The Invisible Millions, Why India’s Denotified Tribes Remain Trapped Between Stigma and Statutory Silence

The Invisible Millions, Why India’s Denotified Tribes Remain Trapped Between Stigma and Statutory Silence

In the crowded landscape of India’s social justice movements, a quieter but equally desperate struggle is unfolding. It is the struggle of communities who carry a double burden: the inherited stigma of being branded “criminal” by a colonial regime that collapsed 78 years ago, and the contemporary anguish of being invisible in the very systems designed to document and address marginalisation. On Wednesday, the Union Tribal Affairs Ministry, responding to a question in the Rajya Sabha from MPs Manoj Kumar Jha and Sandosh Kumar P., delivered a stark verdict: the government has “no proposal or plan under consideration” for granting distinct legal and constitutional recognition—on a par with Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC)—to India’s denotified, nomadic, and semi-nomadic tribes (DNT/NT/SNT) . This rejection comes precisely as these communities were mobilising to demand a “separate column” in the upcoming 2027 Census, hoping to transform enumeration into empowerment. The government’s response is not merely a bureaucratic refusal; it is a profound failure of recognition that condemns an estimated 10-15 crore Indians to remain statistical ghosts, administrative afterthoughts, and perpetual victims of a prejudice they never earned.

The Colonial Original Sin: From “Criminal Tribes” to Denotified

To understand the gravity of the current denial, one must first confront the horror from which these communities emerged. In 1871, the British colonial administration enacted the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) . This draconian legislation did not target individuals based on evidence of wrongdoing; it branded entire communities as “hereditarily criminal.” Birth into a designated tribe was, in itself, a crime. Members were forced to register with local authorities, subjected to constant surveillance, restricted in their movement, and barred from pursuing normal professions. The law assumed criminality was genetic, encoded in blood and lineage.

Independent India, to its credit, formally repealed the CTA in 1952 and “denotified” these communities. However, denotification was not rehabilitation. The repeal removed the legal tag but did nothing to erase the social stigma, restore confiscated assets, or provide affirmative action to communities that had been systematically impoverished and persecuted for generations. The 2008 report of the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) , chaired by Balkrishna Sidram Renke, estimated the population of these communities at over 10 crore (subsequent estimates suggest the figure is closer to 15 crore). The Renke Commission identified nearly 1,500 separate communities spread across the country, each with its own distinct culture, language, and historical grievance.

Yet, despite this staggering scale, these 15 crore Indians exist in a constitutional and administrative grey zone. They are neither fully recognised as SC/ST (though some sub-groups have been included in state-specific schedules), nor are they adequately covered by the OBC reservation framework. Many are excluded from both. They fall through the cracks of every welfare scheme, every enumeration exercise, and every political calculation.

The Demand: Why a “Separate Column” in the 2027 Census Matters

The current mobilisation, spearheaded by community leaders and organisations representing DNT/NT/SNT groups, centres on a seemingly simple demand: a distinct column in the 2027 Census to enumerate these communities separately. This is not a trivial request for statistical granularity. It is a strategic, existential demand.

1. Visibility as the Prerequisite for Policy:
In India’s governance architecture, enumeration precedes empowerment. Communities that are not counted are not considered. The absence of a separate Census code for DNTs means that planners at the district, state, and central levels have no reliable data on their population, geographic spread, literacy rates, economic status, or health outcomes. Without data, there can be no targeted schemes. Without schemes, there can be no upliftment. The demand for a separate column is a demand to be seen by the state.

2. Ending the “SC/ST/OBC” Whac-a-Mole:
Currently, the inclusion of DNT communities in the reservation framework is a fragmented, state-specific, and inconsistent patchwork. Some communities are listed as SC in one state, ST in another, and OBC in a third. Many are not listed at all. This creates absurd situations where two members of the same community, living 50 kilometres apart across a state border, have entirely different eligibility for affirmative action. A separate constitutional category would rationalise this chaos, providing a uniform, national framework for reservation and welfare.

3. Breaking the Cycle of Stigma:
The colonial “criminal” brand persists not just in social memory, but in police records, local administration attitudes, and everyday discrimination. In many districts, members of denotified tribes are still subjected to routine harassment, presumptive arrests, and exclusion from housing and credit markets. A distinct constitutional status—recognising them as a historically disadvantaged group entitled to specific protections—would be a formal, national repudiation of the colonial slur. It would be an act of reparative recognition.

The Government’s Rejection: Decoding the Silence

The Tribal Affairs Ministry’s statement that “there is no such proposal or plan under consideration” is significant for what it says, and for what it does not say. It explicitly notes that the Ministry consulted the Social Justice Ministry, which confirmed the absence of any such plan. This indicates that the rejection is not a bureaucratic oversight; it is policy.

