PM-JANMAN and the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan represent a saturation approach to tribal welfare, while the Forest Rights Act 2006 represents a rights-based approach. Critically analyse the gap between welfare and rights in tribal policy.

Introduction:

India's tribal policy runs on two tracks under Article 244 — welfare-saturation schemes like PM-JANMAN (November 2023) and DAJGUA (November 2024), and rights-recognition laws like the Forest Rights Act 2006 and PESA 1996. The first delivers amenities; the second transfers ownership of land and forest.

Welfare saturation: PM-JANMAN committed Rs 24,104 crore for the 75 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups, covering PMAY-G houses, JJM water, mobile medical units and Anganwadi services. DAJGUA followed with Rs 79,156 crore to saturate roughly 63,843 tribal villages with PMGSY roads, electrification and skilling. The model treats tribal welfare as a delivery problem solvable by convergent CSS templates.

Rights stall: The Ministry of Tribal Affairs FRA review on 1 June 2025 found that of about 51 lakh claims filed, more than 18 lakh have been rejected — a 36 percent rejection rate, frequently without speaking orders. Community Forest Resource (CFR) titles cover under 5 percent of the potential area. PESA Rules are notified in only six of ten Fifth Schedule States.

Constitutional design: Article 244 read with the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, PESA's Section 4(d) Gram Sabha competence, and FRA Section 6 make the Gram Sabha the gatekeeper. The Niyamgiri ruling (Orissa Mining Corporation v. Union of India, 2013) converted consultation into consent on forest diversion.

Way forward / Conclusion:

Couple PM-JANMAN delivery with FRA title verification, end deemed-rejection of claims, scale CFR governance under Gram Sabha control, and converge Minor Forest Produce MSP with PVTG livelihoods — restoring rights as the architecture in which welfare is delivered.