The report of the Planning Commission’s expert group on “development challenges in extremist affected areas” is yet another stern indictment of the persistent failure of governance and political will in dealing with the socio-economic factors underlying the rise and spread of left wing extremism in India.

The question now is how many reports does it take for the government to act? Certainly, every report merits careful consideration. But endless consideration cannot be a substitute for action as has been the case in the past, the Police Commission’s report being a classic and tragic example.

The violation of the terms and values of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution that embodies a charter for scheduled tribes has been gross and persistent. The role of the Governors, the constitutionally empowered guardians of this protective jurisdiction, has for the most part been one of studied dereliction borne out of ignorance and indifference, but with no questions asked by either Parliament or the Central Government. What does the government propose to do about this gaping lacuna? Set up yet another committee?

The report underlines the real malaise that unites all those who wield power and make policy. It notes how the green revolution has been allowed to turn red, as warned would happen, on account of failure to implement agrarian reform especially with regard to recording cultivation rights, ensuring tenurial security, safeguarding sharecroppers, enforcing minimum agricultural wages, providing homestead plots to an estimated eight million homeless families, protecting common property resources and distributing waste and bhoodan lands.

Impunity and immunity have marked rampant violations, with few exceptions. If this has particularly hurt dalits, the same has been true of violations of forest rights affecting increasingly disillusioned but politically conscious and organised tribal communities.

Listen to what the report says. “There is…a failure of governance, which has multiple dimensions and is not confined to the inefficiency of the delivery system only. It is not fortuitous that overwhelmingly large sections of bureaucracy/ technocracy constituting the delivery system come from dominating landowning castes or well to do middle classes, with their attachment to ownership of property, cultural superiority, purity-pollution governed behaviour and a state of mind which rationalises and asserts their existing position of dominance in relation to others… Politics has also been aligned with this social sector which constitutes the power structure…. It is this collection of interests and social background that deeply affect governance at all levels.” 

Special laws to protect the SCs and STs, such as the Prevention of Atrocities Act have largely remained a dead letter. “Their effective implementation is frustrated by indifference, social bias, routine observance of procedures and even withdrawal of registered cases.” With the result conviction rates are less that one per cent!  

The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1995 (PESA), which underpins tribal rights to land, livelihoods and the natural resource base, has been flouted. In Bihar, PESA has not come into effect as panchayat elections have not been held. Is this stubborn defiance of the law and the Constitution not a fit case for President’s rule?
The Government’s paper on the Naxal issue posits a holistic approach with emphasis on socio-economic development. But little development is possible without a refurbished administrative structure that is decentralised, operates a single-window and is staffed by dedicated, and adequately rewarded cadres like the former IFAS. Furthermore, there must be dialogue.

Section 4(V) of the Naxal Status Paper states that “there will be no peace dialogue by the affected States with the Naxal groups unless the latter agree to give up violence and arms”. The Report notes that this is “incomprehensible” and inconsistent with the government’s stand vis-à-vis other militant groups like the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and pleads that the door for negotiations be kept open.

Andhra Pradesh tried negotiations through a Committee of Concerned Citizens. This came to naught but helped clarify a number of issues and pointed the way for constructive action on both sides. Thought should be given to establishing a credible neutral body whose good offices can be used by the government and non-state actors alike to establish contact, exchange ideas and facilitate dialogue. The ICRC does this internationally. The Indian Red Cross is insular body while the NHRC, NIC and National Disaster Management Agency are limited by their charter and structures.

Stray NGOs and ad hoc groups are not necessarily well equipped or trained for the task and lack standard, acceptable and jurisdically sound terms of reference and credible personnel.

Nyaya panchayats could provide expeditious, inexpensive local dispute and conflict resolution and some good beginnings have been made here. But why not mobile courts as well?

The report expresses concerns about SEZs, haphazard mineral exploitation, displacement and unsatisfactory terms of compensation for lands acquired, lost livelihoods and R&R. These can be remedied. A heavily land-based approach is no more viable with population growth.

The land simply cannot sustain the annual additional employment required. Industrialisation and resource utilisation are essential, subject to safeguards, to prevent the annual distress migration of 30-40 million “nowhere people” in search of employment. One cannot, ostrich-like, live in the past. We have to build the future.