GS Notes

1.2.4 - Post Independence India Notes 03

24 min read

Elaborate Notes

Tribal development in post-independence India has evolved from the initial debates between the assimilationist approach, advocated by sociologists like G.S. Ghurye, and the isolationist or preservationist approach, championed by anthropologists like Verrier Elwin. The Nehruvian policy of ‘tribal panchasheel’ sought a middle path, aiming for development without destroying their cultural identity. The following schemes represent contemporary efforts to achieve this balance.

  • TRIFED (Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Limited): Established in 1987 under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, TRIFED is the nodal agency under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Its primary mandate is the socio-economic development of tribal communities by institutionalizing the trade of Minor Forest Produce (MFP) and surplus agricultural produce collected or cultivated by them. It aims to eliminate the exploitation of tribals by private traders and intermediaries.

  • Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS), 1997-98:

    • Historical Context: The scheme was launched to address the low literacy rates and high dropout rates among Scheduled Tribe (ST) students. It was conceived as a parallel to the Navodaya Vidyalaya model but with a specific focus on tribal children. The objective, as stated by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, is to provide quality middle and high-level education to ST students in remote areas, enabling them to access the best opportunities in education and employment.
    • Features: EMRS are fully residential schools providing free education from Class VI to XII. The curriculum is based on the CBSE pattern. A crucial aspect is the emphasis on preserving tribal culture and heritage through various activities, ensuring that modern education does not alienate students from their roots. The Finance Minister, in the Union Budget of 2018-19, announced that every block with more than 50% ST population and at least 20,000 tribal persons, will have an EMRS by the year 2022.

  • Minimum Support Price (MSP) for Minor Forest Produce (MFP):

    • Significance of MFP: As documented in the “Report of the National Committee on Forest Rights Act” (2011), chaired by Dr. N.C. Saxena, an estimated 100 million forest dwellers depend on MFPs for food, shelter, medicines, and cash income. MFPs like tendu patta, bamboo, tamarind, mahua flowers, and sal seeds form a critical part of their livelihood and subsistence economy.
    • Scheme Details: Launched in 2013-14, the scheme provides a safety net for tribal MFP gatherers against price fluctuations. It fixes an MSP for selected MFPs, which is revised periodically. TRIFED is the central nodal agency for implementation. The scheme ensures sustainable harvesting by promoting scientific collection practices.
    • Marketing Mechanism: The scheme supports state-level agencies in procuring these products at the MSP. The marketing aspect connects the collected produce to larger industrial or retail markets, often through value addition, thereby ensuring better returns for the tribal gatherers. This mechanism attempts to formalize the unorganized MFP market.

  • Pradhan Mantri Van Dhan Yojana (PMVDY), 2018:

    • Objective: This scheme is an initiative of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and TRIFED. It builds upon the MSP for MFP scheme by moving from mere collection and sale to value addition at the local level. The central idea is to empower tribal communities by helping them optimize the utilization of forest wealth.
    • Implementation: It promotes the formation of Van Dhan Vikas Kendras (VDVKs), which are tribal community-owned MFP-based enterprises. These Kendras, comprising 15-20 Self Help Groups (SHGs) of about 300 members each, are provided with training, equipment, and working capital to add value to the gathered MFPs (e.g., de-seeding tamarind, making bamboo crafts, producing mahua jam). This enhances their income manifold compared to selling raw produce.

  • Bharat Rural Livelihood Foundation (BRLF), 2013:

    • Genesis and Model: BRLF was set up by the Government of India as an independent society under the Ministry of Rural Development to scale up civil society action in partnership with government. It is a unique example of network governance, integrating the government, private sector (through CSR), and civil society organizations (CSOs/NGOs).
    • Functioning: BRLF provides financial and technical support to CSOs with a proven track record in tribal areas. It focuses on capacity building of these organizations to implement livelihood projects, strengthen SHGs, develop tribal leadership, and improve the implementation of flagship government programs like MGNREGA and the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM).
    • Funding: It was established with an initial corpus of ₹1000 crore, with the Government of India contributing ₹500 crore and the remaining to be sourced from private and philanthropic partners. Contributions from private companies to BRLF are eligible for fulfillment of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, PESA, 1996

