Why in news?

Recently, adivasis of the Ho tribe in Jharkhand’s West Singhbhum protested against the Deputy Commissioner, alleging interference in their traditional Manki-Munda self-governance system after the removal of village heads (Mundas).

While the district administration clarified that Mankis and Mundas remain integral to the revenue framework and blamed rumors on social media for the unrest, tribal concerns over losing autonomy persist.

The episode threatens the century-old equilibrium between indigenous governance structures and the state administration in Jharkhand’s Kolhan region.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Traditional Manki-Munda Governance
• British Intervention and Co-option of the Manki-Munda System
• Wilkinson’s Rules and Their Lasting Impact
• Continuation of Wilkinson’s Rules
• The Current Conflict in Kolhan
• Larger Issues with the Manki-Munda System

Traditional Manki-Munda Governance

• For centuries, the Ho tribe of Jharkhand’s Kolhan region followed a decentralised governance system rooted in social and political responsibilities.
• Each village was led by a Munda, the hereditary village head who resolved local disputes.
• Groups of 8–15 villages, known as a pidh, were overseen by a Manki, who handled cases unresolved at the village level.
• Importantly, the Manki-Munda system dealt only with internal governance, having no role in revenue or land matters, nor any concept of taxes or external sovereign authority.
• This changed with the arrival of the East India Company, which introduced taxation.

British Intervention and Co-option of the Manki-Munda System

• Following victories at Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764), the East India Company gained diwani rights in 1765, enabling tax collection across Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, and Jharkhand.
• The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 empowered zamindars with land deeds and fixed revenue demands, often beyond their capacity.
• To meet targets, zamindars seized Ho lands in Kolhan, sparking adivasi uprisings like the Ho revolt (1821–22) and the Kol revolt (1831).
• After repeated military failures, the British adopted a strategic compromise — formally recognising and co-opting the Manki-Munda system into their administration.

Wilkinson’s Rules and Their Lasting Impact

• In 1837, the British appointed Captain Thomas Wilkinson as Political Agent in the Kolhan Government Estate (KGE) to manage the Ho-dominated region.
• Recognising the strength of local governance, Wilkinson drafted 31 “Wilkinson’s Rules” in 1833, formally codifying the Manki-Munda system for the first time.
• While appearing to preserve tribal autonomy and restrict outsiders (dikkus), the rules effectively co-opted community leaders as agents of British authority, integrating Kolhan into colonial administration.
• This shift triggered major changes: the influx of outsiders surged from 1,579 in 1867 to 15,755 by 1897, aided by the railways, creating demographic shifts.
• Equally transformative was the introduction of private property — Mundas and Mankis became raiyats (tenants), receiving land deeds (pattas).
• This altered collective traditions of landholding, fostering individual ownership and reshaping Ho society.

Continuation of Wilkinson’s Rules

• Although the Kolhan Government Estate was dissolved after Independence in 1947, Wilkinson’s Rules remain in force, with Kolhan exempted from India’s general civil procedure laws.
• Courts upheld their validity for decades, until the Patna High Court in Mora Ho vs State of Bihar (2000) ruled they were old customs, not formal law — yet allowed them to continue in the absence of alternatives.
• Despite calls to update the system, neither Bihar nor Jharkhand took action.
• A 2021 Jharkhand initiative, Nyay Manch, was proposed but never enacted, leaving Wilkinson’s Rules still operational today.

The Current Conflict in Kolhan

• The recent unrest in West Singhbhum stems from complaints by Scheduled Castes and OBCs in Ho-dominated villages.
• Issues included Mundas restricting the Gope community from pursuing non-traditional livelihoods and prolonged absences of village heads, which hindered access to official documents.
• In response, the district administration issued a nine-point directive reminding Mundas of their duties under Wilkinson’s 1837 Hukuknama, aimed at ensuring transparency in the Manki-Munda system.
• However, villagers misinterpreted this as interference, sparking rumours of action against Mankis and Mundas.
• The administration has clarified that it does not intend to override customary laws.

Larger Issues with the Manki-Munda System

• In West Singhbhum, 1,850 Manki-Munda posts exist, with 200 vacant, of which 50 were recently filled via Gram Sabhas.
• However, concerns remain. Some roles have reportedly been given to non-tribal raiyats, bypassing the village system, sparking discontent.
• Within the Ho community, especially among youth, there are growing demands for reforms — including ending the hereditary nature of Munda roles and allowing non-tribal raiyats participation.
• Hereditary succession often leaves leadership in the hands of individuals lacking formal education, creating challenges in managing today’s document-driven administration.
• As a result, villagers frequently escalate unresolved issues to the district administration.
• Many leaders note that while the Deputy Commissioner’s role is limited, it is crucial in clarifying provisions of Wilkinson’s Hukuknama and intervening in disputes or succession issues.
• Many argue the system should be preserved but modernised to align with democratic needs.