TH E JHARKHAND MOVEMENT Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Autonomy in India D Munda 5 Bosu MullickTHE JHARKHAND MOVEMENT Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Autonomy in India Ram Dayal Munda $. Bosu Mullick IWGIA Document No. 108 Copenhagen 2003THE JHARKHAND MOVEMENT Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Autonomy in India TWGIA published by International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs Classensgade 11 E 2100 Copenhagen © Denmark Ph: +45 35 27 05 00 Fax: +45 35 27 05 07 E-mail: iwgia@iwgiaorg Transaction Publishers in collaboration with Bindrai Institute for Research Study and Action PO. Bag No. 3 Gaddi Tola, P.O. Chaibasa Dist Singhbhum West Jharkhand 833201, India Tel: + 91 6582 $6159 / 56416 E-mail: birsa@sify.com copyright 2003 IWGIA and BIRSA printed by ‘The Other Media Communications Pvt. Ltd. 25 (FF) Navjeevan Vihar New Delhi 110 017 India cover design & photo Kislaya kislaya@kislaya,com layout ‘The Other Media Communications ISBN 87-90730-72-0 ISSN0105-4503 acknowledgement THIS BOOK HAS BEEN PRODUCED WITH SUPPORT FROM THE NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.10. i. Jai Jharkhand! Jai Adivasi! Jai Hind! Jaipal Singh Jharkhand Betrayed: Ignes Kujur Chotanagpur: the Pre-colonial and Colonial Situation -— Romila Thapar and H.M. Siddigi Second Phase of Jharkhand Movement---. Amit Roy Jharkhand: Internal Colonialism ---- AK. Roy Land and Death ---- Xavier Dias Tribal Autonomy Movements in Chotanagpur --- KS. Singh Jharkhand Movement ----: Santosh Rana For a New Democracy February 1986 Jharkhand: Factors and Future Dev Nathan The Ideology of Tribal Economy and Societ; Politics in Jharkhand ----. Stuart Corbridge Jharkhand Problem in Perspective ---- Jagannath Sarkar 31-72 73-77 78-85 86-87 88-109 110-118 119-130 131-170 171-18012. Behind BJP’s Vananchal Demand --- Indu Bharti 12. Jharkhand’s Roots: Tribal Identities in Indian History --- Arvind Das 13. The Category of Non-historic Nations and Tribal Identity in Jharkhand Javed Alam 14, Ideologies and Hegemony in Jharkhand Movement ---. G. Alloysius 15. Recent Developments in the Jharkhand Movement --- B.P. Keshari and Ram Dayal Munda 16. The Question of Identity and Sub-nationality ----- K.L. Sharma 17. Jharkhand Movement: A Historical Analysis ---- S. Bosu Mullick 18. Jharkhander Katha ----. Amar Kumar Singh 19. Whither Jharkhand --- Alex Ekka 20. Jharkhand Movement and Tribal Identity ---- Nirmal Sengupta 21. Historical Basis of the Name of Jharkhand ----. Mathew Areeparampil Documents 1, Memorandum to the Government of India ----- Jharkhand Party 2. Declaration of the Jharkhand Coordination Committee -------- Jharkhand Coordination Committee 1988 Ranchi 3. Contributors --- 181-183 184-193 194-205 206-215 216-231 232-242 244-271 274-317 319-332 333-347 349-351 352-374 375-380 381-383Maps and Photograph Jharkhand Under the Mughal Empire - 2. Chutia Nagpur Division 1877 3. Jharkhand as demanded by the Jharkhand Party under Jaipal Singh 4, Jharkhand as demanded by the Jharkhand Party under N.E. Horo 5. Jharkhand Autonomous Council ---- 6. Location of Jharkhand in India 7. Sharkhand State 2000 --- 8. Mineral Map of Jharkhand 9. Physical Map of Jharkhand 10. Area of Santhal Rebellion ---------- 11. Area of Bhumij Revolt --—-------- 12. Area of Munda Upprising. Photographs 1. Cover: Paika Dance 2. Founding Members of the Adivasi Mahasabha ----- 15In memory of those great souls who sacrificed their lives for the cause of the dispossessed, deprived and humiliated peoples of Jharkhand.Preface There was an increasing demand for the production of an anthology of scholarly papers on the subject when the Jharkhand Movement was at its peak in the 1990s. Unfortunately none of us were available to respond to the demand as we were awfully busy in the movement. The present volume is an attempt to satisfy such a demand, which has been surprisingly persisting even today not only in India but abroad as well. The volume contains the most significant articles and documents on the Jharkhand movement, the oldest of the autonomy movements in India, which has recently resulted in the formation of a separate state by that name. The basic line of inquiry concerning the issues (dispossession from life-supporting resources of land, forest, water and identity), the main cause (internal colonialism) and the remedy (provision of autonomy), has been discussed from different angles by leading social scientists and activists. The process has led to the emergence of a development critique with an alternative provided by the tribal/indigenous perspective aimed at reconstructing a society based on equality; economy based on cooperation, caring and sharing, conservation, subsistence and decentralization; a polity based on conscience democracy and art based on collective participation and enjoyment. Analogous to the complexities of the Jharkhand cultural area and the varying ideological backgrounds of the authors concerned, the insights projected are contrastive. The idea to produce such a volume was originally conceived by Dr. K. S. Singh when he was holding the office of the Director General of the Anthropological Survey of India. Owing to some unavoidable circumstances it could not materialise. Later we took it up and approached the International Work Group for Indigenous Affaires for its publication. We are extremely thankful to Mr. Christian Erni, the Programme Coordinator, Asia, of the IWGIA for pushing the matter and finally convincing the IWGIA to oblige us. We would also like to thank Dr. Stuart Corbridge for extending support in selecting the papers from a huge collection and organising them for publication. Our sincere thanks are for the contributors of the volume who all agreed instantly to our proposal and expressed their genuine concem for the struggle of the indigenous peoples of India. We are very sad to say that Dr. Amar Kumar Singh, who provided intellectual leadership to the Jnarkahd movement, is no more with us. We have also lost Dr. Arvind Narayan Das. He provided a rare historical insight and intellectual support to the movement. Sudden demise of Dr. Mathew Areeparampil shocked us the most. He was a genuine scholar of the life and struggle of the people of Jharkhand and a committed activist too.Jharkhand Movement We are thankful to Prof. Giridharilal Ganjhu for providing us the rare unpublished written speech of Mr. Jaipal Singh and the group photograph of the members of the Adivasi Mahasabha. We are particularly indebted to Mr. E. Deenadayalan of The Other Media Communications for encouraging us to compile the volume. We sincerely thank Ms. Urmila Desor for patiently carrying out the tedious job of proof reading and to Mr. K.M. Jolly for typesetting the materials. We are especially thankful to Mr. Kislaya for his brilliant designing of the jacket of the book. He has perfectly conceived and depicted the true character of the Jharkhand movement by the photograph that he himself took years ago as an activist journalist. He has also helped us in recovering the map of Jharkhand that was originally demanded by the Jharkhand Party. Mr. Sunil George deserves our thanks for the painstaking job of reconstructing all the other maps that have been used in the book. We express our sincere gratitude to Ms. Mariamma Daniel for patiently providing secretarial assistance for the preparation of the manuscript. And the last but not the least, Mr. Sandeep Bahl deserves our sincere thanks for all the trouble he took for making the book see the light of the day. Dr. Ram Dayal Munda 10 December 2002 S. Bosu Mullick RanchiIntroduction S. Bosu MULLIcK The Jharkhand Movement has been the most talked about and widely covered subject in the media and academic circles. Various analytical reports, academic interpretations and political explanations, often holding contradictory views, have been published over a period exceeding the last five decades. The production of such a huge corpus of literature proves not only the strength of the movement but also the immense significance of the issues thus raised on the socio-political life of the world’s largest democracy and the struggle of the world’s largest indigenous population in one country. This volume makes an attempt to bring a few of them into one fold with a view to further the discourse on the relationship between the mainstream nationalism and the indigenous identity often termed ethnicity, vis-a-vis the nation state, and help the civil society understand the relevance of autonomy and identity of the indigenous peoples of the country as a whole. Jharkhand Movement has been the oldest autonomy movement in the post- independence India. The Jharkhand Party placed the demand for the formation of a separate Jharkhand state within the constitutional framework of independent India and fought the first general elections in 1952 on that issue. Its landslide victory legitimized the genuineness of the demand. In fact the demand for separation of Chotanagpur and adjoining princely states, known as Jharkhand, (see map-page 10) from the political domination of the neighbouring provinces was raised even before the Simon Commission visited India in 1929. But the real political mobilisation in support of the demand to carve out a separate state started with the formation of the Adivasi Mahasabha (the Great Council of the Indigenous Peoples) in 1938. The British not only crushed the indigenous people’s hundred years of resistance movement to colonize Jharkhand but gradually prepared the ground for turning it into an internal colony of the neighbouring nations. After independence the situation further deteriorated with the adoption of a ‘development’ model by the Indian nation state that initiated a much more ruthless process of dispossession of the people of Jharkhand and exploitation of their natural resources. Jharkhand Movement has been seen as the immediate outcome of these developments. While most of the authors find the present Jharkhand Movement a continuation of the indigenous peoples’ age-old struggle against the British colonialism, others go even further back into the history of the conflict between the indigenous peoples and the medieval states. Very few authors ignore the internal colonial exploitation of the region, especially after independence. Opinions ivJharkhand Movement also ditfer on the characterisation of the movement that ranges from pan- ethnic, sub-nationality to nationality. The authors have dealt with the issues of the ideological conflict and transformation within the movement as well as the infiltration of the