  • Constitutional and Historical Background: The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which institutionalized Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), was not automatically applicable to Scheduled Areas listed under the Fifth Schedule (Article 244(1)). To extend PRI provisions to these areas with necessary modifications, the Parliament enacted PESA, 1996, based on the recommendations of the Bhuria Committee (1995). The committee emphasized the need to devolve power to tribal communities, recognizing their traditional systems of governance.
  • Key Provisions:
    • Supremacy of Gram Sabha: PESA empowers the Gram Sabha (village assembly) as the cornerstone of self-governance. It gives the Gram Sabha mandatory powers to approve development plans, identify beneficiaries, and issue utilization certificates for funds.
    • Specific Powers: The Act explicitly vests the Gram Sabha with powers of ownership over Minor Forest Produce, control over village markets, prevention of land alienation, control over money lending to STs, and the management of minor water bodies. Crucially, consultation with the Gram Sabha is mandatory before land acquisition for development projects.
    • Reservation: It mandates a minimum of 50% reservation for STs in all tiers of the Panchayat. The chairperson’s post at all levels is also reserved for STs.
  • Implementation Challenges: Despite its progressive intent, the implementation of PESA remains weak. State governments have been reluctant to frame corresponding rules and devolve powers, viewing it as an erosion of their authority. This reflects the classic tension in federalism where devolution of power to the third tier is often resisted by the second tier.
  • Judicial Intervention: The Samata Judgment (1997): In the landmark case of Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997), the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment interpreting the provisions of the Fifth Schedule. It ruled that the transfer of tribal land, including government land, in Scheduled Areas to non-tribals for mining or industrial purposes was unconstitutional and void. It held that only the government or its undertakings, or a cooperative of tribals, could undertake mining activities. However, subsequent executive actions and amendments to mining laws have often been criticized for diluting the spirit of this judgment.

Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA)

  • Historical Injustice: The FRA’s preamble explicitly acknowledges the “historical injustice” meted out to forest-dwelling communities during the colonial era and its continuation in independent India. British-era forest laws, such as the Indian Forest Act of 1927, declared forests as state property and converted forest dwellers into encroachers on their own ancestral lands.
  • Core Objectives: The Act sought to address the intertwined issues of tribal autonomy, landlessness, and rights over forest produce, which PESA had only partially addressed. It aims to recognize and vest forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) who have been residing in such forests for generations.
  • Rights Recognized:
    1. Individual Forest Rights (IFR): Right to hold and live in the forest land for habitation or self-cultivation for livelihood. The maximum land that can be recognized is 4 hectares, and the right is heritable but not alienable or transferable.
    2. Community Forest Rights (CFR): These include rights over MFP, grazing grounds, water bodies, and traditional seasonal resources.
    3. Community Forest Resource (CFRR) Rights: This is a crucial right that empowers the Gram Sabha to protect, regenerate, conserve, and manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use. This provision directly links to the Directive Principle under Article 48A (protection and improvement of environment).
  • Eligibility and Process: Eligibility requires the claimant to have been primarily residing in and depending on the forests for livelihood needs. For STs, presence in the area is sufficient. For OTFDs, they must prove residence for at least three generations (75 years) prior to December 13, 2005. The Gram Sabha is the primary authority to initiate the process of determining the nature and extent of rights.
  • Strengthening PESA: FRA significantly empowers the Gram Sabha, a body created by PESA in Scheduled Areas. Section 4(1) of FRA mandates that the free, prior, and informed consent of the Gram Sabha is required for any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, including government projects.
  • Judicial Affirmation: Niyamgiri Case (2013): In Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forest (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the cultural and religious rights of the Dongria Kondh tribe over the Niyamgiri Hills. The court ruled that the Gram Sabhas had the authority to decide whether the proposed bauxite mining by Vedanta Ltd. would affect their religious and cultural rights. Subsequently, all 12 concerned Gram Sabhas unanimously voted against the project, thereby protecting their sacred mountain. This judgment expanded the scope of FRA to include the protection of customary, cultural, and religious rights associated with forest landscapes.

