Who Is Indigenous? The Politics of Tribal Identity Terminology in India and Bangladesh - The Diplomat – Asia-Pacific Current Affairs Magazine

The Politics of Identity: Defining 'Indigenous' in India and Bangladesh

In South Asia, identity is rarely just a matter of personal heritage; it is a complex legal, constitutional, and political battleground. The debate over who qualifies as "indigenous" in India and Bangladesh illustrates how terminology dictates access to land, resources, and political representation. While local minority groups champion terms that recognize their historical presence on the land, state governments carefully guard constitutional definitions to preserve national sovereignty and manage resource distribution. Understanding this linguistic tug-of-war reveals the challenging realities faced by ethnic minorities in both nations.

India's Constitutional Framework: 'Scheduled Tribes' versus 'Adivasi'

In India, the term used by the state is "Scheduled Tribes" (STs), a designation established under Article 342 of the Indian Constitution. This categorization grants specific administrative, political, and socio-economic protections, particularly under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, which allow for varying degrees of local autonomy in tribal-dominated regions.

However, many tribal communities self-identify as Adivasi, a Sanskrit-derived term meaning "original inhabitants." While widely used in public discourse, political campaigns, and social activism, "Adivasi" has no official recognition in the Indian Constitution. This omission is not accidental; it reflects a long-standing position held by successive Indian governments.

At the United Nations, India has historically maintained that the concept of "indigenous peoples" cannot be easily applied to its population. The government’s official stance is that all citizens of India are indigenous to the subcontinent, and that any attempt to designate certain groups as "indigenous" to the exclusion of others could lead to social fragmentation or bolster secessionist demands. Consequently, while the state recognizes the historical marginalization of Scheduled Tribes and provides affirmative action (reservation) policies, it rejects the international legal framework of indigeneity as defined by Western or global bodies.

Bangladesh and the Battle of the 15th Amendment

A similar, yet distinct, linguistic tension exists in neighboring Bangladesh. The country’s 1972 Constitution originally emphasized a singular, secular Bengali nationalist identity. This framework left little room for the distinct identities of non-Bengali ethnic groups, such as the Chakma, Marma, and Tripura populations living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), as well as plains-dwelling groups like the Santhals.

The geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh in 2011. This amendment inserted Article 23A, which mandates that the state protect and develop the unique culture and heritage of "tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities" (often translated from the Bengali terms Upajati and Khudra Nrigoshthi).

Crucially, the amendment avoided using the term "indigenous" (Adivasi). The official position of the Bangladesh government is that the Bengali majority represents the true indigenous population of the land, while the tribal groups of the CHT and the plains migrated to the region in later centuries. Government officials have argued that recognizing these minority groups as "indigenous" under international law could compromise national security and create parallel systems of sovereignty, particularly in the resource-rich and strategically sensitive CHT region.

Why the Distinction Matters: Land, Resources, and International Law

The resistance of both New Delhi and Dhaka to the term "indigenous" is deeply tied to the tangible rights associated with international treaties. The primary international frameworks governing these issues are the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

• ILO Convention 107 (1957): Both India and Bangladesh ratified this early convention, which focuses on the integration of tribal populations into national societies while protecting their land and cultural rights.
• ILO Convention 169 (1989): This updated convention shifted the focus from integration to autonomy, self-determination, and control over traditional lands. Crucially, neither India nor Bangladesh has ratified Convention 169.
• UNDRIP (2007): This non-binding declaration outlines the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), giving indigenous groups the right to veto development, mining, or infrastructure projects on their ancestral lands. While India voted in favor of UNDRIP, it did so with the reservation that all Indians are indigenous. Bangladesh abstained from the vote.

By keeping the legal definitions restricted to "Scheduled Tribes" in India and "ethnic sects or tribes" in Bangladesh, both states maintain sovereign control over resource-rich lands. In Central India, major mining projects often overlap with Scheduled Areas, leading to conflicts over land acquisition. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, land disputes between tribal communities and Bengali settlers remain a primary driver of instability, despite the landmark CHT Peace Accord signed in 1997.

Comparing Terminology and Legal Status

The following table outlines the key differences in how tribal and ethnic minority populations are classified and recognized in India and Bangladesh:

Feature	India	Bangladesh
Official Legal Term	Scheduled Tribes (Article 342)	Tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities (Article 23A)
Popular Self-Identification	Adivasi / Indigenous	Adivasi / Indigenous (e.g., Jumma in the CHT)
State Stance on 'Indigenous' Status	Rejects the term; asserts all Indian citizens are indigenous.	Rejects the term; asserts the Bengali majority is the indigenous population.
Key International Agreements	Ratified ILO 107; voted for UNDRIP with reservations.	Ratified ILO 107; abstained from UNDRIP vote.
Core Protections	Fifth and Sixth Schedules (self-governance); legislative quotas.	CHT Peace Accord (1997); Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs.

The Path Forward: Balancing Sovereignty and Human Rights

The ongoing debates over identity terminology in South Asia highlight a fundamental tension between nation-building and minority rights. For governments, controlling the narrative around who is "indigenous" is a mechanism for maintaining territorial integrity and facilitating national development projects. For the affected communities, the fight for the "indigenous" label is not merely symbolic; it is a legal strategy to protect their ancestral lands, cultural heritage, and political agency in the face of rapid economic change.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between 'Scheduled Tribes' and 'Adivasis' in India?

"Scheduled Tribes" is the official constitutional term used by the Government of India to identify specific communities eligible for administrative protections and affirmative action. "Adivasi," meaning "original inhabitant," is a social and political term used by the communities themselves to assert their long historical presence and distinct identity, though it has no legal status in the constitution.

Why does the Indian government reject the term 'indigenous' at the UN?

The Indian government maintains that the term "indigenous" as defined by global bodies is not applicable to India, arguing that all Indian citizens are indigenous to the subcontinent. The state fears that recognizing specific groups as indigenous could lead to ethnic division, legal disputes over land ownership, and secessionist movements.

What terminology does Bangladesh use to refer to its ethnic minorities?

Under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, Bangladesh officially recognizes these groups as "tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities" (Upajati and Khudra Nrigoshthi). The state explicitly avoids using the term "indigenous" or "Adivasi" in official documents.

Why is the term 'indigenous' sensitive in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT)?

The CHT region has a history of conflict between tribal groups (collectively known as the Jumma people) and Bengali settlers. If the government officially recognized the Jumma people as "indigenous," it would grant them special rights under international law, potentially complicating state control over land, resources, and security in the border region.

What are ILO Conventions 107 and 169?

ILO Convention 107 (1957) is an older treaty focused on integrating tribal populations into national systems, which both India and Bangladesh ratified. ILO Convention 169 (1989) is a modern treaty focused on tribal self-determination and veto power over ancestral lands; neither nation has ratified it.

How does the debate over terminology impact local land rights?

Without the international legal protections tied to the term "indigenous," such as those found in UNDRIP, tribal communities in both India and Bangladesh have limited legal options to block state-backed development, mining, or settlement projects on their traditional lands.