Post-Maoist Governance news

Why in News?

As Maoist influence recedes across large parts of central and eastern India, policy discussions are shifting from counter-insurgency to post-Maoist governance. Recent analyses argue that while poverty and underdevelopment were long emphasised, deep governance failures, weak institutions, and poor grievance redressal played a decisive role in sustaining Maoist insurgency—and remain critical challenges even today.

Background and Context

The Maoist movement peaked during the 1990s and early 2000s across India’s Red Corridor, spanning tribal-dominated regions of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and parts of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

The State’s response traditionally followed a two-pronged approach:

• Security operations to contain violence
• Development initiatives to address poverty

However, this framework often overlooked how systemic governance failures—especially in constitutionally protected tribal areas—created conditions for long-term alienation and insurgent mobilisation. As violence declines, the focus is now on whether governance reforms can prevent a relapse and deliver durable peace.

Governance Failures in Scheduled Areas

Concentration in Fifth Schedule Areas

• Maoist insurgency has been most intense in Fifth Schedule areas, which have high Adivasi populations.
• These regions were envisioned by the Constitution as a special governance compact to protect tribal land, culture, and livelihoods.

Constitutional Promise of the Fifth Schedule

The Fifth Schedule provides:

• Tribal Advisory Councils (TACs) with Adivasi representation
• Governor’s discretionary powers to prevent land alienation
• Targeted development funding via the Tribal Sub-Plan

Reality: Persistent Neglect

• Despite safeguards, tribal regions remained among India’s poorest.
• The Planning Commission’s Expert Committee (2008) noted that mineral-rich tribal belts suffered extreme poverty due to governance failure rather than resource scarcity.
• Multidimensional poverty indicators for Adivasis were worse than many Sub-Saharan African regions.

Land Alienation and Structural Governance Deficits

Dispossession Despite Protection

• Land and forest alienation emerged as the most severe grievance.
• Post-liberalisation mining, infrastructure, and industrial projects sharply increased displacement.
• Studies show tribal land alienation peaked after economic reforms, despite constitutional safeguards.

Colonial Administrative Continuity

• Governance structures in Scheduled Areas remained colonial, legalistic, and inaccessible.
• Complex land laws, distant courts, and low literacy excluded Adivasis from justice delivery.
• Constitutional protections existed largely on paper.

Alienation Through Administrative Exclusion

Outsider-Dominated Administration

• Bureaucracy, policing, and judiciary in tribal areas were overwhelmingly staffed by non-tribals.
• Limited cultural sensitivity and social bias deepened mistrust between communities and the State.

Institutional Failure of Safeguards

• Bodies like the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, and even Governors failed to assert their protective mandates.
• The Mungekar Committee (2009) observed that Governors rarely exercised discretionary powers under the Fifth Schedule.

PESA: Promise vs Practice

• The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 aimed to empower Gram Sabhas over land and resources.
• While it increased political representation, its core consent provisions—especially for mining and land acquisition—were routinely violated.

Governance Deficits and Maoist Mobilisation

From Grievance to Insurgency

• Chronic governance failures created fertile ground for Maoist mobilisation.
• Maoists capitalised on Adivasi anger under the slogan “Jal, Jungle, Zameen” (Water, Forest, Land).

Parallel Governance Structures

• In regions like Dandakaranya, Maoists established Janatana Sarkars (people’s governments).
• These provided basic services—healthcare, schooling, food distribution—and swift, though extrajudicial, justice.
• Such parallel systems filled governance vacuums left by the State, deepening insurgent legitimacy.

Reimagining Governance in Post-Maoist Regions

Recent Improvements

• Expanded road connectivity, electricity, telecom, and welfare delivery through DBT and digital platforms.
• Decline in Maoist violence and territorial control.

Persisting Institutional Weakness

• Core institutions—health, education, policing, justice, and revenue administration—remain understaffed and fragile.
• Service delivery quality remains uneven, especially in remote tribal hamlets.

Under-Representation Paradox

• While Adivasis are elected at local levels, real power and finances rest with a largely non-tribal bureaucracy.
• Representation without authority has weakened trust and accountability.

Erosion of Rights-Based Frameworks

• Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006: Dilution through weak implementation, restrictive interpretations, and amendments.
• Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) Act, 2016: Large-scale plantations often undermine forest-based livelihoods.
• PESA: Consent provisions bypassed, especially in mineral-rich States like Chhattisgarh.

Toward a New Governance Charter

• Restore the original spirit of FRA and PESA through political will.
• Reverse administrative under-representation by empowering local tribal officials.
• Grant real financial and decision-making autonomy to Gram Sabhas.
• Consider adapting Sixth Schedule–style Autonomous Councils where appropriate.