India-China War, 1962

  • Historical Backdrop and Diverging Perceptions:

    • Indian Stance: After independence, India, under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, pursued a policy of friendship with the newly formed People’s Republic of China (PRC), established in 1949. India was among the first non-communist nations to recognize the PRC. This policy was rooted in a shared experience of colonialism and a vision of Asian solidarity. Nehru believed that a formal border delineation was unnecessary, as the borders were defined by tradition and custom.
    • Chinese Stance: The Communist leadership under Mao Zedong viewed the existing borders as a legacy of British imperialism—part of the “century of humiliation.” They did not recognize agreements like the Shimla Convention, which were signed by what they considered illegitimate Tibetan or British Indian governments.
    • Early Warnings: Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in a detailed letter to Nehru dated November 7, 1950, expressed deep skepticism about China’s intentions following its annexation of Tibet, warning of potential threats to India’s security. Nehru, however, remained committed to a policy of engagement.

  • The Border Dispute:

    • Western Sector (Aksai Chin): The dispute centered on two differing colonial-era lines. The Ardagh-Johnson Line (1865, formally proposed 1897) placed Aksai Chin within the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, and was the basis of India’s claim. The Macartney-MacDonald Line (1899), proposed by the British to China, placed most of Aksai Chin under Chinese jurisdiction. China never formally responded, and the British reverted to the Johnson line. However, China later used this proposal to bolster its claims.
    • Eastern Sector (NEFA/Arunachal Pradesh): The boundary here was the MacMahon Line, drawn during the Shimla Convention of 1914 between Great Britain and Tibet. The Chinese representative was present but refused to ratify the agreement. Post-1949, the PRC officially rejected the MacMahon Line as an imperialist imposition.

  • The Path to War:

    1. Panchsheel Agreement (1954): India and China signed the “Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India.” Its preamble contained the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Panchsheel). Critically, while India accepted Tibet as a “region of China,” the agreement was silent on the border issue, which Nehru saw as a tacit acceptance of the status quo. China viewed it differently.
    2. Aksai Chin Road (1957): India discovered that China had secretly built a 1,200 km road (G219) connecting Xinjiang with western Tibet, a significant portion of which ran through the Aksai Chin territory claimed by India. This was a major strategic and political shock.
    3. Dalai Lama’s Asylum (1959): Following a failed uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet, the 14th Dalai Lama fled to India. Nehru granted him asylum on humanitarian grounds, a move that Beijing viewed as a grave provocation and interference in its internal affairs.
    4. Failed Negotiations & Forward Policy: Zhou Enlai visited India in 1960 and proposed a “package deal”: China would recognize the MacMahon Line in the east if India recognized Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin in the west. The proposal was rejected by Nehru due to strong domestic political opposition. Subsequently, India initiated a “Forward Policy” (1960-62), establishing small, isolated military posts north of the MacMahon Line and in the western sector to assert its claims, a policy which military historian Neville Maxwell, in his controversial book India’s China War (1970), argues was a direct trigger for the conflict.

  • Reasons for the Chinese Attack (October 1962):

    • Geopolitical Factors: The Sino-Soviet split had intensified after 1959. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s policy of “peaceful coexistence” with the West and his growing rapport with India were viewed with suspicion by Mao. A military victory over India would assert China’s dominance in the communist bloc and the region. As scholar Srinath Raghavan argues in War and Peace in Modern India (2010), the war was China’s calculated move to puncture India’s growing international stature and its leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement.
    • Domestic Crises in China: Mao Zedong’s radical economic program, the “Great Leap Forward” (1958-1962), had been a catastrophic failure, leading to a massive famine and millions of deaths. The agrarian communism model, with its decentralized ‘backyard furnaces’ for steel production, had failed spectacularly. The war served as a convenient diversion, rallying the populace around a nationalist cause and deflecting criticism from Mao’s leadership within the Communist Party.
    • Border Dispute as Pretext: The unsettled border and India’s “Forward Policy” provided the immediate pretext for a pre-planned, punitive military campaign designed to “teach India a lesson.”

