In Assam, six major communities – Tai Ahom, Chutia, Koch-Rajbongshi, Moran, Matak and Tea tribes/Adivasis – are seeking inclusion into the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list. Together, they account for approximately 27% of Assam’s population.The demand has once again brought an old but unresolved question to the forefront: who qualifies as a scheduled tribe in India?At first glance, the answer appears straightforward. Article 342 of the constitution of India empowers the president, after consultation with the governor of the concerned state, to specify “tribes or tribal communities, or parts of groups within them, as Scheduled Tribes.”However, the constitution does not actually tell us what makes a community a ‘scheduled tribe’ in the first place. A set of administrative criteria that date back more than six decades seek to address this question. Importantly, that criteria increasingly appear out of step with the realities of India’s tribal communities today. The Assam debateThe six communities currently demanding ST status in Assam are classified as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). They argue that OBC status, while providing reservations in education and employment, does not provide the same constitutional protections guaranteed under the ST status, particularly provisions concerning ancestral land rights, cultural heritage and political representation.Therefore, their demand extends beyond reservation, reflecting a broader claim to constitutional recognition and protection as distinct communities.Yet the process through which such recognition is determined continues to rely on criteria developed decades ago under the Lokur committee. Among these are “geographical isolation” and “primitive traits,” concepts that have become increasingly outdated and difficult to reconcile with the realities of communities that have, and continue to, face migration, urbanisation, political participation and economic change.The Assam controversy thus raises a serious question: is India’s current framework for determining the ST status still adequate?The question matters because ST status is not simply an administrative classification. It determines access to a range of constitutional and statutory protections, including reservations, political representation and safeguards concerning land and resources. Deciding who qualifies as a scheduled tribe is therefore, in effect, a decision about who is entitled to the full benefit of those constitutional guarantees.A framework built around ‘primitive traits’The constitution does not provide a substantive definition of the term ‘scheduled tribe.’Article 366(25) describes a scheduled tribe as a “tribe, tribal community, or part or group within such a tribe or community as deemed under Article 342.” But this remains a referential definition. It tells us who is legally recognised as an ST, not what characteristics qualify a community for that recognition.To address this lacuna in the constitutional scheme, the government constituted the advisory committee popularly known as the Lokur Committee in 1965. The committee identified five criteria for determining Scheduled Tribe status: ‘primitive traits,’ distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact and ‘backwardness.’ These criteria continue to be referred to by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs even today.The difficulty is not merely that these criteria are old. It is that several of them are inherently vague and rooted in a way of thinking that no longer reflects contemporary realities. They are largely administrative rather than being constitutionally or statutorily codified. When examined individually, they raise serious concerns. Take “primitive traits” for instance. What exactly qualifies as a primitive trait? Is it a particular occupation, social practice or way of life? And who decides when a community has moved sufficiently away from such traits to no longer satisfy the criterion?Similarly, the criterion of ‘distinctive culture,’ as its concept suggests, serves as an important element of a tribal identity. Almost every community in India has its own language, customs, traditions, practices and social identity. The real question, therefore, is not whether a community possesses a distinctive culture, but what degree or combination of cultural distinctiveness should be sufficient for recognition as a scheduled tribe. Also read: Caste Beyond Religion: The Case For a Secular Provision of the SC StatusFurthermore, ‘geographical isolation’ also lacks precision due to its open-ended and subjective nature. What happens to a community that was historically isolated but has since migrated, urbanised or become more integrated with wider society? Does greater mobility diminish its tribal identity? If tribal identity survives such changes, geographical isolation cannot logically be treated as an essential characteristic. If it does not, then the criterion creates an uncomfortable paradox: the development and integration that public policy seeks to promote could eventually become grounds for questioning a community’s tribal identity. The criteria of ‘shyness of contact’ and ‘backwardness’ also raise similar concerns. Greater interaction with wider society through education, employment, politics and urbanisation does not necessarily erase tribal identity. It may simply reflect that a community is participating more fully in the social and economic life of the country.Similarly, the ‘backwardness’ criterion does not specify whether backwardness refers to income, literacy, education, employment, access to basic services or living conditions. The existing criterion does not even establish any measurable threshold. What level of income must a community live below? What level of education or how economically excluded must a community be before it qualifies? In the absence of such parameters, the criterion remains ambiguous.This is not a criticism that has emerged only recently. The Draft National Tribal Policy, 2006, observed that “the criteria laid down by the Lokur Committee (in 1965) were hardly relevant today,” particularly because very few tribes could still be said to possess ‘primitive traits.’ It therefore called for “other more accurate criteria” to be adopted.Procedural problemsThe problem, however, is not confined to the criteria alone. There is also a structural problem in the procedure of getting listed as a scheduled tribe. Under the “modalities for deciding the claims for inclusion in, exclusion from and other modifications in the Orders specifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lists,” approved by the Government of India on June 15, 1999, and subsequently amended in 2002 and 2022, a proposal for ST inclusion must be recommended and justified by the concerned state government or Union Territority administration. It must be accompanied by an ethnographic report and concurred with by the Registrar General of India and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. This gives state governments considerable influence over the process. Unless a state government is willing to initiate and support a claim, a community seeking ST recognition has little room to move forward.In a nutshell, India has given ample space to the state to exercise political influence during ST inclusion, as demonstrated in the Assam controversy. Furthermore, there is an absence of uniformity in how tribal recognition operates across India. The Chakma community, for instance, is recognised as a scheduled tribe in Tripura but not in Arunachal Pradesh.The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 further increases this dependence. The court had held that judges cannot add, delete or alter the ST list specified under Article 342. Any modification to the Presidential Order can be made only by parliament through law.Therefore, if the state government does not initiate or support a claim, a community cannot bypass the prescribed process by seeking direct inclusion through the courts.On isolation and identityIndia therefore needs to revisit the existing framework and adopt criteria that reflect present realities and needs of vulnerable communities. International approaches provide one possible starting point. International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention no. 169 (1989) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) place considerably greater emphasis on identity and continuity.Article 1(2) of ILO convention number 169 assigns the highest importance to self-identification as the fundamental criterion. This represents a significant departure from older frameworks that attempt to define communities through characteristics such as isolation, primitiveness or reluctance to interact with wider society. It recognises that a community does not have to remain geographically isolated, economically backward or reluctant to interact with the wider society in order to retain its identity. Also read: Explainer: What the Supreme Court Had to Say on Scheduled Tribe Identity and Religious ConversionA similar approach can be seen in the United States. Under Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 83, the federal acknowledgement process considers factors such as continuous identification, existence as a distinct community, political authority and historical descent. The emphasis is therefore on historical continuity, collective identity and community institutions rather than geographical isolation or supposedly ‘primitive’ characteristics.India does not, however, need to simply import a foreign model.It already has extensive ethnographic material documenting its tribal communities, including historical record, linguistic evidence, cultural practices, customary institutions and records of community continuity. Such material, alongside self-identification and other objective indicators, can be considered when determining tribal status.Hence, tribal recognition should move beyond measures of isolation or backwardness and focus instead on whether a community has a continuing historical and collective identity. Development should seek to strengthen that identity, not become a reason to question it. Chakshu Jain is a student of B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) VIIth Semester, NMIMS Deemed to be University, Chandigarh Campus. Unnati Jain is a student of B.B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Vth Semester, NMIMS Deemed to be University, Chandigarh Campus.