UPSC Relevance-GS Paper 1: Social issues and marginalised communities
GS Paper 2: Welfare schemes, constitutional mechanisms, vulnerable sections
Why in the News?
The Union Government has assured leaders of Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) that they will be enumerated in the 2027 Census. However, community organisations are demanding a separate column in the Census and a distinct constitutional classification, reigniting debates over recognition, enumeration, and social justice.
Background: From “Criminal Tribes” to Denotification
The historical marginalisation of DNTs originates in the colonial enactment of the Criminal Tribes Act. The Act allowed British authorities to register and surveil entire communities on the presumption that criminality was hereditary. Nomadic and semi-nomadic groups were viewed as administratively inconvenient and socially suspect.
This colonial logic conflated caste with criminality. Communities were monitored, restricted in movement, and stigmatised as “born criminals.”
In 1952, independent India repealed the Act, and these groups were “denotified.” However, the introduction of Habitual Offenders Acts in several States meant that surveillance and stigma continued under a different legal framework.
Thus, while the legal label changed, social suspicion endured.
Enumeration and the Problem of Invisibility
DNTs were last specifically enumerated in the 1931 Census. Post-Independence, India chose not to enumerate castes beyond Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Over time, most DNT communities were absorbed into SC, ST, or OBC lists.
However, this assimilation created three major problems:
- Absence of reliable data
- Fragmented classification across States
- Lack of targeted policy design
Multiple commissions — including the Renke Commission (2008) and the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes — stressed that accurate identification is impossible without proper enumeration.
The Idate Commission (2017) identified nearly 1,200 DNT communities and found that 268 remained unclassified. It recommended:
- A permanent National Commission for DNTs
- Comprehensive identification and classification
- Focused welfare interventions
Yet, implementation has been limited.
The SEED Scheme and Administrative Bottlenecks
The Ministry of Social Justice launched the SEED (Scheme for Economic Empowerment of DNTs) programme with a ₹200 crore allocation to address livelihood, housing, health and education needs.
However, the scheme underperformed for a structural reason:
Eligibility required a DNT certificate.
In many States:
- DNT certificates are not issued uniformly.
- Administrative clarity is lacking.
- Beneficiaries remain unable to prove identity as DNTs.
As a result, only a fraction of the allocated funds has been utilised.
This reflects a broader governance gap: welfare without identification leads to exclusion.
Why Do Community Leaders Demand Separate Classification?
Community leaders argue that:
- Colonial criminalisation created unique stigma not faced by other backward groups.
- Post-Independence laws perpetuated social suspicion.
- Assimilation into SC/ST/OBC lists diluted their distinct identity.
- Lack of a separate category results in uneven benefits and bureaucratic confusion.
They contend that a constitutional classification similar to SC, ST, or OBC would:
- Ensure uniform certification across States
- Enable targeted policy
- Acknowledge historical injustice
- Provide political visibility
Some groups further demand sub-classification within DNTs to address internal disparities.
At its core, the movement is not only about reservation, but about recognition, dignity, and removal of historical stigma.
The Government’s Position
The Union Government has indicated that since most DNT communities are already included in SC/ST/OBC lists, a separate constitutional classification may not be necessary. A Welfare Board has been considered sufficient.
However, without uniform identification and robust data, welfare mechanisms remain administratively weak.
The assurance of enumeration in the 2027 Census is a step forward, but clarity on methodology is still absent.
Key Constitutional and Policy Questions
The issue raises deeper governance concerns:
- Should historical injustice require distinct constitutional recognition?
- Can fragmented assimilation ensure substantive equality under Article 14?
- Does social justice require identity-specific frameworks or integration within existing categories?
Balancing administrative efficiency with targeted justice remains the central dilemma.
Way Forward
- Transparent Census Enumeration-A clearly defined Census methodology, possibly through a distinct column, is essential.
- Uniform Certification Mechanism-States must streamline DNT certification to prevent exclusion from welfare schemes.
- Revival of Classification Study-The Anthropological Survey of India’s pending report on unclassified communities should be released.
- Institutional Mechanism- A statutory or permanent Commission may provide focused oversight without immediate constitutional restructuring.
- Sub-Classification Debate- Internal disparities within DNTs must be recognised to prevent elite capture.
Conclusion
The demand for separate classification of Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes reflects more than a bureaucratic concern — it is a call for historical acknowledgement and structural justice. While the creation of a new constitutional category requires careful deliberation, enumeration and institutional clarity cannot be delayed.True social justice lies not merely in inclusion within lists, but in meaningful recognition of lived realities.
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION (15 Marks | 250 Words)
Q.“The continued marginalisation of Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) reflects both colonial legacy and post-independence policy gaps.”Discuss in the context of their demand for a separate constitutional classification.