1. “The real test of governance in former Maoist-affected regions lies not in security victories but in securing the trust of tribal communities.” Critically examine.
| Syllabus: Governance General Studies–: II – Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States and the performance of these schemes; mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections. |
IN NEWS: After Maoism, the next battle is for Adivasi trust
While neutralizing armed cadres is necessary to establish the state’s monopoly on violence, true peace is only achieved when tribal communities (Adivasis) view the state as a protector and provider, rather than an existential threat or an occupying force.
1. The Security Victories: Groundwork, Not the Goal
Security forces have achieved massive tactical success over the last two decades. Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) has been severely restricted geographically.
- Shrinking Footprint: According to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) data, the number of districts reporting Maoist violence dropped from over 126 across 10 states in the early 2010s to just around 38 districts by 2024–2025.
- Decline in Violence: LWE-related violent incidents have plummeted by over 70% from their peak in 2010. Security frameworks like Operation Green Hunt and the deployment of specialized units (e.g., COBRA, Greyhounds, District Reserve Guard) successfully dismantled the Maoist military hierarchy.
- The Limitation: Security victories create a “negative peace”—the absence of active war. However, they do not automatically resolve the historical, structural grievances that birthed the insurgency in the first place.
2. Trust Deficit: The Core Challenge of Tribal Governance
The Maoist movement thrived in the tribal belt (the “Red Corridor”) precisely because it exploited the state’s historical neglect and alienation of indigenous populations. Trust cannot be secured purely through the barrel of a gun due to several critical friction points:
A. Resource Exploitation vs. Tribal Rights
- The Paradox of Plenty: Most Maoist-affected regions (e.g., Bastar in Chhattisgarh, parts of Jharkhand and Odisha) sit on India’s richest mineral reserves (coal, iron ore, bauxite).
- Displacement without Development: Large-scale mining often leads to the displacement of tribal communities without fair rehabilitation. If locals feel their ancestral lands are being exploited by corporate-state nexuses while they remain impoverished, the trust deficit widens.
B. Implementation Gaps in Protective Laws
- PESA and Forest Rights Act (FRA): The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 were designed to give Gram Sabhas (village councils) control over local resources and minor forest produce. However, bureaucratic red tape and slow settlement of community forest rights often leave tribals feeling legally disenfranchised.
C. Security State Outlining Daily Life
- Civilian Collateral: In high-conflict zones, ordinary tribals frequently find themselves caught between the crossfire of Maoist violence and security forces’ suspicion. Incidents of arbitrary detentions or being branded as “Maoist sympathizers” deeply damage community trust.
3. Securing Trust: The True Yardstick of Governance
To bridge this trust gap, the government has transitioned toward holistic civic action and infrastructure development. The real test of governance lies in the success of these initiatives:
- The SAMADHAN Doctrine: Launched by the MHA, this strategy balances aggressive security postures with developmental interventions.
- Physical Connectivity: Under the Road Requirement Plan (RRP), thousands of kilometers of roads have been built in deep forests. Roads do more than move troops; they allow tribal farmers to bring produce to markets and enable ambulances to reach remote villages.
- Financial & Digital Inclusion: Setting up bank branches, post offices, and mobile towers in areas like Sukma and Bijapur breaks the isolation that Maoists relied on to control populations.
- Educational Empowerment: The expansion of Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) in tribal blocks ensures that the younger generation has viable economic alternatives to joining insurgent ranks.
4. The Way Forward
Securing tribal trust requires moving away from a paternalistic approach toward a participatory model of governance.
- Strict Enforcement of Constitutional Safeguards: The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution must be honored in letter and spirit, ensuring tribal autonomy over land alienation.
- Perception Management: Security forces must scale up Civic Action Programmes (medical camps, skill training, distributing essentials) to be viewed as community partners rather than strictly an armed presence.
- Local Recruitment: Integrating more local tribal youth into state police forces and administrative roles ensures that governance speaks the local dialect and understands indigenous customs.
