Abstract

The idea of tribal self-rule is revolving around many different understandings. Tribal self-rule is a critical concept not only in the context of tribal governance, but also in relation to developing a critique of modern development. We need to understand the nature of tribal politics especially after the creation of the tribal states of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand where the newer governance system gets represented in the popular media and tribal resistance is presented as homogeneous outcome. This paper is based on my research findings during post-graduation, which emphasizes to discuss how tribal self-rule, as a concept is understood in Jharkhand.

Introduction

Erstwhile Kolhan or West Singhbhum is known through history for its autonomy movements as well as the demand for Self-Rule. The struggle for tribal self-rule has been on going, in fact more active even after the creation of Jharkhand. While some of the demands have persisted through time, for example, the demand for recognition of Munda-Manaki system, there are others, which have arisen primarily in response to the renewed interest in developing Jharkhand as an independent modern state.

Struggle for conservation of natural resources, ‘Water, Forest and Land’ along with the traditional tribal self-governance system has continued even after the creation of Jharkhand as the new state is perceived having not retained the interests of tribals. Based on the issues emerging on shifting agenda of the Jharkhand movement, the whole question of Tribal self-rule rests and its future. The present discussion on self-rule in West Singhbhum is from the 1980s when the tribal leaders proposed the demand of Kolhan. Considering the precept of tribal self-rule being culturally inherited, it has merged with present movement for self-governance spontaneously where the major attention is to conserve and maintain the community and natural resources.

The Munda-Manaki system in Jharkhand

Many researchers are engaged with the question of Tribal Self Rule particularly in the area of Jharkhand. Munda-Manaki system exists in Jharkhand since before the British rule in India. It is vibrant even now in Jharkhand. Munda-Manaki system’s recognition in the Wilkinson’s rule further encourages tribals for its recognition under Constitution of India. The Munda tribes are spear-heading the demand for the Munda-Manaki system in West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand. Interestingly in the last few decades along with the Munda-Manaki system, there have been campaigns that seek the implementation of Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) or the Jharkhand chapter of the Act known as Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act (JPRA). This has made the demand for the Munda-Manaki system complicated. There is damaging split in the way of demand for tribal self-rule.

In order to understand how Ho tribes consider Munda-Manaki system as tribal self-rule it first needs to define ‘self’. ‘Self’ in tribal from longtime is portrayed as a strong sense of being self-sufficient. But understanding of ‘self- rule’ in tribal cannot be standardized. There is diversity in understanding the concept of self-rule. There is a clear distinction in understanding of self-rule. In West Singhbhum district, the protest movement campaigns are bringing up the idea of self-rule, which in itself is diverse from what the tribal communities demand. Political claims, which were based on the demand for separate territory/nation-state in 1980s was a demand for self-rule in a way where the tribal communities believed to have their space to govern their natural resources. Presently the demand for the recognition of tribal self-governance system, popularly known, as the Manaki-Munda system in West Singhbhum district in terms of decentralized system is favoured under the concept of tribal self-rule.

Self-rule in terms of tribal sovereignty means that tribes have the power to make and enforce laws, and to establish courts and other forums for resolution of disputes. The sovereignty that the tribes possess are inherent, which means that it comes from within the tribe itself and existed before the founding of the Indian state. Therefore, it is said that the idea of self-rule is not something new among the tribals. It has marked its presence from a long time. Understanding self-rule differs from tribals to non-tribals, and also from tribals to tribals. The Ho tribes of West Singhbhum have fought against the British for more then 20 years. They had not surrendered easily and had continuously fought for freedom. Today with the industrialization and colonization they became slaves in their own land. They believe that self-rule is the only means, which can retain their ownership and their basic rights on land, water and forest. Continuing the ownership on the basic rights of land, water and forest is homogenous across the tribal communities of West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

The movement for self-rule in the area belies the popular assumption that it is primarily political. It includes all aspects of life (Hebbar, R: 2011). For those Ho tribes who are politically aware about the constitutional rights, the concept of tribal self-rule is a political agenda because it comes with power in the hands of rulers. The movement’s quest towards self-rule is simultaneously social, cultural and economic, a mode to recover and define a sense of a social self in changing conditions of life. These processes on the one hand have meant representing Ho customs and practices in a form acceptable in terms of modern valuations and, on the other hand, presenting a cohesive and unified set of beliefs and practices for the community as a whole (Ibid). The tribes in the area have been able to maintain their customary Panchayat for the governance and maintenance of their own communities. In West Singhbhum district, where these customary laws had been earlier recognized under the Wilkinson’s Rule, the customary panchayats had been followed from decades and it has been part of understanding tribal self-rule.