Why would the government refuse a demand that costs nothing in immediate fiscal terms (enumeration is already happening) and addresses the legitimate grievances of 15 crore citizens? Several factors may be at play:

1. The “Reservation Cake” Problem:
India’s reservation architecture, already under strain from demands for sub-categorisation within OBCs and SCs, is facing an existential legal challenge. The 50% ceiling on quotas, established by the Indra Sawhney judgment, is politically inviolable but mathematically restrictive. Creating a new, separate category for DNTs would inevitably require carving out a share of this limited pie, potentially at the expense of existing claimants. The government appears unwilling to open this Pandora’s box.

2. Administrative Inertia and Federal Complications:
Unlike SC/ST lists, which are constitutionally mandated and modified only through parliamentary legislation, the identification of DNT communities is deeply entangled with state-specific histories and caste dynamics. The Renke Commission’s list of 1,500 communities requires rigorous verification and consultation with state governments, many of whom have their own political calculations regarding dominant OBC groups. A national solution requires national consensus, which is currently absent.

3. The “Already Covered” Argument:
The government’s defence, implicitly, is that DNTs are not unrepresented. Many of these communities are already included in SC/ST/OBC lists, albeit inconsistently. Officials argue that the problem is one of implementation and extension, not of creating a new constitutional silo. The demand for a separate category, in this view, is seen as a distraction from the more practical task of ensuring that existing schemes actually reach DNT households.

The Irony: Assurance on Enumeration, Denial on Recognition

There is a cruel irony in the sequence of events. On January 30, 2026, officials of the Social Justice Ministry met with community leaders and assured them that they will be counted in the 2027 Census. This was welcomed as a breakthrough. Yet, within two weeks, the government has clarified that this counting will happen within existing categories, not through a distinct column. The DNTs will be enumerated, but they will be invisible in the enumeration. They will be numbers added to the SC, ST, or OBC totals, their unique identity and distinct disadvantage once again submerged into broader, inadequately representative aggregates.

This is the bureaucratic equivalent of being invited to the banquet but told to eat in the kitchen. You are present, but not seen. You are counted, but not recognised.

The Cost of Non-Recognition: Lives of Perpetual Precarity

The debate over constitutional categories may seem abstract to those outside the policy ecosystem. For the 15 crore Indians at the heart of it, it is a matter of daily survival.

• Education: Children from DNT communities, many of whom are first-generation learners, require targeted support—bridge courses, scholarships, hostels—that generic SC/ST/OBC schemes do not provide. Without specific data and a specific administrative framework, these needs remain unmet.

• Livelihoods: Traditional occupations of many nomadic and semi-nomadic communities—from snake charming to acrobatics to itinerant trading—have been criminalised or economically extinguished by modern policing and urbanisation. Yet, no systematic programme exists for their occupational rehabilitation and skilling.

• Housing and Land Rights: Denotified tribes are often landless, living on encroached public lands or in temporary settlements. Without a distinct legal status, they are perpetually vulnerable to eviction.

• Identity and Dignity: The most profound cost is psychological. To be a member of a denotified tribe is to carry a surname that, in many villages, still whispers “criminal.” The state’s refusal to grant distinct constitutional recognition is, in effect, a refusal to issue a formal, authoritative apology for the colonial wrong.

The Way Forward: Beyond the Binary of “Yes” and “No”

The government’s current position need not be the final word. Between the extremes of immediate creation of a new constitutional category and complete inaction lies a spectrum of meaningful interventions.

1. A Dedicated Development Board:
Even without a separate constitutional column, the government can establish a National Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes Development Board, on the lines of the Safai Karamchari Commission. Such a board can coordinate schemes across ministries, administer a dedicated corpus fund, and conduct the research necessary to build the case for eventual constitutional recognition.

2. Comprehensive Mapping and Data Collection:
The 2027 Census must, at a minimum, include a detailed, community-wise enumeration of DNT populations, even if within the existing SC/ST/OBC codes. This data can be published separately and used to design targeted interventions. The government’s assurance of counting is a foundation; it must now be built upon.

3. State-Level Action:
Given the federal complexity, states with significant DNT populations (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana) can take the lead in formulating state-specific policies, including reservation in state services and educational institutions, and land allocation schemes.

4. Legal Recognition of “Denotified Tribe” Status:
Pending a full constitutional amendment, the government can pass a simple parliamentary statute that formally defines “Denotified Tribe” and mandates its use in all official records, schemes, and surveys. This would provide immediate legal identity without disturbing the existing reservation matrix.

Conclusion: Recognition as Reparation

The colonial “criminal” brand was not removed by repeal; it was merely retired. It remains in the family albums, in the police station records, in the casual prejudice of landlords and employers and teachers. To truly erase it, the state must do more than not use the word “criminal.” It must actively, affirmatively, and visibly replace it with a new word: “recognised.”

