If CAA Could Be Brought Promptly, Why Not ST Status To Six Communities?

For more than three decades, six of Assam’s long-established communities have demanded inclusion in the Scheduled Tribe list, a demand that has travelled across governments and political cycles without reaching a conclusion.

The Tai Ahoms, Morans, Motaks, Chutias, Koch-Rajbongshis, and Tea Tribe Adivasis have submitted memorandums, met ministers in Delhi and Dispur, and mobilised in large numbers in towns and villages. Every government has acknowledged that their claim has merit, yet none has taken the final step needed to resolve it.

This delay would have seemed procedural if the state had not shown how quickly it can act when an issue aligns with its priorities.

In 2019, the central government amended the Citizenship Act in a way that directly touched the Assam Accord and reopened some of the state’s most sensitive anxieties. 

The protests that followed were widespread. Five young men died in police firing in Guwahati. Assam was the only place in India where people protesting against the Act faced bullets.

Despite this level of public resistance, the law passed through Parliament within months. There was no prolonged consultation. There was no extended hesitation. When the state wants to move fast, it moves fast.

The contrast with the ST issue is sharp. There is no constitutional barrier. Articles 341 and 342 allow Parliament to revise the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe lists through an ordinary law, a route used many times in the past.

Assam has already completed the initial steps. The state government recommended the six communities. The Registrar General of India and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes examined the cases. The matter has remained ready for legislative action for years. The obstacle is not the Constitution. The obstacle is political will.

If these six communities lacked the basic criteria for recognition, the state would have rejected the demand long ago. Instead, we see a pattern of administrative delay and political signalling. Committees are set up. Reports are announced. The issue is kept alive through repeated assurances.

Election manifestos from major parties have promised ST status more than once. These promises would not be made to groups whose claims the state considers baseless. 

The continuous orange light from the administration and the recurring commitments during elections show that the demand is considered legitimate but is being held back for reasons that lie outside constitutional reasoning.

These communities are not peripheral or newly formed groups. They are part of the layered historical and agrarian life of Assam. The Tai Ahoms shaped the political and administrative institutions of Upper Assam.

The Koch Rajbongshis have a long presence across the western and central plains, alongside other Governments often speak about bringing stability to Assam, protecting indigenous communities, and reducing the politics of fear. If these commitments have weight, the ST issue cannot remain suspended indefinitely.

Including these communities would address a long-standing grievance, reduce tensions around land and representation, and settle one of the most durable fault lines in Assam’s politics. It would also strengthen the sense of security among groups who feel that their space in the state’s economic and political order has been shrinking over time.

Instead of settling the issue, the state has offered partial arrangements that do not meet the demand. In 2020, the Assam Legislative Assembly passed bills creating the Moran Autonomous Council, the Matak Autonomous Council, and the Kamatapur Autonomous Council.

These bodies were presented as steps toward recognition but their mandates were narrow and their financial provisions weak, and three of the six communities were left outside this arrangement altogether. The result was a fragmented movement in which different groups entered separate tracks of negotiation while the core issue stayed exactly where it had been.

This piecemeal approach created the appearance of progress without addressing the central question. In political terms, an unresolved issue that returns every election cycle is often more useful than an issue that has been closed.

The comparison with the Citizenship Amendment Act shows the underlying logic. The state moved decisively on the citizenship question because that decision aligned with its strategy, even though Assam bore the highest cost of the unrest that followed.

Granting ST status to these six communities, however, would reduce identity-based competition, stabilise a large section of the electorate, and create a more confident political bloc.

Stability of that kind is not always convenient for a political system that has long relied on fragmented landscapes in which groups depend on future assurances rather than settled rights.

The question today is not whether these communities meet the criteria for inclusion. Their socio-economic conditions align with standards used across India. Historical records support their claim. In neighbouring states, related groups are already included in the ST list.

What remains unexplained is why a demand that can be resolved through a simple legislative act has remained pending for so long.

Granting ST status will not solve Assam’s deeper structural problems. It will not repair irrigation systems, resolve agrarian distress, or address the ecological pressures of the Brahmaputra valley.

But it will settle a political question that has remained open for decades. It will offer a measure of certainty to communities that have lived with unresolved claims across generations, and it will remove a recurring source of mistrust that shapes Assam’s electoral and social life.

Assam cannot move toward stability while leaving such an important obligation unresolved. When demands remain unfulfilled for decades, they weaken trust in the state and in the value of democratic assurances. The six communities are not seeking privilege.

They are seeking recognition that corresponds to their history, their contribution, and their present concerns. Parliament has the authority. The Constitution provides the mechanism. Everything else is delay by 

If the government is serious about peace and stability in Assam, the route ahead is clear. If it avoids that route, the reason will be obvious to anyone who has watched this issue travel across generations without resolution.

Also Read: A Season of Extremes: Why Assam’s Farmers Need a Special MSP