On the other side of the argument built are based on the relevance of Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 that is PESA which legally recognizes the capacity of tribal communities to strengthen their own systems of self-governance or create new legal spaces and institutions that cannot only reserve centuries of external cultural and political onslaught but can also create the opportunities to control their own destinies. As a result, the recognition of both PESA and Traditional Self Ruling system are debated in the domain of tribal self-rule. Thomas Wilkinson recognizes the traditional Munda-Manaki system during the British rule, similarly the PESA recognized by the central government of India in 1996 emphasizes to implement the act in the Scheduled Areas. The tribals being keen towards the official recognition of traditional self-rule system, they are hesitated towards accepting the central government act. The customary panchayats had been ensuring community participation, maintenance of community resources and accountability in the lowest level of governance. Demand for self-rule through Munda-Manaki is a historical demand. Here the question that arises is will PESA be another sources to carry forward the top-down approach of the ruling governments or will they ensure community participation and consider their decisions in true sense? Considering the field experiences, my major focus was to develop an understanding of concept of tribal self-rule as defined and narrated by people in the community.

Tribal self-rule for a common man is an undefined concept. Tribal Self-rule for whom and what does self-rule mean to a tribe is the core and primary discussion in this section. Asking a tribe what does he understand about self-rule doesn’t mean anything. A common tribal does not have any say on the self-rule. Tribal self-rule hardly makes any sense in his life. Thus, tribal self-rule remains undefined. But, it means a lot when we talk about the tribal community and the relevance of tribal self-rule for them. Tribal self-rule is an identity for that community which resides with autonomy in a space where the community decides its life and the way of ruling, where community makes rules and regulations to follow, where community owns the resources in surrounding environment and where community decides about the control and utilization of those resources.

Talking about Tribal Self-rule in a larger context seems to be bit diverse but homogenous in nature. It is diverse, as similar forms of tribal self-ruling system can be observed in various parts of tribal territories. The state of Jharkhand comprises of various tribal groups in its scheduled areas namely Mundas, Santhals, Hos, Oraons, Kharias, etc. All of these tribals have some or the other form of self-governance system. For example, Mundas have Munda system, Santhals have Majhi system of governance, Oraons have Parhas system of governance and similarly, Hos have Munda-Manaki system of self-governance. Precisely, this part of discussion is focused on the Hos of West Singhbhum and their self-ruling system that is Munda-Manaki system. The Munda – Manaki system of governance is prominent among the Ho tribes of Singhbhum as discussed in the previous chapters. Here I am presenting the debates on for and against the Munda-Manaki system as expressed by few prominent persons of the area. The local villagers identify Munda-Manaki system as an existing system from years ago.

The Munda-Manaki system is said to be in existence in Singhbhum since the arrival of Hos and Mundas in Kolhan that is around 10 th century. As per the folk stories narrated by the local tribes, there are different stories attached with the existence of Munda-Manaki system. According to SatariBuriuly, a Ho tribal from Asura village narrated about the origin of Munda-Manaki system in Kolhan. According to him:

“There was a man who resided in the jungle of Kolhan many years ago. Once a snake being attracted towards the man changed to a beautiful lady. The man fell in love with the snake-lady being impressed by her beauty. They got married and lived happily. She became pregnant and in that period of time the man suddenly noticed her forked tongue and asked her about that. The beautiful lady hesitated to explain, and said his husband ‘on the day you come to know the reality, you cannot see me anymore’. The man didn’t ask for any further explanations. After few months, she gave birth to a baby and suddenly disappeared. The man tried to find her everywhere but failed. The man also died in sorrow of his wife’s disappearance leaving their baby all alone. The baby was left alone in the dense forest. Later, one couple who were busy gathering forest-wood heard the baby crying. They rushed to locate the sound and they found the baby lying naked under a bush and a snake giving the baby shade under its hood. They were astonished and afraid for a while, but seeing them, the snake left the place. The couple took the baby along with them and named him ‘Chutiya’. When Chutiya grew up, he roamed around the forest playing with the lions (Singhs). He used to plough his fields with lions instead of oxen. It is believed that under his name the area was named as ‘Chutiyanagpur’ which was further renamed as ‘Chotanagpur’. The name ‘Chota’ came from ‘Chutiya’ and ‘Nag’ resembles with the snake that had been last seen giving the baby shade under her hood. It is also said that Chutiya is the person who established the Munda-Manaki system in the Kolhan. He generated the idea of governing own community and resources. And also after his name and his relation with the lions the area is named as Kolhan or Singhbhum or the ‘son of lion’.”

