History, Facts, and Documentary Evidence Relating to the Kudmi/Kudmi-Mahato / Mahto Claim for Scheduled-Tribe Status!!

Overview

This article examines the historical background, anthropological and administrative facts, and the documentary trail relevant to claims that the Kudmi (also spelled Kurmi/Kudmi-Mahato) community of eastern India should be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe (ST). It presents the evidence that proponents use, the counter-evidence produced by official bodies, and the concrete government documents and scholarly reports that have shaped the issue to date. The goal is to give a clear, source-based account so readers can evaluate whether—and on what grounds—the Kudmi claim meets the legal and constitutional framework for ST inclusion.

---

1. Who are the Kudmi / Kudmi-Mahato?

The Kudmi (Kudmi-Mahato) are an agrarian community concentrated in parts of Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, and neighbouring areas. Their traditional occupation is agriculture; they observe village-level totemic customs and celebrate festivals such as Bari Puja, Karam and Tusu. Their language is generally recorded as Kudmali / Kurmali, with considerable regional variation. Ethnographic and genetic studies indicate mixture and historical contact with both Indo-Aryan and Austroasiatic/Munda populations in the region; scholars describe the group as culturally distinct from the Kurmi of the Gangetic plain and as having a history of localized social institutions and customary practices. (Pure OAI)

---

2. Colonial and pre-independence classifications — the historical record

Proponents of ST status point to pre- and early-colonial administrative references describing the Kurmi/Kudmi of the Chotanagpur/Manbhum area as a distinct group with customary laws (for instance succession customs) and, in some colonial writings, classified among “notified” or “primitive” tribes in certain districts. Early gazetteers and some 19th/early-20th century observers treated the Chotanagpur Kurmi/Kudmi as a tribal or totemic group distinct from Gangetic castes—evidence used to argue historical indigeneity. However, classification in colonial records was uneven across times and places, and the group appears in different categories in different documents (sometimes “primitive tribe”, later omitted in some census lists). Scholarly reviews emphasise that the colonial record is complex and cannot be taken as an unambiguous certification of present-day ST status; it is useful as historical evidence but must be weighed alongside later ethnographic and administrative findings. (Pure OAI)

---

3. Constitutional and administrative pathway to becoming a Scheduled Tribe

Under Article 342 of the Constitution, the President of India declares Scheduled Tribes in consultation with state governments. Practically this means:

• A State government originates a proposal (usually via an ethnographic/anthropological dossier) recommending inclusion of a community in the ST list for that State.

• The Ministry of Tribal Affairs and its expert bodies (including Tribal Research Institutes or other designated bodies) review the dossier and may commission or rely on ethnographic reports.

• Final inclusion requires central government action and an amendment to the Schedule in consultation with Parliament (if needed).

This procedural route explains why state recommendations, TRI/ethnographic reports, and Ministry communications are the decisive documentary evidence when claims are considered. The official record in the Kudmi case shows the importance of the state → TRI → Ministry chain. (Digital Sansad)

---

4. The concrete documentary trail in the Kudmi case (key documents)

Below are the main documentary waypoints that researchers and litigants rely on. (I list the most authoritative public documents first.)

1. Jharkhand state proposal(s) (2004–2005) — The Government of Jharkhand sent formal proposals (dated December 2004 and January 2005) seeking inclusion of Kurmi/Kudmi (Mahto) communities of Northern Chotanagpur and Southern Chotanagpur into the ST list for Jharkhand. The proposal is the initiating document recorded in parliamentary/Ministry replies. (Digital Sansad)

2. Ethnographic/Tribal Research Institute (TRI) report (reviewed 2015) — The Ministry record shows that an ethnographic report relating to the Jharkhand proposal was received and did not support inclusion, recommending maintenance of the existing status. The Ministry communicated to the Jharkhand government (letter dated 31 July 2015) that, given the findings, no further action would be taken by the Centre because the State had not pressed a changed recommendation. This Ministry communication is a pivotal administrative document in the official record. (Digital Sansad)

3. Parliamentary/Ministry of Tribal Affairs replies (Lok Sabha Q&A and Annexures) — Parliamentary question-answer documents and Ministry replies summarise the sequence above and record the status of the proposal (i.e., submitted by state; considered; TRI/Ministry findings; no inclusion). These are primary documentary references for understanding official action and dates. (Digital Sansad)

4. Academic analyses and independent ethnographies — Peer-reviewed articles and working papers (recently including a detailed case study by scholars at the University of Birmingham and other Indian social-science journals) examine the social identity claims of the Kudmi-Mahato, compare historical records, and analyse the politics of "tribalisation" in eastern India. These works discuss colonial censuses, social mobility and cultural markers that the Kudmi claim as proof of indigeneity. They are essential evidence when reconstructing historical and anthropological arguments. (Pure OAI)

5. Media and on-the-ground reports of mobilisation — Recent years have seen mass mobilisation, protests and road/rail blockades demanding ST recognition (reported widely in regional and national press). Media reports document the scale of mobilisation and the political dynamics (including objections from existing tribal groups). These are not legal proofs, but they supply context and primary accounts of contemporary political claims. (frontierweekly.com)

---

5. How the official evidence has been interpreted (pro & con)

Arguments used by proponents

• Historical presence and custom: Proponents cite colonial gazetteers and early ethnographic notes that describe the Chotanagpur Kudmi/Mahato as tribal or totemic and possessing customary laws (for example, evidence on rules of succession, clan/totemic structures). They argue continuity of distinct cultural markers and language substratum (Kudmali/Kurmali) that mark them as indigenous to the plateau. Scholarly studies emphasise cultural distinctiveness in rituals and social organisation. (Pure OAI)

• Socio-economic disadvantage in certain regions: Activists argue that, in many localities, Kudmi communities face marginalisation comparable to tribal groups and need constitutional protection and affirmative measures. Media and mobilisation documents record these claims. (frontierweekly.com)

Arguments used by official reviewers / opponents

• TRI/Ministry conclusion (2015): The TRI/Ministry report that fed into the 2015 decision did not support inclusion, concluding that the group's current status and social characteristics did not meet the criteria for ST in Jharkhand. The Ministry’s communication to Jharkhand records that no further action was being taken in 2015 on the basis of that report. This is an administrative, evidentiary ruling: it means that—at least in that process—the expert body judged the available ethnographic evidence insufficient. (Digital Sansad)

• Objections from existing tribal groups and activists: Tribal organisations and activists have publicly objected to inclusion of Kudmi in the ST lists, warning about dilution of limited benefits and contesting historical claims. Media reports record organised opposition in the affected states. (The Times of India)

• Heterogeneous colonial record: Scholars caution that colonial classifications varied by district and period; being described as a “primitive tribe” in a gazetteer does not automatically translate to meeting today’s constitutional and anthropological criteria for ST status. Modern TRI/anthropological criteria require demonstrable indicators (isolation, primitive traits, distinct culture, shyness of contact, and backwardness) assessed in current socio-cultural terms, not solely colonial labels. (Pure OAI)

---

6. Where the documentary balance stands (short answer)

• Official position (as of the documentary record cited): The Government of India — acting on an ethnographic report and the state’s own procedural steps — conveyed in 2015 that the evidence did not support inclusion of Kurmi/Kudmi (Mahto) of Jharkhand in the Scheduled Tribes list; therefore no central action was pending. That status remains a decisive legal/administrative fact unless new, admissible evidence leads a State to renew or press a revised recommendation and the Centre accepts it. (Digital Sansad)

• Scholarly and activist claims: Academics and community activists continue to produce historical and ethnographic material arguing for tribal identity; these materials form the basis of ongoing political mobilisation and legal/political campaigns. Academic case studies provide both supportive and critical analyses of the claim. (Pure OAI)

---

7. Primary documents and sources for researchers (what to obtain / examine)

If the task is to build the strongest evidentiary case (for litigation, administrative reconsideration, or scholarly publication), the following documents should be gathered, examined and appended:

1. All state government proposals and attachments (e.g., Jharkhand’s December 2004 / January 2005 proposal(s)) — these contain the initial arguments and local data submitted to the Centre. (Digital Sansad)

2. The TRI/ethnographic reports that the Ministry or expert bodies relied on (especially the 2015 TRI report) — these are critical because they explain why the Centre did or did not accept the recommendation. (Digital Sansad)

3. Ministry of Tribal Affairs letters and Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha notices/answers (notably the Ministry letter of 31 July 2015 referenced in parliamentary replies) — these are the definitive administrative decisions recorded in public records. (Digital Sansad)

4. Colonial gazetteers, pre-independence census schedules and ethnographic notes that mention Kurmi/Kudmi in Chotanagpur/Manbhum districts — useful for establishing historical descriptions and customs. (Researchers often consult district gazetteers and the 19th/early 20th century “Tribes and Castes” volumes.) (Pure OAI)

5. Peer-reviewed social-science analyses and books, such as the University of Birmingham case study and Indian journal articles, which reconstruct history and critically assess the politics of reclassification. (Pure OAI)

6. Contemporary census / socio-economic indicators for Kudmi populations in relevant districts — to demonstrate current backwardness/isolation if present. (These are often produced via state statistical bureaus or district handbooks.)

