Tribal Calculus

The Maharashtra government’s decision to carve out a dedicated State Tribal Commission (STC), separate from the existing combined Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes body, may seem long overdue. After all, the Centre has maintained distinct commissions for these two historically disadvantaged communities for years. The question is not whether this move was justified - it almost certainly is. The more pressing question is: why now?

The official explanation is bureaucratic symmetry. Since New Delhi has had separate commissions for SCs and STs, Mumbai ought to mirror the model. Yet this belated alignment comes not in a vacuum but against the backdrop of renewed and intense anti-Maoist operations across the volatile tri-junction of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Telangana - a region where tribal discontent has often proven fertile ground for insurgency.

Over the past fortnight, security forces have killed at least 30 Maoists in this region, including top commanders and cadres, in a string of violent encounters. Surrenders, too, are on the rise. Besides intense operations in Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district, long a flashpoint, saw another bloodbath when four Maoists were recently gunned down and a fresh stockpile of arms and Naxal literature recovered. The point is to assume that the creation of the STC against this backdrop is entirely unrelated would seem naïve.

This is not to suggest the commission is a counter-insurgency tool in disguise. Rather, it is an attempt, however belated, to project the optics of inclusion, institution-building, and constitutional fidelity in a region where the state’s presence has too often been synonymous with the gun barrel. Tribal discontent in central India is rarely about ideology and primarily about land, displacement and the absence of genuine representation. In this context, the establishment of a commission devoted to Scheduled Tribes could serve both as a pressure valve and a political signal.

The move also reflects the growing political clout of tribal legislators in Maharashtra, given there are 25 in the state assembly and four in the Lok Sabha. These numbers are no longer electorally negligible. In recent years, tribal legislators have grown more vocal. This commission is, in part, the Mahayuti’s response to that appeal and also an effort to pre-empt further alienation of a voting bloc that helps swing seats in an increasingly competitive political landscape. That said, what tribal communities need is not another layer of bureaucracy but consistent implementation of the Forest Rights Act, targeted health and education services and a halt to exploitative displacement. The state’s track record on these counts remains patchy at best.

Furthermore, will this commission have investigative powers? Will its recommendations be binding? Or will it be another advisory body mired in red tape and underfunded in practice, like many of its predecessors?

Still, the Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government appears keen to show the permanence of governance in the state’s tribal pockets. Whether tribal communities see this as a genuine gesture or yet another arm’s-length sop will depend not on cabinet resolutions but on results.