[Answered] Examine the link between administrative neglect in Fifth Schedule areas and the rise of Maoist insurgencies. Critically analyze the role of effective governance and tribal representation in local bodies for ensuring stability in post-Maoist India.

Introduction

Fifth Schedule areas, home to over 100 million adivasis, witnessed intense Maoist mobilisation; Planning Commission (2008) and MPI data reveal chronic governance deficits, not mere poverty, as key drivers of insurgency.

Fifth Schedule: Constitutional Promise

1. Original Vision: Envisaged as a special social contract ensuring protection of tribal land, culture and autonomy.
2. Key Instruments: Tribal Advisory Councils, Governor’s discretionary powers, Tribal Sub-Plan.
3. Reality: Provisions remained largely on paper, eroding constitutional credibility.

Administrative Neglect and Governance Failure

1. Colonial Administrative Continuity: Retention of alien bureaucratic rules and justice systems unsuitable for low-literacy tribal societies.
2. Service Delivery Deficits: Weak health, education, policing and revenue institutions in Scheduled Areas.
3. Empirical Evidence: Planning Commission Expert Group (2008) termed governance failure as “central to alienation”.

Land Alienation and Resource Dispossession

1. Structural Exploitation: Despite safeguards, large-scale land acquisition for mining and infrastructure persisted.
2. Scholarly Findings: Walter Fernandes documented maximum tribal displacement post-liberalisation.
3. Outcome: Loss of livelihood → distrust in state institutions.

Representation Deficit in Local Governance

1. Administrative Exclusion: Bureaucracy and frontline officials overwhelmingly non-tribal.
2. Critical Observation: B.D. Sharma highlighted outsider bias in governance.
3. Institutional Failure: Governors rarely exercised Fifth Schedule powers.

PESA: Missed Opportunity for Self-Governance

1. Intent of PESA (1996): Empower Gram Sabhas over land, forests, minor minerals and development decisions.
2. Ground Reality: Routine violations, especially in land acquisition and mining approvals.
3. Case Study: Chhattisgarh shows highest PESA violations alongside intense Maoist presence.

Governance Vacuum and Maoist Mobilisation

1. Parallel Institutions: Maoists provided dispute resolution, schools, ration distribution (Janatana Sarkar).
2. Ideological Appeal: “Jal, Jungle, Zameen” resonated amid state absence.
3. Trust Deficit: Tribals perceived Maoists as accessible justice providers.

Security-Development Paradigm: Incomplete

1. State Response: Two-pronged approach: security operations + welfare delivery.
2. Limitation: Welfare without accountability failed to rebuild institutional trust.
3. Policy Gap: Governance reforms remained secondary.

Post-Maoist Governance Imperatives

1. Strengthening Representation: Real administrative and fiscal autonomy to local bodies.
2. Rights-based Governance: Effective implementation of FRA and PESA.
3. Institutional Innovation: Learning from Sixth Schedule Autonomous Councils.
4. Human Resource Reform: Greater recruitment of tribal officials in permanent bureaucracy.

Conclusion

Legitimacy flows from local knowledge and autonomy; post-Maoist stability demands governance that empowers adivasis, not merely administers them.