The Jharkhand Movement

“The question is one of fighting the causes and not just the effects. This revolution is bound to fail if it doesn’t succeed in reaching deep inside them, stirring them right down to the bone, and giving them back their stature as human beings. Otherwise, what’s the use?” Che

Introduction

The tribal societies in middle India were closely integrated with the prevailing colonial system, its economy, and administration. The interaction of the peasants and tribes had led to the development of settled agriculture as the primary mode of subsistence in the pre-colonial period.

The colonial phase led to the exploitation of the tribal resources by the British and land was one of the most important resource that the tribals lost control over, which was at the root cause for a long chain of tribal unrest and uprisings.

In the post-colonial phase, the unrest and uprisings continued on the grounds of land struggles but also the demand for implementation of welfare measures that followed the recognition of the tribes as a scheduled category under the Indian Constitution.

The anthropological survey of India identified a number of movements in Eastern India: the most important of them being the movement for the establishment of the Jharkhand State.

The movement began with the formation of the Chotanagpur unnathi samaj and the demand for a separate state got crystallised with the formation of the Adivasi mahasabha in 1938 under the leadership of Jaipal Singh Munda, which was the foundation for various political movements post the colonial period in central India.

During the course of this paper, I will try to look into the concept of tribe and the various political movements that were formed in the struggle for a separate Jharkhand state from colonial to contemporary times.

The Concept of tribe

A commoner would associate the word “tribe” with primitiveness, savagery, and wilderness. The origin of the concept can be traced to the rise of colonialism, when the British first penetrated the interior areas at the beginning of their rule.

The concept of tribe was an artificial category, through which the Europeans constructed a fact of the Indian reality, the outcome of a conscious project of the colonial empire. The notion was formalised by the state as a part of its legitimising ideology and it operated as a device to catalogue conquered populations, formulate imperial policies and to facilitate these populations into the imperial systems. However, the concept of “tribe” was not entirely the product of the British and it can be traced to the ancient times. The colonial discourse has largely been formed due the prevailing concepts among the dominant caste groups and the colonial state appropriated such representation as part of its categorisation. In this sense, the construction of the concept of “tribe” maybe considered more of a Brahmanical construct than that of the colonial construct. Therefore, they were considered as backward Indian, the lowest people. Locally they were the natural antithesis of the brahmins and emerging globally as the conceptual opposite of the white men in the west.

Therefore, we can say that there were two broad approaches in the colonial period towards the tribals. The first conceptual approach was developed by the British administrator-ethnographers-anthropologist. This model treated tribal communities as “isolates, tribals as noble savages, and their primitive conditions were described as a state of Arcadian simplicity”. The second approach saw tribes as backward Hindus who were going to be absorbed in the Hindu society.

Both these approaches viewed tribal communities as waiting to be absorbed into the mainstream political and economic system-either through the market economy or through the Hindu caste system. (Ghurye, 1963)

Apart from the official versions, the ethnic groups used adivasi instead of “aboriginal” or “tribe”, which was invented and used by the members of various socio-political movement themselves for their self identity. This was done primarily by the proponents of Jharkhand to project a single tribal identity, which included all tribal sub-groups under the identity of adivasi.

Historical Perspective

The history of administration of the Santhal Paraganas can be traced back to the Subha of Bihar since the early Mughal period, which later came under the East India Company in 1765. This led to the exposure of the erstwhile inaccessible area to the outside world due to the construction of roads and railways, thereby leading to the influx of outsiders. The introduction of the Zamindari system and other new laws dealt a blow to the traditional economy of the Santhals. Within a few years the merchants, the mahajans and the  Zamindars amassed large fortunes and reduced the tribals to the level of serfs. This led to immense sufferings of the Santhals and there repeated approaches to the authorities failed which led to discontentment among the Santhals, which finally burst into open violence where there were many incidents of looting, arson and killing of the Diku (Outsiders and/or Exploiters) which was called the Santhal Hul (rebellion) in 1855. Sido and Kanhu Santhal, two Santhal brothers were in the forefront of the Hul movement, which finally was quashed by bringing in the government troops but only after the local district administration failed in its attempt to subvert the rebellion.