ideology of the ruling classes and the state in it. Considering the positions of the contributors of the volume we may have a brief overview of the movement and its outcome. Territorial Identity During the Mughal rule, there was no definite territorial identity of a though the region acquired the name ‘the land of forests’ even before the 13" century (Areeparampil). It covered the eastern part of the vast topography, known as the Great Central Indian Forests (Habib: 1982) that occupied whole of the central India between the Gangetic plains in the north and the Deccan Plateau in the south. It largely remained outside the pale of the empires and kingdoms of the plains. However, a loose connection with them was established with the emergence of the primary states in the region during the 17" century (Sinha, Surajit, 1987). The indigenous peoples of this vast forest land had a different sense of territoriality. For them the land was a continuous topography where they roamed, settled and resettled. Thus in their vocabulary there was no such word as country. They received the regional identity from the outsiders, the people from the plains who formed states in this forest tract and gave them names, such as Dhalbhum, Barabhum, Manbhum, Chotanagpur, Mayurbhanj, Sundargarh, Bonai, Jashpur, Sarguja and so on. Jharkand was still a vague cultural name of the region and the word itself owes its origin in the non-tribal vocabulary. Even the British never used it in their administrative parlance. It was the British East India Company that set the ball of territoriality of Jharkhand rolling with the receipt of the grant of Dewani (right to collect tax on behalf of the Emperor) of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from the Mughals in 1765. In the face of strong and stubborn resistance movements put up by the indigenous peoples of this vast “Bengal Woodlands’ (Shivaramakrishnan, K., 1999), as they initially called it, the colonisers were forced to put the region under a separate administrative system called the South West Frontier Agency and the medieval states received recognition. At a later stage also, during the time of the direct rule of the British Empire, the region remained a ‘partially excluded’ area with a simple administrative system and thus its separate identity was maintained from the neighbouring Bihar, Bengal, Orissa, the Central Province and the united province of Agra and Oudh. The colonial rule thus prepared the ground for the popular search for a territorial identity of the region in accordance with the demand of their political autonomy. The leaders of the Adivasi Mahasabha picked up the cultural name of Jharkhand vIntroduction to identify the region politically even before they formed the Jharkhand Party in 1950. Ata later stage in 1973 the reorganised Jharkhand Party included two neighbouring districts of the British Bengal into the proposed Jharkhand state ‘on the ground of their cultural affinity with the mainland Jharkhand (see map page 78). In fact, the Committee on Jharkhand Matters, formed by the Government of India in 1989 to look into the demand of the Jharkhand state, in its report, recognised the cultural oneness of the region. The debate on the justification of giving political recognition to Jharkhand as a “tribal state’ basically for the indigenous peoples rests on the consideration that the peoples fall under the post-independence category of Scheduled Tribes and are not in majority in all the districts of the area. In fact in the Bihar and Bengal parts of Jharkhand they are in minority. This led to the making of a suggestion of carving out a ‘tribal state’ (Van Pradesh or ‘forest province’) with the tribal dominated districts alone (Sarkar). On the other hand, on the same ground the Hindu fundamentalist forces under the Bharatiya Janata Party demanded the formation of a state (Vananchal or ‘forested area’) with only Bihar part of the Jharkhand (Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas) for the ‘development’ of both tribes and non-tribes. ‘The reason why the parties formed under the leadership of the indigenous peoples carrying the name of Jharkhand insist on the formation of a state with the cultural area of Jharkhand may be seen in the persistence of a collective memory of Jharkhand as their ancestral homeland. Their claim, therefore, continues despite the fact that the reality has been changing fast drastically against their interests. However, opening the doors of the various Jharkhand parties to the non-tribals also may either be seen as a strategy for winning the game of head counting and fund raising under the bourgeoisie democracy (Bosu Mullick, S., 2002) or as an expression of an emerging Jharkhandi nationality combining both the indigenous peoples and the non-indigenous early settlers of the region (Nathan, Rana and Keshari). Adivasi and Diku There has been a general unanimity in accepting the fact that the cultural identity of Sharkhand is determined by the way of life of its indigenous peoples, basically the Austro-Asiatic language speaking (North and South Mundari) and Dravidian language speaking (Kurukh and Malto) ones. There is yet another group consisting of communities who may not speak these languages but are culturally and socially similar to these peoples. The former group dominates the scene since they are the earlier settlers and are more numerous, All these communities taken together assumed the identity of the Adivasi (first settlers). Besides, there are some Hindu lower castes that speak Indo-Aryan languages but are culturally integrated with the rest. Thapar and Siddiqi present a reconstructed historical viJharkhand Movement background of the growth of this identity with the gradual migration of different communities over a long period of time, their evolving mutual relationship; and the transforming characteristics of that identity based on their relationship with the land and the forest under the impact of the medieval states and British colonial rule. Sengupta argues that the term ‘tribe’ is a colonial ploy to divide the indigenous peoples of Jharkhand. He points out that the name ‘Jharkhand’ was coined in 1936 during the formation of the Adivasi Mahasabha. Only later, after the government sponsored dichotomy—tribe and non-tribe, spread widely—the leaders discovered that ‘adivasi’ did not mean all Jharkhandis any more. Thereafter they changed the name to Jharkhand Party. The confusion was further compounded when the colonial category of ‘tribe’ was further narrowed down after independence by scheduling ‘most backwards’ among them in the Constitution of India. Now in common parlance, only the Scheduled Tribes are known as the ‘adivasis’. In Jharkhand movement the distinction between ‘Adivasi’ (indigenous peoples) and ‘dikw’ is still a matter of dispute. Etymologically the term ‘diku’ stands for ‘the other people’. However, over a long period of interaction with the ever increasing volume of the in-migrating ‘other peoples’ the term diku underwent a change of meaning and is understood today as denoting the ‘exploiters’ of the ‘Adivasi’. But all the people who migrated to the land of the ‘Adivasi’ were not exploiters; particularly the artisan casts and peasant communities of the yesteryears and the wage labourers and industrial workers of the modern times who are not necessarily considered as the real enemies of the ‘tribes’. With such people the ‘tribes’ developed a symbiotic relationship and they sometimes form another category of ‘sahia’ / ‘mitan’ meaning friends. The category of ‘sadan’, mostly used in the erstwhile estate of the Maharaja of Chotanagpur, ie, present day districts of Ranchi, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, Palamu of Chotanagpur and Jashpur and Surguja of the adjoining Chattisgarh, is an uncertain one with respect to its exploitative character. The people in this category migrated to Jharkhand much before the advent of the British. seats of them were the adventurers who initiated state formation in the 16" — 17" century and the rest formed a part of these primary states, also called the Jungle States, as traders, rich peasants, administrators, irregular army (paik and barkandaz), etc. They developed a working relationship with the ‘Adivasis’. In the later period they fought with the ‘Adivasis’ against the colonial rule and were considered as ‘lesser evils’. The category of ‘tribe’ is also not very definitely determined. The colonial government enlisted 96 communities as the inhabitants of Chotanagpur and the Santhal Pargnas according to the 1871 census. Out of these, 28 were identified as non-tribe in 1923-24. The rest of the 68 tribal communities had a sub-category of ‘Primitive Tribes’ that included 30 tribes who were later categorised as the Scheduled Tribes by the Constitution of India after independence (Kadwar and Ekka: 2000). The rest of them were vilIntroduction divided into Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes rather arbitrarily, because in Jharkhand the caste system was never a dominant social reality and there were never any outcast communities. Thus those who were categorised as the Scheduled Castes were actually tribes who imbibed some Hindu norms and traits. In the same vein a large community called the Kurmis was put into the category of the Other Backward Classes on the basis of the same assumption of their being a part the caste Hindu society. These peoples have been demanding their inclusion into the Scheduled Tribe list since then and a large number of them have declared ‘sarna’, the belief system of the ‘tribes’, as their religion during the last census operation. These last two categories of peoples are often referred to as ‘semi tribe’ (ILO: 157) or ‘people analogous to the tribes’. ‘The authors are fairly divided on the lines of the opposing views of the Jharkhandi tribes presented by Béteille (1974) and Weiner (1978). While majority of them accept the category of tribe both in its broader and narrower sense, Corbridge is prepared to accept at the most the present Scheduled Tribes as a peasant- tribe continuum, although he questions the very definition of ‘tribe’ and describes it as misleading. Das presents a class analysis of the change in tribal society. He argues that the social aggregate, referred to as ‘tribe’, is merely a concept and if tribes existed, they did so in the undefined past. What exists today is tribe in transition. Bosu Mullick holds the view that the root cause of the Jharkhand movement lies in the historical conflict between the two mutually exclusive ways of life represented by the two