Rathod Raghuvardhan
Broadly classifying the tribal communities based on lifestyle patterns, there are four major kinds of tribes in India: nomadic, semi-nomadic, settled, and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). Here arises an important question: what makes a community a tribe? How can we classify a community as a tribe? This remains one of the most debated questions in the current arena of Indian reservation politics.
As per the Lokur Committee (1965), certain general criteria were laid down for classifying and notifying a community as a “Scheduled Tribe” by the President through a Presidential Order, after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State. These criteria include:
- Primitive traits (later replaced by the term “indigenous cultural traits”),
- Distinct culture,
- Geographical isolation,
- Shyness of contact with the community at large,
- Economic and social backwardness.
The case of settled tribes and PVTGs is relatively clear, as their distinct boundaries and geographical isolation justify their recognition as tribes. However, in the case of nomadic and semi-nomadic groups, the situation is far more complex. Since they lack permanent settlements and constantly move across regions, their tribal identity is often diluted and contested. But can such groups be called “non-tribals”?
For instance, the Konda Reddis of Andhra Pradesh, a settled tribal community, have a clearly demarcated geographical habitat in the hilly tracts of East and West Godavari, making their tribal identity uncontested. Similarly, PVTGs like the Chenchus have a distinct habitat in the Nallamala forests, which reinforces their recognition as a tribe. By contrast, communities such as the Pardhis or Lambadas (Banjaras/Sugalis), historically nomadic and semi-nomadic, have moved across state boundaries for their livelihoods without establishing permanent settlements. Their mobility has led to frequent questioning of their tribal identity, as they do not fit the conventional definition of a tribe tied to a fixed territory.
The ongoing contention between the Lambadas and other Adivasi groups in Telangana illustrates the complexities of tribal identity and the development trajectory of Adivasis. Let us take the case of the Lambadas (Banjaras/Sugalis). Though the history of Banjaras can be traced back to medieval India, for our purposes, we focus on their empirical and documented identification as tribals and the conflicts surrounding it.
Historically, Telangana was part of the Hyderabad State, while Andhra Pradesh was part of the Madras Presidency. In the Hyderabad State, official records recognised Lambadas as tribals. For example, the Census of India, 1931 (Vol. XXIII, H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions, Report by Gulam Ahmed Khan, Census Commissioner) lists Lambadas as tribals with a population of more than 3 lakhs (p. 230, Table III). A decade later, the Census of India, 1941 (Vol. XXI, H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions, Report by Mazhar Husain, Census Commissioner) recorded over 4 lakh Lambada speakers under the tribal category.
In British-administered regions, however, Lambadas were classified under the “criminal tribes,” later denotified, but not explicitly included in the Scheduled Tribe list at the time of Constitution-making. This “blank space” led to the exclusion of not only Lambadas but also groups like Erukulas and Pardhis. Eventually, Lambadas were included in the ST list only in 1976 through Government Orders. This historical gap has become a bone of contention (with some groups treating it as evidence against the tribal identity of the Lambadas), as many argue that a community with a long-standing recognition as a tribe was inexplicably left out during the drafting of the Constitution.
The main question resurfaces: aren’t nomadic tribes also tribes? The contention from other Adivasi groups is that Lambadas enjoy Scheduled Tribe status in certain regions but not in others, raising concerns of inconsistency. Those who argue that Lambadas were classified as Backward Classes (BC) in certain regions must also acknowledge that the community was earlier recognised as a Scheduled Tribe (ST), later shifted to BC, and subsequently restored to ST status. The reasons for these shifts may vary, but the repeated reclassification reflects the mistreatment of the Lambada community by those in power. Their temporary placement under the BC category cannot be used as evidence to deny that the Lambadas are tribes. While many accuse Lambadas of cornering a large share of government opportunities and jobs at the expense of other Adivasis, it is essential to acknowledge the socio-economic realities of the community.
Many Lambadas accessing ST benefits are first-generation learners who have overcome immense hardships. While a small number of second-generation learners exist, they remain proportionally fewer than in other communities. Moreover, Lambadas have made significant investments in community development. For example, in many tandas (Lambada hamlets, which I prefer not to name), a small group of educated individuals voluntarily gathered resources to support school and college applications of village youth, while also nurturing local schools. Such efforts underscore the community’s active role in uplifting its younger generation.
This does not mean other communities are not making similar efforts. Still, it raises the larger question: if one community makes progress under reservation benefits and is in the early stages of development, should others demand its removal from the list? If so, how does this strengthen the collective struggle for social justice? And what if tomorrow another community advances further? Will we then push for their removal from the list?
The solution lies in recognising the historical oversight and addressing it through appropriate legal and policy measures, by formally recognising the Lambadas as tribes through robust legislation and ensuring the community a sense of security. At the same time, communities must foster solidarity rather than division. The acquisition of knowledge carries with it the responsibility to support the advancement of others and strengthen the bonds between the communities. As Ambedkar said, “Cultivation of mind should be the ultimate aim of human existence. Only then can we emancipate ourselves and work for the welfare of our community.” Personal intellectual and moral development is a prerequisite for social emancipation and community service. Education is not just self-improvement; it is a means to empower oneself and others.
NOTE: The views expressed in this section reflect the author’s personal analysis and opinion and do not represent any official stance.
~~~
Rathod Raghuvardhan is from Adilabad District in the state of Telangana. He is currently pursuing a Master of Arts in Development Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
