As Assam heads into an election year, the long-pending demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by six major communities has once again moved to the centre of the state’s political discourse. On Tuesday, representative bodies of Assam’s existing ST communities formally rejected the state government’s proposal to include these groups, arguing that it threatens their political and constitutional safeguards. The standoff underlines a deeper tension between social justice claims, demographic realities, and the politics of representation.
How Scheduled Tribe reservation works in Assam
Assam’s ST framework is distinct from most states. Recognised tribes are divided into two constitutionally protected categories: ST (Plains) and ST (Hills). The ST (Plains) communities receive a 10% reservation in state government jobs and educational institutions, while ST (Hills) communities are entitled to a 5% quota.
The ST (Hills) category is confined to tribes inhabiting the Sixth Schedule autonomous districts of Karbi Anglong, West Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. Politically, two of Assam’s 14 Lok Sabha constituencies and 19 of its 126 Assembly constituencies are reserved for ST candidates. As per the 2011 Census, the total ST population in Assam stood at about 38.8 lakh, accounting for 12.4% of the state’s population.
Who are the existing Scheduled Tribes?
Assam’s tribal population is internally diverse. Major groups include the Bodos, Mishings, Karbis, Rabhas, Sonowal Kacharis, Lalungs (Tiwas), Garos and Dimasas. Together, these communities form the backbone of Assam’s existing ST political and administrative representation. Their anxiety today stems not merely from reservation percentages but from fears of dilution of political power in legislatures and local bodies.
The six communities seeking ST status
The communities demanding inclusion in the ST list are Tai Ahom, Moran, Motok, Chutia, Koch Rajbongshi, and Tea Tribes or Adivasis. Collectively, they are estimated to number close to one crore people — nearly a third of Assam’s population. At present, they fall under the state’s Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, which has a 27% reservation quota.
Their demand for ST status is not new and has been politically salient for decades, particularly because OBCs do not enjoy political reservation in the Assembly or Panchayati Raj institutions.
The Assam government’s proposed three-tier solution
To address this sensitive issue, the Assam government constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM), whose interim report was tabled in the Assembly in November 2025. The GoM found “full justification” for granting ST status to the six communities but recommended an unprecedented three-tier classification system.
Alongside ST (Plains) and ST (Hills), the report proposes a new ST (Valley) category for larger communities such as Ahoms, Chutias, Koch Rajbongshis (excluding those in undivided Goalpara), and Tea Tribes/Adivasis. This category would have separate quotas, rosters, and vacancy registers for state government employment and education, with funding partially adjusted from the existing OBC quota.
Smaller groups like the Moran and Motok, and Koch Rajbongshis in undivided Goalpara (subject to clearance from the Bodoland Territorial Council), are proposed to be included under ST (Plains). However, for central government reservations, all groups would compete within a single national ST pool.
Political safeguards and constitutional complications
The GoM also suggested constitutional amendments to permanently reserve the Kokrajhar and Diphu Lok Sabha constituencies for existing ST (Plains) and ST (Hills) communities, respectively. It further recommended increasing the number of ST-reserved parliamentary seats in Assam to reflect the expanded ST population. The stated intent was to balance accommodation of new claimants with protection of existing tribal political rights.
Why existing ST communities oppose the proposal
Despite these safeguards, opposition has been sharp. The resistance is being coordinated by the “”, which argues that the proposal is driven by electoral expediency rather than constitutional logic.
A consultative group formed by tribal organisations contends that the six communities were historically excluded from the ST list by expert committees, including the 1965 Advisory Committee on SC/ST revision and the 1947 sub-committee on excluded areas. Since they have long been recognised as OBCs by the National Commission for Backward Classes, reclassification now is seen as unjustified.
Fear of political marginalisation
The core concern, however, is political representation. Tribal bodies argue that the real motivation behind the demand is access to political reservation, particularly in Panchayats, Autonomous Councils, and the State Assembly, where OBCs have no reserved seats. Given the demographic weight of the six communities, existing ST groups fear being electorally overwhelmed, both at the state and central levels.
They also challenge the eligibility of communities like the Tai Ahoms, who historically ruled Assam for centuries, arguing that they do not meet the conventional criteria for ST recognition such as geographical isolation, limited integration, or socio-cultural marginalisation.
A debate beyond reservation numbers
The Assam ST controversy goes beyond quotas and classifications. It raises fundamental questions about the purpose of affirmative action, the balance between historical disadvantage and contemporary political claims, and the limits of accommodation in a finite reservation framework. As elections approach, the issue is likely to remain politically charged, with no easy resolution that satisfies all stakeholders.
What to note for Prelims?
- Difference between ST (Plains) and ST (Hills) in Assam
- Communities demanding ST status in Assam
- Role of the Group of Ministers (GoM) and its key recommendations
- Political reservation of STs in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
What to note for Mains?
- Challenges of expanding ST lists in demographically diverse states
- Political versus socio-anthropological criteria for ST recognition
- Implications of reservation expansion on existing beneficiaries
- Balancing social justice, federalism, and electoral politics in affirmative action policy