categories of people commonly known as the ‘Adivasi’ and the ‘Diku’. Ethnicity, Nationality and Regionalism A section of the ‘left’ theorists holds the view of the Jharkhand movement as a political expression of an emerging Jharkhandi nationality. Two important factors are pointed out in the emergence of the Jharkhand nationalism. One is the presence of a broadly common and distinct cultural life among tribes and the sadans and the other is their subjection to the same kind of exploitation. The former compensates the absence of ‘a common language, a literary tradition and a high culture’; the latter compensates the absence of a national bourgeoisie classically considered to be the essential factor for the growth of national movements. This view has particularly been expressed by Nathan, Alam and Rana in this volume. Nathan and Rana point out an emerging composite culture combining the Adivasi (tribe) and Sadan. In fact Jharkhand Coordination Committee held the same view in its declaration. For Rana the process of the Jharkhand nationality formation was thwarted by the imperialist rule of the British colonialism that tended to divide the people on ethnic lines. ‘These authors tend to minimise the economic and cultural difference between the tribe and the sadan. Tribes are basically seen as peasants; that brings themJharkhand Movement closer to the sadans. Alam terms both tribes and sadans as peasants and ignores their general dependency on foraging from forests that Nathan has rightly pointed out. Sharma, however, observes the emergence of Jharkhandi sub-nationality along with the increasing participation of the downtrodden sadans in the movement on the basis of a cultural affinity. Munda and Kesahri argue by quoting the Jharkhand Coordination Committee declaration that the basic criteria for the boundary of the geographical area demanded by the movement as Jharkhand is not where the population is predominantly tribal but where the Jharkhand culture persists. And the base of this culture is provided by the tribal culture of the region. In other words, even the section of the non-tribals who had adopted the tribal culture would be considered as Jharkhandis. While Sengupta considers all the peoples of pre- colonial period as the Jharkhandis, Roy holds the economic criteria by declaring all the downtrodden and working class people living in Jharkhand as Jharkhandis. The distinction between the sadan and the diku appears to be quite unsteady or blurred under Roy’s project of Jharkhandi nationalism. He finds in Jharkhand a fusion of national and class oppression. Alam argues that the ethnic boundaries between the tribes and sadan communities have collapsed and belying the prediction of Frederic Engels and anthropologists N.K. Bose and G.S. Ghurye the tribes, instead of being assimilated into the mainstream Hindu society, have moved towards the assertion of a nationality. However, while he rightly observed the strong hatred among the tribes for being assimilated into the caste hierarchy his assertion that in the emerging process of Jharkhand nationalism the tribal shell is no longer important for political mobilisation does not at all reflect the reality. However, others do not subscribe to the idea of an emerging Jharkhandi nationality. Bosu Mullick considers the Juarkhand Movement as basically the socio-political expression of a pan-ethnic aspiration. He questions the emergence of the Jharkhandi nationality in the absence of powerful elite, let alone a national bourgeoisie. Just by coming together for a common cause the adivasi and the Sadans may not merge into one to develop a national consciousness. Corbridge calls it the Jharkhandi ethno-regionalism. K.S. Singh finds in the movement a transition form ethnicity to regionalism that includes at least in principle ‘all the Chotanagpuris’ into the category of Jharkhandi. He, however, does not mention the emergence of any Jharkhandi nationality. For Alloysius the transformation of ethnicity to regionalism, as has been observed by Singh, K.S., signifies a shift from the ‘community’ to the ‘region’, from tribal to whoever lives in Jharkhand; for ethnicity is the idiom of the tribals and regionalism is that of the dominant communities. Regionalism is encouraged by placing priority on the nationality question that combines all ixIntroduction the people of Jharkhand irrespective of tribe and caste. He considers it to be a reduction of ethnic consciousness into a regional or class consciousness, and a denial of ‘tribal nationality’. Criticizing K. S. Singh’s position, Sharma argues that to call the Jharkhand Movement a ‘separatist movement’ in the past and now transforming it into a ‘regional movement’ is to undermine its present- day reality, historicity and the concern for the oppressed of the region. Alam argues that the demand of the people of Jharkhand cannot be categorized as regionalism since the Jharkhand Movement is not simply demanding more resources and special privileges for the region. Changing Ideology There has been a remarkable growth of ideological framework in Jharkhand Movement over the period spanning more than 70 y¢ since the revivalist, localised and community specific movements of the 19" century entered into the phase of pan-ethnic autonomy movement covering the vast Jharkhand region by the fag end of the British colonial rule in 1930s. This was prompted by the changing objective condition of Jharkhand. The basic change that took place by the turn of the century was the end of the hundred years of tribal revolt and the consequent consolidation of the colonial rule in Jharkhand. The British introduced a centrally organised administration, a judiciary and a police system. In and the concept of private property was imposed as opposed to the traditional notion of collective usufrutuary rights of the community. Communal resources were considered as the ‘eminent’ domain and taken over. Thus forests and other individually unclaimed fallow lands were declared as the property of the state. The colonial rule also brought in several hitherto unknown and other modern elements into a traditional society of horticulturists and foragers. The indigenous peoples were exposed to Christianity and a modern educational system, railways, roadways and telegraph, money, economy and inoue and above all the modern political thoughts that shook Europe during the 18°” and the 19" century. These new elements also brought in a qualitatively different form of economic and social relations, a new hoard of exploiters and a novel form of exploitation. The post-colonial situation was greatly influenced by these changes. The independent government adopted bourgeoisie democracy as the political ideology and ‘mixed economy’ as the economic policy of the state. Industrialisation was given precedence over agriculture and the strategy of development was premised on a value-free concept of economic growth. Though the previous agrarian system under Permanent Settlement or the Zamindari system was abolished, the basic land relations were not reversed and the alienated land of the indigenous peoples was not restored. In the resource rich habitats of the indigenous peoples of Jharkhand colonialism was simply replaced by ‘internal colonialism’ (Roy, A.K., Das and Singh, A.K.).sJharkhand Movement In response to this changing scenario the ideology of the Jnarkhand Movement passed through radical changes. The first phase of the Jharkhand Movement (1950-63) is marked by the transformation of the Adivasi Mahasabha (formed in 1938) to the Jharkhand Party in1950, merger of Jharkhand Party into the All India National Congress in 1963 and then emergence of not less than 9 Jharkhand parties and groups out of its ashes. From the inception of the movement in the early 30s of the last century till the formation of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha in the early 1970s, both Jaipal Singh and and N. E. Horo followed the liberal ideology. Thus lack of interest in agrarian and trade union issues and total dependence on the electoral politics for the achievement of autonomy and identity dominated the strategy and organisation of the movement. This was the phase of ethnic consolidation of the indigenous peoples. Though the political organizations were open to the sadans their participation was negligible. The second phase of the movement (1973 — 80) began with the introduction of the radical and left ideology to organise agrarian, industrial and mining movements. The ever increasing resource exploitation in Jharkhand, causing massive displacement of the indigenous and other rural population, and the unprecedented exploitation of the miners and unorganized industrial labourers, mostly the indigenous peoples, was the immediate cause of the emergence of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (literally means Jharkhand Liberation Front) in 1973 under the leadership of the left leaders like A.K. Roy and Binod Bihari Mahato. While Mahato successfully brought the Kurmis into the fold of the Morcha, Shibu Soren, a charismatic Santhal leader became instrumental in forging a Santhal-Kurmi unity. Naturally the epicentre of the movement shifted form the tribal dominated Ranchi or Dumka to the mining and industrial belt around Dhanbad, Bokaro and Jamshedpur and its neighbouring rural areas. In addition, the increasing rate of in-migration of outsiders and unabated out- migration of the indigenous and allied peoples, fast growing hold of the non- tribals over the resources and power structure and mounting state terrorism against the protesting indigenous peoples forced a corresponding change in the strategy of the movement and the rationale of the demand. A. K. Roy presented the theory of internal colonial exploitation of Jharkhand and endeavoured to forge a tribe, peasant and working class unity irrespective of their ethnicity, caste and nationality. The focus of the movement was thus expanded from the aspirations of the indigenous peoples to those of the other exploited classes. For the first time in the Jharkhand Movement the issues of regional disparities and ethnic oppression were merged with class exploitation under feudal and capitalist production relations (Roy, Amit). This has been identified as a change from ‘ethnicity to regionalism’ (Singh, K.S., Das) or the emergence of ethno-regionalism (Corbridge).Introduction The third phase (1986 — 90) is characterized by the consolidation of the theory of national reconstruction of Jharkhand. The strategy adopted by the newly formed Jharkhand Coordination Committee (JCC) and the All Jharkhand Students’ Union (AJSU), two leading organisations of the period, was based on the notion of political emancipation of the Jharkhandi nationality through militant action. A call was given to politically boycott elections and socially boycott the political party leaders thriving on electoral politics. Attempts were made to forge unity with other struggling indigenous peoples’ movements. throughout the country with a view to make their demands of autonomy and identity an all India issue. Electoral Politics ‘The reason for renaming the Adivasi Mahasabha by the Jharkhand Party was to expand its fold by welcoming non-tribals, especially the ‘sadans’, so that it could win the number-game of the electoral politics. Unlike the north-eastern tribes the Adivasi Mahasabha leadership decided to resort to the Westminster form of democracy, just adopted by the independent government of India, to fulfill their demands. Its spectacular success in the general elections before and after the rejection of their demand of autonomy by the State Reorganization Commission in 1956 was enough to prove the presence of tremendous mass support for the demand. But the tempo could not be sustained in the following years. As soon as the new system settled down exposing all of its loopholes the people started losing the game. Ignes Kujur reveals the internal ideological problem of the Jharkhand Party that caused its downfall. It precisely emerged out of the Party’s incapability of handling the ruthless demands of the electoral politics. Jaipal Singh and his followers chose the path of electoral politics alone, not being accompanied by any other forms of struggle, to achieve their goals. They were first compelled to become gradually dependent on the moneybags: both from inside and outside Jharkhand, who had no concern for Jharkhand movement; and then play into the hands of the ruling party leaders. Consequently the leaders become corrupt and compromising for posts and prestige in the system and finally ruined the party itself. The Jharkhand Party’s merger with the Congress is often considered as the betrayal of an individual, the “great leader’ Jaipal Singh. What is overlooked is his and other leaders’ incapability to continue to play the game of electoral politics successfully after the initial spurt of victory without falling into the traps of the people who set the rules of the game. The game, however, went on with newer parties using the brand name ‘Jharkhand’ for entering into the fray one after another in the following years. These parties floated by the minor leaders were gradually routed registering marked decline in their popularity.Jharkhand Movement Electoral politics in the second phase of the Jharkhand Movement assumed a different character under a different ideological mould. During its long period of existence neither the Jharkhand Party under Jaipal Singh nor the ones under N.E. Horo and the likes ever took up the unresolved agrarian issues of land alienation, feudal exploitation and uneven distribution of land seriously. Similarly they rarely addressed the issues of mining and industrial workers. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha emerged precisely out of the struggles on these issues. And when the question of autonomy was added to them electoral victory was at its doorstep. But in turn the electoral politics also took its toll. It divided the Morcha into many groups, corrupted the leaders to the neck and finally became the cause of its fast eroding mass base. The All Jharkhand Students’ Union emerged by giving a boycott call to the elections but soon it too, along with its associate political party, the Jharkhand Peoples’ Party, jumped into the electoral arena to try its luck. The result was an unrecoverable disaster. The present electoral process and the party politics have remained largely ineffective to make the voice of the indigenous peoples heard at the centre and at the state level decision-making processes for two reasons: Firstly, they find it very difficult to adjust themselves to the demands of the modern representative democracy in a multi-party system, which has replaced their traditional participatory democracy. The growing importance of money and ‘muscles’ in the elections has compelled the leaders to become corrupt. Thus the true voice of the people can neither be articulated nor conveyed properly. Secondly, the multi-party system of democracy has divided the people from within. The indigenous peoples with no tradition of elections but of decisionmaking by consensus have now been forced to choose one among many of their own contesting brothers. It is generally observed that a voter seldom votes for a candidate in cognition of the virtue of voting. Personal obligations or monetary incentive often play more important role than the personal character of the candidate and the issues that are raised. Rigging at a grand scale and boycotting at an alarming rate mark the polling process in a considerable number of the tribal dominated polling booths of the reserved constituencies. The elected members of the peoples also cannot act jointly in the Parliament or in the state assemblies for the common cause of their communities because of their affiliation with different political parties (Haimendorf, Christoph von Fiirer: 1985:163; Sachchidananda: 1976: 25 and Bosu Mullick, $: 2002). But still the indigenous peoples have been casting their votes progressively in greater numbers. Because for the majority of them it is the only silent way left to vent their political opinion.Introduction It is gradually becoming a reality in Indian politics that the days of one party tule have come to an end. In the changed political situation, with the emergence of regional political parties and governments run by them in the states and the coalition governments at the centre running with their support, the importance of the Scheduled Tribes in the electoral politics has increased considerably. The political parties are now being compelled to take them seriously. The bargain, however, is very tough and tricky. If the indigenous leadership misses this opportunity now their hope of fulfilling their demands through peaceful electoral process will remain a distant dream and more and more people will join and swell the ranks of the parties with extra parliamentary strategies to achieve their demands. Response of the State Nationalist ideology stood for assimilation of the indigenous peoples into the Indian mainstream. However, the constituent assembly finally agreed to adopt the integrationist policy. But in the long run it turned out to be a covert policy of assimilation. Because the state straightaway rejected the demand of autonomy on flimsy grounds and it was termed as perverse and irrational to the progressive tribal policies of post-independence administration. The state responded to the ethnic demand of autonomy by introducing a set of economic privileges like reservation in public sector and administrative services, free education and quota in educational institutions, reservation of seats in both assembly and parliament, all under the policy of progressive discrimination. Indian nationalism that emerged as a middle class response to the British colonialism always remained divided on religious lines, between the Hindus and the Muslims. This finally led to the formation of two nation states out of the British India in 1947. The Indian nation state united the pre-British Hindu dominated nations on the basis of their common aspirations, and forced ‘others’, who were in minority, to be a part of it on the basis of the principle of ‘unity in diversity’ not the ‘union of diversities’. Thus the aspect of unity always remained dominant over that of diversity. The indigenous peoples formed an important part of these ‘others’. Despite the superficial impact of ‘sanskritisation’ or Hinduisation during the pre-British period they largely remained outside the pale of Hinduism, but at different stages of their disintegration. The British colonial rule aggravated the process of their disintegration by opening up their habitats for ruthless exploitation and dispossession in collusion with mostly the Hindu landlords, traders and contractors. Thus those who were historically always outside the Hindu caste system were now exposed to caste oppression and class exploitation. Their large scale conversion to Christianity and participation in revivalist movements exemplify the barrenness of the appeal of Indian nationalism to them. Hindu nationalism not only failed to impress the indigenous peoples but also remained largely unsuccessful in gaining the xivJharkhand Movement confidence of the low caste and outcaste communities who remained integrated with the indigenous societies in Jharkhand. This explains why the overreaching nationalism of the Indian nation state demanded integration of these peoples in the ‘mainstream’ of the national life rather than accommodating their aspirations in the political system after independence. The observation of a few authors that the intensity of tribal opposition to the British colonialism gradually changed to ‘loyalty’ (Singh, K.S.) is noteworthy. It may be seen as a strategy to confront the greater evil, the native element of the colonial system. Tribal hatred for the ‘dikw’ (exploiter, outsider, other then the indigenous peoples) appeared to be much deeper than that of the ‘sayob’ (White men). This has been observed during the Sipoy Mutiny and the Second World War. Their unenthusiastic attitude toward the nationalist Congress and meeting the Simon Commission to place the demand of autonomy and separation from Bihar ignoring the boycott call of the Congress to the Commission’s visit and the Jharkhand Party’s strategy to make an alliance with the Muslim League during the time of partition of the British India are some of the indicators. ‘The rejection of the demand for the formation of the separate Jharkhand covering the ancestral domains of the indigenous peoples by the State Reorganization Commission in 1956, despite the landslide victory of the Jharkhand Party in the first general elections of the independent India and its repetition in the following years, is a case in point. SRC report conveniently considered only the area of Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas that was then a part of the Bihar State leaving aside the whole area of Jharkhand as demanded by the people to show that the Scheduled Tribes were in minority there. And therefore, it was a minority demand, which could not be entertained in a democracy. Had they taken the whole of Jharkhand into