Why Assam’s ST Communities Are Opposing the Inclusion of Six New Groups

With Assam heading towards Assembly elections, the long-pending demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by six influential communities has returned to the centre of political debate. On Tuesday, a representative body of existing ST groups formally rejected the state government’s recommendation to include these communities, warning that it could dilute their political and constitutional safeguards. The disagreement has exposed deep fault lines over representation, reservations, and the meaning of tribal identity in Assam.

How Scheduled Tribe reservations currently work in Assam

Assam’s tribal reservation framework is distinct in that it divides Scheduled Tribes into two categories: ST (Plains) and ST (Hills). The ST (Plains) category enjoys a 10% reservation in state government jobs and educational institutions, while ST (Hills) has a 5% quota.

ST (Hills) status applies to tribes from the Sixth Schedule autonomous hill districts of Karbi Anglong, West Karbi Anglong, and Dima Hasao. Politically, two of Assam’s 14 Lok Sabha constituencies and 19 of the 126 Assembly constituencies are reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

According to the 2011 Census, Assam’s ST population stands at around 38.8 lakh — about 12.4% of the state’s population. Major tribes include the Bodos, Mishings, Karbis, Rabhas, Sonowal Kacharis, Lalungs, Garos, and Dimasas.

Which communities are demanding ST status

The six communities at the heart of the controversy are Tai Ahom, Moran, Motok, Chutia, Koch Rajbongshi, and Tea Tribes or Adivasis. Together, they account for nearly one crore people — close to a third of Assam’s population.

At present, these groups are classified under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, which carries a 27% reservation in the state. Their demand for ST status has a long history, driven by claims of historical marginalisation, cultural distinctiveness, and the absence of political reservation for OBCs in the state Assembly.

What the Assam government has proposed

To address the issue, the Assam government constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM), whose interim report was tabled in the Assembly in November 2025. The report found “full justification” for granting ST status to the six communities but recommended a complex restructuring of Assam’s tribal categories.

The GoM proposed a new third category — ST (Valley) — in addition to ST (Plains) and ST (Hills). This category would include larger communities such as Tai Ahoms, Chutias, Tea Tribes/Adivasis, and Koch Rajbongshis (excluding those from undivided Goalpara). Smaller groups like Morans and Motoks, along with Koch Rajbongshis from undivided Goalpara (subject to clearance from the Bodoland Territorial Council), would be included under ST (Plains).

Crucially, the report argued that existing ST (Plains) and ST (Hills) quotas would remain “fully protected”, with the new ST (Valley) quota carved out by deducting a proportionate share from the OBC reservation.

The political safeguards proposed by the GoM

On the political front, the GoM suggested that Lok Sabha constituencies covering Sixth Schedule areas — Kokrajhar and Diphu — should be permanently reserved for existing ST (Plains) and ST (Hills) communities through a constitutional amendment. Since recognising new STs would increase the overall ST population, the report also recommended reserving additional Parliamentary seats for the proposed ST (Valley) category.

For central government jobs and institutions, however, the GoM acknowledged that all STs would have to compete within a single national ST list, as the Constitution does not recognise sub-categories at the central level.

Why existing ST communities are pushing back

Despite these assurances, resistance from existing ST groups has been firm. The opposition is being coordinated by the “Coordinating Committee of Tribal Organisation of Assam”, which constituted a six-member consultative group to study the GoM report.

The group argues that the six communities were historically classified as OBCs by bodies such as the National Commission for Backward Classes and were excluded from ST lists by earlier expert committees, including those in 1947 and 1965. Reclassifying them now, it says, would be driven by “political expediency” rather than constitutional criteria.

The fear of losing political representation

At the heart of the opposition lies anxiety over political reservation. Existing ST groups argue that while the six communities already benefit from OBC quotas in jobs and education, their primary motivation for seeking ST status is political power — particularly reserved seats in Panchayats, autonomous councils, and the State Assembly.

Since Assam does not reserve Assembly seats for OBCs, granting ST status to large and relatively advanced communities could, tribal bodies argue, crowd out smaller ST groups from political institutions and weaken their voice at both state and central levels.

The debate over who qualifies as ‘Scheduled Tribe’

Tribal organisations have also questioned whether communities such as the Tai Ahoms — who ruled Assam for nearly 600 years — meet the constitutional criteria for ST recognition. These criteria traditionally include indicators such as distinctive culture, geographical isolation, limited interaction with the wider population, and socio-economic backwardness.

By labelling the six claimant communities as “advanced and populous”, existing ST groups contend that their inclusion would fundamentally alter the balance of Assam’s tribal policy and undermine the very purpose of constitutional safeguards.

Why the issue matters politically

With elections approaching, the controversy has placed the Assam government in a bind. The six communities represent a massive electoral constituency, while existing ST groups occupy constitutionally protected political spaces. Any move risks alienating one side.

What emerges from the debate is a larger question: whether Assam’s reservation framework can be expanded without diluting the political and cultural safeguards of its most vulnerable tribal communities — and whether the state can find a consensus before the issue hardens into an electoral fault line.