JOIN USLeft Wing Extremism (LWE) is the new terminology used by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to describe the insurrection in central India. Until 2014, the government referred to it as ‘Naxalism’. As per the Census of India 2011, out of 640 districts in the country, insurrection is prevalent in 106 districts in 10 states. Although the term ‘Naxalism’ is popular in the Indian context, we can see the change in the nomenclature in policy documents. Other widely used terms are Maoism/Extremism/Revolution. The dominant discourse identifies poverty and related socio-economic factors as the reasons for the insurrection. It is undeniable that the areas of insurrection are beset with poor socio-economic conditions, high poverty and social backwardness. A few studies have attempted to understand the role of the state, enquiring into issues of governance, specifically over the engagement of adivasis in the Gram Sabha as envisioned in Panchayats (Extension to Schedule Areas), or PESA,1996, which recognises the right to self-governance of the adivasis.
The right of self-governance of the adivasi communities is an inalienable right provided by the Constitution of India under Articles 15(4), 23, 24, 29, 46, 164(1), 243, 244(1), 275, 350 and 371. Apart from these constitutional provisions, there are other safeguards to protect the interests of adivasis in public services. In addition, legislations such as PESA, 1996, and the Forest Rights Act, 2006, empower the Gram Sabha to prevent the land alienation of adivasis, as land is the central issue in the ongoing socio-political conflict.
There are many aspects of conflict between state-led governance and self-governance of adivasis. The most important among these are land ownership, rights over forest and other natural resources. The insurrection in the central and eastern states is deeply rooted in precisely these issues -- land and forest rights and the authority over natural resources. The insurgents argue that the State is acquiring lands in the Fifth Schedule Areas in order to protect the interests of business corporations, thereby denying the adivasi communities their rights. The mode of development adopted by the Indian state has displaced local peoples forcibly from their lands, livelihoods, habitats and cultures. The State argues that the insurgents are putting out wrong propaganda and making use of adivasis as their shields to achieve political goals. Apart from the political nature of this conflict, the fight is for the resources located in Fifth Schedule Areas. In community-centred governance systems, the land and other natural resources belong to the community. In state-led governance systems, the state accords itself the right to take over land and other resources by means of institutional mechanisms.
PESA recognises the ‘community’ as a viable administrative unit to manage local affairs. This provision stands in contradiction to state power and authority. It empowers the Gram Sabha as a legitimate authority to prevent land alienation in the adivasi areas and also gives power of ownership to the minor forest producers. However, due to the pressure exerted by the globalisation and privatisation processes, the state is unable to push the rights agenda on a large scale. One of the critical governance issues in insurrectionary districts is the neglect of the constitutional role of governors. Article 244(1) of the Constitution provides special provisions to administer the Fifth Schedule Areas. Section 5(2) specifically empowers the governor with the power to make “regulations for the peace and good government of any area in a state which is for the time being a Scheduled Area”. The governor has to send annual reports to the President regarding the administration of Scheduled Areas in the state. The negligence by the governors to enable proper implementation of laws concerning adivasis’ well-being is one of the important factors that fuel the perception of deprivation of rights and feeling of injustice among local communities.
Biggest threat?
Insurrection in the central and eastern states does not exactly constitute the “biggest internal security threat” as perceived by the Indian State. Contrary to the general understanding, it is not the ‘development deficit’ or ‘governance deficit’ that is responsible for the political violence between the insurgents and the State; rather it may be understood as governance excessiveness by the Union and state governments in the attempt to control and regulate the wealth of natural resources in the adivasi-populated states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha.
Conflicts in society arise when the interaction between informal and formal modes of governance does not take place in accordance with the old laws, customs and traditions of that particular society. There has to be a close coherence and consonance between new legislation and traditional customs and practices. For this, politics has to change the way it is operating now in insurrectionary areas. Anthropolitics is a seminal concept or theoretical theme to understand politics from an anthropological lens, with a focus on human-centric politics rather than power-based politics. It may be understood as an integrated mechanism to converge the cultural practices of informal governance with the formal structures of governance. The role of governance in containing insurrection has been recommended by various committees appointed by the central government.
To illustrate, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its seventh report on ‘Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution’ has recommended that “special efforts are needed to monitor the implementation of constitutional and statutory safeguards, development schemes and land reforms initiatives for containing discontent among sections vulnerable to the propaganda of violent Left extremism”. An expert group appointed by the erstwhile Planning Commission has also recommended strongly the empowerment of the panchayats as the only way out for effective governance of these areas in its report on ‘Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas-April 2008’. Unless we resolve this institutional and systemic conflict between the traditional and modern systems of governance, it will be difficult to contain insurrection in the central and eastern states which, in turn, will have serious implications on economic growth, political stability and social order in the country.
(The writer is Doctoral Fellow, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)