consideration they would have found that even the Scheduled Tribes alone were in majority in the area. The Commission also refused to accept the opinion of the de-scheduled and Scheduled Caste communities of Jharkhand who were arbitrarily removed from the list of the ‘aboriginal communities’ prepared by the British government. Taken together with the Scheduled Tribes, these communities are, even today they are not only in majority in the greater Jharkhand but also in the area of Chotanagpur and the Santhal Parganas. However, SRC verdict was never accepted by the people and the Jharkhand Movement kept surfacing on the issue of autonomy. The state never relented to it, but only changed its strategies. On the face of the mounting popular pressure and gradual involvement of the left ideology in the movement the state’s immediate response changed. First the ruling political parties tried to hijack the demand only to distort it in the end. None of them accepted the area of the actual Jharkhand for consideration. Chotnanagpur and Santhal Pargana region of Bihar became their focal point for the obvious reason that it was the xvIntroduction Rurh of India, the centre of industries and mines. Congress was prepared to offer Union Territory status to it. Janata Dal brand of socialists demanded a full statehood status way back in 1977 for the same region on the basis of their policy of forming many such smaller states in India for better administration. BJP wanted to kill two birds with one stone. It floated the idea of the Vananchal (woodland) in the late 80s when Jharkhand movement was at its peak with the same area for the development of the Vanvasi (forest-dwellers) as opposed to Jharkhand and the adivasi. It redefined tribe as fundamentally Hindu. The strategy was to counter the influence of the Christian churches on the adivasis on the one hand, and to promote the interests of the dikus on the other (Bharti). The formation of the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council was the beginning of the implementation of this idea of the ruling parties (Ekka and A.K. Singh) and carving out of a new state bearing the name of Jharkhand comprising the same area was its culmination. The New State and After ‘The Indian nation state on the 15!" of November 2000 gave birth to a deformed child, the 28" province of the Indian nation state, euphemistically called Tharkhand. Ironically it coincided with the birth anniversary of Birsa Munda, the great adivasi leader of the 19" century millenarian movement. It was carved out of Bihar, where the Scheduled Tribes constitute only 27% of its population. ‘The remaining areas of the original Jharkhand in the West Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh were left out. Had they been included the indigenous population of the new state would have been in majority. Another state was born around the same time, the state of Chattisgarh bifurcating Madhya Pradesh. Two districts of Jnarkhand dominated by the Uraons were incorporated into it. Rest of the districts consisted of the homeland of mostly the Gond and Khond indigenous communities. Majority of the Gonds were left in Madhya Prades. It served two purposes: firstly, it divided the indigenous peoples of the Jharkhand cultural region and secondly, by having two small states with no dominant nationality, it would be easier for the state to exploit their rich natural resources with comfortable ease. Now the new state of Jharkhand is under the control of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party of the Hindu chauvinists and petty bourgeoisie. It is also the ruling party at the Central Government. The party and its affiliate organisations have already started working in the direction of creating a permanent divide between the Christians and non-Christian indigenous peoples. A massive propaganda has been going on to make people believe that privatisation, globalisation and sanskritisation are going to bring in peace and initiate sustainable development in the region. The newly formed government has already adopted policies to that end, which are surly going to aggravate state—people conflict.Jharkhand Movement ‘The state has been able to co-opt the entire leadership of the last phase of the Jharkhand Movement, barring a few committed individuals and intellectuals, The half a century old demand of ‘Jharkhand alag prant’ (separate state of Jharkhand), so dear to the heart of the indigenous peoples of the land, seems to have suddenly taken a back seat. Today the economic issues have come to the forefront. The strife is increasingly getting acute. There is every possibility of the gory history of the colonial days being repeated. A.K. Roy’s prediction that Jharkhand would never be separated, it would only be liberated may be what future holds for the indigenous peoples of Jharkhand. Reference: Bosu Mullick, S., (2002) Indigenous Peoples and Electoral Politics in India: An Experience of Incompatibility, in Challenging Politics: Indigenous Peoples Experience with Ploitical Parties and Elections, Ed. Kathrin Wessendorf, International Work Group on Indigenous Affaires, Copenhagen. Béteille, Andre, (1974). Six Essays in Comparative Sociology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Haimendorf, Christoph von Fiirer. 1985. Tribes of India: The Struggle for Survival. Habib, Irfan (1982). An Atlas of Mughal Empire, Oxford University Press, Delhi. Kadwar, S. and Ekka, A., (2000). The Indian Census and Adivasis of Jharkhand. Jharkhand Nav Nirman Sabha, Ranchi Sinha, Surajit (Ed.) (1987). Tribal Politics and State System in Pre-colonial Eastern and North - Eastern India. K.P. Bagchi and Company, Calcutta. Shivaramakrishnan, K., (1999). Modern Forests, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Sachchidananda. 1976. The Tribal Voters of Bihar. National Publishing House, New Delhi. Weiner, M., (1978) Sons of the Soil. Princeton University Press, Princeton. xviiJAI JHARKHAND! JAI ADIBASI! JAI HIND! Jatpat SIncH efore we go to our normal business, I want to take this, the first opportunity Ihave in an official meeting of the Adibasi Mahasabha to make reference to the tragic assassination of Gandhiji. Gandhiji was the friend of the poorest of the poor and, as such, he intended to be a friend of Adibasis also. When I was in West Africa, Dinabandhu Charlie Andrews, who was my guest there, told me that Gandhiji had launched a nation-wide reconstruction plan. Immediately my thoughts ran to the 30 million Adibasis of our country. On my return to India, I found that Gandhiji’s principal attention was revetted to the welfare of Harijans, the name he gave to the depressed classes of the Hindu community. You know my views about the depressed classes. It is my opinion that they are Adibasis who have been roped into the Hindu fold. In other words, there are Adibasis, unconverted, that is, they are still carrying on the faith of their forefathers; and, others, converted, who have become Hinduised or proselytised into Christianity and Islam. That is why [have always maintained that the census figures had to be quadrupled to get a correct estimate of the aboriginal people of this country. The momentum of Gandhiji’s reconstruction work spread to the unconverted Adibasis also. There are, throughout the Adibasi tracts, Adibasi Seva Mandals, which in their own narrow way, endeavour to serve the tribals. We have lost the greatest man of our age. In fact, his murder means that humanity has been murdered. Yet, his spirit lives and must live, and, now, the burden of his work falls upon the shoulders of each one of us, men and women, young and old. The last time Chota Nagpur saw Gandhiji was when he came to Ranchi to visit the Blind School and Bivaranpur during the Ramgarh Session of the Congress. Let us stand up in silent homage to the modern architect of Free India. SILENCE Ihave been in your midst continuously since December 1938 and, last year, I indicated I would like to be relieved of Presidential responsibility of the Adibasi Mahasabha. I was quite serious. It was not meant that I was anxious to desert my post or that I was insensible to the trust you had always reposed in me. On the contrary, I was anxious I should have more time to devote to strengthen the Presidential Speech to All India Adivasi Mahasabha at Ranchi on 28th February 1948. 2Jharkhand Movement sinews of our movement and also to give more attention to the All-India aspect of the Adibasi Movement. Earlier years, you will recollect, I devoted entirely to the Chota Nagpur Plateau. I did my best to penetrate jungle fastness so that the ideals of the Adibasi Movement might be correctly interpreted and understood by the most illiterate of our people. Latterly, however, the momentum of the Jharkhand movement—that is, in fact, the correct name for the Adibasi Movement in the Chota Nagpur Plateau—spread and became also the All India Adibasi Movement. You will remember the advice Subhas Babu (Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) gave us all when he visited Jamshedpur and Ranchi. He said that we would have to get out of the shell of isolationism and think of Adibasis throughout India, and, not confine ourselves to Adibasis but ensure that our Movement aligned itself with the nationalist movements of the country. I set about to carry our message to Bengal, Assam, the United Provinces and the Central Provinces, and, of course, to all the Chota Nagpur States. Today, we can say with confidence that there are very few aboriginal tracts without some individual organisation. Certain things have helped us bring the Adibasi question into prominence. Here, in Chota Nagpur, within a few weeks of the first Conference presided over by me, there was firing on April 25, 1939, at Simko in Gangpur State when nearly 100 people—innocent and unarmed— assembled to discuss how to redress their grievances in regard to rent were Killed. This tragedy was not the first one. It had been preceded by what has been known as the murder of Major Bazalegette and Ranpur. Simko set Adibasidom in conflagration politically. All of a sudden, a new awakening began, and, much of our success in the District Board elections in Singbhum and Ranchi—the only two districts which contested—depended upon the sacrifices made by the people of Rajgangpur and Ranpur. Thereafter came a systematic assault on our movement by the Bihar Congressmen who refused to believe the Adibasi Mahasabha was, in every detail nationalistic and was worthy of being considered a part of the Indian National Congress. We made repeated attempts to get the Bihar Congressmen to see our