Likewise, there are other such stories attached to the origin of Munda-Manaki system. SatariBuriuly also tells that the first formal Manaki took his charge in Asura village of West Singhbhum district. His name was JamdaarBuriuly. The Britishers further recognized the JamdaarManaki and with whom the first settlement was done. The first ‘patta’ of manaki-ship was given to him.

On asking, what does Munda-Manaki literally means, Mr. Buriuly responds that the term ‘Munda’ came from the tribal word ‘mundi’, which means ‘bando-basti’ or settlement of a house in the tribal colony. Similarly, the term ‘Manaki’ describes about the person who takes care of tribal people or who is responsible in taking care of the lives of tribals in the community. The word ‘manaki’ literally means who takes care of ‘mana’ or a dead body. He further clarifies; the manaki is similar to the president of the country. If suppose a person dies in some other country the president of the concerned country is informed and given responsibility of the person. In similar way the Manaki takes care of his village men and is accountable to their lives.

Considering Munda-Manaki system as a unique system has an administrative structure. The president of KolhanRakhsaSangh, Mr. K.C. Hembrom gave the structure of Munda-Manaki system, which was prevalent right from the British period. He narrates that “the Munda-Manaki system was identified by the Britishers as self-sufficient governing system, which is complete and competent enough to handle issues of their people. Thus, the Britishers recognized it as a self-sufficient ruling system and tried to give it a recognition in larger arena with the formation of Wilkinson Rule and Bengal Regulation Act XIII, 1833.” Mr. K.C. Hembrom further described the following governance structure that was followed during the British period. The governing structure of Kolhan Government Estate, which is at present regarded as one of the most significant and unique structures of governance by the tribals is as follows:

Figure 1 (Governing Structure of Kolhan Government Estate)

The above showed structure describes the functioning of the tribal self-governance system, which is centered among the tribals and grounded, as bottom to top approach of governance. The Mundas and Manakis make the decisions in locals. The tribals were self-sustaining and maximum power retains with the Mundas and Manakis. The other top officials like Kolhan Superintendent, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were just the agents of central government who were generally responsible for monitoring and reporting to the higher authorities. But the actual governance of the villages rests with the Mundas and Manakis. In the sense of the above structure and the meaning of these headmen, the Mundas and Manakis were equivalent to Prime Minister and President of the country. Thus, Kolhan could also be considered as a nation similar to India as a country. This was also a demand in 1980s, which was for separate Kolhan and later the demand of Jharkhand became powerful. This argument can be seen and felt in many of the arguments made by the Tribal organisations that stood for tribal rights providing the betterment of Kolhan. Somewhere, they also give the argument that there were many instances where this uniqueness of Kolhan have been tried to be destroyed along with the existence of such a governance system which protects the tribals and their existence because the actual authority and power resides within them. Any form of encroachment and intervention was not possible unless and until a permission is to be granted by the respective Mundas of the villages. But now with the emergence of Panchayati Raj Institutions, one can easily see the breaking of this decentralized system where the exploitation of the tribals by the non-tribals is accelerated. The Munda-Manaki system has lost its strength and it can be noticed with the intervention of non-tribals in massive population. They encroached the villages in different forms as traders, industrialist, capitalist or small marketers resulting in establishment of towns and cities. Large population of tribes have been displaced and migrated from their homeland. The current scenario thus exposes the threat to this unique governance system which is not only self-sufficient to rule them, but also has proven itself as a sustainable governance practice, as it has not lost his existence yet even after 66 years of Independence and the withdrawal of British Administration who initially monitored their governance.

