The protracted issue of expansion of the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list in Assam has once again reached centerstage. If not handled carefully, the issue may expose deep ethnic fault lines in the state and make peace fragile indefinitely. Organisations fighting for ST status to six communities—Morans, Mataks, Koch-Rajbongshis, Tai-Ahoms, Chutia, and Adivasis/Tea Tribes—linking it to opposing the ruling coalition in the 2026 Assembly polls has signalled snowballing of the issue in the coming days. The existing ST communities have been insisting that granting ST status to the six communities must not affect the benefits, privileges, and political power currently enjoyed by them. There is no easy solution in sight that will be acceptable to existing ST groups as well as the six communities. Allowing the issue to gather dust will only complicate the matter and delay the solution. Introduction of The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2019 by the central government in the Rajya Sabha in 2019 triggered fresh hopes among the six communities for expansion of the list while it triggered apprehensions among existing ST groups. The central government informed the Lok Sabha on August 8 that the Government of India, on June 15, 1999 (further amended on June 25, 2002, and September 14, 2022), has approved the modalities for deciding the claims for inclusion in, exclusion from, and other modifications in the Orders specifying lists of Scheduled Tribes. According to these modalities, only those proposals that have been recommended and justified, along with ethnographic details, by the State Government/Union Territories Administration concerned, can be processed further. Thereafter, it has to be concurred with by the Registrar General of India and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes before being considered for amendment of legislation. The state government held a series of discussions with the stakeholders to hammer out an acceptable solution, but conditions put forward by existing ST groups have added to the complexities. One argument advanced in support of the expansion of the ST list is that it would go a long way in safeguarding the political supremacy of indigenous people as the number of reserved seats will increase in the state, which will prevent immigrants from seizing political power through their design of population explosion and increasing their share among electors by way of migration. The delimitation of assembly constituencies led to the indigenous population becoming the decision-makers in 93 of the total 126 seats in the state. The ruling coalition hoped that this would neutralise the narrative of protecting the political supremacy of indigenous people not only through expansion of the ST list, but a fresh spurt in agitation pressing for the ST status indicates that aspirations fuelled by poll promises have not died down. This is also a lesson for political parties, ruling as well as opposition, about the consequences of making poll promises on ethnic issues without giving serious thought to the sensitivities, complexities, and risk of exposing permanent fault lines. Political parties need to realise that the existing ST groups are more apprehensive of losing their political power with respect to governance in autonomous councils, as seats are reserved for STs and not for any community, and if new groups become ST, they will also be able to contest and win from the same seats of the existing autonomous councils. If aspirations for political power gain traction compared to benefits or reservation in education or jobs, then expansion of the ST list will naturally follow with aspirations for political power in the autonomous council as legitimate rights guaranteed under the provision of reservation of seats for ST in these councils. Pushing development in a big way to create massive opportunities in higher education, skill building, science and technology, healthcare, trade and commerce, women empowerment, rural development, boosting agriculture production, and creating new employment avenues will strengthen hopes among the young generation about inclusive growth. Inclusive growth can bridge ethnic fault lines, as those benefiting from it will not belong to one particular community but to all other communities. This will also reduce apprehension among one ethnic community of another ethnic community eating into the benefits and privileges enjoyed by its members and create the space for dialogue on the sharing of political power as well. It will then allow the government not to limit the discussions separately with existing ST groups and those demanding their inclusion in the ST list, but to initiate dialogue between the two groups across a single table for finding an amicable solution to the vexed issue. Organisations of existing ST groups and six communities pursuing the principle of sharing political power are crucial to strengthening the combined electoral strength of indigenous communities to permanently offset the electoral influence of the immigrant population. The state government inviting all stakeholders to the discussion table will prevent the issue from snowballing. The onus also lies on the organisations to create a conducive atmosphere for dialogue to expedite the solution.