The Unfinished Reckoning, Why India’s Denotified Tribes Are Still Fighting for Recognition
On January 30, 2026, a group of community leaders from across India gathered in New Delhi for a meeting with Union government officials. They came with a demand that has been raised for decades: that the Census of India should count them. Not as an afterthought, not subsumed under other categories, but in a separate column that acknowledges their distinct identity and history.
The government offered an assurance. The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner had agreed to enumerate Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) in the upcoming second phase of the Census, due in 2027. But the assurance came with no clarity on how the enumeration would be conducted. For community leaders, this was not enough. They continue to push for a “separate column” in the Census form—a demand that has been reiterated time and again by successive commissions tasked with examining the condition of these communities.
The story of the DNTs is one of the most troubling chapters in modern Indian history. Branded as “criminal tribes” by colonial administrators, subjected to surveillance and control under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, they were officially “denotified” after independence. But denotification did not bring justice. The stigma persisted, reinforced by habitual offender laws that continued to target them. Today, despite being assimilated into Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Other Backward Class lists, many DNT communities remain socially, economically, and educationally marginalized. And they argue that without separate recognition, their specific discrimination will never be fully addressed.
The Colonial Brand: Criminal by Birth
The origins of the DNTs’ marginalization lie in the colonial construction of the “criminal tribe.” The Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871 was introduced for the “registration, surveillance and control of certain criminal tribes and eunuchs.” It defined criminal tribes as “a tribe, gang, or class of persons” that are “addicted” to committing non-bailable offences.
The logic behind the Act was explicitly racial and caste-based. While introducing the legislation, T.V. Stephens, a colonial official, explained: “The special feature of India is the caste system… Keeping this in mind, the meaning of professional criminal is clear. It means a tribe whose ancestors were criminals from times immemorial, who are themselves destined by the usages of caste to commit crime and whose descendants will be offenders against law.”
This was not a description of individual behaviour; it was an indictment of entire communities, based on the assumption that criminality was hereditary and inscribed in caste identity. Communities that followed nomadic or semi-nomadic livelihoods—pastoralists, entertainers, artisans, traders—were particularly targeted. Their mobility, which colonial administrators found difficult to control, was itself seen as evidence of criminal intent.
The CTA subjected these communities to registration, fingerprinting, and constant surveillance. They could be restricted to specific settlements, required to report their movements, and punished for violations. Children born into these communities were automatically classified as criminal, regardless of their actions.
Denotification and Its Limits
It was only in 1952, five years after independence, that the Government of India officially repealed the CTA. Communities classified as “criminal” were denotified, giving rise to the term “Denotified Tribes.” But denotification did not end their troubles.
In the same year, various states introduced habitual offender laws. These laws did away with the hereditary definition of criminality, focusing instead on individuals who repeatedly committed offences. But in practice, they allowed the continued targeting of DNT communities. Police could classify individuals from these communities as “habitual offenders” based on their community identity, not on individual behaviour. The name changed, but the stigma remained.
Over the decades following independence, most DNT communities were gradually assimilated into the existing classification systems for backward classes. Some were included in Scheduled Caste lists, some in Scheduled Tribe lists, and others in Other Backward Class lists. On paper, they became eligible for reservations and other affirmative action policies.
But community leaders argue that this assimilation has been incomplete and unsatisfactory. Being scattered across different categories means that DNTs lack a unified political voice. Their specific history of stigmatization—as “criminal” communities—is not recognized in these categories. And in practice, many DNTs have not been able to access the benefits meant for SCs, STs, or OBCs because they remain socially marginalized and politically invisible.
The Commissions: Repeated Calls for a Count
The struggle for recognition has been supported by multiple official commissions. In 1998, author Mahasweta Devi and scholar G.N. Devy constituted the Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes-Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG). Their work led to the formation of a technical advisory group and eventually the first National Commission for DNTs, headed by B.S. Renke. The Renke Commission submitted its report in 2008, recommending measures to uplift DNT communities.
A second National Commission, led by Bhiku Ramji Idate, submitted its report in 2017. Both commissions began their work by noting a fundamental problem: without a proper Census count, it was impossible to accurately identify and classify DNT communities. The Idate Commission identified close to 1,200 communities that were DNTs, noting that all of them had been assimilated into SC, ST, or OBC lists. It also identified about 268 communities that had not been classified at all.
A NITI Aayog-commissioned study by the Anthropological Survey of India subsequently examined these 268 unclassified communities and made recommendations for their classification. But that report, community leaders say, has “gone into cold storage.”
The Idate Commission also recommended the establishment of a permanent National Commission for DNTs. However, the government decided that since most DNTs were already included in existing categories, a Welfare Board would suffice to address their concerns.
The SEED Scheme: Good Intentions, Poor Implementation
The Social Justice Ministry eventually rolled out the SEED scheme—a programme aimed at addressing the livelihood, education, housing, and health needs of DNT communities. The scheme had an intended allocation of ₹200 crore over five years. But government data shows that only a fraction of this amount has been spent.
A principal problem with implementation has been certification. To benefit from the SEED scheme, an individual must be identified as a DNT and possess a DNT certificate. But DNTs who are already included in SC, ST, or OBC lists often find that they cannot get a separate DNT certificate. State governments, which are responsible for issuing such certificates, have been slow to act. Despite continuous reminders and letters from the Central government, data shows that only select districts in about half a dozen states actually issue DNT certificates.
