On October 7, 2025, the Government of Nagaland put on hold the recruitment process for police constable posts earmarked for the four Non-Naga Tribes — Garos, Kacharis, Mikirs (Karbis) and Kukis — until the completion of an enumeration exercise for the determination of indigenous inhabitants of the State from these communities.
The State government stated, “The Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970, recognises that apart from the Naga tribes, these four Non-Naga communities are also Scheduled Tribes of Nagaland, provided they are residents of the State. The order acknowledges the presence of these tribes who had been inhabiting Nagaland prior to its creation on December 1, 1963.”
The enumeration was undertaken on the ground that “since these tribes (Garos, Kacharis, Mikirs (Karbis) and Kukis) also reside in other North Eastern States, many of which share borders with Nagaland, cases of migration into Nagaland after Statehood cannot be ruled out.
It noted that some individuals may have been wrongly issued Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates, making it necessary to identify and verify those who had genuinely settled in the State before 1963, along with their direct descendants.”
The Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) Commission, established in July 2019 in the wake of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) agitation, recommended conducting an enumeration exercise of the Kuki, Kachari, Garo and Mikir tribes who had settled in Nagaland prior to 1 December 1963, and the Home Department, vide Order No. CON/RIIN/50/2020 dated 20 September 2024, decided to conduct the enumeration.
However, the Gauhati High Court, on a writ petition filed by the non-Naga tribal organisations, stayed the enumeration.
The current policies of enumerating and withholding recruitment for four Non-Naga Tribes for indigeneity determination directly raise issues of constitutional validity and contravene fundamental rights. These actions primarily target minority indigenous peoples and risk undermining equality and non-discrimination under Indian law.
These measures conflict with Article 14 on equality before law, Article 15 that prohibits discrimination by religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, Article 16 on equal access to public employment, and Article 21 on the right to life. The enumeration for determining indigeneity applies to Garos, Kacharis, Mikirs (Karbis), and Kukis, but not to the Nagas, further emphasising the discriminatory nature of the policy.
The Government of Nagaland refers to 1 December 1963 as the cut-off date to determine indigeneity among the non-Naga scheduled tribes.
But there is no such reference in the Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970, which states that “the tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within, tribes or tribal communities, specified in the Schedule to this Order, shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Nagaland so far as regards members thereof resident in that State i.e. Naga, Kuki, Kachari, Mikir and Garo.”
The Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970, makes no reference to 1 December 1963 as the cut-off date, but merely refers to residents in that State, i.e., Naga, Kuki, Kachari, Mikir, and Garo. Each of these tribal groups is treated as equal without exception.
Furthermore, the Government of Nagaland contends that the Garos, Kacharis, Mikirs (Karbis) and Kukis also reside in other northeastern states, many of which share borders with Nagaland, and therefore, cases of migration into Nagaland after Statehood cannot be ruled out.
But, as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order of 1950, the Nagas are also listed as Scheduled Tribes in Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland, and the possibility of Naga migration from other States cannot be ruled out.
More critically, a tribal is identified not on the basis of the existence of his forefathers, but on the date of creation of a State or Union Territory. A tribal — whether Naga, Kuki, Kachari, Mikir or Garo — is identified based on his membership in a community that possesses loosely defined tribal characteristics.
Any Naga, Kuki, Kachari, Mikir or Garo born in Nagaland will not become non-tribal because of the origin of their forefathers. Therefore, the enumeration of the “direct descendants from Garo, Kuki, Kachari and Mikir (Karbi) settled in the State of Nagaland prior to 1st December, 1963, so as to determine their eligibility for issuance of IIC/PRC” is contrary to the very basis of identifying a tribe.
In fact, the enumeration of the Nepali/Gorkhas permanently settled in Nagaland prior to December 31, 1940 and their direct descendants is also flawed for a number of reasons. Since the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation came into force in 1873, why is the cut-off date 31st December 1940 and not 1873?
By definition, the Inner Line Permit under the BEFR applies to those who are “outsiders” and are required to seek permission to visit, and it does not apply to those who are born and therefore not outsiders. Further, since the Inner Line Permit was extended to the entire Dimapur only in December 2019, can the BEFR be applied retroactively from December 31, 1940?
Furthermore, as Census 2011 shows, there were 74,753 Bengali-speaking persons, 14,289 Bhojpuri-speaking persons, and 31,441 Hindi-speaking persons in Nagaland . Then why single out 43,481 Nepali-speaking persons?
The classification of the 1,200 police constable posts into 1,176 posts for the Indigenous Naga Tribes and 24 posts reserved for the four Non-Naga Tribes is also not provided for by the Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970, or the reservation policies of the State.
The State reservation policy made separate reservations for the Backwards Tribes from the Naga Tribes, but there is no separate reservation for the Kuki, Kachari, Mikir and Garo. Under the Constitution of India, the Scheduled Tribes are considered a homogenous group, with the Central government providing 7.5% reservations for the Scheduled Tribes.
There is no community-wise reservation, for example, for the Nagas or Mundas, within the 7.5% reservation.
The Supreme Court of India, earlier in 2004, in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, held that sub-classification of the Scheduled Tribes, who are a homogenous group, is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors. in August 2024, however, allowed States the authority to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of reservations for upliftment from backwardness reflected in the inadequacy of representation of the subclass and “based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, rather than arbitrary or political reasons”.
The Supreme Court also stated that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100 per cent reservation for a sub-class.
The non-Naga Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland are literally microscopic, with 18,392 Kuki-speaking persons, 4,863 Kachari-speaking persons, 2,351 Garo-speaking persons and 584 Mikir-speaking persons in Nagaland as per the 2011 census.
As per State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors. in August 2024, they may require adequate representation through sub-classing if empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination suggest so.
Across the North East, the identification of indigeneity often ends up victimising minority indigenous peoples. It is essential to ensure respect for human rights and to protect minority indigenous peoples.
Views expressed are that of the author and do not reflect EastMojo’s stance on this or any other issue. The author is Director at Rights & Risks Analysis Group.
Also Read: Won’t stay silent: Tipra Motha wants ‘home department’ charge in Tripura
You just read a story that took days to report. Help us keep our reporters on the ground in the Northeast.
Ad-free reading, support and keep important stories alive
Support once (any amount)
Scan to pay via UPI