Examine why the criteria laid down by the Lokur Committee (1965) for identifying Scheduled Tribes are considered outdated. Suggest reforms.

The Constitution nowhere defines a "tribe": the President notifies Scheduled Tribes for a State under Article 342, and Parliament alone may amend that list by law [1]. Identification therefore rests on five administrative tests framed by the Lokur Committee (1965) — primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact and backwardness [2]. Six decades on, these tests are widely seen as anachronistic.

Why the criteria are considered outdated

• Dated anthropology: "primitive traits" and "shyness of contact" carry a colonial, isolationist view of tribes. A Task Force under the Secretary, Tribal Affairs (2014) examined the tests and recommended revision of both criteria and procedure [3].
• Empirically overtaken: migration, education, displacement and urbanisation mean many communities are no longer geographically isolated — the criteria effectively penalise integration.
• Condescending in effect: recognition is made conditional on a community remaining backward, sitting uneasily with the welfare goals of Article 342 status.
• Vagueness invites discretion: with no measurable indicators, scheduling proposals moving from States through the Registrar General and NCST turn on subjective assessment [5]. The Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch has consequently demanded that classification be insulated from "political manipulation", alleging that non-Adivasis are being facilitated ST certificates, dividing genuine communities [4].
• Exclusionary: long-pending claims of nomadic and de-notified groups remain unresolved.

Suggested reforms

• Codify revised criteria by acting on the 2014 Task Force proposals already circulated to States/UTs [3], replacing "primitivity" with ethno-linguistic distinctiveness, community self-identification and measurable deprivation.
• Publish objective indicators and fix time-bound, reasoned disposal of scheduling proposals [5].
• Keep classification ethnicity-based and religion-neutral, since Article 342 schedules tribes, not faiths [1].
• Institutionalise periodic review through a standing expert body with anthropologists and NCST representation.

Reforming identification is not a technicality but the gateway to constitutional guarantees of tribal equality. A transparent, evidence-based and politically insulated framework would both protect genuine claimants and restore credibility to affirmative action for India's Adivasis.