Which of the following is NOT part of the tribal integration framework adopted after independence?

Question

Read the paragraph below and answer the following question.
The famous isolation versus integration debate of the 1940s built upon this standard picture of tribal societies as isolated wholes. The isolationist side argued that tribals needed protection from traders, moneylenders and Hindu and Christian missionaries all of whom were intent on reducing tribals to detribalised landless labour. The integrationists, on the other hand, argued that tribals were merely backward Hindus, and their problems had to be addressed within the same framework as that of backward classes. This opposition dominated the Constituent Assembly debates, which were finally settled along the lines of a compromise which advocated welfare schemes that would enable controlled integration. The subsequent schemes for tribal development - five year plans, tribal sub-plans, tribal welfare blocks, special multipurpose area schemes all continue with this mode of thinking. But the basic issue here is that the integration of tribes has neglected their own needs or desires; integration has been on the terms of the mainstream society and for its own benefit. The tribal societies have had their lands, forests taken away and their communities shattered in the name of development.
Identify positive impact of interactional process with mainstream society:

Answer 1

% Solution Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
After 1947, India had to decide how to integrate tribal communities.
The 'Nehruvian' approach (the Tribal Panchsheel) rejected both total isolation (treating them as museum pieces) and total forced assimilation.
Instead, a policy of 'Integration' was adopted, allowing tribes to develop according to their own genius while receiving state support.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The framework for integration consisted of specific administrative and developmental strategies.
Option (A): Tribal Sub-Plans (TSP). This was a major policy shift in the 1970s.
It ensured that a dedicated portion of a state's budget is used exclusively for tribal development, proportional to their population.
Option (B): Tribal Welfare Blocks. These were established in the 1950s to provide basic amenities like health and education in tribal-heavy areas.
They were later expanded into the Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDP).
Option (D): Special Multipurpose Area Schemes. These were early pilot projects (around 1956) aimed at the most backward tribal regions.
They were designed to tackle multiple problems like agriculture, health, and communication simultaneously.
Option (C): The Meghalaya Succession Act. This is a specific state-level legislation (specifically, the Meghalaya Succession to Self-Acquired Property Act, 1984).
While it deals with tribal customs (modifying the traditional matrilineal system), it is not a "national framework for integration".
It is a local legal reform specific to the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo tribes of Meghalaya.
A "framework for integration" refers to broad national schemes designed by the Planning Commission or the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to bring tribes into the national mainstream.
The other three options are structural components of the Indian state's developmental machinery for STs across the country.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The Tribal Sub-Plans, Welfare Blocks, and Special Schemes are all part of the national integration framework.
The Meghalaya Succession Act is a local legislative act.
Therefore, the correct answer is (C).
\

Which of the following is NOT part of the tribal integration framework adopted after independence?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Tribal Development

Questions Asked in CUET (UG) exam