India’s tribal communities is not merely a sociological category; it is a long historical narrative shaped by language, geography, governance and identity. Today, the terms “Scheduled Tribes” and “Scheduled Castes” carry constitutional authority, but their origins lie deep in the evolution of Indian society, stretching back to ancient times when communities were identified not by legal schedules but by kinship, territory and cultural practices.
Under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President of India is empowered to specify which castes and tribes are to be recognized as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for each state and union territory. During census operations, only those communities included in these Orders are enumerated as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, giving the classification both administrative precision and political significance.
The roots of the term “tribe” lie far beyond modern governance. The English word “tribe” is derived from the Latin Tribus, which referred to a form of social and political organization. Anthropologically, a tribe has been understood as a large social group divided into clans, bound by kinship ties and governed by customary norms. In 1877, the scholar Lewis Henry Morgan described tribes as fully organized societies, structurally segmented into clans that were exogamous in nature, while the tribe itself remained endogamous. Such a structure ensured both internal cohesion and regulated social interaction.
In the Indian context, the eminent historian Nihar Ranjan Ray offered a more indigenous interpretation. He traced the concept of tribes to the Sanskrit term “Jana,” which referred to early communities of people. Derived from the root “Jan,” meaning “to be born,” the term carried a biological connotation, emphasizing common ancestry. These “Janas” included groups such as the Savars, Bhillas, Khasas and others who inhabited different parts of the subcontinent. Over time, these communities lent their names to the regions they occupied, giving rise to the concept of “Janapadas,” or territorial polities.
Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that these early indigenous communities originally lived in fertile plains and river valleys. However, with the rise of more complex and hierarchical social systems, many were gradually pushed into remote and less accessible regions such as hills and forests. Ancient records refer to these areas as Atavika Rajya (forest kingdoms), Mahakantara (great forest regions) and frontier territories. This geographical marginalization played a crucial role in shaping the socio-economic conditions of tribal communities, isolating them from mainstream development processes.
Over centuries, these communities came to be known by various names reflecting both their habitat and perceived status. Terms such as Adivasi (original inhabitants), Girijan (hill dwellers), Vanya Jati (forest communities), Adima Jati (primitive groups), and Janjati (folk communities) were commonly used. In administrative language, the term “Scheduled Tribes” eventually emerged as the standard designation, reflecting their inclusion in official government lists.
The colonial period marked the beginning of systematic attempts to classify and document these communities. The Government of India Act of 1935 made one of the earliest official references to “Backward Tribes.” Subsequently, the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assembly) Order of 1936 specified certain tribes as backward in provinces such as Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Central Provinces, Madras and Orissa. These classifications were primarily administrative, aimed at identifying communities requiring special attention, but they lacked a consistent or scientific basis.
The census operations of British India also played a significant role in shaping the understanding of tribal populations. As early as 1901, the Census of India began collecting information on tribal communities. However, prior to Independence, data were largely grouped under the broad category of “Backward Classes,” without a clear distinction between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Terms such as “animists,” “primitive tribes,” and “aboriginals” were used interchangeably, reflecting the ambiguity and inconsistency in classification.
The situation began to change after India attained Independence in 1947 and adopted its Constitution in 1950. The Constitution not only formalized the categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but also laid down provisions for their welfare and protection. The first Census of independent India in 1951 attempted to classify the backward population into three broad categories: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, this exercise faced several challenges. Detailed caste-wise and tribe-wise data could not be compiled at the district level, largely due to administrative and financial constraints. This limitation proved to be a significant setback, particularly in states like Odisha, where backward communities constituted a substantial proportion of the population.
The omission of certain communities stands out as a critical administrative lapse. The Jharas of Kamakhyanagar, for instance, who had earlier been recognized among backward classes and shared socio-economic conditions similar to Scheduled Castes, were excluded from all three categories in 1951. Such omissions effectively denied these communities access to welfare measures, illustrating how classification errors could translate into tangible disadvantages.
Equally important were the strong objections raised by various communities against their classification. In several cases, communities resisted being labelled as “backward,” associating the term with social inferiority. The Gonds of Kamakhya Nagar subdivision in Dhenkanal district provide a striking example. They not only protested their classification as a Scheduled Tribe but also reportedly refused scholarships and other benefits offered by the government, viewing acceptance as detrimental to their social prestige. This highlights a fundamental tension between administrative categorization and social self-perception.
Urban and semi-urban communities also voiced similar concerns. In Cuttack, groups such as the Gurias, Banias and Telis objected to their inclusion among Other Backward Classes. They argued that their economic and social conditions were comparable to those of other non-classified groups, and therefore their categorization as backward was unjustified. In Jajpur subdivision, communities like Gauda, Tanti and Jyotish expressed strong dissatisfaction on similar grounds, emphasizing parity with neighbouring populations.
In contrast, some communities actively sought inclusion in backward categories. The Keutas of Ranapur, for example, petitioned authorities to be recognized as a backward class in order to access state benefits. This dual phenomenon i.e., resistance from some groups and demand from others reveals how classification had begun to influence not just identity but also access to resources and opportunities.
Further complexity arose from changes in nomenclature and identity preferences. Communities such as the Pana and Kandara expressed dissatisfaction with the shift from the term “Harijan” to “Scheduled Castes.” While the new terminology was constitutionally appropriate, it did not necessarily align with the cultural or emotional preferences of all groups. This underscores the importance of recognizing identity as not merely a legal category but also a lived experience.
Another major inconsistency was the over-expansion of the Other Backward Classes category. In many instances, communities that were not significantly more disadvantaged than their neighbours were included in the OBC list. This led to an inflated and heterogeneous category, reducing its analytical and administrative usefulness. At the same time, genuinely marginalized groups were sometimes excluded, pointing to both overinclusion and under-inclusion within the same framework.
These problems were exacerbated by limitations in data collection and administrative capacity. The 1951 Census did not produce detailed caste-wise or tribe-wise data at the district level, largely due to financial constraints. Although the Census organization indicated its willingness to undertake such detailed tabulation if the state government bore the cost, the proposal was not accepted. As a result, policymakers lacked critical information on population distribution, literacy and economic conditions, hindering effective planning and intervention.
Underlying many of these issues was the absence of a clear and consistent definition of “backwardness.” While the Constitution referred to social and educational backwardness, these criteria were not systematically applied during the census. Instead, a mix of factors i.e., traditional occupation, social status, geographic isolation and historical disadvantage were used in varying degrees, often leading to subjective and inconsistent decisions.
Despite these challenges, the experience of the 1951 Census proved instructive. It highlighted the need for more rigorous criteria, better data collection and greater sensitivity to community perceptions. From the 1961 Census onwards, efforts were made to collect more detailed and reliable information on Scheduled Tribes, marking a significant improvement in demographic analysis.
The historical trajectory from ancient “Janas” to modern Scheduled Tribes thus reflects a dynamic interplay between tradition and state policy. In Odisha, the 1951 Census serves as a crucial moment in this journey; a moment that exposed the complexities of classification and the deeply rooted nature of identity.
Ultimately, the story is not just about enumeration but about recognition. It is about how communities see themselves and how they are seen by the state. The lessons of 1951 remain relevant even today, reminding us that classification is not merely a technical exercise but a deeply human process, with lasting implications for dignity, development and social justice.
Dr. Bishnupada Sethi
Dr. Sethi serves as the Chaiman of OFDC and Chief Administrator of KBK districts of Odisha.
