[ Bompa Lomdak ]

Arunachal Pradesh has earned a reputation as one of India’s most peaceful and culturally vibrant states. Home to more than 26 major tribes and over 100 sub-tribes, the state is protected by constitutional safeguards that recognise its unique indigenous identity, customary laws, and traditional land rights. These protections were not created merely as welfare measures but to preserve communities that have lived on this land for generations.

The recent discussion on extending Scheduled Tribe (ST) recognition in Arunachal to the Kachari and Sonowal communities, who are already recognised as Scheduled Tribes in Assam, has therefore generated widespread concern. Irrespective of political affiliations, this is an issue that deserves constitutional scrutiny, empirical research, and broad public consultation, rather than hasty decision-making.

The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 recognises Scheduled Tribes on a state-specific basis. The rationale behind this framework is that tribal communities are historically, geographically, and culturally linked to particular regions. Consequently, any proposal that could alter the scope of tribal recognition within Arunachal carries significant legal, demographic, and socio-political implications.

According to the 2011 census, Arunachal had a population of approximately 13.84 lakh, of which 68.8 per cent belonged to Scheduled Tribes. The state has successfully protected its indigenous character through constitutional safeguards and the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. These mechanisms were designed to preserve the demographic balance, customary institutions, and traditional rights of indigenous communities.

Another important dimension that deserves serious policy consideration is the demographic size of the communities under discussion. Based on the 2011 census, the Kachari community in Arunachal numbered approximately 20,000, whereas the corresponding population in Assam was around 2.5 lakh. While updated figures are unavailable, it is reasonable to expect that the population has increased over the past decade.

This raises an important administrative question. If identical Scheduled Tribe recognition and benefits are extended in Arunachal, how will the state government effectively distinguish between long-settled residents of Arunachal and members of the same community residing in Assam for the purpose of constitutional benefits? Since both communities share the same ethnic identity, the challenge would not merely be legal but also administrative. Any ambiguity in implementation could give rise to disputes regarding eligibility, residency, reservation benefits, and access to other constitutional safeguards.

The concern expressed by many indigenous organisations is not necessarily about the identity of any particular community; rather, it is about ensuring that the constitutional protections intended for the indigenous people of Arunachal are not inadvertently diluted. Policymakers must therefore examine whether adequate legal and administrative mechanisms exist to prevent misuse while protecting the rights of genuine beneficiaries.

The experience of Manipur since May 2023 offers an important lesson. The conflict has claimed over 250 lives, displaced more than 60,000 people, and caused extensive destruction of homes and public property. The causes of that conflict are complex and cannot be attributed to a single issue. Nevertheless, it demonstrates how questions involving identity, constitutional safeguards, land rights, and public perception require exceptional sensitivity. Arunachal should learn from this experience – not by drawing direct comparisons, but by recognising the importance of preventive dialogue and transparent governance.

Any policy affecting Scheduled Tribe status should therefore be preceded by consultations with tribal apex bodies, student organisations, customary institutions, constitutional experts, civil society organisations, and representatives of all affected communities. Decisions concerning indigenous rights should never be perceived as unilateral. Public confidence is strengthened when policy emerges from consultation rather than confrontation.

Arunachal has remained a beacon of communal harmony in the Northeast precisely because successive governments have respected the delicate balance between development and indigenous rights. That balance must continue to guide future policy decisions. Constitutional safeguards are not obstacles to development; they are essential instruments for protecting the identity, dignity, and heritage of the state’s indigenous communities.

The Government of Arunachal Pradesh has consistently affirmed its commitment to peace, inclusive development, and the welfare of its people. This commitment can be further strengthened by ensuring that any proposal concerning Scheduled Tribe recognition is examined transparently, supported by legal opinion, demographic evidence, and meaningful stakeholder consultation.

History has repeatedly shown that conflicts rooted in identity are far easier to prevent than to resolve. Arunachal has been fortunate to preserve peace amidst immense cultural diversity. That legacy must not be compromised. In matters concerning indigenous rights and constitutional protections, prudence, transparency, and dialogue remain the strongest safeguards for ensuring that peace and social harmony continue to flourish for generations to come. (The writer is pursuing MA at AITS)