According to McPherson, the oppression of the mahajans, the police and the zamindars was not perhaps a sufficient cause for such a large- scale uprising of the unyielding tribals. A deeper cause, as McPherson suggests “was the Santhals yearning  for independence, a dream of the ancient days when they had no overloads, perhaps a memory of prehistoric times when according to some speculators they were themselves masters of the Gangetic valley and had not yet been drive back by the Aryan invaders” (McPherson, 1905).

The indigenous artisan castes- such as, the Kumhars (potters), the telis (oilmen), the kamars (blacksmiths) as well as the momins (Mohammedan weavers) and the Gwalas (milkmen)- who had developed socio-economic interdependence with the Santhals through many generations, were also intimately involved in this struggle against the tyranny of outsiders.

After the rebellion was quashed, the government brought in various measures for the Santhals which was not substantial and they depended on the mahajans for their economic needs as before. The Santhals remained ambivalent towards the dikus, admiring their wealth and intelligence and hating their attitude of superiority and exploitation. This ambivalence still exists even today as a backdrop to all efforts at adjustment on part of the present day Santhal society.

The Modern Political Phase

New political opportunities opened after the home rule was introduced in the 1930s for the Indian masses as well as the tribals. The elite realised that they can make use of this opportunity to get the state in their favour  by working as political brokers or pressure groups. The leaders who were involved in social reform movements gradually took to political activities and became the spokesperson for their communities.

The Unnati samaj formed by Joel Lakra, the Kisan Sabha formed by Theble Oraon and Paul Sabha  and the Catholic Sabha formed by Boniface Lakra and Ignes Beck, met at the Hor-Malto Marang Sabha (Santhal-Malto General Conference), came together and formed a single organisation called the Chotanagpur-Santhal Pargana  Adivasi Sabha, the term “Adivasi” being used for the first time in a political context. In 1938 it was renamed as Adivasi mahasabha which subsequently transformed itself into the All- India Jharkhand party in 1949 which became the main political party for a majority of the Adivasis in the Jharkhand area, including the Santhal Paraganas, the parochial appeal of the Jharkhand Party made the Adivasis regard it as their own party.

The hold of the Jharkhand party was not uniform among various Adivasis communities, also the main center for the major activities was the district of Ranchi, the Santhal elite, aware of their numerical strength, could not identify with it. The absence of proper leadership among the Santhals led to ineffective party organisation in the Santhal Paraganas. These two reasons led to the decline of the party in the district of Santhal Paraganas, which led to the merger of the Jharkhand party with the Congress in 1963, which subsequently led to the surrendering of their most popular party symbol, the cock.

When the political activities reached a low ebb after the merger, activities at the socio-cultural level intensified by the tribal elite and special focus given to creating awareness about the Sido-Kanhu movement. Two of the most important activities that were done by the Santhal elite were to organise the Sido-Kanhu mela and to organise Sido-kanhu dramas through a network of village level committees. The Sido-kanhu movement had started attracting larger and larger number of people due to their “pleasure-oriented” approach and the sentimental appeal which deeply touched the heart of more and more Santhals. Through this the Santhal elite started the Dhankatiya (forcible harvesting of paddy) movement. In many places, the peasants were able to re-occupy their land from the dikus. This led to the Santhals not only getting their land back, but also renewed their courage and pride, the reasons attributed to this was the Sido-Kanhu movement more than a political climate.

With the growing popularity of the Sido-Kanhu movement, the fight for power and money seemed to have created a division in the leadership, which marked the beginning of the waning influence of the movement over the masses.

The Hul Jharkhand Party

As the name of Sido-Kanhu are closely associated with the Hul in the Santhal mind, the success of the Sido-Kanhu movement seems to have prompted the political leaders to prefix this term to their already familiar name of Jharkhand Party to form the Hul Jharkhand party which was registered in 1968.

The major rallying point for the Hul Jharkhand party was nothing different than before, carving of a separate state of Jharkhand, but keeping the socio-cultural movement in mind they also worked to stop the use of liquor at marriage feasts and rituals and discouraged people from taking loans from the diku mahajans, which was exclusive. They also termed other political outfits as outsiders which led to the discontent of the people against the party and caused the  decline of the party’s popularity among the people. The other major reason for the decline was the conflicts and tension at the leadership level.

