The argument for rethinking terminology to redefine social classifications in India reflects a deeper understanding of historical subjugation and global solidarity. The suggestion to replace terms like “Scheduled Castes,” “Scheduled Tribes,” and “Other Backward Classes” with designations such as “Oppressed Tribes in the Mainland,” “Oppressed Tribes in Remote Areas,” and “Other Oppressed Tribes” offers a fresh perspective rooted in historical sensitivity and global inclusivity. This approach is driven by the following considerations:
Historical Subjugation by Brahmanical Classes
The socio-economic disabilities faced by communities classified as “Backward Classes” are largely the result of systemic oppression under a hierarchical order historically dominated by Brahmanical elites as noted by several studies, committees and commissions including the Kaka Kalelkar Commission.
This structured inequality confined these communities to the margins, stripping them of access to education, economic opportunities, and social mobility. The term “Other Oppressed Castes or Tribes” seeks to explicitly acknowledge this legacy of oppression, reframing it as a shared struggle rather than an isolated issue.
Throughout global history, numerous communities including Jewish Tribes, Arabs, Prophets, Europeans, and others have faced oppression at the hands of elites. This reality is vividly reflected in the narratives of both the Bible and the Quran, which recount powerful stories of resilience and perseverance. Recognizing and acknowledging oppression is not a mark of shame but a necessary step toward justice and social awareness.
“Wa nurīdu an-namunna, alalladhīnas-tuD’3ifū fil-ardi, Wa naj’3alahum a-Immah, Wa naj’3alahumual wārithīn” al-Qasas 28:5 Mafhūm: But it was Our Will to favour those who were oppressed in the land, making them models ˹of faith˺ as well as successors. Holy Quran 28:5
Limitations of the Term ‘Caste’
The term “caste” carries with it a narrowly Hindu-Brahmanical connotation, rooted in a uniquely Indian social hierarchy. This perspective often fails to encompass the realities of marginalized communities from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds, such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and others, who also face socio-economic exclusion but may not identify with the Hindu-Brahmin centric caste framework.
Furthermore, the term “caste” often evokes a sense of shame or stigma for those labeled as “lower castes.” Transitioning to the term “tribe” broadens the scope, offering a less restrictive and more universal framework for addressing systemic oppression.
Shared sence of Unity & Solidarity
More than 90% of India’s population today belongs to oppressed classes. However, a small elite entrenched in political power has, as noted by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, mastered the art of creating divisions and factions among the masses.
This elite has strategically categorized oppressed people into different and unrelated labels like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), to prevent their collective unity and potential challenge to entrenched dominance.
This tactic bears a striking resemblance to the British colonial strategy of “divide and rule.” A similar approach is evident in the Middle East, where American, European, and Israeli politicians have been accused of fostering discord among Arab tribes to maintain control.
In this context, adopting the unified term “oppressed” for these communities could foster a sense of shared empathy and solidarity. Such a collective identity has the potential to galvanize unity, spark a common struggle for empowerment, and pave the way for lasting socio-political transformation.
A National & Global Framework for Solidarity
The concept of “tribe” transcends national and cultural boundaries, encompassing marginalized groups worldwide. From African tribes to Indigenous peoples of the Americas and tribal communities in the Muslim world, the tribal system is a globally recognized form of social organization that has often faced oppression from elite and privileged classes.
By adopting this terminology, India’s oppressed classes could be positioned within a global narrative of shared struggle, fostering solidarity and empathy across borders.
For instance, a Scheduled Caste or a Backward Class person in India might find common ground with an Indigenous person from Australia and America or a oppressed Muslims in the Middle East, amplifying a sense of global unity in addressing systemic inequalities.
Revised Nomenclature for Inclusivity and Justice
A proposed framework for revised terminology is as follows:
- Scheduled Castes (Mainland): Renamed as “Oppressed Tribes in the Mainland” to highlight their status as historically marginalized communities within the Indian heartland.
- Scheduled Tribes (Remote Areas): Renamed as “Oppressed Tribes in Remote Areas” to reflect their unique struggles arising from geographical isolation and exclusion.
- Other Backward Classes: Renamed as “Other Oppressed Tribes” to acknowledge their shared history of discrimination and systemic barriers while distinguishing them from the more marginalized Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
This reframing avoids rigid classifications tied to religion or specific hierarchies and instead emphasizes historical oppression and the universal need for upliftment.
Addressing Potential Challenges
While this redefinition is well-intentioned, certain practical challenges must be addressed:
- Resistance to Change: Communities may resist adopting new identities, particularly if the revised terminology conflicts with existing self-identifications or carries unfamiliar connotations.
- Policy Alignment: Changing nomenclature requires alignment across constitutional provisions, legal frameworks, and affirmative action policies. This may involve revising laws, welfare schemes, and official documents.
- Cultural Sensitivity: Care must be taken to ensure that the term “tribe” is not perceived as reductive or dismissive, especially among communities proud of their distinct identities.
The Broader Implications
Adopting such terminology can reshape India’s approach to affirmative action and social justice. It can signal a departure from entrenched caste-based frameworks toward more holistic, inclusive, and globally resonant understandings of marginalization.
Furthermore, it aligns with the principles of the Indian Constitution, which envisions an egalitarian society free from discrimination based on caste, creed, or religion.
Thus, the proposal to reclassify India’s marginalized groups as “Oppressed Tribes” reflects an earnest attempt to foster dignity, inclusivity, and global solidarity. While it challenges long-standing traditions, it also opens avenues for redefining social justice in a manner that transcends parochial boundaries and embraces a universal perspective. If implemented with sensitivity and consensus, this shift could serve as a transformative step in India’s ongoing journey toward equality and empowerment.