Prelims Pointers

  • TRIFED: Established in 1987 under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Nodal agency for MSP for MFP and Van Dhan Yojana.
  • Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS): Launched in 1997-98 for ST students, from Class VI to XII.
  • MSP for MFP Scheme: Provides minimum support price for Minor Forest Produce like tendu patta, bamboo, honey, lac, etc.
  • PM Van Dhan Yojana (PMVDY): Launched in 2018. Focuses on value addition to MFPs through Van Dhan Vikas Kendras (VDVKs).
  • Bharat Rural Livelihood Foundation (BRLF): Set up in 2013 as an independent society under the Ministry of Rural Development.
  • CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility is mandatory for companies with a turnover of more than ₹1000 crore (or Net Worth > ₹500 cr or Net Profit > ₹5 cr). They must spend 2% of their average net profits.
  • PESA Act: Enacted in 1996. Extends Part IX of the Constitution to Fifth Schedule areas.
  • Fifth Schedule: Deals with the administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes (Article 244(1)).
  • Bhuria Committee (1995): Its recommendations formed the basis for the PESA Act, 1996.
  • Reservation under PESA: Not less than 50% of seats for STs at all Panchayat levels. Chairperson posts are reserved for STs.
  • Samata Judgment (1997): Supreme Court ruled that transfer of tribal land in Scheduled Areas to private parties for mining is unconstitutional.
  • Forest Rights Act (FRA): Enacted in 2006. Also known as the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.
  • Eligibility under FRA:
    1. STs: Must be residing in and depending on forest land.
    2. OTFDs (Other Traditional Forest Dwellers): Must have resided for at least 3 generations (75 years) prior to Dec 13, 2005.
  • Land Limit under FRA: Maximum of 4 hectares for Individual Forest Rights. Rights are heritable but not transferable.
  • Niyamgiri Hills Case (2013): SC empowered Gram Sabhas to decide on a mining project based on religious and cultural rights. It involved the Dongria Kondh tribe in Odisha.
  • Ardagh-Johnson Line: Puts Aksai Chin in India. It is India’s official claim line.
  • Macartney-MacDonald Line: Puts Aksai Chin in China.
  • MacMahon Line: Demarcates the border in the Eastern Sector (Arunachal Pradesh). Agreed upon in the Shimla Convention of 1914 between British India and Tibet.
  • Panchsheel Agreement: Signed in 1954 between India and China.
  • Five Principles of Panchsheel:
    1. Mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.
    2. Mutual non-aggression.
    3. Mutual non-interference in internal affairs.
    4. Equality and mutual benefit.
    5. Peaceful co-existence.
  • Great Leap Forward: Mao Zedong’s economic campaign in China from 1958 to 1962.

Mains Insights

  • GS Paper II: Governance & Social Justice

    • Legislative Intent vs. Implementation Gap: Acts like PESA (1996) and FRA (2006) are landmark legislations aimed at reversing historical injustices and empowering tribal communities. However, their success is severely hampered by poor implementation, bureaucratic apathy, and resistance from state governments reluctant to devolve power. This illustrates a critical challenge in Indian governance.
    • Rights-Based vs. Welfare-Based Approach: The shift from a purely welfare-based approach (providing schemes and subsidies) to a rights-based framework (recognizing legal rights over land and resources) is a significant evolution in tribal policy. PESA and FRA are prime examples. Mains answers should analyze the effectiveness and challenges of this rights-based approach.
    • Conflict between Development and Conservation: Tribal rights often come into conflict with both development projects (mining, dams) and conservation efforts (creation of national parks, tiger reserves). The FRA attempts to resolve this by making tribals stakeholders in conservation (‘right to protect and manage’). The Niyamgiri case shows how community rights can triumph over corporate interests, but such instances are rare.

  • GS Paper I: Post-Independence Consolidation

    • Nehru’s Foreign Policy: Idealism vs. Realism: The 1962 war is often cited as the biggest failure of Nehru’s foreign policy. His idealistic belief in Asian solidarity and ‘Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai’ was shattered by China’s realpolitik. This led to a significant shift in India’s foreign policy towards greater realism and military preparedness.
    • Historiographical Debate on the 1962 War:
      1. Orthodox View: Holds China as the sole aggressor, betraying India’s trust. This narrative emphasizes Chinese expansionism and duplicity.
      2. Revisionist View (e.g., Neville Maxwell): Argues that India’s provocative “Forward Policy” left China with no option but to launch a punitive attack. This view is highly contested in India but offers a critical perspective on India’s strategic miscalculations.
      3. Balanced View (e.g., Srinath Raghavan): Situates the war in a broader geopolitical context of the Cold War, the Sino-Soviet split, and domestic political compulsions in both countries, suggesting a more complex causality than simple aggression or provocation.

