Regional Development and Tribes in India: Balancing Growth and Identity

Development in India’s tribal regions carries a built-in tension. On one side is the push to raise living standards through roads, schools, hospitals, and jobs. On the other is the need to protect tribal land, languages, and customary ways of life from being erased in the process. Get the balance wrong, and “development” can mean displacement, cultural loss, and deeper marginalisation. Get it right, and communities can prosper on their own terms. This dual challenge sits at the heart of how regions and tribes are governed across the country.

Who are India’s tribes and where do they live? 🔗

Scheduled Tribes form a substantial and diverse part of the population. There are over 700 tribal communities, and they make up roughly 8.6 per cent of the population, or about 103 million people as per the 2011 Census. The vast majority, close to 90 per cent, live in rural areas, often in forested and hilly terrain that is rich in natural resources but poor in infrastructure.

Geography matters here. Tribal communities are not spread evenly. More than half the Scheduled Tribe population is concentrated in central India, in states such as Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Jharkhand. A second major cluster lies in the North-east, where tribes form the demographic majority in several states rather than a minority. This distinction between the central belt and the North-east turns out to be one of the most important factors in understanding regional development outcomes.

Two broad regions, two very different stories 🔗

The central Indian tribal belt and the North-eastern states have taken sharply different development paths. The reasons are partly historical, partly constitutional, and partly about how political power is distributed. Recognising why these regions diverge is the first step to understanding the development question.

The North-east: tribal majorities and strong human development 🔗

Several North-eastern states stand out for performing well on human development indicators, especially in education and health. Mizoram is the clearest example. Mizoram has consistently held the top literacy position in the region, recording a literacy rate above 91 per cent against a national figure around 74 per cent. Nagaland, Tripura, and Manipur also report literacy rates above the national average.

The gains are not limited to education. Mizoram records one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the country, and most North-eastern states perform better than the all-India average on this measure. Over the decades, the region as a whole has improved on the Human Development Index, with Mizoram moving into the high human development category and regional disparities within the North-east gradually narrowing.

Why has the North-east done relatively well? 🔗

A large part of the answer lies in governance design. The North-eastern tribal areas enjoy a degree of political autonomy that central Indian tribal areas do not. This is rooted in the Constitution itself, which treats the two regions through separate frameworks.

The Sixth Schedule applies to tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. It creates Autonomous District Councils that hold legislative, executive, and judicial powers over subjects like land, forests, agriculture, and customary law. These councils are largely elected and can frame their own rules with limited interference from the state government. In practice, this means tribal communities in these areas have institutional control over decisions that directly affect their lives.

The Fifth Schedule, which governs tribal areas in most other states, works very differently. It provides protection mainly through the Governor’s powers and a Tribes Advisory Council, offering moderate autonomy under state government supervision rather than self-rule. The contrast is stark: the Sixth Schedule grants self-governance, while the Fifth Schedule offers advice and oversight. This difference in political voice helps explain why outcomes diverge.

The central belt: large tribal populations, lagging development 🔗

States with large tribal populations in central India tell a more troubling story. Madhya Pradesh, home to the country’s largest Scheduled Tribe population, and Jharkhand, carved out specifically with tribal welfare in mind, both sit near the bottom of human development rankings.

Recent state-level analysis places Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand among the bottom five states on the Human Development Index, all in the medium human development band. Poverty data reinforces this. Jharkhand ranks among the poorest states on the Multidimensional Poverty Index, and Madhya Pradesh, often called the tribal state, sees its forest-dependent rural poor remain especially vulnerable.

The gap is not uniform even within these states. In some tribal pockets of south-west Madhya Pradesh, more than 60 per cent of people have lived in poverty, far above the state and national averages. This points to a hard truth: economic growth at the state level does not automatically reach the most marginalised tribal districts.

What holds back development in the central belt? 🔗

Several structural factors combine to keep these regions behind. The first is the breakdown of forest-based livelihoods. As forests were taken over or restricted, communities that depended on them for food, fuel, and income lost their economic base without gaining a viable replacement.

The second is physical remoteness and weak infrastructure. Many tribal habitations are scattered across difficult terrain, making it costly to deliver schools, clinics, and roads. Research on chronically poor tribal areas finds that basic health and education infrastructure remains inadequate, and crop productivity and market support have not grown fast enough to break the cycle of poverty.

The third is displacement caused by development projects themselves. Mining, dams, and industrial projects in mineral-rich tribal regions have often uprooted communities. When development means losing land and identity rather than gaining opportunity, it deepens rather than reduces marginalisation.

The legal tools meant to balance growth and identity 🔗

Recognising these problems, Parliament has passed laws specifically designed to give tribal communities a say over development on their own land. Two stand out.

