Why in news?

Two recent developments in Jharkhand have revived the long-running and deeply divisive debate around religious identity and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations.

First, when the population census process began in Jharkhand on May 16, appeals circulated among Adivasi communities to write "Sarna" (their traditional tribal faith) — not "Hindu" — in the religion column.

A week later, a large Sangh-affiliated Adivasi gathering in New Delhi demanded "delisting" — removal of ST benefits for tribal people who convert to Christianity or Islam.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What is Delisting?
• The Constitutional Distinction — SC vs ST
• The Two Sides of the Debate
• Historical Origins of the Delisting Demand
• The Core Constitutional Question

What is Delisting?

• Delisting refers to the demand that tribal people who convert to Christianity or Islam should no longer receive Scheduled Tribe reservation benefits.
• The demand is primarily raised by Adivasi Hindus and organisations affiliated to the RSS-BJP ecosystem.
• However, the Sarna community — which does not identify as either Hindu or Christian and follows an indigenous tribal faith — argues that if religion becomes the basis for removing tribal status, the same logic should apply to tribal people who converted to Hinduism as well — pointing to the inherent inconsistency in the selective application of the demand.

The Constitutional Distinction — SC vs ST

• This debate has significant constitutional dimensions.
• A recent Supreme Court observation reiterated that Dalits converting to Christianity or Islam cannot continue to claim Scheduled Caste status under Article 341 of the Constitution — which explicitly links SC status to religion (specifically Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism).
• However, Article 342 — which governs Scheduled Tribes — does not mention religion at all.
• This crucial distinction is now central to the delisting debate — because unlike SCs, STs were never defined on religious grounds under the Constitution, making delisting legally far more complex.

The Two Sides of the Debate

• Pro-Delisting Camp
  • The Janjati Suraksha Manch (JSM) — affiliated with the Sangh's tribal outfit Akhil Bharatiya Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram — organised the New Delhi gathering recently, attended by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
  • Several Adivasi groups, including some from the Northeast, backed the delisting demand — arguing that religious conversion breaks the cultural and social continuity that justifies ST status.
  • The Delhi event, however, triggered a separate controversy. Home Minister Shah used the word "vanvasi" (meaning forest dweller) while talking about Adivasis — prompting protests in Jharkhand.
  • Critics argued that "vanvasi" reduces tribal identity to geography alone, while "Adivasi" — meaning "original inhabitants" — carries a deeper political and historical identity linked to land and indigeneity that the term "vanvasi" deliberately erases.
• Anti-Delisting Camp
  • The Sarna community and the Christian Adivasi Mahasabha organised a large counter-rally in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
  • Adivasi activists from Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh — especially Sarna followers — extended solidarity to Christian Adivasis.
  • Their core argument is that tribal identity is ethnic, cultural, and historical — not religious — and that conversion does not strip away the social backwardness, land dispossession, and discrimination that form the actual basis of ST status.

Historical Origins of the Delisting Demand

• The roots of the delisting demand are traced to Baba Kartik Oraon — a prominent Adivasi leader and later a Union Minister in Indira Gandhi's cabinet.
• In 1962, Kartik Oraon lost his debut Lok Sabha election from Lohardaga (an ST-reserved constituency) and argued before the Patna High Court that since his opponent had converted to Christianity, he no longer qualified as a tribal and should be disqualified.
• The Patna High Court rejected this argument — holding that "Oraon is primarily a tribe and ethnic identity, not merely a religion."
• It observed that Christian Oraons retained their clan system, tribal customs, and festivals — concluding that they were "Oraons first and Christians next."
• This judgment remains a foundational precedent cited by opponents of delisting.
• The 1967-1969 Parliamentary Attempt
  • Later, in August 1967, the government introduced the 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order Amendment Bill' to revise inclusion and exclusion of castes and tribes.
  • A Joint Parliamentary Committee (1969) proposed amending the Bill to exclude Christian and Muslim tribal converts from the ST category.
  • However, the government expressed reservations and Parliament never adopted the proposal — effectively maintaining the status quo that ST status is religion-neutral.

The Core Constitutional Question

• The delisting debate ultimately rests on a fundamental question — what is the basis of ST identity? Is it religious, ethnic, cultural, or socio-economic?
• The constitutional framework under Article 342 clearly defines ST status on ethnic, social, and historical grounds — not religious ones.
• The Patna High Court's precedent reinforces this — tribal identity survives religious conversion because the social backwardness, community ties, and historical disadvantages that justify ST status do not disappear with a change of faith.