  • GS Paper III: Economy & Environment

    • Sustainable Livelihoods: Schemes like MSP for MFP and Van Dhan Yojana are critical for integrating tribal economies with the mainstream while promoting sustainability. Value addition at the source (Van Dhan Kendras) is a key strategy for enhancing rural incomes and is a model for ‘Vocal for Local’.
    • Role of Community in Environmental Governance: The FRA’s provision for Community Forest Resource (CFRR) rights is a powerful tool for decentralized and democratic forest governance. It legally empowers local communities to manage their surrounding environment, which can lead to better conservation outcomes than top-down state-centric models. This can be linked to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. (UPSC CSE 2023) The Government of India provides Minimum Support Price (MSP) for niger (guizotia abyssinica) seeds. Niger is grown as a Kharif crop. Some tribal people in India use niger seed oil for cooking. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Answer: (c) All three Explanation: All three statements are factually correct. Niger is one of the MFPs for which MSP is provided. It is a Kharif crop, and its oil is used by tribal communities for cooking.

  2. (UPSC CSE 2022) Consider the following statements:

    1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
    2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
    3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
    4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only While not directly from the summary, the Samata Judgment and Niyamgiri case are examples of judicial activism and the power of courts, making contempt of court a related concept in governance. Answer: (b) 1, 2 and 4 Explanation: Statement 3 is incorrect. The Constitution does not define Civil and Criminal Contempt; the definition is provided in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statements 1, 2, and 4 are correct.

  3. (UPSC CSE 2019) Under which Schedule of the Constitution of India can the transfer of tribal land to private parties for mining be declared null and void? (a) Third Schedule (b) Fifth Schedule (c) Ninth Schedule (d) Twelfth Schedule Answer: (b) Fifth Schedule Explanation: The Fifth Schedule deals with the administration of Scheduled Areas. The Governor has the power to make regulations to prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of the Scheduled Tribes in such areas. The Samata Judgment (1997) was based on this provision.

  4. (UPSC CSE 2019) Consider the following statements about Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India:

    1. PVTGs reside in 18 States and one Union Territory.
    2. A stagnant or declining population is one of the criteria for determining PVTG status.
    3. There are 95 PVTGs officially notified in the country so far.
    4. Irular and Konda Reddi tribes are included in the list of PVTGs. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1, 2 and 4 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (d) 1, 3 and 4 Answer: (a) 1, 2 and 4 Explanation: Statement 3 is incorrect. As of now, there are 75 listed PVTGs in India, not 95. The other three statements are correct.

  5. (UPSC CSE 2018) The term ‘two-state solution’ is sometimes mentioned in the news in the context of the affairs of (a) China (b) Israel (c) Iraq (d) Yemen Though not directly about the 1962 war, this question relates to international border disputes and geopolitical conflicts, a theme central to the India-China issue. Answer: (b) Israel Explanation: The ‘two-state solution’ refers to the proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.

Mains

  1. (UPSC CSE 2022) “The most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court.” Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws. Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Briefly explain what is meant by the “constitutionalization of environmental problems” – linking environmental protection to fundamental rights (Article 21) and DPSPs (Article 48A).
    • Body:
      • Discuss how the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the Right to a clean and healthy environment (e.g., M.C. Mehta cases).
      • Explain the role of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in environmental jurisprudence.
      • Crucially, link to the topic by citing the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. MoEF (Niyamgiri case, 2013). Explain how the SC constitutionalized the cultural and religious rights of tribals, linking them to the protection of their environment (the sacred hill). This case is a prime example of the judiciary harmonizing environmental law with tribal rights.
      • Mention other relevant case laws like the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum case (polluter pays principle) and the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case (forest protection).
    • Conclusion: Conclude that the Supreme Court has indeed been a pivotal force in environmental governance, often stepping in to fill legislative and executive gaps, thereby making environmental protection a fundamental aspect of India’s constitutional fabric.

  2. (UPSC CSE 2021) To what extent in your opinion has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots? Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Define decentralization of power with reference to the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts and specific acts like PESA for tribal areas.
    • Body:
      • Positive Changes: Discuss how decentralization has deepened democracy, improved local participation, and made governance more responsive. Mention the role of reservations for women and marginalized communities.
      • The PESA Example: Use PESA, 1996, as a specific case study. Explain its provisions for empowering the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas, giving them control over resources, land, and local development. This is a radical shift in the governance landscape for these areas.
      • Challenges and Limitations: Discuss the issues of the 3Fs (Funds, Functions, Functionaries) not being adequately devolved by state governments. Mention the weak implementation of PESA, bureaucratic resistance, and the problem of elite capture at the local level.
    • Conclusion: Conclude that while decentralization has fundamentally altered the potential for grassroots governance, its actual impact has been uneven. The framework is in place, but political will and capacity building are needed to realize its full potential.