The demand for a separate constitutional category for denotified, nomadic, and semi-nomadic tribes is not a demand for special privilege. It is a demand for historical accounting. It is a demand that the Indian state complete the work it began in 1952—work that has remained unfinished for 74 years.

By refusing this demand, the government is not rejecting a policy proposal. It is rejecting the opportunity to apologise. It is choosing administrative convenience over constitutional morality. It is telling 15 crore citizens that the crimes of the Empire, for which they paid the price, are not sufficiently grave to warrant a distinct line in a form.

The 2027 Census will count India’s billion-plus population with extraordinary technological sophistication. But without a column for the denotified tribes, it will be counting with one eye closed. And a nation that counts its citizens with one eye closed will never see itself clearly.

Q&A: Denotified Tribes and the Demand for Distinct Constitutional Recognition

Q1: Who are Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNT/NT/SNT), and what is the colonial history behind their current status?

A1: DNTs are communities that were branded as “hereditarily criminal” under the British Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871. This colonial legislation presumed that entire communities were born criminals, forcing them into registration, surveillance, and restricted movement. Upon independence, India repealed the CTA in 1952 and “denotified” these communities—removed the criminal tag. However, denotification was not rehabilitation. The communities remained socially stigmatised, economically impoverished, and administratively invisible. The Renke Commission (2008) identified over 1,500 such communities with an estimated population of 10-15 crore across India. They are distinct from SC/ST/OBC categories, though some sub-groups have been included in state-specific schedules of these existing categories.

Q2: What is the specific demand regarding the 2027 Census, and why is it so critical for these communities?

A2: The demand is for a separate, distinct column in the 2027 Census forms to enumerate DNT/NT/SNT communities independently, rather than subsuming them within SC/ST/OBC categories. This is critical for three reasons:

1. Visibility: Without separate enumeration, the state has no reliable data on their population, geography, and socio-economic condition. No data means no targeted policies or budget allocations.

2. Identity: A distinct column is a formal recognition by the state that these communities face a unique, historically-derived disadvantage distinct from SC/ST/OBC.

3. Rationalisation: Currently, the same community may be classified as SC in one state and OBC in another, or not listed at all. A separate category would create a uniform, national framework for affirmative action, ending this administrative chaos.

Q3: What was the government’s official response to the demand, and what does it signify?

A3: In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, the Tribal Affairs Ministry, after consulting the Social Justice Ministry, stated unequivocally: “There is no such proposal or plan under consideration.” This signifies a clear policy-level rejection, not a bureaucratic delay or pending review. The government is willing to count DNTs in the 2027 Census (as assured on January 30) but only within existing SC/ST/OBC categories. It refuses to create a new, distinct constitutional or administrative category for them. This refusal reflects concerns about disturbing the existing reservation matrix, the federal complexity of verifying community lists, and a possible assessment that the current fragmented inclusion is sufficient.

Q4: What are the main arguments the government likely has against creating a separate category for DNTs?

A4: The government’s unstated but apparent concerns include:

1. Reservation Ceiling: The Supreme Court’s 50% cap on total reservations makes it politically and legally difficult to carve out a new quota from an already saturated pie.

2. “Already Covered” Argument: Many DNT communities are already included in SC/ST/OBC lists in various states. Officials argue the problem is implementation, not exclusion, and that a new category is unnecessary.

3. Federal Complexity: The identification of 1,500+ communities requires intense consultation with state governments, many of whom have conflicting political interests regarding dominant OBC groups. A national consensus is elusive.

4. Slippery Slope: Granting a separate category to DNTs may open demands from other historically marginalised groups (e.g., specific OBC sub-castes) for similar recognition, complicating the reservation architecture further.

Q5: If a new constitutional category is off the table, what intermediate steps can the government take to address DNT marginalisation?

A5: Even without a separate SC/ST/OBC-parallel category, the government can take several meaningful steps:

1. National Development Board: Establish a statutory National Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes Development Board (on the lines of the Safai Karamchari Commission) to coordinate schemes, administer a dedicated fund, and conduct research.

2. Disaggregated Census Data: Even if counted within existing categories, the 2027 Census must publish community-wise, district-wise disaggregated data for all DNT groups, enabling targeted policy design.

3. State-Level Action: Encourage states with high DNT populations (Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, UP) to enact state-specific reservation in education and government jobs, and allocate land for settlements.

4. Statutory Definition: Pass a simple parliamentary law formally defining “Denotified Tribe” and mandating its use in all official records, surveys, and scheme guidelines, providing immediate legal identity without a constitutional amendment.

5. Criminal Records Expungement: Launch a time-bound programme to identify and expunge historical police records still carrying colonial-era “criminal tribe” designations, providing individuals with official documentation of clean records.