The Future of Governance in Post-Maoist India

Context:

• The persistence of Maoist insurgency in central and eastern India is deeply rooted in long-standing governance failures in tribal-dominated regions.

• Despite constitutional safeguards under the Fifth Schedule, adivasi communities continue to face alienation, exploitation, and dispossession, creating fertile ground for insurgent mobilization.

• The article argues that India’s governance challenge is not merely security-related, but structural and constitutional in nature.

Key Highlights:

Governance Failure in Fifth Schedule Areas

• Fifth Schedule regions were envisioned as a social contract to protect adivasi autonomy and resources.

• However, poor implementation and neglect have resulted in:

  • Persistent underdevelopment

  • Discrimination and exploitation

  • Low socio-economic indicators

Maoist Growth Linked to Alienation

• Maoist movement expanded in the 1990s and early 2000s, driven by:

  • Poverty and lack of services

  • Land alienation

  • State absence in governance delivery

Two-Pronged State Approach

• The Indian state has adopted a combined strategy of:

  • Security operations

  • Development interventions

• Yet governance deficits have limited the effectiveness of this approach.

Land Dispossession and Liberalization Impact

• Despite legal safeguards, millions of tribals have been dispossessed due to:

  • Arbitrary land acquisition

  • Mining and industrial projects

  • Post-liberalization resource extraction

Administrative Alienation

• Absence of locals in administration implementing Fifth Schedule provisions has deepened distrust.

• Apex bodies meant to protect tribal rights have failed to prevent exploitation.

Weakening of Tribal Self-Governance Laws

• PESA (1996) was designed to strengthen tribal self-rule through Gram Sabhas.

• Violations, especially in land acquisition, have undermined its purpose.

Forest Rights and Livelihood Concerns

• FRA faces dilution, weakening forest dwellers’ entitlements.

• CAF Act (2016) impacts forest livelihoods by altering control over compensatory afforestation funds.

• Resistance to PESA is strongest in Maoist-affected areas like Chhattisgarh.

Alternative Governance Vision

• A post-Maoist governance model could learn from the Sixth Schedule, which provides stronger autonomous councils and political representation for tribal communities.

Relevant Prelims Points:

• Maoism is linked to governance deficit + tribal alienation, not only ideology.

• Fifth Schedule provides special administration for Scheduled Areas but suffers from poor execution.

• PESA Act (1996) extends Panchayati Raj to Scheduled Areas, empowering Gram Sabhas.

• FRA ensures forest rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities.

• CAF Act (2016) affects forest governance and livelihoods through compensatory afforestation mechanisms.

Benefits + Challenges + Impact

• Benefit of stronger governance: reduces insurgency appeal and ensures tribal justice.

• Challenges: under-representation of locals, weak enforcement, resistance from extractive interests.

• Impact: Continued alienation fuels insecurity and undermines constitutional promises.

Relevant Mains Points:

Governance and Social Justice Dimensions

• Maoist insurgency reflects failure of the state to uphold constitutional protections for adivasis.

• Tribal regions remain politically low-priority despite being resource-rich.

Structural Issues

• Key governance bottlenecks include:

  • Lack of tribal representation in administration

  • Weak accountability of apex bodies

  • Dispossession through development projects

Internal Security Linkages

• Maoism is sustained when governance is absent and communities lose faith in institutions.

• Security-centric responses cannot succeed without justice-based governance reforms.

Way Forward

• Strengthen Fifth Schedule governance through:

  • Greater tribal participation in administration

  • Effective implementation of PESA and FRA

  • Transparent land acquisition with Gram Sabha consent

• Use digital technology to improve service delivery, but address structural exclusion first.

• Consider Sixth Schedule-like autonomous councils to ensure meaningful self-governance.

• Balance development with rights, livelihood security, and dignity of tribal communities.

UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):

• GS 2 (Governance): Fifth Schedule administration, PESA implementation, service delivery gaps

• GS 1 (Indian Society): Tribal alienation, displacement, social justice

• GS 3 (Internal Security): Maoism, insurgency drivers, governance-security nexus

• GS 1 (Post-Independence India): Evolution of tribal policy and internal conflict zones