Indigenous Populations in Asia and India: Identity, Challenges, and Government Stance

When we talk about indigenous peoples, images of specific lands, unique cultures, and ancient traditions come to mind. But across Asia, and particularly in India, defining who is “indigenous” isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. The debate over indigeneity in Asia raises fascinating questions about identity, rights, and how governments choose to recognize-or not recognize-the original inhabitants of their lands.

The Asian puzzle of indigenous identity 🔗

Asia is home to a staggering diversity of peoples and cultures. In fact, two-thirds of the world’s indigenous peoples, approximately 350 million people, are estimated to live in Asia. Yet the very concept of “indigenous people” remains contentious across this vast continent. Different countries use wildly different terms to describe these communities.

In Thailand, they’re called “hill tribes.” In India, they’re “Scheduled Tribes.” China refers to them as “national minorities,” the Philippines uses “cultural minorities,” and Indonesia labels them “isolated and alien peoples.” This linguistic diversity reflects deeper disagreements about who deserves recognition as indigenous and what that recognition should mean.

A 2006 workshop examining this issue concluded that imposing a rigid definition of “indigenous peoples” was neither necessary nor practical, given the extraordinary diversity among these groups across Asia. Instead, the focus shifted toward understanding common characteristics like self-identification, cultural distinctiveness from other groups, a special relationship with traditional territory, and experiences of subjugation and discrimination.

India’s Scheduled Tribes 🔗

India officially recognizes its indigenous populations as “Scheduled Tribes” rather than using the term “indigenous peoples.” This distinction is more than just semantic-it reflects a fundamental stance on identity and rights that sets India apart on the international stage.

According to the 2011 census, approximately 104.2 million Indians are notified as Scheduled Tribes, constituting about 8.6% of the country’s total population. These communities are also commonly known as Adivasis, a term coined in the 1930s that literally means “original inhabitants” in Sanskrit. Currently, 705 ethnic groups are recognized as Scheduled Tribes under India’s constitutional framework.

Characteristics and criteria 🔗

What makes a community eligible for Scheduled Tribe status? The Indian Constitution provides guidelines that include primitive traits, distinctive cultural identity, geographical isolation from the broader community, shyness with public contact, and relative socioeconomic backwardness. These criteria, established in Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, give the President authority to specify which tribes or tribal communities qualify for this classification in each state or union territory.

However, this system isn’t without its complications. The classification varies from state to state, creating inconsistencies. For example, the Gonds are classified as a Scheduled Tribe in Madhya Pradesh but as a Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh. These arbitrary distinctions make demographic studies of tribal populations challenging and sometimes problematic.

India’s unique position on indigeneity 🔗

Here’s where India’s stance becomes particularly interesting-and controversial. India voted in favor of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but with a crucial condition: that after independence, all Indians are considered indigenous. In other words, the Indian government maintains that everyone in India is indigenous to the land, so the concept of “indigenous peoples” as a distinct category doesn’t apply within its borders.

This position stems from India’s post-colonial identity and the belief that, unlike settler colonial states like Australia or the United States, India doesn’t have a history of European colonization displacing original inhabitants in the same way. As a result, India refused to sign ILO Convention 169 in 1989, which specifically addresses the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, even though it had earlier ratified the 1957 ILO Convention 107.

This governmental position creates a paradox. While India doesn’t officially use the term “indigenous peoples” domestically, it has signed international documents that reference indigenous rights. Moreover, tribal communities themselves increasingly embrace the term “Adivasi” and identify as indigenous peoples, linking their struggles with global indigenous movements.

The reality on the ground 🔗

Despite constitutional safeguards and affirmative action measures like reserved seats in parliament and quotas in education and employment, India’s tribal communities face significant challenges. The socioeconomic realities paint a sobering picture.

Development and displacement 🔗

Scheduled Tribes predominantly live in remote regions covered with hills and forests, areas where environmental conditions are often unsuitable for settled agriculture. About 71% of India’s Scheduled Tribes population is concentrated in six states: Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Jharkhand. In states like Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, tribal populations constitute 30.62% and 26.21% of the total population respectively.

These forest-dwelling communities have faced systematic displacement as their lands have been acquired for development projects deemed to be in the “national interest”-dams, mines, industrial zones, and conservation areas. Indigenous peoples’ lands continued to be illegally acquired for business and infrastructure development without Free, Prior and Informed Consent, despite legal protections like the Forest Rights Act and PESA (Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act.

Socioeconomic indicators 🔗

The development gaps remain stark. Issues like underdevelopment, low literacy rates, poor health outcomes, malnutrition, and limited access to basic services disproportionately affect Adivasi communities. Indigenous peoples face lack of access to health, education and other basic services, along with pressures related to their land and natural resources from climate change, development, and resource extraction.

Traditional subsistence practices like shifting cultivation-known as jhum-are often labeled as primitive or environmentally destructive by authorities, threatening the economic and cultural integrity of these communities. Meanwhile, the wealth extracted from tribal lands in the form of minerals, timber, and other resources rarely benefits the communities themselves.

A need for transformation 🔗

The challenges facing indigenous peoples in Asia and India point to a fundamental need for a new development paradigm. Current approaches, which often prioritize economic growth and resource extraction over community rights and wellbeing, have left these populations among the poorest and most marginalized in their countries.

Simply extending welfare programs or implementing affirmative action policies, while important, may not be sufficient. What’s needed is genuine empowerment-recognition of land rights, respect for traditional governance systems, meaningful participation in decisions affecting their territories, and acknowledgment of their distinct identities and contributions.

The terminology debate-whether to call these communities “indigenous peoples,” “Scheduled Tribes,” “ethnic minorities,” or any other term-reflects deeper questions about power, recognition, and rights. But beyond the labels, the lived experiences of these communities tell a common story of marginalization, resilience, and an ongoing struggle for dignity and self-determination.

What do you think? Should governments in Asia adopt a unified approach to recognizing indigenous peoples, or does the diversity of contexts require different frameworks? How can development be pursued in ways that genuinely benefit tribal and indigenous communities rather than displacing them?

References

1. https://bangkok.ohchr.org/indigenous-peoples
2. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/are-there-indigenous-peoples-asia
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
4. https://www.clearias.com/tribal-population
5. https://iwgia.org/en/india/5117-iw-2023-india.html
6. https://iwgia.org/en/india.html
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi