---

In a strongly worded statement, Raijor Dal chief and Sibsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi has come out sharply against the proposed creation of a new Scheduled Tribes (Victims) or STV category in Assam. Calling the idea “unconstitutional, unnecessary, and politically motivated,” Gogoi warned that such a move could bring more confusion than solutions in the already sensitive socio-ethnic landscape of the state.

---

What Is the Proposed STV Category?

The proposed STV category is reportedly aimed at offering a special reservation quota for communities or families who have historically suffered due to violence, insurgency, ethnic conflict, or displacement. The idea has been floated as a special classification under the broader Scheduled Tribe framework.

Supporters claim this would deliver targeted justice to communities that endured long periods of militancy and unrest. But Akhil Gogoi argues the concept itself is deeply flawed and goes against constitutional provisions.

---

“Legally Baseless,” Says Gogoi

Akhil Gogoi has labelled the proposal unconstitutional, explaining that:

• The Constitution does not permit victimhood-based subcategories under the Scheduled Tribes list.
• ST status is determined by ethnographic, anthropological, and socio-economic criteria—not by experiences of conflict.
• Creating an STV category would require a constitutional amendment, something the government has not proposed.
• Any attempt to introduce such a category without constitutional backing would be vulnerable to legal challenges.

He stressed that the process of identifying ST communities involves detailed evaluation by the Registrar General of India (RGI), National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), and Parliament. None of these procedures are being followed.

---

A “Pointless and Misleading” Move

Beyond the legal issue, Gogoi said the proposal is politically motivated and lacks real value for people affected by violence. According to him, the government should focus on:

• Delivering economic compensation
• Improving rehabilitation packages
• Ensuring land rights
• Implementing existing ST welfare schemes

Instead, he warned, the authorities are offering a “new, fancy label” that does not solve any real problems.

Gogoi argued that Assam’s people deserve sincere policies, not half-baked ideas designed to create short-term political mileage.

---

Risk of Ethnic Tension in Assam

One of Gogoi’s strongest warnings was about the risk of social division. He believes introducing a “victim category” under ST could:

• Deepen resentment among existing tribal groups
• Trigger new demands for special classifications
• Complicate reservation structures
• Polarise communities already grappling with historical grievances

Assam, he said, needs policies that strengthen communal harmony—not initiatives that fuel identity-based competition.

---

Focus on Long-Pending Demands, Not New Gimmicks

Akhil Gogoi pointed out that the government has still not fulfilled the long-standing demand to grant ST status to six major communities of Assam:

• Ahom
• Koch-Rajbongshi
• Moran
• Matak
• Chutia
• Tai Phake

Instead of creating new categories with no legal basis, Gogoi urged the government to address real and long-pending commitments.

He also highlighted the need to rehabilitate thousands of families affected by decades of insurgency-driven violence, displacement, and land loss.

---

Akhil Gogoi’s criticism of the proposed STV category draws attention to deeper questions about governance, identity politics, and constitutional process in Assam. By calling the proposal “unconstitutional and pointless,” he has challenged the government to prioritise substantive policy reforms over symbolic gestures.

With debates on tribal status and reservation structures intensifying across the Northeast, Gogoi’s remarks add a powerful voice to the demand for transparency, legality, and meaningful action.

---

About The Author