vulnerability for the BJP ahead of the 2027 election. Because only Parliament can resolve the issue legislatively–and the Narendra Modi-led BJP remains in power in New Delhi through at least 2029 – the central question is whether the main opposition Samajwadi Party will make a firm promise on the issue it would be unable to deliver on without a change of power at the Centre.Omar Rashid is an independent journalist.