The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

By 1973, in the areas of Dhanbad and the adjacent regions, a good amount of industrial activity began for which land was being acquired. The tribals were dispossessed of their land and livelihood. This along with unemployment led to the discontentment of the tribals. At this stage three different movements coalesces to put up a common effort.

• The Shivaji Samaj headed by B.B. Mahato.
• The Industrial workers being organised by one ex-Communist leader A. K. Roy.
• The third leadership provided by Shibu Soren.

Some of the activities that were done also marked them as one of the fiercest political outfits to have been established in Jharkhand, for instance the “gherao” of the Bokaro Steel Industries, and the celebration of the Jharkhand Day on February 4, where thousands of tribal people had assembled with bows, arrows, axes, spears and drums.

During this meeting the leaders spoke of land alienation and exploitation by the “outsiders” and asked the adivasis to organise themselves against the enemy. Constant riots for reclamation of land and cases of violent clashes made the local administration to clamp down on A.K. Roy and B.B. Mahato under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act). Shibu Soren managed to go underground.

Finally, Shibu Soren, surrendered to the police in October 1975, but only after the administration revised its policy from confrontation to co-operation. He by now was the most popular leader, where people referred to him as “Guruji” which also helped him later in his political aspirations.

Shibu Soren, during his stay in jail, prepared a 19-point agenda for the development of the tribes in Jharkhand. The main points concerned the development of villages through education, farming and animal husbandry, afforestation and horticulture, introduction of small-scale industries and industrial training centers for women, eradication of dowry, child marriage, drinking and other social vices and many other such programs from the village level.

Conclusion

The advent of the colonial rule led to the exposure of the tribal regions of Jharkhand to the outside world. The involvement of the colonial regime resulted in the ruthless dispossession of tribals of their land and resources, which were not only their economic needs but also part of their culture and identity. Regular subjection to exploitation led different tribal groups to revolt against the outsiders.

The Sido-kanhu revolt was rise of the tribal movement but the formation of Adivasi Mahasabha was the beginning for a pan-tribal identity struggle where all the tribal groups and sub-groups were united under one category of Adivasis. They asserted their differences from the mainstream in terms of history and culture and demanded protective measures to ensure their uniqueness and equality.

With the entry of the Adivasi Mahasabha into parliamentary politics, the demand of a separate state came up based on three important issues: exploitation of the tribals, minerals, and forest resources by dikus, ethnic distinctiveness and administrative unity of the region. However, due to the ambivalent nature of the non-tribals, the struggle for a separate state could not become a full fledged regional movement.

With the formation of the Jharkhand party, the ethnic appeal got transformed to a trans-ethnic regional entity, but due to the factional politics within it led to the downfall of the movement and the party.

The Jharkhand region threw up new challenges with the advent of industrialisation, which led to the rise of the formation of trade unions and broader mass movements, agitations for restoration of land rights, forest rights and employment opportunities. Political forces fighting for a separate state had to address these issues, this resulted in the re-alignment of the social forces, and efforts made to enlist support for a larger broad based Jharkhand movement.

The territorial boundaries remained contested. In its early phase territorial integration of the adjoining areas was based on the geographical area to be delineated was argued based on Jharkharndi culture. The process of delimiting the territorial boundary of Jharkhand had been marked by the power factor in the neighboring states and the central government also claiming stakes.

After the 1980s the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha  and the Bharatiya Janatha party, two important political forces finally forged an alliance to limit claims to the territorial region of Santhal Paraganas and Chotanagpur only. The movement got enormous support from the people and finally gave way to the formation of the 28th State, called Jharkhand in the Indian Union.

When one critically analyses, none of the movements could create counter- hegemony, barring a few sporadic instances of revolt against the state and colonial rule. The formation of a new state within the ambit of the exisiting power structures has not really contributed to the overall development of the tribal communities nor has it changed the power structures among the tribals. Shibu Soren, himself is a classic example of being engulfed in the hegemonic structures that reflected during his tenure as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.