Munda-Manaki system in Wilkinson’s rule

The history of Self-Rule, especially the Munda-Manaki system among the Hos will be incomplete without the Wilkinson’s Rules. The Munda-Manaki system does not have a written document, thus today it faces problems concerned with documentation. The Wilkinson’s Rule first time gave this system a written power and documentation, which is still being used in the courts of Kolhan against the civil cases related to land and property. The Wilkinson’s rule is a unique rule in our country. In India, Civil Procedure Code administers civil justice whereas; Kolhan Government Estate of the British times was kept out of its purview. Kolhan still continues to be governed by these civil rules (Sen, A.K: 1997). These civil rules framed by Captain Thomas Wilkinson and introduced in Kolhan in Singhbhum after its subjugation by the British in 1837 had an uninterrupted and almost immutable existence in Kolhan.

As the Agent to the Governor General, South West Frontier Agency, Thomas Wilkinson issued these rules on 13 May 1837 to his Assistant Lt. S. K. Tickell to administrate Kolhan soon after it was taken under the direct management and control of the British government. Wilkinson directed Lt. Tickell to preserve and strengthen the primitive indigenous Munda-Manki system of village administration in the Kolhan for fiscal and police purposes (Ibid). The large pirs were sub-divided and each sub-division like small pirs was placed under the superintendence of a Manaki. However, a pir was generally consisted of villages not exceeding twenty. The Manaki and Mundas were authorized to apprehend all thieves, plunderers and criminal offenders of every description. They were liable to punishment if they refused to aid the government in arresting the offenders.

The rules laid down the hierarchical structure for administering civil justice. The powers and jurisdictions of the courts were clearly defined in the rules. Wilkinson’s rules provided for unity of powers in place of separation of powers. Thus, Wilkinson’s rule has a hallowed and sacrosanct place in Kolhan. Tribal people believe the rules to be the basis of the very philosophy and system of governance handed down by the British to the independent India as consistent with the essentials of tribal culture in Kolhan. These rules take up the legal corpus highlighting its various limitations necessitating modification and change and also the precise reasons behind the tribal sensibility about Wilkinson and his rule.

In the field of civil justice the rules invested with marginal powers to the village heads that is the Mundas, remaining completely silent about his superior, the Manaki (pir head). These rules laid down both the procedure and the structure. It clearly laid down the tribal custom as the basis for settling civil disputes example caste and marriage. The Britishers considered the Wilkinson’s rules necessary for the preservation and protection of the Ho’s of Kolhan. Moreover, they were also confident of its instrumentality in the change and development of the place and the people. The Kolhan is more prosperous and more content than any other area of the Chotangapur plateau. In Kolhan an official mostly faced civil matters related to property disputes, mutation, sale transfer or mortgage of land, boundary disputes between villages and customary matters. General procedure under the British rule was to refer matters to concerned Manakis and Mundas or in select cases to produce the report of the Kolhan Inspector or the assistant settlement officer disposed of cases on the spot after enquiry. The application of customs of the people, the mediation of the Mundas and Manakis in stating and defining their customs, the local settlement of issues, the use of Ho while taking evidences not only rendered the administration of justice expeditious, cheap and less troublesome, but it also created the impression that the British administration in Kolhan was run by their men and according to their custom.

The above historical situation should be taken into account when one seeks an appraisal of Wilkinson’s rules or intends to discontinue or perpetuate the same in Kolhan. Wilkinson’s rules were thus framed more than one hundred sixty years ago taking into consideration the existing socio-economic situation of the place and people of Kolhan.

In 1979 the Government of Bihar commissioned a study of the propriety of continuation of the rules in Kolhan. Though there had been signs of rift here and there when some tribal lawyers and gentries considered the rules to be ‘a gigantic hoax’ the Manakis, Mundas and some knowledgeable members of the tribal community argued for the retention of the rules. The system established through Wilkinson’s rules prevents them from harassment, costly legislation and saves them from the crafty touts and their lawyers. Even though they had minor complaints against the Manakis and Mundas, the Manaki and Munda conceptions belong to their area and are well known and they have intimate knowledge about them. Thus, they get right type of decision from the Manakis and Mundas. On the other hand, some tribal as well as non-tribal lawyers observed that the rules should be allowed to continue on the ground that it is not against the democratic process; rather it is warranted by the fifth schedule of the Indian Constitution which bestows upon the Scheduled Tribe certain amount of protection for the time being till the situation improved and all forms of exploitation extinguishes from the tribes.

