Why in news?

Discussions on the rise of the Maoist movement in the 1990s and early 2000s have largely focused on underdevelopment and structural socio-economic deprivation in India’s Red Corridor.

Most official and scholarly analyses traced the insurgency to poverty and marginalisation, prompting the State to adopt a two-pronged strategy combining security operations with development initiatives.

While governance and justice delivery have occasionally featured in policy debates, there has been limited effort to systematically examine how governance failures, weak institutions, and poor grievance redressal mechanisms deepened and sustained cycles of Maoist insurgency.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Governance Failures in Scheduled Areas
• Alienation Through Administrative Exclusion
• Governance Deficits and Maoist Mobilisation
• Reimagining Governance in Post-Maoist Regions

Governance Failures in Scheduled Areas

• The contemporary Maoist insurgency is largely concentrated in Fifth Schedule areas of central and eastern India, regions with significant tribal populations.
• These areas were envisaged by the Constitution as a special social contract for Adivasis, recognising their distinct needs and vulnerabilities.
• Promise of the Fifth Schedule
  • The Fifth Schedule created a dedicated governance framework for tribal regions.
  • This included Tribal Advisory Councils with substantial Adivasi representation, financial support through the Tribal Sub-Plan, and discretionary powers for Governors to prevent land alienation and safeguard tribal interests.
• Reality of State Neglect and Exploitation
  • Despite these safeguards, tribal communities experienced persistent discrimination, exploitation, and marginalisation.
  • The Planning Commission’s Expert Committee (2008) highlighted how resource-rich regions were reduced to extreme poverty due to weak governance and state neglect.
  • Social and economic indicators for tribal populations remained far below national averages, with multidimensional poverty levels worse than Sub-Saharan Africa.
• Land Alienation and Dispossession
  • The gravest challenge for Adivasis has been the loss of land and forest rights.
  • Despite constitutional protections, millions were dispossessed, particularly after economic liberalisation.
  • Studies show that tribal land alienation has been at its highest in the post-liberalisation period.
• Structural Governance Deficit
  • Successive governments failed to build governance structures suited to tribal realities.
  • Colonial-era administrative systems, complex legal processes, and inaccessible justice mechanisms were retained in Scheduled Areas, leaving low-literacy tribal communities unable to effectively assert their rights or benefit from constitutional protections.

Alienation Through Administrative Exclusion

• A key factor deepening Adivasi alienation in Fifth Schedule areas has been the near-total absence of local representation in administrative structures.
• Officials implementing tribal safeguards were overwhelmingly outsiders, often carrying social bias and limited understanding of local realities.
• Institutional Failure to Protect Tribal Interests
  • Constitutional and statutory bodies such as the Ministry of Tribal Welfare, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, and State Governors—formally entrusted with safeguarding tribal rights—largely failed in practice.
  • The Mungekar Committee (2009) observed that these institutions did little to curb exploitation, while Governors rarely exercised their discretionary powers in Scheduled Areas.
  • Weak service delivery in health, education, policing, revenue administration, and the judiciary compounded these failures.
• PESA: Promise and Persistent Violations
  • The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996, was a notable exception, aiming to promote tribal self-governance and empower Gram Sabhas over land, resources, and livelihoods.
  • While PESA improved political representation at the grassroots, its core provisions—especially those related to land acquisition—were routinely violated, as highlighted by the Planning Commission’s Expert Committee (2008).

Governance Deficits and Maoist Mobilisation

• Chronic governance failures, weak grievance redressal, and low political priority accorded to the Fifth Schedule created fertile ground for Maoist mobilisation.
• Adivasi frustrations and distrust in state institutions drove many to support Maoist ideology, which promised justice, land rights, and dignity under the slogan Jal, Jungle, Zameen.
• Parallel Governance Structures
  • In regions like Dandakaranya, persistent underdevelopment enabled Maoists to establish parallel administrations.
  • They started offering basic services such as healthcare, schooling, food distribution, and swift—though extrajudicial—justice.
  • These “Janatana Sarkars” filled governance vacuums left by the state, further entrenching Maoist influence.

Reimagining Governance in Post-Maoist Regions

• Recent years have seen improvements in welfare delivery and core infrastructure—roads, electricity, telecom—across Maoist-affected Fifth Schedule areas, aided by digital platforms and direct benefit transfers.
  • However, critical institutions—justice, health, education, policing, and revenue—remain weak and understaffed, limiting effective governance.
• Structural Bottlenecks and Under-Representation
  • A core paradox persists: local Adivasi under-representation in administration.
  • Despite quotas at local levels, real power and finances remain with a largely non-tribal permanent bureaucracy, rendering representation largely symbolic and undermining trust.
• Erosion of Rights-Based Frameworks
  • Key protective laws face dilution:
    • Forest Rights Act (FRA): Central to Adivasi and forest-dweller livelihoods, its implementation has been weakened by violations, amendments, and judicial interventions.
    • CAF Act, 2016: Expanded compensatory afforestation has diluted safeguards and harmed forest-based livelihoods.
    • PESA: Despite its promise of self-governance, States—especially mineral-rich ones like Chhattisgarh—have undermined Gram Sabha consent powers, particularly for mining and land acquisition.
• Political Push Needed
• Revitalising FRA and PESA requires strong political will from the Centre and States to restore original mandates and enforce safeguards against land alienation and resource extraction without consent.
• Toward a New Governance Charter
  • Post-Maoist governance must reverse political and administrative under-representation, empower local institutions with real autonomy and finances, and rebuild trust.
  • Adapting elements from Sixth Schedule models—Autonomous District/Zonal Councils—could offer a viable path.