Governance by app: The exclusion of tribal communities in Andhra Pradesh

By Palla Trinadha Rao 

In recent years, digital governance has become central to public administration in India. Governments increasingly rely on Management Information Systems (MIS), geo-tagging, mobile applications, online attendance systems, Artificial Intelligence-based monitoring, and digital reporting platforms to improve transparency, efficiency, and accountability.

Tribal development administration has also been drawn into this technological transition. Across Andhra Pradesh, Integrated Tribal Development Agencies (ITDAs) now use digital systems to monitor education, health, welfare schemes, livelihoods, infrastructure works, and beneficiary tracking.

However, the realities in tribal areas reveal a significant disconnect between policy design and field conditions. The experiences of tribal regions such as Paderu, Chintoor, K.R. Puram, and Srisailam demonstrate that technology alone cannot resolve the structural challenges affecting tribal governance. In several instances, digital systems are creating new forms of exclusion because they are introduced without adequately considering the geographical, infrastructural, and social realities of tribal regions.

One of the clearest examples is the Face Authentication system introduced under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (now VB-GRAM G). The system was designed to improve attendance verification and reduce irregularities. However, in many tribal areas of Andhra Pradesh, the application has failed to function effectively because of poor internet connectivity, weak mobile networks, frequent power interruptions, and recurring technical failures.

As a result, tribal labourers who physically attend worksites are often unable to register their attendance through the application. Many workers are forced to wait for hours for network connectivity, while others return home without their work being recorded. In some remote areas, labourers reportedly climb hilltops searching for mobile signals to complete authentication. These failures are causing genuine workers to lose labour days, wages, and livelihood security.

For tribal families dependent on wage labour under MGNREGS, this is not merely a technical inconvenience; it directly affects household income, food security, and survival. The problem illustrates a broader issue: digital systems designed for connected urban and semi-urban regions are being uniformly imposed on remote tribal areas where the necessary infrastructure simply does not exist.

Geographical isolation remains one of the biggest barriers to digital governance in tribal regions. Many habitations are located deep inside forests, hill tracts, reserve forest areas, and inaccessible valleys. During the monsoon season, roads often become unusable, leaving villages cut off from administrative access for days. In such conditions, expecting real-time digital attendance and online reporting reflects a policy approach that is disconnected from field realities.

Poor internet connectivity continues to be a major challenge. Several tribal habitations in regions such as Chintapalli, GK Veedhi, Pedabayalu, Araku, Chintoor, VR Puram, and forest villages under Srisailam still remain outside reliable mobile network coverage. In many areas, paper-based reporting continues because digital systems simply cannot function without connectivity. Real-time data entry, geo-tagging, facial authentication, and online verification become practically impossible in zero-network regions.

Power interruptions further weaken digital governance systems. Many tribal villages continue to experience irregular electricity supply, affecting internet access, charging of devices, and the functioning of computers and online applications. Systems designed around urban assumptions often fail to recognise these basic infrastructural limitations.

Another major challenge is the shortage of trained manpower. Tribal administration suffers from severe vacancies at the field level. Teachers, health workers, sector officers, technical staff, and mandal-level officials are frequently burdened with multiple responsibilities spread across difficult terrain. Frequent transfers disrupt continuity and weaken monitoring systems. The additional burden of complicated digital reporting requirements often creates administrative stress rather than improving efficiency.

Frequent changes in reporting formats and portal requirements create further operational difficulties for field staff. Delays in grievance reporting and updating action-taken reports affect timely follow-up and review. Incomplete and inconsistent field-level data reduces the reliability of monitoring systems. Limited use of advanced technologies such as GIS mapping and data analytics also restricts evidence-based planning and evaluation.

Digital literacy remains limited among both field staff and tribal communities. Many functionaries lack adequate training in the use of advanced applications, dashboards, GIS systems, and mobile-based reporting tools. Tribal communities themselves face barriers related to literacy, language, and technological exposure. As a result, beneficiaries often depend on intermediaries even for accessing basic welfare services, increasing the risk of exclusion and exploitation.

Another important issue is the fragmentation of government monitoring systems. Different departments continue to operate separate portals without meaningful integration. Education, Health, Tribal Welfare, Agriculture, Forest, Revenue, and Rural Development departments all maintain independent MIS platforms. Field staff are therefore compelled to repeatedly enter the same information into multiple systems. Instead of simplifying governance, digitalisation often increases duplication, delays, and administrative workload.

Data quality itself remains a concern. Information collected from remote tribal areas is frequently incomplete, delayed, or inconsistent. Beneficiary records, scholarship details, attendance data, health indicators, and livelihood information are not always properly verified. Monitoring systems often focus more on expenditure and physical targets than on long-term social outcomes such as reductions in poverty, malnutrition, migration, or unemployment.

The situation becomes even more difficult in areas inhabited by Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). These communities often live in scattered settlements deep inside forest regions where regular monitoring and service delivery are extremely difficult. Development programmes in such areas cannot be effectively monitored only through dashboards and online reporting systems.

At a broader level, the growing dependence on technology raises an important concern: governance is increasingly being treated as a technological exercise rather than a human-centred process. Tribal development cannot be measured solely through dashboards, applications, and geo-tagged photographs. Tribal societies continue to face complex issues such as land alienation, forest rights, displacement, indebtedness, migration, malnutrition, and cultural marginalisation. These realities cannot be fully understood through digital indicators alone.

This does not mean technology has no role in tribal development. In fact, several ITDAs have successfully used mobile-based reporting, geo-tagging, digital health monitoring, WhatsApp coordination, and community digital volunteers to improve transparency and communication. These examples demonstrate that technology can support governance when it is flexible, locally adapted, and backed by infrastructure and trained personnel.

However, technology cannot substitute roads, electricity, connectivity, field staff, and institutional accountability. Unless these foundational gaps are addressed, digital governance may continue to exclude the very communities it is intended to serve.

The immediate need is policy flexibility. Mandatory face authentication under MGNREGS should be reconsidered in remote tribal areas where connectivity remains weak. Offline attendance options, delayed synchronisation systems, and alternative verification mechanisms must be permitted. Welfare systems should adapt to the realities of tribal communities rather than forcing tribal communities to conform to technological rigidities.

The experiences of tribal regions in Andhra Pradesh show that these limitations are not merely technological problems but structural issues rooted in geography, infrastructure deficits, administrative capacity, and historical neglect. If digital governance is to become meaningful in tribal areas, it must begin not with technology alone, but with a deeper understanding of tribal realities.