The Future Of Governance in Post-Maoist India

While Maoist violence has decreased, it is argued that security and development are insufficient without Justice and Representation.

Background

• Rise of Maoism: Most empirical literature attributes the rise of Maoism in the 1990s and early 2000s to underdevelopment and structural socio-economic issues, particularly in central and eastern India, known as the Red Corridor.
• Dominant Explanation of Maoist Insurgency: Acute poverty, lack of development, and structural deprivation affected vulnerable tribal populations.
• Adoption of a Two-Pronged State Strategy: Based on this understanding, the Indian state has relied on a two-pronged approach combining security measures with development interventions to counter the Maoist threat.
• Neglect of Governance Dimensions: Although governance, justice delivery, and grievance redressal have been mentioned in official discourse, there has been little systematic effort to examine governance failures that intensified Maoist insurgency across different phases.

Governance Challenges in Fifth Schedule Areas

• Constitutional Lapses: Article 244(1) (Fifth Schedule) of the Constitution, meant to protect tribal land and culture, has suffered from poor implementation, enabling state neglect despite resource abundance (Planning Commission Expert Committee Report, 2008).
  • The region ranked worse than Sub-Saharan Africa in the Oxford University Multidimensional Poverty Index (2010).
• Land Alienation: The Fifth Schedule, envisaged as a special social contract for Adivasis, provided safeguards through Tribal Advisory Councils, Tribal Sub-Plans, and discretionary powers of Governors.
  • However, post-Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG) reforms, large-scale land loss fuelled the Maoist slogan “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” (Water, Forest, Land).
• Representation Deficit: Outsider-dominated administration, lack of cultural and linguistic understanding, and delayed justice deepened alienation, leading locals to prefer Maoist Jan Adalats (people’s courts) over the formal judicial system.
• Weak Oversight: The Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) failed to prevent exploitation, as highlighted by the Mungekar Committee Report (2009).
• Legal Violations: The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) is frequently bypassed through forged Gram Sabha consent.
  • The core provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), are violated, and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 (CAF Act) permits forest diversion for industry with inadequate community consultation.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• Learning from Sixth Schedule Governance Models: There is a need to consider adopting features from Sixth Schedule Autonomous Districts/Zonal Councils to improve governance in Fifth Schedule areas.
• Increase Representation: Address performatory representation in local self-governing bodies and ensure meaningful participation of adivasis.
• Enhance Autonomy and Financial Power of Local Bodies: Strengthen Gram Sabhas and other self-governing institutions to reduce bureaucratic dominance.
• Formulation of a New Governance Charter: Develop a post-Maoist governance framework for Fifth Schedule areas to address structural bottlenecks, alienation, and trust deficits.

DOWNLOAD PDF