This certification problem is not just bureaucratic; it is existential. Without a certificate, an individual cannot access schemes meant specifically for DNTs. And without a separate Census count, the scale of the need remains unknown, and pressure for systemic reform is diffused.
The Demand: A Separate Classification
It is against this backdrop that DNT community leaders have renewed their demand for a separate Constitutional classification. They want to be recognized as a category on par with SCs, STs, and OBCs, with their own column in the Census form and their own set of policies and protections.
The argument is not just about administrative convenience. It is about recognition. Community leaders argue that the specific discrimination they face—rooted in the colonial branding of entire communities as “criminal”—is not captured by existing categories. Being an SC or an OBC does not capture the history of being registered, surveilled, and stigmatized as a “criminal tribe.” That history, they say, requires its own category.
Leaders also argue that the colonial branding was itself a response to resistance. Many DNT communities, they note, were the first line of defence against foreign invaders, both before and during colonialism. Their insistence on resisting conquest led to their being labelled criminal by the powers that sought to subjugate them. Recognition, in this view, is not just about benefits; it is about vindication.
Within the demand for a separate category, there is also a call for sub-classification. Not all DNT communities are equally backward. Some, particularly those that were settled and able to access resources, have made significant progress. Others remain at the margins. A single category without internal differentiation could end up benefiting the relatively better-off while leaving the most marginalized behind.
The Government’s Position: Counting Without Classifying
The government’s assurance on January 30 that DNTs would be enumerated in the 2027 Census is a step forward. But community leaders note that enumeration is not the same as classification. They want a separate column or question in the Census form specifically for DNTs, not just inclusion in general counts.
So far, the Union government’s public statements have indicated that it is not considering any proposal for a separate classification. The official position appears to be that existing categories are sufficient, and that a Welfare Board can address the specific needs of DNTs.
But for community leaders and scholars like G.N. Devy, this is insufficient. They argue that without separate classification, DNTs will remain invisible, their specific needs unaddressed, their historical injustice unrecognized. The demand for a separate Census count has been made by every commission on the subject. The time has come, they say, to act on it.
Conclusion: A Long-Awaited Reckoning
The story of India’s Denotified Tribes is a story of stigma, resistance, and incomplete justice. Branded as criminals by colonial rulers, they were denotified after independence but never fully recognized. Scattered across other categories, they have struggled to make their voices heard.
The upcoming Census offers an opportunity for a reckoning. A separate column for DNTs would not solve all problems, but it would be a start. It would make visible a population that has been invisible for too long. It would provide the data needed to design targeted policies. And it would acknowledge, finally, that the crime was not in their blood, but in the law that branded them.
Q&A: Unpacking the DNT Demand
Q1: Who are the Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs)?
A: DNTs are communities that were classified as “criminal tribes” under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, a colonial law that branded entire communities as “addicted” to crime based on their caste and lifestyle. These communities were subjected to registration, surveillance, and control. After independence, the Act was repealed in 1952, and the communities were “denotified.” However, they continued to face stigmatization through habitual offender laws and social discrimination. Today, most DNTs are included in SC, ST, or OBC lists, but they argue that this assimilation does not capture their specific history and needs.
Q2: What was the Criminal Tribes Act, and why was it so damaging?
A: The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 was colonial legislation that empowered the government to declare any “tribe, gang, or class of persons” as “addicted” to the commission of non-bailable offences. It was based on the premise that criminality was hereditary and inscribed in caste identity. Communities declared “criminal” were subjected to registration, fingerprinting, movement restrictions, and collective punishment. Children born into these communities were automatically classified as criminal. The Act pathologized entire communities, creating a stigma that has persisted long after its repeal.
Q3: Why do DNT leaders want a separate column in the Census?
A: DNT leaders argue that without a separate column, their communities remain statistically invisible. While many DNTs are counted within SC, ST, or OBC categories, there is no way to know how many DNTs there are, where they live, or what their socio-economic conditions are. This invisibility makes it difficult to design targeted policies or to advocate for resources. A separate column would provide the data needed for evidence-based policymaking and would also constitute a form of recognition—acknowledging that DNTs have a distinct identity and history that is not captured by other categories.
Q4: What has been the problem with the SEED scheme for DNTs?
A: The SEED scheme, launched by the Social Justice Ministry, was intended to address the livelihood, education, housing, and health needs of DNTs. However, implementation has been poor. A key barrier is certification: to benefit from the scheme, individuals need a DNT certificate. But many DNTs who are already included in SC, ST, or OBC lists cannot get a separate DNT certificate because state governments are reluctant to issue them. Data shows that only select districts in about half a dozen states actually issue these certificates, leaving most DNTs unable to access scheme benefits. Only a fraction of the scheme’s intended ₹200 crore allocation has been spent over five years.
Q5: What is the government’s current position on a separate classification for DNTs?
A: The government has assured DNT leaders that they will be enumerated in the upcoming 2027 Census. However, it has not agreed to a separate column or question specifically for DNTs. Public statements indicate that the government is not considering any proposal for a separate Constitutional classification on par with SCs, STs, and OBCs. The official view appears to be that existing categories are sufficient and that a Welfare Board can address DNT concerns. Community leaders and scholars argue that this is insufficient and continue to push for separate recognition.