---

8. Practical lessons from the official record (how claims succeed or fail)

From the documentary trail and scholarly analysis we can extract practical lessons:

• Detailed, current ethnography matters. TRI/Ministry reviewers emphasise up-to-date, district-level ethnographic material showing the five classic indicators of ST status (relative isolation, distinct culture, backwardness, etc.). Old colonial descriptions help but are not decisive on their own. (Digital Sansad)

• State recommendation must be sustained and specific. The Centre will act only on a clear, continued recommendation from the State supported by convincing evidence. Jharkhand’s 2004/05 proposal did not lead to final inclusion because the subsequent expert report did not endorse it and the State did not press a revised recommendation. (Digital Sansad)

• Contestation from existing ST groups influences politics. Organized resistance from tribal groups can shape public debate and administrative caution; this is part of the contemporary political reality documented in the press. (The Times of India)

---

9. Conclusion — what the documents actually “certify”

• No current nationwide certification exists that the Kudmi/Kudmi-Mahato are Scheduled Tribes across the relevant states. The authoritative administrative record (Ministry/Parliament replies) shows that the earlier state proposal was considered and that, following an ethnographic review, the Centre did not proceed with inclusion (communication dated 2015). That administrative decision is the key document that—so far—precludes formal ST recognition through that process. (Digital Sansad)

• However, the historical and ethnographic record is mixed: some colonial and local ethnographic sources describe characteristics consistent with tribality in particular districts; some modern social-science studies argue for indigeneity; those form the basis for renewed proposals or legal action. The strength of such renewed claims will depend on producing current, district-specific ethnography, socio-economic data and a sustained state-level recommendation. (Pure OAI)

---

10. Recommended next steps (if the aim is to “certify” ST status)

If the user (or a claimant group) intends to assemble a robust documentary case to resubmit or litigate for ST recognition, recommended actions include:

1. Commission fresh, district-level TRI / independent ethnographic studies focusing on cultural practices, endogamy/exogamy patterns, customary law, language use, economic deprivation and spatial isolation. (Emphasise standard TRI criteria.) (Digital Sansad)

2. Compile archival colonial records (district gazetteers, 19th/20th century census schedules) that show historical continuity of distinct customs in the specific territories claimed. (Pure OAI)

3. Produce socio-economic profiles (education, health, landlessness, income) by district to demonstrate backwardness comparable to other ST groups.

4. Secure explicit renewed recommendation from the State government with the dossier attached and follow up with the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The state’s active persistence is essential. (Digital Sansad)

5. Prepare for contestation from existing tribal organisations; engage in structured consultation and dispute-resolution where possible. (The Times of India)

---

References (selected, load-bearing sources consulted)

• Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs — parliamentary/Lok Sabha Q&A and annexures describing the Jharkhand proposal and the Ministry’s response (includes reference to the TRI/2015 position and the Ministry letter of 31 July 2015). (Digital Sansad)

• University of Birmingham / academic case study: State Categories and Their Afterlives: The Politics of “Tribalisation” in Eastern India (case study of Kudmi-Mahato). — detailed scholarly analysis of identity politics and historical evidence. (Pure OAI)

• Frontier Weekly — reporting and synthesis: “Kudmis’ Quest for Scheduled Tribe Status” — journalistic overview of mobilisation, history and regional distribution. (frontierweekly.com)

• Times of India — reports of tribal organisations’ objections and contemporary political contestation in Jharkhand. (The Times of India)

---

Short summary (for quick reference)

1. The Kudmi/Kudmi-Mahato community claims tribal indigeneity based on local history, customs and some colonial references. (Pure OAI)

2. Jharkhand proposed their inclusion (2004–05), but an expert/TRI report and the Ministry’s administrative reply (2015) did not support inclusion and communicated that there was no pending action from the Centre. (Digital Sansad)

3. Scholarly work and activist movements continue to press the claim; success will depend on fresh district-level ethnography, socio-economic data and a sustained state recommendation. (Pure OAI)