point of view and accommodate our organisation in the Congress. We were forced to contest once again, but this time, for the Legislative Assembly against Congress nominees. We could put up candidates, due to our shortage of funds, in two districts only. We did put up candidates in the Santhal Parganas also, but, we were not serious enough there. You know what happened. On March 2, 1946, goondas, hirelings from Bihar murdered several of our people at Tapkara. And not one of these murderers has been punished. On the contrary, the Tapkara murder case went on for months and months and it was our people who were harassed by the well-known technique of procrastination in courts, At very many other places, our volunteers were involved but not one prosecution succeeded against them. The whole idea was, and still is, to paint us as goondas, an unlawful body, a communal organisation hostile to the nationalist interest. T have done all that was possible to make friends with the Congress. I have 3Jai Jharkhand! Jai Adibasi! Jai Hind! gone so far as to get the Congress to agree to create Jharkhand into a separate organisational area so that the main fear of this area being dominated by Bihar Proper would disappear and we would all be able to work in harmony, undisturbed by any brute Bihar majority. Singhbhum District had been carved into a separate area to satisfy the late Professor Abdul Bari. In Singhbhum District, there was also the Utkal Congress to appease Oriyas. I cannot understand why Congressmen are frightened of giving us autonomy within their own set-up. There is one and only one explanation, and it is the correct one. It is that they want to run us instead of accepting us as fellow workers or their equals. When the British departed, the Indian National Congress became supreme as a political party in this country, and it was only right that I should have cooperated with its leaders, particularly Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. When I supported his Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, there was the usual propaganda accusing me of having deserted the Adibasi Mahasabha to join the Congress. You know the truth. [ have no particular prejudice against the Congress and, as I have often told you, I was its representative in West Africa. Here, however, I cannot compromise on the Adibasi question. Either we receive a place of honour in the Congress or we do the next best by ourselves. If our hand of fellowship is despised, we must go on till the rest of India recognises our prescriptive rights in the national life of the country. Before the British quit, nationalists ignored problems of Adibasi Tracts by saying that most of them were excluded, partially or fully from the purview of the general administration and, therefore, they could do nothing. They went so far as to say they had been prevented from working amongst Adibasis. The cheap joke was to say the British had kept us in national parks as zoological specimens! The wildest accusations have continued to be made against anthropologists who have endeavoured to study the primitive man. We can no longer blame the British. British are not here. Everything now falls upon our own shoulders. ‘What do our national leaders have to say now? When the Sub-Committee of the Constituent Assembly visited Chota Nagpur last year to report on our Partially Excluded Area, we had considerable difficulty in getting the names of our representatives accepted by the Provincial Government to appear before it. As a matter of fact, none of our representatives were accepted. Instead, the provincial government sent in names of persons who had no connection with Adibasidom here nor were they representative of the people concerned. We did, however, manage to thrust ourselves into the presence of the Sub-Committee in Ranchi District. I am afraid things were not quite so nice in Singhbhum and the Santhal Parganas. In regard to the Santhal Parganas, the Provincial Government advised the Sub-Committee not to visit them, the excuse being a very lame one, that they were highly electrified with the communal situation. Actually, as you all know, there was no communal tension in the Santhal Parganas at all. The Provincial Government did not want that the Sub-Committee representatives be put up by the Provincial Government, with the result that 4Jharkhand Movement our organisation decided to boycott the Sub-Committee. It is as well I repeat that in both the districts of Ranchi and Singhbhum, the Jharkhand Province Party polled many more votes than the Congress Party at the Assembly election, but, when it came to the question of our appearance before the Sub-Committee, we were denied our physical right for reasons best known to Bihar Congressmen. This might seem a gloomy picture, but, I want to assure you that the rest of India is not so hostile; on the contrary, it is most sympathetic towards the Adibasi problem. The report of Sub-Committee has already been published and it is not wise for me to say too much at this stage, because its recommendations have to be thrashed out on the floor of the Constituent Assembly when it meets in a couple of months. One thing I can tell you with full confidence and it is that we must not expect anything to be done for us by others. Whatever gains we may make will depend on our own efforts. In other words, you must shed the MA-BAP (mother-father/paternalistic) idea. Heaven helps those who help themselves. You must stand on your own legs. Upon your own endeavours will depend the speed of your real freedom. I know that the problem of Jharkhand is uppermost in your mind. I have no doubt whatever that there can be no solution to the Chota Nagpur problem without the creation of a separate administrative unit in Jharkhand. No amount of co-operation, however friendly, can alter the economic hostility that must exist between Bihar Proper and the Chota Nagpur Plateau. It is unnecessary to go into details. British imperialism may have been eradicated from our midst, but unfortunately, in its lieu, has stepped in, automatically as it were, Bihari imperialism as far as the Chota Nagpur Plateau is concerned. The budget is concrete evidence that there has been no change of heart whatever in regard to the Adibasi question. Instead of our national heroes working for the integration of disintegrated Adibasidom, every effort is being made to split the tribal people into more helpless bits. Within our own fold, there is no religious fanaticism. We do not draw a distinction between the unconverted and the converted. The Bihar Government on the contrary, are determined to pit the Sarna Adibasis against Christian Adibasis and Momins. We must resist every such endeavour and treat everyone equally. Only last December, the Biharis and, in fact the Indian National Congress as such, had a glorious opportunity to exhibit their good faith towards Adibasis. Upon the merger of the States of the so-called Eastern States Union (now defunct) which comprised States of the Orissa and Chhattisgarh States Agencies, the question came up of the return to the Chota Nagpur Administration of 11 States, which have always been known as Chota Nagpur States. These 11 Chota Nagpur States namely, Kharsawan, Seraikella, Keonjhar, Bonai, Bamra, Gangpur, Jashpur, Surguja, Udaipur, Korea and Changbhakar were, before the States agency system was introduced, under the Commissioner of the Chota Nagpur Division. They are either contiguous to Chota Nagpur or inside it, as for example, Kharsawan and Seraikella are in 5LL81 NOISIAIC ANd DVN VLLAHDJharkhand Movement the heart of Singhbhum District, but the other nine states are adjacent to Singhbhum, Ranchi and Palamau. The people inhabiting them belong to the same group as the people of the rest of Chota Nagpur. They speak the same language and, in every way, geographically, administratively, culturally and ethnically, they are indistinguishable and inseparable from Chota Nagpur. Jharkhand means the whole of the Chota Nagpur Plateau. Bihar Congressmen missed a glorious opportunity to undo, at one stroke, the mischief of the last ten years. They kept quiet and did not represent the claim of Bihar to the 11 Chota Nagpur States. In silence, they permitted the Greater Orissa leaders to hoodwink the States Ministry to occupy all the Chota Nagpur States of the Orissa States Agency. The Chota Nagpur States of the Chhattisgarh States Agency have been consigned to the administration of the Central Provinces temporarily. While I speak of the integration, however temporary, of the Chota Nagpur States to the Provincial Administration, I cannot but condemn the stupidity of the States Ministry in creating unnecessary interprovincial friction. Was there any need for bad blood, for bitterness, between Orissa, Bihar and the Central Provinces? The most patent facts were ignored. I have, ever since the Kharsawan massacre on January 1, (1947) been trying to probe into the deeper reasons for the promiscuous merger, and, I am more and more inclined to the view that there has been some conspiracy either at the Centre or in the Provinces to create the present situation with a view to administering a rude shock on the Adibasi Movement. What other explanation is there? The Biharis are naturally frightened that the return of the 11 Chota Nagpur States will strengthen the claim for a Jharkhand Province and, therefore, they think it is in their interest to connive with the Centre or Orissa and the Central Provinces to lose what belongs to Bihar historically as well. I want to say a few words about the Kharsawan massacre even at the cost of grim repetition. It was a surprise to all of us to find that Seraikella and Kharsawan had been committed to the Orissa Administration pending a final disposition. The Greater Orissa leaders have always had their eyes on Singhbhum District, on Jamshedpur, on the immense mineral wealth. At the time Orissa was carved out into a separate province, violent attempts were made, in vain, to get Singhbhum included in Orissa. The people of Singhbhum, to a man, said that blood would flow were an inch to go to Orissa. Ever since then, the Greater Orissa authorities have continued their campaign of peaceful penetration. At different strategic places, they have opened out Oriya schools. In Sona, for example, no boy is admitted to the school unless he agrees to accept Oriya as the medium of instruction and the names of inmates of the hostel connected with the school are altered to Oriya names. Earlier I have mentioned the Utkal Congress. At the last Assembly elections, the Congress Parliamentary Board allowed B.K. Pani, a notorious Oriya leader at Chakradharpur, to contest one of the Singhbhum seats. He was badly defeated 7Jai Jharkhand! Jai Adibasi! Jai Hind! by our candidate and, in fact, he forfeited his deposit-money. This same Pani played an important part at the Kharsawan massacre. He has disappeared since then. Kharsawan and Seraikella are in the heart of Singhbhum District. The Orissa authorities knew that the general population were hostile to them. Therefore, their administrators and soldiery accompanying them drove through Kolhan at dead of night and sneaked into Kharsawan and Seraikella like thieves. The Singhbhum authorities were told nothing about the passage of the Army trucks through their territory. You know what happened on January 1, New Year’s Day. With the permission of the newly-installed Orissa administrators, a procession took place in the morning and nothing untoward happened. In the afternoon, about two o’clock, a public meeting was held at the market-place. It happened to be market day also. The meeting passed off peacefully and without any incident whatever, and, at four o'clock, our leaders asked the people to go back to their homes. About an hour later began the battery of two bren- guns. Showers of bullets were fired at people in the market-place. Those who knew lay flat to save their lives, but, others were mercilessly mowed down for nearly thirty minutes. The trees, the houses and the number of killed and wounded are evidence of the intensity of the firing. Orissa authorities have been trying to destroy every evidence in the market-place but they have not cut down the trees which still remain riddled with bullets. I still maintain that about one thousand people, men, women and children were victims of Oriya savagery and about 1300 were wounded. Even cows, horses and goats of the market- place were not spared. I have seen most of the wounded and doctors tell me that the bullets are shots fired at people fleeing away. It is ridiculous for any sane person to say that only two scores were killed. We have taken a house-to- house census and, in my Jamshedpur, Chaibassa and Ranchi speeches delivered last month in connection with the Kharsawan butchery, I have already pointed out how the dead bodies were dealt with. About 10 lorry-loads of dead bodies were collected after sunset and taken away to the remote interiors of the dense jungle and thrown about as meat for wild animals. Some corpses were burnt with petrol and others were buried in mass trenches or thrown into deep ravines. The wounded were left out in the open throughout the wintry night and cries for water were unheeded. Even Missions of Mercy were prevented from reaching Kharsawan. The Government of Bihar sent a Medical Mission, but it was not allowed to stay. I do not wish to review all the grim details of the first Jallianwala Bagh of Free India staged by the Orissa authorities, one in which it fell to the lot of poor and simple Adibasis to be martyrs. News was blacked out and the Orissa Government spent a good deal of money to do this. I do not wish to enter into arguments with the Orissa Government. It stands self-condemned. What is the idea of distributing free cloth to people in Kharsawan and Seraikella? Do the Oriya leaders think they can shoot the Adibasis one minute and, the next minute, win them over by distributing free cloth? The fact that no Adibasi would accept even free cloth from the hands of the Oriyas, ought to suffice to 8Jharkhand Movement demonstrate the Orissa Government is unwanted, and the sooner it pulls out of the Chota Nagpur States the better for its own reputation and peace. You are aware that I endeavoured to move an adjournment motion at the Central Assembly. I want to tell you that I had the blessing of three Cabinet Ministers, all of whom were intimately associated with the Province of Bihar. Before I decided to submit an adjournment motion, however, I made several attempts to meet the Honourable Minister for States, but either he was out of his headquarters or not visible. The sole purpose of my adjournment motion was to give facts and figures and present the historical antecedents of the 11 Chota Nagpur States so that the Government would have been enabled to make the final disposition of the States justly (avoiding blunders of the type “Menongitis” led Patel into). I have very good grounds for believing that, in the original plan, Seraikella and Kharsawan were to have been committed to Bihar, but, a last minute alteration was made, Everything to my mind goes to prove that the bungling was deliberate and had a nefarious purpose behind it. There is still time for the States Ministry to make honourable amends. The people of the 11 States have expressed their determination, in unequivocal language, to return to the Chota Nagpur Administration, and their 11 rulers also are of the same view. The States Ministry ought to do the obvious thing, but, I feel it is my duty to warn you that something wicked might be done instead. In the latter case, our work for the integration of the vivisected plateau must continue till we achieve full results. A few words about our future programme. Hitherto, our main emphasis has lain on the necessity of making the primitive man conscious of his political tights. Adibasis have begun to realise that their salvation is in their own hands. Hereafter, we must go one step further. We must teach our people their political duties also. Rights and duties must go together. There can be no rights without corresponding duties. Duties, as I see them, relate more to economic activities— activities which will improve the lot of man, which will redeem him from crass ignorance, indebtedness, landlessness, dependence upon others, loss of nerves, loss of self-respect, and general decadence. I do not deny we have not been without achievements in the economic direction. The Chota Nagpur Unnati Samaj (Chota Nagpur Improvement Society) founded in 1920, which was succeeded by the Adibasi Mahasabha in 1938, opened many grain golas in the District of Ranchi, which are still there flourishing. There are several hostels, particularly for Sarna Adibasis in places like Gumla and Chaibassa, but, generally speaking, our organisation has not taken up seriously enough any economic programme, any policy for or against socialisation. We have cooperated with any organisation—political, social or religious—which promised to better the lot of our people. That kind of indifferent enthusiasm will not do. Now we must undertake economic measures. We must not be inHONIS TvdI VE YANN A.DIVd GNVHSYA VE AHL Ad GACNVWAd SV ONVESAVHEJharkhand Movement a hurry, but begin with what we can do right now and gradually expand and intensify our ambit. To my mind, the greatest problem in Chota Nagpur is the land problem. Nearly 10 lacs of Chota Nagpuris have been crimped away to the tea gardens of Assam and Bengal and settled there more or less permanently. Chota Nagpur is littered with coolie-catching organisations and every year thousands of men and women go to the tea gardens on short contracts. We must see that this stops. In fact, it is my fervent hope that when the Damodar Valley Project is completed the Damodar Valley Corporation will take concrete steps to repatriate people who had to leave the area to get a living elsewhere. Great injustice has been done to the land system of Chota Nagpur. The Cadastral Survey Settlements and the Revision Settlements have, one after the other, reduced and dwindled the ancient rights of the people. It was because the landlords in the West petitioned Rakhaldas Haldar to the effect there were no khunt-kattidars in the West that only the Mundas received khunt-katti rights. In course of time, khunt-katti became broken and other insidious distinctions were drawn even in khunt-katti territory by the introduction of Rajhas and Majhias. In my own village, all the three categories of land are to be found and my village is a khunt-katti village. This injustice must be washed away and a Commission should be appointed by Government to rehabilitate khunt-kattidars and standardise all land as khunt-katti. The ancient system of democracy is to be found in every part of Chota Nagpur. The Mankis, the Mundas, the Parha Rajas, the Parganaits, the village Mahatos, the Pahans and the Desmanjhis exist everywhere, but, the extent of their respective authority is not the same everywhere. Only in Kolhan and the Santhal Parganas is the old system of self-government still intact. The 22 Parha Rajas have been resuscitated by our Sabha. Whatever be the case, the fact remains that our ancient institutions have been divested of their character and authority and, now that PANCHAYAT RAJ is being talked of so much, we should set about to give new life into our ancient institutions, the genius of which the most primitive man understands and appreciates. The rule of the DAROGA must disappear. It is said, with a great deal of truth, that a country gets the government it deserves. I want our educated people to bear this in mind when they are dealing with the ignorant masses. We must talk the language of the people. We must if we have to bring about a revolution in society and social order, work with the people and always for the people. I am not so blind as to think that everything of the past is wonderful. We have much to learn from the past but, if the past cannot adapt itself to the changed and changing circumstances, it should be discarded. We do not live in the same kind of houses our forefathers used to live in. Form follows utility. Our social order must assume such a shape that it will harmonise with the present-day function. While I say this, I must emphasise that I do not think we can improve much on the simple life we have inherited as a result of thousands of years of experience. llJai Jharkhand! Jai Adibasi! Jai Hind! T urge upon our Indian leaders to stop and think. The aboriginals have much to teach the non-aboriginals; and equally is it true that aboriginals have something to learn from their neighbours. All that I plead for is we should not look down upon the Adibasis just because they refuse to shed their simplicity and decline to swim into the maelstrom of modernity. If the new constitution protects the improvident aboriginal from losing his land, the greatest thing would have been achieved. The aboriginal is a child of the soil and everything should be done to see that he remains rooted to his foundations. Once the aboriginal loses his land he is completely lost. Some of you are inclined to think in terms of isolation and segregation. This is a most pernicious