A Separate Classification for Denotified Tribes

A Separate Classification for Denotified Tribes: A Long-Overdue Census Inclusion, but Half Measures Persist

On February 18, 2026, the Union government assured leaders of Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) that they would be enumerated during the second phase of the 2027 Census. The decision has triggered cautious hope among these historically marginalized communities, but it also raises troubling questions about execution, intent, and the gap between policy pronouncements and their ground-level effect. Simply put: counting them is not the same as empowering them.

The rights of nearly 10 crore Indians — the approximate population of DNTs — hinge on whether the Census can accurately classify their distinct socio-economic disadvantages. These tribes, burdened with a colonial legacy of criminalization under the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871, were officially 'denotified' in 1952. However, colonial-era prejudice persisted as states enacted Habitual Offender Acts, continuing to surveil and stigmatize these groups. It is no coincidence that many DNT communities today remain trapped in a cycle of illiteracy (nearly 60%), last-mile economic exclusion, and political invisibility.

A Fragmented Institutional Framework

The issue of DNTs overlaps multiple institutional jurisdictions, each with its own mandates and inertia. Currently, policies for DNT welfare are scattered across the Ministry of Social Justice, state governments, and commissions like the Development and Welfare Board for DNTs (founded in 2019). Central schemes like the Scheme for Economic Empowerment of DNTs (SEED) aim to support these communities through targeted measures in health, education, and housing, but implementation remains patchy.

Two key commissions have already laid the groundwork for DNT classification. The Renke Commission Report (2008) identified the extent of DNT marginalization, while the Idate Commission (2017) documented 1,200 DNT communities, noting that 268 were entirely unclassified under SC, ST, or OBC categories. The Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) subsequently conducted studies for these 268 groups, recommending effective inclusion within existing scheduled lists. Yet, these recommendations remain stalled at bureaucratic bottlenecks, leaving the lives of DNTs suspended in ambiguity.

The Numbers Behind the Marginalization

The national budgetary outlay is another stark reflection of misplaced priorities. While flagship programs for SCs, STs, and OBCs receive thousands of crores each year, allocations for DNT-specific schemes have barely crossed ₹200 crore annually in the last decade. The SEED scheme, which ambitiously promises education scholarships, self-employment loans, housing under PMAY, and Ayushman Bharat health cards, suffers from chronic underfunding and implementation delays. In many cases, DNTs remain unaware of these schemes due to exclusion from Census-linked state databases.

Consider the micro-data: Maharashtra, which is home to one of the largest populations of DNTs, reports that only 10% of DNT students benefited from pre-matric or post-matric scholarships between 2015 and 2023. Similar gaps abound across all metrics — housing, skilling programs, and health insurance uptake. Without a functional classification system, these communities occupy a liminal space, existing on paper but denied substantive inclusion in India's welfare architecture.

Structural Tensions in Policymaking

The government's assurance to enumerate DNTs in the 2027 Census is commendable, but enumeration alone does not resolve structural dilemmas. First, there is an inherent tension between the central mandate and state-level implementation of DNT welfare schemes. For instance, since welfare benefits are linked to caste certificates in most states, nomadic tribes without fixed residences often lack the documentation required to access basic rights. The unintended result is further exclusion.

Second, institutional silos exacerbate the issue. The Department of Social Justice may design schemes, but ground-level surveillance under the Habitual Offender laws — still prevalent in states like Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh — undermines trust in the system. Worse, data gaps plague all efforts to measure progress. How can progress be targeted for a population that remains statistically invisible?

Adding to this is political disinterest — a chronic problem. With negligible electoral presence due to their dispersed and nomadic nature, DNTs remain the least-prioritized demographic block in India’s development agenda. Compare this to the proactive campaign for SC/ST welfare, which garners both policy focus and political dividends.

Lessons from International Practice: Australia's Indigenous Census

Australia provides an instructive comparison in its approach to counting and uplifting Indigenous populations. Since the 1971 Census, Australia's government introduced a distinct set of questions for recording Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Census findings directly inform specific welfare initiatives such as the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, a consolidated fund that supports tailored education, healthcare, and jobs programs. Unlike in India, where the Census is oriented toward macro-demographic insights, Australia acknowledges the policy utility of granular ethnic data. The contrast highlights India’s lag in integrating precise enumeration with targeted welfare outcomes for DNTs.

What’s Needed: Beyond Census Inclusion

Real progress for DNTs requires moving beyond Census enumeration toward meaningful inclusion. Success metrics for the 2027 Census should focus on whether the DNT category translates into actionable reforms in reservations, tailored economic aid, and the repeal of stigmatizing laws. Additionally, this effort needs to be complemented by localized outreach programs to ensure communities are both counted and heard.

Budget prioritization is equally critical — allocations need to increase fivefold to align with the scale of deprivation faced by these groups. Greater political accountability, linking AnSI findings with parliamentary oversight, could also bring much-needed focus to the issue. Lastly, any genuine attempt to address centuries-old marginalization must repeal the Habitual Offenders Act in its entirety, closing the colonial chapter once and for all.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions