Tribal Policy: Pulling Back from the Brink?

In order to ensure that special budgetary provisions are made for tribal development, the Constitution itself provides in Article 275 that there ‘shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India as grants-in-aid of the revenues of a state such capital and recurring sums as may be necessary to enable that state to meet the costs of such schemes of development as may be undertaken by the state with the approval of the Government of India for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes in that state or raising the level of administration of the Scheduled areas therein to that of the administration of the rest of that state’.

However, contrary to the expectations in some quarters, actual budgetary allocations in the first three Five-Year Plans for tribal development were extremely niggardly. ‘On an average the government spent Rs. 87.3 million annually on the Scheduled and Denotified Tribes¹⁸ during the period of the first three Plans. The average annual spending, per head, came to as little as Rs. 3.50’ (Mann 1980:29).

In response to the need to ensure adequate budgetary allocations to the tribal people and regions, an extremely important budgetary mechanism was introduced from the Fifth Plan. This was the instrument of the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP), or the earmarking of separate plan outlays exclusively for the development of STs, roughly in proportion to their population in the country as a whole or the state in question for which the budget was being prepared. For the administration of the TSPs of various states, blocks or groups of blocks of high tribal concentration (more than 50 per cent) were constituted into Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDPs), and various wings of government were sought to be integrated in the ITDPs under the leadership of a senior government functionary.

Modified Area Development Approach (MADA) Pockets were formed in groups of villages having population of 10,000 or more with 50 per cent or more tribal population. 252 MADA Pockets were created. In addition, 79 Clusters were also formed for groups of villages having population of 5,000 or more where STs constitute more than 50 per cent of the population. Apart from this, 75 Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) were identified in 15 states/UTs on the basis of pre-agricultural levels of technology and extremely low levels of literacy. The development of PTGs was undertaken through micro projects for these tribes (Government of India 1998-1999: 32).

The stated objective of the TSP strategy was to secure budgetary allocations for tribal development at least proportionate to their population, in order to ‘bring them [tribal groups] at par with other sections of society and to protect them from exploitation. The TSP strategy is in operation in 18 States, namely Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharasthra, Manipur, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal and two Union Territories, namely the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Daman and Diu’ (Government of India 1998-1999: 32).

The instruments of the TSP and ITDP did result in the allocation of a greater proportion of budgetary resources to tribal development. Enhanced tribal sub-plan flows and expenditures are given in Figure 1. Since the Fifth Plan, these have in the context of the Government of India often exceeded the proportion of tribal people to the total population (Figure 2). Flows to TSP are officially monitored for various departments of the central and state governments.¹⁹

However, there were many limitations to this strategy. Firstly, mere enhancement of budgetary allocations does not lead automatically to enhanced welfare. The implementation of protective measures that do not involve financial outlays may be far more significant.

Moreover, in both central and state governments, the political objective of securing allocations under TSP in proportion to tribal populations was rarely achieved. Even when it was achieved, it was often the result of innovative accounting mechanisms rather than genuine enhancement of outlays on programmes for tribal development. In the Fifth Plan, expenditure on major investments like industrial and large irrigation projects was treated as indivisible expenditures, and not included under the TSP. However, from the Sixth Plan onwards, many of these expenditures were shown to be for tribal welfare.

In states with high tribal concentration, the bureaucratic ploy frequently resorted to is that described as `booking’ of expenditures to TSP. The unstated purpose appears to be to inflate figures of expenditures for programmes allegedly for tribal welfare, without disturbing the actual balance in favour of other, more powerful mainstream budgetary demands. Expenditures on staff, institutions and general plan expenditures, such as a highway passing through tribal plan area, are routinely booked to TSP. Even subsidies given to private industry for setting up industrial units in tribal areas are shown as part of the TSP. This is particularly ironic in that projects which have forcibly uprooted and dispossessed local tribal populations are transformed, through such budgetary fictions, to projects which have actually been for the development of tribal people.

Similarly, the ITDP strategy in most states was a non-starter. Senior functionaries were posted as Project Officers in charge of ITDPs in many states, but they were rarely delegated significant financial or administrative authority over other departments working in tribal areas.

What is needed is that budgetary resources proportional to the tribal population in the state be separated from the overall plan right at the outset. For these resources, treated as a separate pool, genuine TSPs should be prepared in response to the genuine needs and aspirations of the tribal populations. The TSP should have been aggregated to the ITDPs and MADAPs, and plans should emerge from below, by a genuine process of consultation. Only through thoroughgoing decentralisation of funds and authority to sub-district concentrations of tribal people can it be ensured that a just share of national and state budgetary resources are channelised for programmes which meet the felt needs of STs.

For Hindi click here

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291