A text scan of the [[Havanur Commission]]report files (Vol I Part I, Vol I Part II appendices, Vol II, Vol III, Vol IV) shows that the word *Adivasi* appears only once, while “Scheduled Tribe(s)” / “tribe(s)” appears extensively across volumes. ## One explicit “Adivasi” usage found From **Vol I Part I** (`dli.csl.2681`), in a passage discussing Constituent Assembly composition: > “...Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsees, Anglo-Indians, **Adivasis** and Scheduled Castes.” This appears as a descriptive social term in a historical discussion, not the report’s own analytical category. ## Dominant category in the report Across the report corpus, the dominant terms are: - **Scheduled Tribes** - **Tribes** - occasionally historical/administrative variants such as **Backward Tribes** This is more or less in line with with constitutional and policy language used for reservation and state classification frameworks in that period (especially Articles 341/342 context and administrative tabulation practice). The report does not appear to exclude tribal communities. Instead, they are incorporated primarily under **Scheduled Tribe/tribe** terminology. [[Solega ಸೋಲಿಗರು]] for example appear largely in tables. They are clearly recognised as a Scheduled Tribe, local naming variants (Soligaru/Sholaga) by geography are mentioned but the nature of reporting is largely statistical/service/survey tabulations rather than narratives. Inclusion in ST-coded tables suggests Soligaru were part of the empirical base for backwardness/representation policy analysis. [[Bettakuruba ಕಾಡುಕುರುಬ, ಬೆಟ್ಟಕುರುಬ]] appear more sparingly. In Volume I, Bettakuruba are distinguished alongside Jenu and Kadu Kuruba from other Kuruba groupings, with emphasis on forest location and livelihood patterns. This indicates recognition within subgroup differentiation logic, but with less direct numerical visibility than Jenukuruba/Soligaru in the extracted table-heavy sections. Even so, their inclusion supports the report’s broader attempt to map internal social differentiation. The Kaadukuruba are identified in the report mainly within subgroup-classification discussion (especially alongside Jenu and Betta Kuruba) rather than through a standalone category. clerly the current confusion/conflation of the OBC Kuruba with Jenukuruba/Bettakuruba is not there - an important relevance of this for current times. **[[Jenukuruba ಜೆನುಕುರುಬ]]** appear across both narrative and tabular parts of the report. They are explicitly classified as a Scheduled Tribe (including population estimates), and variants such as **Jenu-kuruba / Jenu Kuruba / Jenukuruba** recur in regional and coded listings. Reporting is heavily statistical/service/survey in later volumes, while Volume I also frames Jenu/Kadu/Betta Kuruba distinctions in socio-cultural terms. Their repeated ST-coded presence suggests Jenukuruba were central to the report’s empirical base for backwardness and representation analysis.