the story So Far:
heyOn January 30, the central government assured community leaders of Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) that the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India has agreed to enumerate these communities in the upcoming second phase. The census is to be held in 2027. However, with no clarity on how this calculation will be done, leaders of these communities are organizing to emphasize their demand for a “separate column” for DNT in the census form. This demand has received support from academics and scholars, who have noted that the demand for census enumeration of DNTs has been repeatedly reiterated by successive commissions that have been set up to examine their position in society.
Who are DNT?
Communities referred to as Vimukta, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes were at one time classified as “criminals” by colonial administrators, who concluded that certain communities were “addicted” to committing crimes. This was codified in the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA), which was first introduced in 1871, the same year that the synchronous census began in India.
The CTA, 1871 was introduced for the “registration, surveillance and control of certain criminal tribes and eunuchs”, describing “criminal tribes” as “tribe, gang or class of persons” who are “accustomed” to committing non-bailable offences. While introducing the legislation, TV Stephens, then Member of the House of Law and Order, had said that, “The special feature of India is the caste system… With this in mind, the meaning of professional criminal is clear. It means a tribe whose ancestors were criminals from time immemorial, who themselves are destined to commit crimes according to the usage of caste and whose descendants will be criminals against the law…”
It was only in 1952 that the Government of India officially repealed the CTA, which had been amended several times by that time. The repeal of the Act led to the de-notification of communities classified as “criminal” under the CTA, leading to these groups becoming known as DNTs.
However, the same year, India saw the introduction of various habitual offender laws across states, which classified some people as “habitual offenders”, eliminating the hereditary definition of people forced to commit crimes, which led to the continued targeting of these communities – this time not as “criminals” but as “habitual offenders”.
What is the history of their calculations?
While both CTA and synchronized census in India began in 1871, “criminal tribes” began to be discussed specifically in census reports only from 1911 onwards. The provincial census reports of 1911 and 1931 provide an insight into the enumeration of these communities, where they were specifically classified as such. However, the 1931 census was the last time these communities were included in the census exercise. Since the repeal of the CTA and demonetization of the communities, specific enumeration of these communities was removed in subsequent censuses, given the Republic’s findings at the time that it was not necessary to enumerate castes (other than Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST)) in the census.
But state efforts for these communities began even before their official notification, with the establishment of the Iyengar Commission in 1949. Since 1952, when the concept of backward classes other than SCs and STs was introduced, many non-notified communities were included in these lists.”free castes“. Eventually, in the decades following India’s independence, most denotified communities were included in the SC, ST, or Other Backward Class (OBC) lists.
In 1998, writer Mahasweta Devi and scholar GN Devi formed the Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes-Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG), the work of which led to the formation of a Technical Advisory Group on DNT and ultimately the formation of the first National Commission for DNT under the chairmanship of BS Renke. The Commission submitted its report on recommendations for the upliftment of DNT in 2008. Subsequently, another national commission was set up under the leadership of Bhiku Ramji Idate, which submitted its report in 2017. All Commission reports on the subject of DNTs began with the question of how to identify and classify them, before noting that full, accurate classification and identification exercises were not possible until census enumeration was conducted for these communities.
The latest assessment of communities in the IDET Commission report identified around 1,200 communities that were DNT, noting that all these communities were subsumed into the existing classification of SCs, STs and OBCs. In addition, the Commission had identified approximately 268 other denotified communities that were not classified at all. A NITI Aayog-conducted study conducted by the Anthropological Survey of India on these 268 communities had recommended their classification. But this report has been shelved.
What is their status now?
While in many states, DNTs have been included in the list of backward classes and in the SC and ST lists, where some of the benefits of policies like reservation have been lost to them due to the selective application of sub-categorization, state governments have also made policies specifically targeting them. However, community leaders have argued that despite this, the stigma attached to them continued even after their denotification, through the operation of laws such as the Habitual Offenders Act. They argue that this led to continued discrimination against them and that they remained largely socially, economically, educationally and politically backward, except for a few de-notified communities who were settled and had used the available resources to uplift themselves to a certain extent.
Even though the Idate Commission report had recommended a permanent National Commission for DNT, the first Narendra Modi-led government had decided that, since most of these communities were already included in the SC, ST and OBC lists, a welfare board would suffice to address their concerns.
Finally, the Ministry of Social Justice also launched the SEED scheme for livelihood, education, housing and health interventions for DNTs. But the government has been able to spend only a fraction of its desired ₹200 crore in the last five years. A major problem in implementing the scheme was that it required the beneficiary to be identified as DNT, for which they required DNT authentication, which should not include SC, ST or OBC identities (if they were already included in these lists). The biggest grievance of the community in the states is that they are not being issued DNT certificates despite constant reminders and letters from the central government, with government data showing that only select districts in about half a dozen states issue these certificates.
This has given rise to a movement of DNTs in many parts of India demanding a separate constitutional classification for themselves at par with the SC, ST and OBC classifications, arguing that this would help in uniform issuance of DNT certificates. Furthermore, the movement has also called for sub-categorization within the specific DNT list to recognize the unequal backwardness of communities within this group.
Furthermore, community leaders and organizations such as the Akhil Bharatiya Vimukt Nomadic Tribes Vikas Parishad are framing their struggle for a separate classification as a need for the state to recognize their specific discrimination and stigma. In doing so, he has argued that the only reason colonial administrators labeled him “criminal” was his insistence on resisting foreign invaders. Many community leaders have also noted that they were the first line of defense even before colonialism, and they also have a history of resisting Islamic rulers.
what now?
Apart from assuring community leaders that they will be counted, there has been no indication as to how this count will take place.
DNT associations have made their demand clear that they want a specific column or Question in census form Classifying people as DNT. This demand has received support from scholars such as Mr. Davy, who has consistently argued for a separate census for the DNT.
However, so far, public statements from the Central Government have indicated that it is not considering any proposal for a separate classification for DNT.
