15-05-2025
A legal cap, a political promise, and the tribal future of Andhra Pradesh
Written by Jagannath Ambagudia
The protest by tribal communities in Alluri Sitharama Raju district of Andhra Pradesh in the first week of May, demanding the restoration of the provision of 100 per cent reservation for tribal communities in schools located in scheduled areas, again evoked the debate on reservation policy in India.
The protest drew the immediate attention of the Andhra Pradesh government. The provision, also known as Government Order No. 3 (GO No. 3), was struck down by the Supreme Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors v. State of AP & Ors (2000), citing the 50 per cent capping of reservation set in the Indra Sawhney case. However, this was not the first time the judiciary invalidated such provisions. The Supreme Court also rejected the review petition filed by the state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as well as some tribal organisations.
Notably, the current demands by the tribal communities come against the backdrop of the Telugu Desam Party's poll promises of restoring or replacing GO No. 3 with a similar order. Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu's latest announcement that his government is exploring various modalities of implementing 100 per cent reservation for local tribal communities in scheduled areas of the state must be read in this context. However, both the government's announcement and the erstwhile decision of the apex court to strike it down have broader implications for the tribal communities in the state.
Such provisions prevent demographic changes in the scheduled areas. The growing presence of non-tribals in such areas can potentially reduce the numerical strength of tribal communities, which could subsequently open the ground for 'descheduling' in the long run. Descheduling takes away the control of natural resources such as land, water, and forest — the critical means of livelihood — from the tribal communities. Demographic changes could also lead to the de-reservation of assembly and parliamentary constituencies in the long run. The attempt to restore the executive order or compensate for it through alternative means could be a mechanism against such transitions.
The 100 per cent reservation of tribal educators in the scheduled area also works as guardrails against 'stigmatisation'. It enhances sensitivity and helps tribal children to participate in the educational setups. Studies have revealed the dismal representation of tribal teachers in scheduled areas across the country. The indifferent attitude of teachers belonging to 'other' communities works against the interest of tribal children, who require much hand-holding at the initial stage. The presence of tribal teachers in the school system in scheduled areas can address language barriers and ease their learning process. These corrective measures can also potentially address the issue of enrolment ratio and drop-out rates in higher education among tribal communities.
The Andhra Pradesh government reportedly intends to consider a proportionate representation of tribal teachers in schools in scheduled areas to avoid possible legal scrutiny. However, proportionate representation may not be as helpful, as indicated by the present practice of proportionality around the country. The concentration of management and decision-making power in the hands of non-tribal teachers/communities always works against tribal communities' interests.
These efforts to restore 100 per cent reservation would also provide political dividends to the TDP in 19 assembly and three ST-reserved parliamentary constituencies. It may also impact other non-tribal constituencies where tribals are present in a considerable number.
Unfortunately, any proactive positive move to address the pressing challenges and concerns of tribal communities in India seems to be challenged by the 'non-beneficiaries' in the court. The judiciary must consider broader issues of tribal communities — socioeconomic indicators, educational status, presence in the public sphere — while making judicial pronouncements. The Indra Sawhney judgment should not be the sole reference point. In the case of reservation for economically weaker sections where the capping is not applicable, for instance, it was not the only metric considered. Otherwise, tribal communities may perceive that public institution(s) follow different legal metrics for tribal and non-tribal communities. The proposed move should be considered as a means to bring the marginalised on par with the rest of society.
The writer is professor and campus director at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati Campus, Assam. Views are personal
