Breaking down the question

The question has two linked parts. The first asks why a further category, PVTGs, was introduced within the broader category of Scheduled Tribes — that is, the rationale for sub-classifying tribes. The second asks why are they so called — the meaning of particularly vulnerable, or the criteria that define the group. A complete answer must supply both the policy rationale and the defining features.

The underlying sociological point is that tribes are not a homogeneous mass; some are far more deprived and endangered than others, and a single undifferentiated approach fails the most vulnerable. Within the 10-mark limit, define the category, give the rationale, and list the criteria clearly.

For the broader policy debate on protecting and developing tribes, see the note on tribes, integration and autonomy.

How to approach it

Open by explaining that PVTGs are a sub-category carved out of the Scheduled Tribes to target the most deprived. Then answer the two halves in order.

  • Give the rationale — recognition of unevenness among tribes and the need for targeted development.
  • Note the origin — the Dhebar Commission's identification of primitive groups, later renamed PVTGs.
  • State the defining criteria that make them particularly vulnerable.
  • Close on the significance and the risks of the label.

Model answer

Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) are a special sub-category identified within the wider list of Scheduled Tribes to single out those communities that are the most deprived and endangered among tribes. They were originally designated in the 1970s, following the Dhebar Commission's concern that a single tribal category concealed vast differences, as Primitive Tribal Groups, and were later renamed PVTGs to remove the pejorative and stigmatising term primitive.

The reason for adopting this further category is that tribes are internally highly unequal. Some Scheduled Tribes have benefited from education, reservation and development and have advanced considerably; others remain extremely isolated, impoverished and even declining in numbers. Treating all tribes alike allowed development resources to flow towards the relatively better-off tribes while the weakest were left further behind. B. K. Roy Burman and others argued that the most vulnerable communities needed targeted, protective intervention rather than the general tribal-development approach. Verrier Elwin's early concern to shield small, isolated communities from disruptive contact anticipated this logic of special protection. The PVTG category thus channels focused schemes — habitat protection, food security, health and livelihood support — to those who need them most, acknowledging what André Béteille noted, that tribe covers communities occupying very different positions.

They are called particularly vulnerable because they meet specific criteria that mark them out as at greater risk than other tribes. These are, principally: a stagnant or declining population; a pre-agricultural level of technology, relying on hunting, gathering and shifting cultivation rather than settled agriculture; extremely low levels of literacy; and a subsistence economy with acute poverty and economic backwardness. Many also live in small, geographically isolated habitats, which deepens their marginality. Because their small numbers and fragile economies make them especially susceptible to displacement, disease and cultural erosion, they are described as particularly vulnerable.

The category is therefore an instrument of positive discrimination that recognises differentiation within tribes and directs special care to the weakest. Its value is that it prevents the most endangered from being overlooked; its risk is that the label may reinforce a paternalist image and, if poorly implemented, deliver protection in name only.

Examiner's perspective

Examiners want both halves answered — the why the category rationale and the why so called criteria — and reward candidates who supply the specific defining features: declining population, pre-agricultural technology, low literacy and subsistence economy. Simply describing tribes in general misses the point of the question.

Naming the Dhebar Commission origin and the renaming from Primitive to Particularly Vulnerable shows factual command, while citing the differentiation-within-tribes argument gives the answer sociological depth. The strongest scripts close with a brief evaluative note on the promise and the paternalist risk of the label, lifting a factual answer into an analytical one.