Tribal Self-Rule in context to PESA and JPRA Acts

Tribals in the area had their own history of struggles for identity, citizenship, survival, representation and pro-people development. Jharkhand reportedly belong to the tribal groups having their traditional social institutions- called traditional self-governance institutions with a strong concept of democratic participation and governance. With the growing changes in the societies and formulations of modern governance systems led debates and various controversies. After the 73 rd Constitutional Amendment 1992, Panchayat Raj Institutions have been given with power and the importance to practice bottom-up approach was recognized. But with this the whole scenario seemed to have changed. Where tribals are attached with their customary panchayat, PESA Act 1996 became debatable and unacceptable among the Tribal communities of West Singhbhum. With the spirit of PESA, voice of a section of tribals rejected the election of panchayat bodies under the modern system of local self-governance.

The tribal self-rule and the Munda-Manaki system of Kolhan came across serious interventions with the implementation of Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) and Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act (JPRA) acts. PESA, on one hand is a Central act, which talks about safeguarding tribal, rights through extension of Panchayats in scheduled areas and the JPRA is the state act, which talks about implementation of Panchayats in scheduled areas of Jharkhand. PESA was passed in 1996. The present academicians portray tribal self-rule with PESA. But in the field there are mixed attitudes towards PESA, JPRA and Customary Panchayats. In this section, a comparison would be drawn based on what the two acts that is PESA and JPRA state and how they are contradicting with each other which is one reason behind the debates and arguments occurring today.

As per the Central PESA, under clauses 78-3-A, B & C the management and conservation of Common Property Resources (CPRs) should be with the Gram Sabha and other bodies need to facilitate this. When it is said that the gram sabhas in scheduled areas can manage CPRs according to their customary management practices, the underlying principle has been that the ownership of these resources is with the community. This aspect also needs to be incorporated in the Acts to be amended.

Section 4 e (j) of PESA says planning and management of minor water bodies in the Schedule Areas shall be entrusted to Panchayats at the appropriate level. Clause 76-B-1 of JPRA provides for additional powers to panchayatsamiti (block level) in scheduled areas. The clause provides for ownership and maintenance of minor water bodies in a specified watershed area, which the panchayatsamiti has planned and implemented. Clause 77-C-1 lays down similar powers for the ZillaParishad (District level) in scheduled areas as specified in clause 76-B-1.

In JPRA no such powers are provided for village panchayats or gram sabhas in the scheduled area. Both in the Central PESA and the State Act the clause is vague and unclear on the fact that to which tier the powers and responsibility should be given. This lacuna is being utilized by the state governments not to entrust gram sabhas with the powers to plan and manage the local resources.

Through these comparisons it is quite clear that JPRA lacks clarity on relation between the gram sabha and gram panchayat in terms of funds and power distribution between them. The JPRA is silent on the rights the headmen enjoyed in both CNTA and SPTA (to settle wastes, collect revenue, maintain law and order). By not building upon these rights or acknowledging their existence, the JPRA thus creates a major problem in terms of overlapping laws.

This is the major inconvenience across the tribal groups and specifically the organizations who are working for protecting the interest of tribals. Some of them are Munda-ManakiSangh, Adivasi Ho SamajMahasabha, KhuntkhattiBhumirakshakSangh and KolhanRakshaSangh, BaleySeyan, etc.

JogenMundri, the chairperson of KhuntkhattiBhumirakshakSangh on his argument criticizes the JPRA that “people have always have been fooled in the name of PESA. In the bookstalls we can find the handbooks of PESA but on the reality what is trying to be implemented is JPRA, which is very much different from PESA. In fact there is no need of JPRA or PESA in Kolhan as already we have enough Acts to regulate our society. We have Wilkinson’s Rule, CNT Act and Bengal Regulation Act and Scheduled Area Regulation Act, which are competent enough to see our problems. Above all we have our Munda-Manaki system, which is sufficient enough to handle our issues. Already we have above mentioned state acts implemented in Kolhan, which is still not applied effectively, which shows their incapability to work in Kolhan. Thus instead of implementing new Laws and Acts, government should focus on strengthening the acting laws or to help the Munda-Manaki in effective functioning.”

