Syllabus: Linkages between development and spread of extremism.
Context and Core Argument
- Maoist insurgency growth is closely linked to governance failures, not merely underdevelopment.
- Dominant discourse focused on material deprivation, overlooking governance and representation deficits.
- Indian State adopted a two-pronged approach combining security measures and development interventions.
- Governance challenges that intensified Maoist expansion were insufficiently examined across insurgency phases.
Spatial Concentration and Constitutional Context
- Contemporary Maoist presence is concentrated in Fifth Schedule Areas of central and eastern India.
- These regions are characterised by high tribal populations and chronic governance weaknesses.
- The Fifth Schedule was envisioned as a new social contract for adivasis.
- It provided a legal framework for governance of tribal homelands.
- Institutional Provisions under Fifth Schedule
- Fifth Schedule created Tribal Advisory Councils with three-fourths adivasi representation.
- It introduced special financial provisions through the Tribal Sub-Plan.
- Governors were granted discretionary powers to prevent land alienation.
- These safeguards aimed to protect tribal land, resources, and governance autonomy.
- PESA: Promise and Violation
- PESA, 1996 sought to ensure adivasi self-governance in Scheduled Areas.
- It empowered Gram Sabhas over land, resources, livelihoods, and cultural preservation.
- Expert Committee Report (2008) found routine violations by appointed officials.
- Land acquisition provisions under PESA were among the most frequently abused.
Governance Failure and Socio-Economic Outcomes
- Despite safeguards, tribal populations faced severe discrimination and exploitation.
- Planning Commission Expert Committee Report (2008) highlighted state neglect and poor governance.
- Resource-rich regions were reduced to chronic penury due to administrative failures.
- Tribal communities remained socially and economically disadvantaged compared to other groups.
- Oxford Multidimensional Poverty Index (2010) ranked the region worse than Sub-Saharan Africa.
- Land Alienation and Rights Erosion
- Exercising rights over land and forests remained the greatest challenge for adivasis.
- Millions were dispossessed despite constitutional and legal safeguards.
- Walter Fernandes noted unprecedented tribal land loss after economic liberalisation.
- Colonial administrative structures persisted, alienating low-literacy tribal communities.
- Representation Deficit and Institutional Weakness
- Local populations were largely absent from administrative structures in Scheduled Areas.
- Institutions like the Ministry of Tribal Welfare and NCST failed to curb exploitation.
- Governors rarely exercised constitutional powers to protect adivasi interests.
- Service delivery institutions remained weak, ineffective, and inaccessible.
- Governance Deficits and Maoist Mobilisation
- Governance failures created fertile ground for Maoist mobilisation.
- Adivasi frustration and low trust in institutions fuelled Maoist support.
- Maoists offered parallel governance through Janatan Sarkars.
- In regions like Dandakaranya, Maoists promised control over Jal, Jungle, Zameen.
- Parallel systems provided schools, paramedics, rations, and informal justice mechanisms.
Need for a New Governance Imagination
- Welfare delivery and infrastructure have improved in recent years.
- Digital platforms and cash transfers enhanced service outreach.
- However, justice, health, education, policing, and revenue systems remain weak.
- Forest Rights Act (FRA) faces dilution through amendments and judicial interventions.
- CAF Act, 2016 diluted safeguards and affected forest-dependent livelihoods.
- States diluted PESA Gram Sabha powers, especially for mining consent.
- Political and administrative under-representation of adivasis persists.
- Borrowing elements from Sixth Schedule Autonomous Councils may strengthen governance.
- Post-Maoist India requires a new governance charter for Fifth Schedule Areas.