The Adivasi, or India’s tribal communities, have a long history of self-governance. However, changes brought by colonial administrative systems and their subsequent modifications post-independence have gradually deteriorated this indigenous form of governance. This has been especially true in the region of what is now Jharkhand, where the transitioning Adivasi governance system, despite relief efforts such as The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996, has noticeably dwindled. This article aims to examine the reasons behind this decline and highlight the changes needed for revitalization.
Case Study – Tribal Governance System of Jharkhand
Formally established as India’s 28th state through a division of Southern Bihar in 2000, Jharkhand boasts a rich tribal diversity made up of 32 tribes, including nine Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG). Major tribes by population size include the Santhal (34%), Oraon (19.6%), Munda (14.8%) and Ho (10.5%).
In Jharkhand, the tribal socio-political structure has traditionally been arranged into three tiers: village-level, cluster-level, representing five to six villages, and community-level. These formats promoted participatory decision-making, though regrettably often excluding women. Each tribal village typically had a council responsible for governance, managing areas like land & resource management, agrarian activities, cultural practices, and upholding unwritten norms, laws, and values.
Decline of the Traditional Governance System
However, the imposition of the Bihar Panchayat Raj System (BPRS) in 1947 led to an erosion of these traditional governance structures. Designed primarily for non-Adivasi areas, the BPRS inadvertently undermined the maintenance of Adivasi governance, a decline which was only hastened by the advancement of industrialisation and consequent displacement of Adivasi communities.
About Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996:
In an attempt to preserve local self-governance, the 73rd constitutional amendment was made in 1992, establishing a three-tier Panchayati Raj Institution. However, this law’s application was limited in scheduled and tribal areas under Article 243(M). To address this, the PESA Act 1996 was birthed following the Bhuria Committee recommendations in 1995, aiming to ensure tribal self-rule.
The PESA conferred significant powers to the Gram Sabha, giving it control over issues like land acquisition, cultural protection, minor forest product ownership, local dispute resolution, village market management, and several others. It meant to be the backbone of tribal legislation in India, upholding the traditional decision-making system and advocating for people’s self-governance.
Flaws within the PESA Act
Despite its promising intent, the PESA has faced numerous implementation challenges. State governments were supposed to enact laws for their Scheduled Areas aligned with the PESA. Still, partial implementation resulted in deterioration of self-governance in some regions, like Jharkhand. This failure has been attributed to various factors, including lack of clarity, legal infirmity, bureaucratic indifference, lack of political will, and resistance to change in the power hierarchy.
India’s Tribal Policy
Officially, Scheduled Tribes in India are identified under Article 342 (1&2), and their right to self-governance is guaranteed by Part X: The Scheduled and Tribal Areas – Article 244. These rights extend to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Indian Constitution, the PESA Act, the Tribal Panchsheel Policy, and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The Future of Tribal Governance
For tribal self-governance to truly flourish, PESA needs to be implemented in both spirit and letter. Rejuvenating these systems would also create an opportunity to address existing gaps in traditional governance—like gender exclusion—and promote a more democratic space.