The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 🔗

Commonly called PESA, this law extends democratic decentralisation to Fifth Schedule areas, but with a tribal twist. PESA was enacted in 1996 to ensure self-governance in Scheduled Areas through traditional village assemblies known as Gram Sabhas. The idea was to put decision-making power in the hands of the village, not the bureaucracy.

PESA gives Gram Sabhas real authority. It requires their consent before land is acquired or transferred, grants them control over minor forest produce and local natural resources, mandates a role in identifying beneficiaries of government schemes, and protects tribal customs and social practices. In principle, this directly tackles the balance between growth and identity by ensuring development cannot simply be imposed from above.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006 🔗

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, known as the Forest Rights Act or FRA, addresses a historical injustice. For generations, forest-dwelling communities lived on and used forest land they had no legal title to, leaving them vulnerable to eviction. The FRA recognises and vests forest rights in these communities.

The two laws are designed to work together. The role of Gram Sabhas under PESA is reinforced by the Forest Rights Act and by land acquisition law, which recognise the Gram Sabha’s authority in forest governance and in granting consent for acquisition and resettlement. Together they aim to make tribal communities partners in development rather than its casualties.

The implementation gap 🔗

Good laws on paper have not automatically translated into good outcomes on the ground. PESA, in particular, has struggled. Nearly three decades after it was passed, PESA remains a powerful but constrained instrument, held back by administrative, structural, legal and political challenges. Several states took years, in some cases decades, to even frame the rules needed to operationalise it.

A few problems recur across regions. The first is low awareness. High levels of legal illiteracy in remote hamlets mean many communities remain unaware of their power to reject land acquisition, so rights that exist in law go unused in practice.

The second is weak institutions and oversight. Constitutional protections meant to safeguard tribal interests, including the discretionary powers of Governors and Tribal Advisory Councils, are rarely exercised. Where Gram Sabhas lack independent funding, secretariats, and training, they cannot manage budgets or planning effectively.

The third is procedural box-ticking. Social audits have found that development schemes were being approved on paper in the name of the Gram Sabha without any actual meeting or discussion taking place. Consent becomes a formality rather than genuine participation.

Where it has worked 🔗

There are bright spots that show the model can deliver. In Chhattisgarh, Gram Sabhas in the Sarguja district successfully ran afforestation and eco-restoration projects, and the state set up a dedicated PESA Cell to monitor implementation and support village councils with technical and financial help. These examples suggest that with awareness, funding, and political will, the laws can achieve their intended balance between development and self-determination.

Reconciling growth and identity 🔗

The contrast between the North-east and the central belt offers a clear lesson. Where tribal communities hold genuine political power over their own affairs, as under the Sixth Schedule, human development outcomes tend to be stronger and development is less likely to come at the cost of identity. Where power remains concentrated with the state and bureaucracy, even well-intentioned laws struggle to reach the people they are meant to serve.

Sustainable tribal development, then, is not just a matter of building more infrastructure or spending more money. It depends on whether communities are treated as authors of their own development or merely as its recipients. Strengthening Gram Sabhas, converging PESA with the Forest Rights Act, raising awareness of rights, and ensuring genuine consent are the practical steps that can close the gap between what the law promises and what tribal communities actually experience.

What do you think? Should self-governance models like the Sixth Schedule’s Autonomous District Councils be extended to tribal areas in central India, or does each region need a different solution? And when development and cultural preservation genuinely conflict, who should have the final say over what happens on tribal land?

References

1. https://sk.sagepub.com/book/edvol/embed/tribal-development-in-india/chpt/introduction
2. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41582/1/Human_Development_in_Northeastern_Region_of_India-Issues_and_Challenges.pdf
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280553226_Attainment_of_Human_Development_A_Study_of_North-East_India
4. https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19D1075.pdf
5. https://www.apnilaw.com/upsc/indian-constitution/tribal-areas-in-northeast-sixth-schedule-explained/
6. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/difference-between-5th-and-6th-schedule/
7. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/economy/subnational-disparities-70-indians-in-medium-human-development-category-mismatch-with-states-economic-growth
8. https://www.groundreport.in/data-journalism/poorest-state-in-india-2025/
9. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08cdbed915d622c001621/ShahSah.pdf
10. https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jhudca/v5y2004i2p249-263.html
11. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/role-of-pesa-in-forest-conservation
12. https://www.pmfias.com/pesa/
13. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/three-decades-on-pesa-struggles-to-deliver-tribal-self-governance
14. https://www.insightsonindia.com/2026/01/13/pesa-act-implemented-in-jharkhand-after-25-years/
15. https://pwonlyias.com/editorial-analysis/how-the-pesa-act-has-boosted-forest-conservation-in-india/