In his argument he brings the following structural difference of the JPRA and Munda-Manaki system of governance:

Figure 2

(A comparison between JPRA system and Munda-Manaki system of
governance respectively.)

From the above comparison, it shows that the Munda-Manaki system provides space to the common tribals in the process of decision-making. PESA resembles with the structure of Munda-Manaki system giving the power and responsibility to the Gram Sabha. But today what is implemented in Jharkhand is JPRA system. Even if through PESA the decision making power rests on the hands of common-tribals local government institutions still play a vital role. The JPRA system does not follow the same structure as to what PESA Act states and Munda-Manaki system follows. The common villagers therefore reject PESA, a central government act and JPRA, a state government act because in reality what is implemented today do not provide space to the common tribals to put forth their interests and needs.

Similar argument can be observed from Madhusudan Marla, the President of Adivasi Ho SamajMahasbha who says, “Our Munda-Manaki governance system is the best in many ways. We are too far from corruption and such evil practices. We are being provided justice in cheapest price. Our disputes are solved through easy and simple procedures. We need not to run after courts of towns and cities. But it is also true that, people’s belief in Munda-Manaki is diluted slowly as there are certain characteristics of this system, which are not accepted by many of us, such as its hereditariness. Many of us argue that Mundas are not literate and hereby, how an illiterate can govern a village where some of us are more educated and capable of. But I personally say that Kolhan and its governance system have never been given proper attention by the Indian government, which resulted in ineffective progress of Kolhan. Kolhan Fund is there which does not have any account today, we don’t know where the fund has been utilized and even the District Commissioner does not have any answer to it. With the growing modernization our people have started comparing our governance system with others and are now much aware about the outer politics. This led to their participation in larger political grounds. There is a need of political shift in Kolhan too but not on the cost of losing our traditional self-rule system which is not only our governance system but also an identity given to us by our ancestors. ”

The other group of people who argue in favour of PESA and Panchayat elections say that PESA is needed in the current Kolhan as they admire Kolhan not to be sufficient to participate in larger politics and been confined itself to a territorial ground. They feel Kolhan to be a part of national politics of India. They also criticize Mundas and Manakis of the villages to be incapable of holding their respective posts and are incompetent to fulfill the duties given to them. The traditional ideology of the existing Munda-Manaki system is being criticized on the grounds of literacy, modernization, political participation and larger role of governance. This group of people consists of tribals from elite class, business professionals, educators, scholars and population residing in townships.

The President of BIRSA/JOHAAR, Mr. Deogam also argues the need of PESA in the Kolhan as he believes the existing traditional system is not enough to handle the current situations being faced by the tribals. Illiteracy, health hazards, poverty, environmental degradation is rampant. Earlier the issues were more concerned to their native disputes among the villagers and villages. Today, the tribes are victim to a larger form of exploitation and in protecting them from such problems, PESA is a good initiative and it is required to be implemented in Kolhan. PESA will not only strengthen the traditional customs but also give opportunity to the tribals to participate in the larger political grounds. Constitution of India is based on fulfilling the needs of people and protecting their rights. With time he says changes are required to be welcomed. He further expresses that “If someone studies the PESA Act thoroughly I don’t think she/he will be dissatisfied with any point where PESA didn’t take care of safeguarding the interests of tribals.”

The former Member of Parliament, Bihar, D.N. Champia takes a diplomatic stand with his narration of the Munda-Manaki system where he emphasizes the essential of the traditional system for the tribals, but he also criticizes the present scenario of scheduled areas across country like SamtaJudgement which was in favour of tribes of Andhra Pradesh. He says the judgment should be applicable in Kolhan as particular and then only the Kolhan and the tribals of Kolhan can get their actual essence of tribal self-rule.

A Ph.D. scholar Ms. Sundi also gave her argument on PESA and Munda-Manaki and believes that the Kolhan needs a new form of governance for a proper government. She further elaborates that the existing traditional system of governance is not sufficient to handle the issues of tribals, as today the issues of tribes are not just the issues of tribes residing in a confined territory; it has became a larger issue of the nation. Today, the tribes have to participate in larger context and not just confine them upto-limited opportunities where they can just be familiar with small exposure and experience of the national issues.

