In India’s tribal hinterlands, especially those affected by Maoist insurgency, roads are not just a matter of transport. They are emissaries of the state, carving a path not only through forests and hills but also through histories of marginalisation and neglect. In regions where formal institutions are barely visible, a newly built road often marks the first arrival of governance itself.
A growing body of research shows that road development in conflict-affected areas has a stabilising effect. In Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha, core States in the “Red Corridor,” the presence of rural roads is strongly associated with improvements in electricity access, employment opportunities, and security. Roads help reclaim governance from non-state actors who thrive in isolation. When the state is absent, insurgent groups often step in with slogans and systems. Across conflict zones, insurgents have set up parallel institutions that mimic state functions. Diego Gambetta’s classic study of the Sicilian Mafia illustrates this: extralegal actors assume roles such as conflict resolution and taxation when the state withdraws. In India, Maoist insurgents have attempted to fill governance gaps in remote areas by running informal courts and levying their own “taxes.” The demand and supply logic applies to governance. An undersupply of formal governance leads to opportunistic entrepreneurship seeking to pick up the slack in supply.
In some tribal regions, it is reported that extralegal outfits have even dispensed rudimentary medical aid where clinics are absent — an act that blurs the line between care and coercion. Research by Alpa Shah (2018) and Human Rights Watch (2009) notes that the Naxalite presence in villages often includes some health services and welfare activities, though always underwritten by the threat of violence. As scholar Zachariah Mampilly (2011) observed in other insurgent contexts, such services are not charitable – they are strategic. The aim is not just survival but legitimacy.
Legitimacy cannot rest on coercion alone. Extralegal governance, while sometimes filling the gaps left by the state, is not bound by constitutional safeguards or democratic principles. Its forms of justice are often opaque, arbitrary, and punitive. In several Maoist-affected areas, there are reports of kangaroo courts (jan adalats) that have issued summary punishments, including executions, without due process. This is justice without appeal, correction, or accountability-more terror than tribunal.
This is why infrastructure matters. It is the physical precondition for the presence of lawful authority. Jain and Biswas (2023) have shown that road connectivity correlates with a decline in crime and increased service access in rural India. Internationally, Rafael Prieto-Curiel and Ronaldo Menezes (2020) demonstrate that violence is higher in poorly connected areas, whether in cities or rural zones. Infrastructure, they argue, is not merely functional; it is political.
Formal state institutions, though imperfect, operate within a framework of laws shaped by democratic consensus. These laws are debated, refined, and subject to public scrutiny. When schools, police stations, clinics and courts are introduced in conflict-prone areas through road development, they bring not only services but a system that is, at least in principle, accountable to citizens. It is the rule of law, not rule by fiat.
This contrast is critical. While formal institutions are subject to electoral oversight, bureaucratic accountability, and legal restraint, informal justice systems are not. They more often reflect entrenched power hierarchies and patriarchal norms, leading to practices such as vigilante justice and collective punishment. In the absence of courts, entire communities can be targeted. Accusations of collaboration with security forces have, in some cases, led to mob reprisals under the guise of justice.
The Indian state has recognised this. In Chhattisgarh, former top official and current NITI Aayog CEO B.V.R. Subrahmanyam led a thoughtful strategy that placed infrastructure at the heart of governance renewal. Roads came first, followed by schools, clinics, and law enforcement. Each road had a message: that the state has come in, and is here to stay.
Safeguards are needed too
But infrastructure alone cannot resolve conflict. Roads can carry relief or repression. Without institutional safeguards such as justice mechanisms, health-care access, and community consultation, they risk becoming symbols of control rather than inclusion. A road should not simply be laid through a village but built with the village as this is essential to legitimacy. Moreover, we must be mindful that informal social norms, even outside insurgent control, can be just as exclusionary. It is said that in some parts of rural India, khap panchayats and caste councils operate alongside or in place of formal institutions. These bodies often enforced rigid social codes through shame or violence. While they may have provided swift resolution, they did so without the protections of equity or legality. Development, therefore, must aim not only to replace insurgent authority but also to integrate pluralistic, rights-based governance rooted in India’s constitutional values.
As India invests in its tribal heartlands, especially in regions like southern Chhattisgarh, road development must be part of a broader effort to extend justice, dignity, and opportunity. The goal is not merely movement but belonging. To build roads, then, is to build peace.
Pavan Mamidi is Director, Centre for Social and Behavior Change (CSBC), Ashoka University
Published – September 11, 2025 12:42 am IST