As denotified, nomadic, and semi-nomadic tribes (DNTs) across the country come together to demand a “separate column” for themselves in the 2027 Census forms, linguist and cultural scholar professor G.N. Devy has warned that India risks further alienating these communities—classified as “criminal” under the colonial-era 1871 Criminal Tribes Act and left uncounted since the formation of the Republic—if they are not explicitly counted.
In an exclusive interview with The Hindu, professor Devy—who headed the Ministry of Social Justice’s Technical Advisory Group on DNTs in 2006, and co-founded the DNT-Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG) with author Mahasweta Devi—said that inclusion of the DNTs must begin with a declaration by the Census Commissioner that these communities will be counted explicitly. He added that the problem of alienating over 10 crore people could become much bigger than that of counting them.
Edited Excerpts:
What opportunity does the upcoming Census present for the welfare of DNTs, given that caste will be enumerated in 2027?
The census and the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) were both instituted in 1871. While the census has continued unbroken, except for this time, the plight of DNTs has also continued, with no proper count, except in 1931. The Iyengar Committee in 1950, the NHRC in the early 2000s, the Renke Commission in 2008, and the Idate Commission (2017) have all called for a census of DNTs. Yet questions such as ‘Have you been a DNT?, Have you been nomadic or semi-nomadic? Or denotified former criminal tribe?’ have never been included in Census schedules.
If that is not done this time, and if the DNTs are taken for a ride again with no specific data emerging at the end of the exercise, India will alienate close to 10 crore or more people from the mainstream. The problem can be much bigger than the problem of calculating, tabulating, and making a proper list.
This should have been a primary question even in the household surveys. It would be of great interest to any household surveyor to account for nomadic communities. People without houses are counted as a general classification. That speaks about houseless people, but not about DNTs.
This exclusion has been the worst. This is a motiveless malignity, and the census has no reason to exclude them. But the Census excludes them just because it did so earlier.
How can the government ensure the Census is truly inclusive of DNTs?
First, the census should declare that DNTs will be enumerated. That message will go around the communities across the country. Now, saying that “we will enumerate everybody, and therefore that will also include DNTs’, is like saying that “we are not doing an independent and exclusive census of the DNTs”. So that must be done. They do not need any special permission to introduce the question.
Secondly, the technology used should be accessible. Where it is not, there must be a system for people to go to an office and declare their DNT status. Third, the Census must avoid creating a long and unmanageable list of documents, because historically, even panchayats have refused to issue birth certificates to DNTs. And the fourth, after the census gets its data on DNTs, they must quickly consult the Anthropological Survey of India and get that data verified. And this data must be open for scrutiny by scholars as far as the DNTs issue is concerned.
There is a resentment among many DNT communities over their misclassification into SC/ST/OBC lists when they seek a list of their own. Must the DNT classification be exclusive of these identities?
The question of identity is never singular. The DNT identity is not exclusive of other identities. There is intersectionality. This is a complexity in the bureaucratic process. I accept that. But that is no fault of the DNTs. We cannot tell them that we have already messed up our bureaucratic processes, and therefore, we can no longer think of you. That’s not a good justification. These processes can be improved. Fortunately, with the help of technology, multiple classifications and multiple classificatory tags can be sorted out easily.
Amidst calls for separate quotas for DNTs, exclusive of SC, ST, and OBC identities (where they might exist), how can these reservations account for this intersectionality?
The demands for reservations, DNT reservations, and DNT representation in the Assembly, Panchayat or Parliament have been around for quite a while. But there are two different issues: the first is just to count the DNTs and create a factual report on who they are, where they are, and how many they are. The second question is whether they should be given reservations or not. That will depend on the results of the Census.
The political decisions on whether to give reservations to DNTs or not and whether it should be aligned with the SC or ST reservation, or independent, are the next step. But in the absence of credible data, no such decision can be taken at all. To fear that such a decision will have to be taken, and therefore not to do enumeration, is not a logical line of action. Let the count take place first. Governments can then decide, and the people themselves will also know whether to demand reservations or drop the demand.
Published – February 08, 2026 09:53 pm IST