Conclusion

The concept of governance cannot be separate from any kind of development that India is presently witnessing. Michael F. Hanford in his paper on “Establishing portfolio management governance: Key Concepts” says that governance is about establishing authority to empower people and also about establishing control mechanism to empower people. The environmentalists, NGOs, social thinkers advocate Self Governance as liberation from the exploitation of state apparatus, vagaries of market and development policies. The power can only be distributed by the promotion of Self-governance. But one of the visible populations that were way behind any form of development in the mainstream society were the tribes in about 6 states, which includes Jharkhand. There is a lot of exploitation by not only extracting their lands and forest resources but various manpower-extraction are also available. Therefore ‘the need for self governance in general and tribal self governance in particular is being advocated by various groups both national and international levels, sometimes for different reasons and in various forms. In India the concept of self-governance had arisen with the demand for freedom during the British rule. The demand of the freedom fighters for ‘Swashashan’ (self-governance) became the main agendas to negotiate freedom. Old panchayats aimed at conservation of resources, traditions and customs of tribal communities. The modern Panchayat being tempered in democracy emphasizes more on economic development than on conserving natural resources and traditional practices in the tribal communities.

People being so accustomed with the old panchayats that is Munda-Manaki system particularly in the West Singhbhum district; identify the modern panchayats as a judiciary body. This chapter tries to understand the Tribal Self-Rule among the Hos and what aspects of governance are ensured by these customary panchayats. Today Self-Rule movements reflect the fractured nature of tribal society in terms of political interacts, class character and a sense of tribal self. Thus, instead of applying a parallel governance system over the Munda-Manaki system, there is a need to understand all the systems of governance first and understand their effectiveness to put in place a system of Self rule which will be convincing to people, easily adaptable and practical from the point of tribal development and environmental protection by combining the good elements from the tradition with scientific outlook of modern age.

Bibliography

Aaron, S.J. 2007. Contrarian Lives: Christians and Contemporary Protest in Jharkhand.Asia Research Centre Working Paper 18. London: London School of Economics.

Areeparampil, Mathew. 1993. Socio-cultural and Religious Movements among the Ho Tribals of Singhbhum District in Bihar, India, 396-436 pp. In MrinalMiri, Ed., Continuity and Change in Tribal Society, Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.

Arjjumend, Hasrat. 2005. Inquiry into Tribal Self-Governance in SanthalParganas, Jharkhand. New Delhi: Grassroots Institute.

http://www.grassroots.org.in/catalogue/inquiry%20into%20tsg%20in%20sp%20jhar%20-%20gi,%20git%20study.pdf

Behura, N.K. and Panigrahi, N. 2006. Tribals and the Indian Constitution. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

Bharti, Indu. 1989. Jharkhand Movement: Caught in the Electoral Morass. Economic and Political Weekly, 24(25), pp 1385-1387.

BIRSA. 2002. Jharkhand ko Jharkhand Banaye (People’s Agenda). Chaibasa: BIRSA.

Chatterjee, P. 2002. Introduction: History and the Present, in P. Chatterjee and A Ghosh (eds) History and the Present. New Delhi: Permanent Black, pp 1-23.

Choudhury, N.C. 1977. Munda Social Structure. Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Limited.

Corbridge, Stuart. 2002. The Continuing Struggle for India’s Jharkhand: Democracy, Decentralization and the Politics of names and numbers. Commonwealth & comparative politics, 40 (3).pp. 55-71.

Corbridge, S., Jewitt, S. and Kumar, S. 2004.Jharkhand: Environment, Development, Ethnicity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Das, N.A. 1998. Jharkhand Aborted Once Again. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(45), pp 7-13.

Das, Victor. 1992. Jharkhand- Castle over the Graves. New Delhi: Inter-India Publications.

Deogaonkar, S.G. 1992. Tribal Development Plans. New Delhi: Ashok Kumar Mittal Publishers.

Ekka, Philip. 2003. Tribal Movements: A Study in Social Change. Chhattisgarh: TRTC

Guha, Ramachandra. 2001. Savaging the Civilized: Verrier Elwin, His Tribals and India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gupta T.D. 1993. Jharkhand Autonomy a Far Cry. Economic and Political Weekly, 28(39), pp 2066-2067.

Haimendorf, Christoph von Furer. 1989. Tribes of India: The Struggle for Survival. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Hebbar, R. 2003. From Resistance to Governance. In Seminar, No. 524, pp 40-45.

