Write short note with a sociological Perspective: Main objective of Tribal sub plan (TSP). (2015)
The Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) was adopted in 1974–75, at the start of the Fifth Five Year Plan, as a budgeting device: every state and central ministry was to earmark plan funds for Scheduled Tribes at least in proportion to their population share, spent through a dedicated channel. Sociologically it marks the point at which the Indian state stopped assuming that general development would reach tribes on its own.
Why a separate plan was thought necessary
The Community Development programme (1952), Special Multipurpose Tribal Blocks (1954) and Tribal Development Blocks were sectoral and area-neutral; their benefits were captured by economically stronger non-tribal residents of the same blocks, widening the gap. The Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission (1960–61) under U. N. Dhebar and the Shilu Ao Committee concluded that area development without protection is counter-productive — roads and markets merely ease the entry of traders, moneylenders and settlers.
The twin objective
TSP was therefore built on a deliberately two-handed objective:
- Socio-economic development — family-oriented income schemes in agriculture, animal husbandry, minor forest produce and crafts, plus education, health and housing.
- Protection against exploitation — regulation of land transfer, moneylending, excise and bonded labour, so that development does not itself become the vehicle of dispossession.
Delivery followed ST concentration: Integrated Tribal Development Projects/Agencies where STs were a majority, MADA pockets and clusters for dispersed populations, and separate projects for the then “primitive”, now Particularly Vulnerable, tribal groups. Single Line Administration, Special Central Assistance, Article 275(1) grants and the rule of non-divertibility of funds were its supports.
A sociological reading
- TSP treats “tribe” as a residual welfare category rather than a political community holding rights. Virginius Xaxa (State, Society and Tribes, 2008) argues that Indian policy has read tribal disadvantage as backwardness to be compensated rather than dispossession to be reversed.
- Allocation has often been notional — existing expenditure relabelled under the tribal head, with diversion and under-spending. Restructured as the Scheduled Tribe Component from 2017–18, it is now tracked under minor head ‘796’ across 41 ministries under NITI Aayog guidelines, with ₹1,27,434 crore earmarked in 2025–26. Quantum of outlay is not the same as outcome.
- It fits badly with PESA, 1996: TSP plans are drawn by officials for beneficiaries, whereas PESA makes the gram sabha the planning authority in Scheduled Areas.
Conclusion
TSP’s main objective — development and protection carried by one instrument — was sociologically sound, since exposure to the market without safeguards impoverishes tribes. Its flaw was procedural: it made tribes the objects of a plan rather than its authors, and its successor must be judged by gram sabha control rather than by budget lines.