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:
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:
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.
https://statetsp.tribal.gov.in