One of the core challenges
modern India faces is ensuring inclusive and equitable development across its
diverse demographic landscape. Tribal communities, which constitute 8.6% of
India’s population (Census 2011), are particularly vulnerable and have
historically been marginalized. The concept of tribal identity in India is
socio-politically fluid, yet scholars largely agree on the distinctiveness of
their social, economic, and political status.
In line with this vision,
India’s Constitution laid down key mechanisms to safeguard tribal interests.
The Fifth Schedule demarcated areas with significant tribal populations for
autonomous development, and Article 342 provided for the specification of
Scheduled Tribes (STs). Over time, governments introduced multiple schemes to
support tribal welfare. A significant early moment was the integration of
tribal welfare into the Five-Year Plans (FYPs), beginning with the First Plan,
which adopted the 'Panchsheel' principles for tribal development—emphasizing
self-driven progress in line with tribal culture and identity.
The First FYP (1951–56)
initiated 43 Multipurpose Tribal Development Projects (MTDPs), while the Third
FYP established Tribal Development Blocks (TDBs) in areas with more than 66%
tribal population. The Fourth Plan expanded this framework to 504 TDBs. Despite
these efforts, core issues like land alienation, indebtedness, and exploitation
persisted due to the failure of uniform, block-based funding strategies that
ignored local variations and needs.
A critical limitation of the
early tribal development approach was its limited reach—only those living
within Fifth Schedule areas or designated blocks benefited, leaving many tribal
populations underserved. The absence of a clear administrative framework and
dedicated fund devolution mechanism further hampered progress. Reports from the
Planning Commission and Ministry of Tribal Affairs acknowledged these gaps,
citing bureaucratic inefficiencies and inadequate monitoring systems.
Responding to the shortcomings,
the Fifth FYP (1974–79) introduced the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP), marking a pivotal
shift. The TSP mandated Central Ministries (CMs) and State Governments (SGs) to
earmark budgetary allocations for tribal development proportional to the tribal
population. It was designed around four core principles:
Designated
funding for STs under separate budget heads.
Non-divertibility
and non-lapsability of TSP funds.
Exclusive
application of TSP components to schemes benefiting STs directly.
Dedicated
mechanisms for policy monitoring and implementation.
Further, to address
administrative challenges, the Fifth Plan introduced Integrated Tribal
Development Projects (ITDPs) in areas with 50% or more tribal population. These
included administrative personnel like Tribal Development Officers and Field
Officers for effective project oversight. Unlike the earlier MTDPs, ITDPs aimed
to consolidate tribal development efforts across a broader administrative base.
The Sixth and Seventh Plans
expanded the scope of tribal development by introducing Modified Area
Development Approach (MADA) pockets and mini-MADA clusters. These were intended
to reach ST populations outside ITDP areas, aligning with the Sixth Plan’s goal
to elevate 50% of the tribal population above the poverty line. The Seventh
Plan observed a considerable increase in TSP allocations—rising from 0.5% in
the Fourth Plan to 3.8%.
Despite early momentum,
subsequent Five-Year Plans revealed policy fatigue and diminishing political
will. The Eighth FYP emphasized eliminating tribal exploitation and improving
access to rights and wages but lacked concrete TSP measures. The Ninth Plan
pivoted toward tribal literacy without evaluating earlier outcomes. The Tenth
Plan criticized tribal policies as fragmented, limited to “a small bunch of
bureaucratic programmes,” and lacking legislative support.
Non-compliance with TSP
earmarking guidelines was also noted. For instance, in 2006-07, Karnataka was
instructed to allocate 22.75% of its plan outlay to SCSP/TSP but allocated only
12%. Additionally, CMs cited challenges with dividing certain indivisible
projects between general and TSP components. A 2010 Planning Commission report
attempted to resolve these issues through clearer guidelines.
Major issues persisted due to
the lack of:
A centralized
ministry or authority to oversee TSP.
A
comprehensive legislative framework for tribal development.
Adequate fund
corpus to support tribal upliftment at scale.
These systemic issues undermined
the effectiveness of the TSP mechanism, even as awareness of their shortcomings
increased.
From
TSP to STC: A Paradigm Shift
With the formation of the new
government in 2014 and the dissolution of the Planning Commission, a new approach
emerged. The 2017 Union Budget merged plan and non-plan components of TSP,
bringing them under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA). This reform—aligned
with the recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms
Commission—created the Scheduled Tribe Component (STC), shifting from the
Planning Commission-led model to a ministry-led approach.
STC funds are now earmarked from
Central Sector (CS) and Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) instead of from total
plan budgets. This restructuring allowed ministries to contribute between 4% to
17% of their scheme allocations for tribal development, based on specific
guidelines issued by NITI Aayog. Additionally, a central monitoring dashboard
(STC-M) was launched to track fund flow and project implementation more
efficiently.
While the merger led to a
reported 30% increase in STC allocations, critics argue that the increase is
illusory—attributable more to technical budgetary changes than actual
prioritization of tribal welfare. The integration of non-plan expenditures
without aligning them to tribal-specific outcomes has raised concerns.
Moreover, critical
implementation issues remain, particularly regarding the alignment of Fifth
Schedule Areas, Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, and STC.
Coordination between Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) like the Gram Sabha and
STC implementation agencies is often weak or absent, impeding grassroots
execution.
The journey from TSP to STC
reflects an evolving attempt to align tribal development policy with broader
governance reforms. However, the lack of a coherent legal framework, poor fund
utilization, weak monitoring, and inadequate convergence with local governance
structures continue to plague the policy landscape. While steps such as central
dashboards, fund earmarking, and MoTA oversight mark progress, the system is
keep evolving for betterment.
