New Delhi: A reply to a question under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed that the Office of Registrar-General of India (RGI) under the Union government is still relying on “obsolete”, “cumbersome” and “condescending” criteria laid down by the 1965 Lokur Committee for categorising any community as Scheduled Tribe, according to The Hindu.
While the RGI’s nod is a must to include any particular community in the state-wise Scheduled Tribes’ lists, the decision to follow the age-old norms of the Lokur Committee is a cause for concern given that an internal task force of the Union government suggested various changes to the criteria way back in 2014. In fact, the Union government itself asserted until December 2017 in parliament that it was considering a proposal to change the criteria for scheduling new communities as STs based on the report of the internal task force. The internal task force had described the criteria of the Lokur Committee as “obsolete”, “condescending”, “dogmatic”, and “rigid”.
“For criteria, report of the Advisory Committee on the revision of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Lokur Committee 1965) is consulted,” RGI’s response to a question under RTI said, according to The Hindu.
The criteria of the Lokur Committee for recognition of any community under the ST list are indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardness. Over the years, the criteria have come under severe criticism.
Also read: Over the Last 75 Years, Struggles of India’s Tribal Communities Have Multiplied
In February 2014, the Union government constituted a task force on the Scheduling of Tribes under the then tribal affairs secretary, Hrusikesh Panda. The task force had said that these criteria “may have become obsolete considering the process of transition and acculturation”, referring to Lokur Committee. It had also noted that terms like “primitive and the requirement of primitivity to be a characteristic of Scheduled Tribe indicates a condescending attitude by outsiders” while also adding “what we consider primitive is not considered by the tribals themselves”.
The task force had also stated that “much of the mess” in the classification and identification of tribes is because of this classical orientation that followed a “rigid and dogmatic approach”. It had also highlighted that there were issues with the geographical isolation criterion, for infrastructural development across the country cannot really allow one to say that a certain community lives in isolation. “How can any community remain in isolation?” the task force had asked.
After highlighting the above-mentioned issues, the task force had recommended changes to the criteria set out by the Lokur Committee in May 2o14. In June 2014, it had also prepared a draft Cabinet note calling for changes in criteria and procedures for scheduling new communities as STs. In fact, it was done within a month of the first Cabinet led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi taking the oath in 2014.
The task force instead came up with new criteria: “Socio-economic, including educational, backwardness, vis-a-vis, the rest of the population of the state; Historical geographical isolation which may or may not exist today; Distinct language/dialect; Presence of a core culture relating to life-cycle, marriage, songs, dance, paintings, folklore; Endogamy, or in case of exogamy, marital relationship primarily with other STs (This criterion is for scheduling of a community as ST and not for determining ST status of an individual).”
The draft Cabinet note also asserted that communities which adopt or adopted a “Hindu way of life will not be ineligible merely on this ground”. The note also said various factors have to be considered holistically, including the population of a certain community in relation to the existing ST population in a state. No one particular factor should take precedence over the other, the draft Cabinet note observed.
With the RTI reply now clarifying that the RGI is still following the Lokur Committee criteria, the question remains as to whether or not the government is serious about changing existing criteria and adopting a new set of principles. The RGI reply also underlined that it relies on census publications, which go back to 1891, along with materials provided by the nodal Union ministry and state governments to decide on whether or not a community can be categorised as ST based on the Lokur Committee criteria.
The task force also noted that not only the Office of RGI does not have enough anthropologists and sociologists to make such decisions but also lacks data. It also pointed out “inconsistencies” in census records, stating that going back as far as 1891 presented more problems for categorisation based on the Lokur Committee’s criteria.
While the 1891 census described tribes as people with a “tribal religion”, the 1901 and 1911 censuses called them “tribal animists”. In the 1921 census, they were recorded as “hill and forest tribes” and as “primitive tribes” in the 1931 census. In 1941, they were merely documented as “tribes”. Since 1951, the constitutional term ‘Scheduled Tribes’ has been adopted.
The task force also noted that in addition to the “obsolete” procedure, the “cumbersome” process by RGI being employed is hindering the inclusion of over 40 communities under the ST lists across the country.
During the winter session of parliament last year, tribal affairs minister Arjun Munda had said, “Tribal societies live on the basis of their characteristic traits. These are not societies that change.” Munda’s remarks make it amply clear that the proposal to change the existing criteria is put on hold.