Hebbar, R. 2011.Ecology, Equality and Freedom: The Engagement with Self-Rule in Jharkhand. Navi Mumbai: Earthworm Books Pvt Ltd.

Hebbar, R. January 2013. In Jharkhand, a gap between politics of the tribal movement and electoral politics.Indian Express.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/state-of-ferment/1059374

Jain, R. (Undated) Management of Common Property Resources with special Reference to Minor Water Bodies in Vth Schedule Areas: Covering the States of Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. New Delhi: SRUTI Publications.

Lourduswamy, S. 1997. Jharkhandis Claim for Self-Rule: Its Historical Foundations and Present Legitimacy. New Delhi: India Social Institute.

Mann, R.S. 1996. Tribes of India: Ongoing Challenges. New Delhi: M.D Publications Pvt Ltd.

Menz, Diwankar. andHansda, D.M. 2010. Encyclopedia of Scheduled Tribes in Jharkhand. New Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.

Munda, R.D. and Mullick, S.B. 2003. The Jharkhand Movement-Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Autonomy in India. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

Prabhu, P. PESA The Promise and the Illusion of Tribal Self Governance. Unpublished Document.

Prakash, Amit. 2007. Tribal Rights in Jharkhand. Bangkok: United Nations Development Programmes, Regional Indigenous Peoples’ Programme, Asia Regional Governance Programme (UNDP RCB ARGP).

Raichaudhuri, S. 1992. The Jharkhandis: Vision and Reality: A Micro Study of Singhbhum. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(47), pp 2551-2556.

Rao, M.S. and Reddi, M.S. 2006. Human Resources Development in Tribal Areas. Delhi: The Associated Publishers.

Roy, A.K. 1994. Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back? Economic and Political Weekly, 29(49), pp 3065-3068.

Savyasaachi. 1998. Tribal Forst-Dwellers and Self-Rule: The Constituent Assembly Debates on the 5 th and 6 th Schedules. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

Sawaiyan, A.K. n.d.Kolhan: The Land of Hos.Chaibasa: EktaPrakashan.

Sen, A.K.1997. Wilkinson’s Rules-Context, Content and Ramifications, Chaibasa: Department of History, Tata College.

Sen, A.K. 2011. Representing Tribe: The Ho of Singhbhum under Colonial Rule. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company Pvt Ltd.

Sen, Padmaja. 2003. Changing Tribal Life: A Socio-Philosophical Perspective. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

Sharan, R. 2005. Alienation and Restoration of Tribal Land in Jharkhand: Current Issues and Possible Strategies. Economical and Political Weekly, 40(41), pp 8-14.

Shukla, Rohit. 1990. Forest and Tribal Life: Study of a Micro Region. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

Singh, K.S. 1978. Colonial Transformation of Tribal Society in Middle India.Economic and Political Weekly, XIII(30).

Singh, S.K. 2005. Self-Governance for Tribals- Tribal Lands and Indebtedness, Vol-1. Hyderabad: NIRD.

Xaxa, Virginius. 1999. Tribes as Indigenous People of India. Economic and Political Weekly, XXXIV(51), pp 3589-3594.

A renowned organisation in Chaibasa working on the issues of tribal rights and giving them advice on tribal laws. They also document essential laws in form of booklets which can be followed by local people. Many paper cuttings of movements and protest struggles are compiled and stored in BIRSA/JOHAAR office.

Ruler in context to tribal self-rule where the tribes themselves will be controlling their community and resources.

Even in the documents on Munda-Manaki system the name of the village ‘Asura’ can be located. In the article ‘Kolhan the Land of Hos’ by Late A.K Sawaiyan, has stated about the first settlement made between the Munda of Asura village and Thomas Wilkinson. This document is also copied in the Chapter 2 of the Final Report of the Resettlement of the Kolhan, Government Estate in the District of Singhbhum. All the documents are available in the library of Tribal Research and Training Centre and BIRSA/JOHAAR, Chaibasa.

Patta is the written, legal right and authority to the Munda-Manakis given by the Britishers, to control and regulate their village territories.

KolhanRakshaSangh is a voluntary organization working since 1972 for the protection of tribal rights and to save the tribes of Kolhan from all forms of exploitation.