Security forces can clear an area of insurgents, but only a compassionate, just, and responsive administration can hold it. The final victory over Left-Wing Extremism will not be declared when the last weapon is seized, but when a tribal citizen in the remotest pocket of Bastar looks at the state apparatus and sees a partner in their progress.
| PYQ REFERENCE UPSC 2015 Q. “The Naxalite movement is a social, economic and developmental issue manifesting as a violent internal security threat. In this context, discuss the multi-pronged strategy required to tackle the Naxal insurgency.” (15 Marks, 250 words) |
2. Discuss the constitutional basis of the “Right to be Forgotten” in India. How can courts balance this right with the principles of transparency and public accountability?
| Syllabus: Public Accountability General Studies–: II Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary—Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity. |
IN NEWS: Preserving the record
The “Right to be Forgotten” (RTBF)—the right of an individual to have their personal data, past convictions, or private information removed from public internet searches and digital platforms once it is no longer relevant—presents a modern constitutional tightrope in India.
It forces a direct clash between an individual’s right to digital erasure and the public’s right to access information.
1. The Constitutional Basis of RTBF in India
While the Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the “Right to be Forgotten,” the judiciary has carved it out as an implicit fundamental right derived from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
A. The Bedrock: The K.S. Puttaswamy Judgment (2017)
In the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.
- The court explicitly observed that the right of an individual to exercise control over their personal data includes the right to control their digital footprint.
- The judgment noted that if an individual’s personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, it should be erased. This provided the primary constitutional anchor for RTBF.
B. The Concept of “Right to be Left Alone”
The Supreme Court has consistently held that Article 21 encompasses the right to live with dignity. In a digital age, dignity is compromised if a person is perpetually haunted by past errors, expunged criminal records, or deeply personal private matters that continue to surface on Google searches long after the events have concluded.
C. Statutory Backup: The DPDP Act, 2023
The constitutional principle has been given statutory teeth through Section 12 of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. This section grants data principals (citizens) the “Right to Erasure.” It mandates that a Data Fiduciary (any platform storing data) must delete personal data once the purpose for which it was collected is fulfilled or consent is withdrawn.
2. The Conflict: Transparency and Public Accountability
The primary challenge with RTBF is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It directly collides with two other democratic pillars:
- Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression): This includes the public’s right to receive information and the media’s right to publish truth.
- The Principle of an Open Judiciary: Court records are public documents. Transparency ensures accountability, prevents secret trials, and maintains public trust in the legal system.
3. How Courts Can Balance the Competing Rights
A. Nature of the Individual (Public Figure vs. Private Citizen)
- Public Figures: Politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, and corporate leaders have a lower expectation of privacy regarding their professional actions. Information about their past trials, financial decisions, or public conduct is tied to public accountability. Courts generally deny RTBF here.
- Private Citizens: A private individual who was wrongfully accused, or a victim of a crime whose identity is inadvertently searchable, has a significantly higher claim to digital erasure to protect their livelihood and mental peace.
B. Nature of the Information (Serious Offenses vs. Acquittals)
- High Public Stakes: If an individual was involved in terrorism, massive financial fraud, or heinous crimes like sexual assault, the public’s right to know and safety outweighs individual privacy.
- Acquittals and Matrimonial Disputes: If a person has been fully acquitted by a court, or if the case involves deeply personal matrimonial/family disputes, courts lean heavily toward granting RTBF. Keeping an acquitted person’s arrest record easily searchable acts as a permanent, extra-judicial punishment.
C. The Doctrine of “Redaction” over Total Deletion
To maintain public accountability without destroying privacy, courts have adopted the tool of redaction rather than scrubbing the entire public record.
- Instead of deleting an entire judgment from a legal database, courts order search engines and legal portals to mask the names, addresses, and identifying details of the parties involved.
- This preserves the legal precedent for research and public accountability while protecting the individual from being indexed on public search engines.
Way Forward
The Right to be Forgotten is not an absolute right; it is bound by reasonable restrictions. For India to successfully navigate this digital evolution, the judiciary must establish clear, objective guidelines based on the nature of the crime, the status of the individual, and the passage of time.
Ultimately, the goal of governance and the courts must be to ensure that while history cannot be rewritten, an individual’s digital past is not allowed to permanently hijack their constitutional right to a dignified future.
| PYQ REFERENCE UPSC 2021 Q. “Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.” (15 Marks, 250 words) |
