Governance Deficit, Fifth Schedule and Maoist Insurgency

Context

1. Maoist insurgency continues to persist in Fifth Schedule areas of central and eastern India despite decades of security operations and development programmes.
2. Recent debates emphasise that administrative neglect, weak governance, and poor tribal representation, rather than only poverty, have sustained insurgency in these regions.

What is Maoism and How Did It Originate?

1. Maoism in India traces its origins to the Naxalbari uprising of 1967 in West Bengal.
2. It is inspired by Mao Zedong’s ideology, advocating armed struggle to overthrow the state and establish a “people’s government”.
3. The movement claims to represent the interests of the landless, poor peasants, adivasis, and marginalised groups.
4. Over time, Maoism evolved through different phases and expanded into central and eastern India, forming what is popularly called the Red Corridor.
5. By the 1990s and early 2000s, Maoism had consolidated itself in tribal-dominated regions, especially where governance failures were acute.

What is the Fifth Schedule? (Constitutional Framework)

1. The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution applies to tribal-dominated areas in States such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
2. It was envisioned as a special social contract between the Indian State and adivasis, recognising their distinct social, cultural and economic conditions.
3. Key Features of the Fifth Schedule
   1. Tribal Advisory Council (TAC):
      1. Mandatory body with three-fourths tribal representation to advise the State on tribal welfare.
   2. Governor’s Special Powers:
      1. Governors are empowered to regulate land transfer, prevent land alienation, and ensure protection of tribal interests.
   3. Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP):
      1. Dedicated financial mechanism for tribal development.
   4. Objective:
      1. Protect tribal land, culture, livelihoods, and ensure self-governance within the constitutional framework.

Despite these strong safeguards, implementation remained weak.

Why Maoist Insurgency Deepened in Fifth Schedule Areas?

1. Failure of governance despite constitutional protection
   1. Constitutional safeguards existed on paper but were poorly implemented.
   2. Colonial administrative structures, legal systems, and bureaucratic processes continued unchanged, making governance inaccessible to low-literate tribal communities.
2. Severe underdevelopment and poverty
   1. The Planning Commission’s Expert Committee (2008) documented extreme poverty in resource-rich tribal regions.
   2. The Oxford Multidimensional Poverty Index (2010) ranked these regions worse than Sub-Saharan Africa.
3. Large-scale land alienation and displacement
   1. Despite legal safeguards, millions of adivasis lost land due to mining, dams and industrial projects.
   2. Studies show tribal land loss increased sharply after economic liberalisation.
4. Denial of forest and livelihood rights
   1. Control over forests, the main source of livelihood, steadily shifted away from tribal communities.
   2. Access to justice against arbitrary land acquisition remained weak.

How Governance Failures Created Space for Maoism?

1. Administrative exclusion and lack of representation
   1. Governance institutions were dominated by non-tribal officials unfamiliar with local realities.
   2. D. Sharma noted that outsiders carried biases that deepened alienation.
2. Weak oversight institutions
   1. Bodies such as the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes failed to prevent exploitation (Mungekar Committee, 2009).
   2. Governors rarely exercised their Fifth Schedule powers.
3. Limited success of PESA, 1996
   1. Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) aimed to establish tribal self-governance.
   2. Although political representation improved, Gram Sabha powers were routinely violated, especially regarding land acquisition and mining consent.
4. Rise of parallel Maoist governance
   1. Governance gaps enabled Maoists to run parallel administrations.
   2. They provided quick dispute resolution, basic schooling, health support and food distribution.
   3. The slogan “Jal, Jungle aur Zameen” resonated with dispossessed adivasis.

Implications

1. Constitutional safeguards lost credibility on the ground.
2. Deep distrust developed between tribal communities and the State.
3. Security-centric approaches proved insufficient without governance reform.
4. Maoists exploited governance vacuums to gain legitimacy.
5. Long-term peace remained elusive.

Challenges & Way Forward

Conclusion

Maoist insurgency in Fifth Schedule areas is fundamentally rooted in governance failure, not merely poverty or lack of development. The Constitution promised adivasis autonomy, dignity and protection, but successive governments failed to deliver. A post-Maoist governance vision must prioritise genuine self-rule, justice delivery, and political empowerment. Without restoring trust, security operations alone cannot ensure lasting peace.