  3. (UPSC CSE 2019) The need for cooperation among various service sectors has been an inherent component of development discourse. Partnership bridges the gap among the sectors. It also sets in motion a culture of collaboration and team spirit. In the light of the statements above, examine India’s development process. Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Acknowledge the importance of convergence and partnerships (public-private-civil society) in modern development administration.
    • Body:
      • Explain the traditional silo-based approach of government departments and its limitations.
      • Examine India’s development process using examples:
        • Use BRLF (Bharat Rural Livelihood Foundation) as a prime example from the summary. Explain its model of network governance, where it partners with the government, draws funds from the private sector (CSR), and implements projects through experienced CSOs/NGOs to improve rural and tribal livelihoods.
        • Discuss other examples like the Swachh Bharat Mission (government, corporates, citizens), National Health Mission (partnerships with NGOs and private hospitals), etc.
      • Analyze the benefits: leveraging diverse expertise, enhancing resource availability, and improving last-mile delivery.
      • Discuss the challenges: ensuring accountability, managing conflicting interests, and scaling up successful partnerships.
    • Conclusion: Conclude that while India has made significant strides in adopting a partnership-based development model, a more institutionalized and transparent framework is needed to make these collaborations truly effective and sustainable.

  4. (UPSC CSE 2018) Why is the Indian Government persistently confronting the problem of illegal mining? Discuss the role of the State and Union governments in this regard. Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Briefly state the gravity of the illegal mining problem in India, linking it to environmental degradation, revenue loss, and social conflict, especially in tribal areas.
    • Body:
      • Reasons for illegal mining: High demand for minerals, collusion between politicians, bureaucrats, and the mining mafia, complex regulatory procedures, and lack of effective enforcement.
      • Role of Union Government: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provides the regulatory framework. The Union government formulates policy, and agencies like the Indian Bureau of Mines monitor activities.
      • Role of State Governments: State governments grant mineral concessions and are primarily responsible for enforcement and curbing illegal activities on the ground.
      • Link to Tribal Issues: Discuss how illegal mining disproportionately affects tribal areas, leading to land alienation and violation of laws like PESA and FRA. Mention the Samata Judgment (1997) which sought to prevent private mining in Scheduled Areas but has been difficult to enforce against illegal miners.
      • Solutions: Suggest measures like using technology (satellite imagery), strengthening enforcement, simplifying legal procedures, and empowering local communities (Gram Sabhas under PESA/FRA) to monitor and report illegal activities.
    • Conclusion: Conclude that tackling illegal mining requires a concerted effort with strong political will, technological intervention, and a central role for local communities as guardians of their resources.

  5. (UPSC CSE 2017) The local self-government system in India has not proved to be an effective instrument of governance. Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation. Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Acknowledge that the 73rd and 74th amendments were revolutionary steps but their promise remains partially unfulfilled.
    • Body:
      • Arguments that it has not been effective:
        • Lack of financial autonomy (devolution of Funds).
        • State government interference and reluctance to devolve Functions and Functionaries.
        • Capacity deficits at the local level.
        • Emergence of ‘Sarpanch Pati’ and elite capture.
        • Weak implementation in Fifth Schedule Areas despite PESA, where Gram Sabhas often remain on paper.
      • Arguments that it has been effective (Counter-view):
        • Deepened democracy to the grassroots.
        • Political empowerment of women and marginalized sections through reservations.
        • Some states have successfully empowered PRIs (e.g., Kerala).
        • Acts as a nursery for political leadership.
      • Suggestions for Improvement:
        • Clearer demarcation of functions and activity mapping.
        • Ensuring timely transfer of funds through State Finance Commissions.
        • Intensive capacity building and training for elected representatives.
        • Leveraging technology for transparency and accountability.
        • Strengthening Gram Sabhas and ensuring compliance with PESA.
    • Conclusion: Summarize that while the local self-government system faces significant hurdles, it remains an indispensable instrument of governance. The focus should be on systemic reforms and robust implementation to strengthen it.

Graph View