and dangerous thing. The world is getting smaller and smaller every day. Nobody can live in isolation nor must the Indian aboriginal think that he is different from others. Iam very proud of Adibasi culture, but, at the same time, I must acknowledge that contra- acculturation activities of some of our leaders are deleterious in the long run. The process of acculturation, of cultural symbiosis, is inevitable and the only question which remains is whether we can accelerate its speed. NATURA NON FACIT SALTUM. Gradually or FESTINA LENTE. Hurry slowly! Thave already made reference to the importance of our social customs. I shall say a few words about our languages. People are so ignorant about the Adibasis in general that they make irresponsible statements about their culture and languages and even religious beliefs. Adibasis have been variously described as animists, heathens without religion at all. The same kind of charge is leveled against our languages. It is said that aboriginal languages are not worth developing and that in the aboriginal tracts the medium of instruction should be Rashtrabasha, whatever it might be. To such fanatics of Rashtrabasha, to such soulless humanitarians, I would say that they should have a look at the 14 Volumes of the Mundarica Encyclopaedia, at the monumental works published by Bodding on the Santhals, at the Oraon tomes published by Grignard, at Gondi and Bhil literature and then say whether Adibasi folklore can enrich our thoughts or not. It is criminal of the Bihar Government to attempt to destroy the Santhal language. By all means, let us have the Rashtrabasha, but, let us also develop our own mother tongues. I would ask the members of the Adibasi Students’ Fellowship—they are all young, enthusiastic and energetic—to collect all folk-tales and folk-songs they can get before these die out. The impact of civilisation threatens to annihilate some of the aboriginal languages and, before it is too late, we should unearth the linguistic wealth of those languages. I would ask the Fellowship Members to do intensive propaganda in the villages, particularly amongst Sarna Adibasis in favour of education. I do not mean education which divorces young people from their villages. On the contrary. I am thinking of education which will enrich the villages. We have experimented with the Adibasi Dhumkuria in Ranchi, giving in it a bias of Adibasi culture, of Adibasi songs and dances. This Dhumkuria is struggling against the heavy 12Jharkhand Movement odd of poor finances. But we must carry on despite difficulties and open many more Adibasi schools throughout the country. We all know that Chota Nagpur is one of the richest mineral areas of the world. Singhbhum District alone is estimated to have 3,000 million tons of high-grade iron ore. Lohardaga has vast bauxite deposits, a very important mineral in modern times. There is copper in Dhalbhum. In Manbhum there is practically three quarters of the coal deposits of India. We have the monopoly of mica so essential in an age of electricity and also lac. There is no mineral that I can think of which is not available in plenty in Chota Nagpur. In other words, we are sitting on top of immeasurable wealth. Why is it we are amongst the poorest people in the country? How is it that anybody who comes from outside seems to make money here? I think it is because we have refused to exploit our potentialities. It is high time that our educated young men and women ceased to run after government appointments and took to commercial and industrial enterprise. The primitive man is improvident, lives from hand to mouth, is care free, lacking the acquisitive instinct and unmindful of the future. These are negative qualities which have been exploited mercilessly by outsiders. Go where you like—Jamshedpur, Dhanbad and the tea gardens— you will find Adibasis, both men and women, doing the hardest work but getting the worst emoluments. We must get out of this torpor and boldly take to trade and other enterprises outsiders carry on in our midst. In a village there should be no room for the money-lender and other social pests. I wish to appoint an Economic and Planning Committee so that we may have a well-defined plan for our work or reconstruction and socialisation. Before I end, I would like to say a few words against the Government policy of interference with our religious rites and rights. The common picture non-aboriginals give of an Adibasi is that he is a drunkard and that he swims in his drink all the time. In every society, excesses lead to vice. Just as a man who eats too much rice is an unhealthy creature, so also is the Adibasi who drinks too much rice-beer. People forget the important role rice-beer plays in the life of the aboriginal. There is no social or religious function an Adibasi can perform without rice-beer. He offers rice-beer to his Gods. He cannot get his daughter married without rice-beer. He cannot propitiate his ancestral spirits without rice-beer. People will not assist him in paddy transplantation unless he gives them rice-beer. In birth, in marriages and in burials and religious festivals, he must have his rice-beer. How does Prohibition affect aboriginal life is a question the Prohibitionists have refused to examine. I certainly believe there is plenty of room for temperance workers, but prohibition amongst Adibasis would spell their downfall. Much has been made of the Bitlaha ceremony among the Santhals and pronouncements have been made by High Courts condemning it. I contend High Courts have no jurisdiction over Bitlaha. When an outsider perpetrates the crime of seducing a Santhal woman, Bitlaha is the 13Jai Jharkhand! Jai Adibasi! Jai Hind! ceremony, an ancient one, whereby the culprit, the social enemy, is excommunicated. It seems absurd to me that morals can be legislated. Before I resume my seat, I would like to pay personal tributes to the Kharsawan martyrs and also to those at Tapkara, at Simko and at Gamaria. I do not forget the splendid services and devotion I received from the late Masih Dayal Pandit, the late Hehemiah Tirkey, the late Asha Dadel, and others. I could not have carried on all these years without such a band of faithful workers. ‘We do badly need men and women of this type—selfless, self-sacrificing and fearless. I welcome all of you, especially those of you who have walked for several days in order to attend this Conference. I hope you are fairly comfortable and that you will go back carrying with you the message of this Conference which is the moral, material and spiritual advancement of the most ancient people of India, Adibasis.‘uMmOUY 10U -Pug “(1IpUed) INIny pee -puz “uMmoUy JOU -IS] :BuIPULIg MOY YIp "wNYET UBUUIEH -UD, “BSS POYOIPY -IN9 “‘umouy, you -Ing ‘BSL, sny[ng -tpp ‘eye dovyluog -pug ‘WW “IIA -Puz ‘UMOUY Jou ~IS] :Burpurrg Moy pag ‘umouy jou -pig “umoUuy JOU -Puz “Yoag ssous] AST :SuMTg Moy puz anfny YyerUaYyaN -ypy ‘PARQ |Neg -I99 ‘uoviC Wey Ipueg gayestey -MNs “YBuIg [edrey-Wap “ULINg axopoaxL|-PIE “ORD 9IqOH-PUz “UNoUY YoU - Uosiad Is] :FUMIg MOY IS] *6€6T UL EYgUseYeYy sep 91p Jo Sapeaj pur ssaquiawt Suspuno.y, 15JHARKHAND BETRAYED Icnes Kusur. Jharkhand Party wards the latter half of the decade 1940-50 we had succeeded in building up a strong political party for us. The Unnati Samaj of the earlier days had changed into Adivasi Mahasabha; the latter in turn had become the Jharkhand Party, which was preparing to fight the general elections, the first in free India, in order to attain our goal, Jharkhand, a separate state. A resolution to this effect was being passed every year in the annual general conference of the Party after a two to three day session by literally lakhs of us attending them, our young men doing so with their bows and arrows. Those were the days in which the Congress was engaged in a life and death struggle on the one hand for gaining freedom and on the other for eradicating evils which hampered progress. Landlordism was coming to an end; our slave status was well on its way to disappear. But we had keenly begun to feel our political bondage worse than slavery. Jharkhand demand was writ large on every Adivasi face. From the start the Congress was against this demand. The Bihar leaders left no stone unturned to impress on us that Jharkhand was an anti-national demand and that it could do nothing but harm us. The Congress had been in power and its government was functioning in several states and among others in Bihar, from much before the British had decided to leave India. The Bihar Government had pitted itself completely against us. Dr. S.K. Sinha, the Chief Minister of the then government, made no secret of his intention that he would not hesitate to drop bombs on us if we agitated for truncation of his province. It was not very difficult to see why Bihar leaders had been unnerved by our movement. Only a knave or fool would suggest that they saw no implications. From time to time truth came out of their mouths: But why are these missionaries converting and spreading education among these semi- civilised people? If they picked it up, where do these missionaries think they’ll get the labour for all the menial work required in statecraft? Chotanagpur Sangyukta Sangha (Reprint), 1986. Author is Founder Editor, ‘Abua Jharkhand’, Official Hindi Weekly of Adibasi Mahasabha, later on transformed into Jharkhand Party. Also, Jharkhand Party MLL.A., 1952-62. 16Jharkhand Movement Bihar Government’s View In those days it appeared that Bihar Government had no other work to do in Chotanagpur except that which in effect would make of us backwoodsmen again. It went on increasing the number of distilleries in these parts. It kept on Pouring out grants to one-member-institutions for opening schools at places where the missionaries had already done so. It made it a state policy to differentiate between the different tribes among us on the one hand, and Christians and non-Christians on the other. All governmental welfare measures were taken up with the set purpose to make us fight with one another among ourselves. It also manipulated our census to show that we were decreasing in number. Above all these, it declared that we were so ‘backward’ and our areas So undeveloped that a state, even if formed, would not be viable. Indian National Congress Reading At the national level, however, the Congress was very well aware that Jharkhand demand was by no means an anti-national demand, In fact quite early in the struggle for freedom it had been observed that several states had incompatible areas included in them. These areas had nothing in common with their residuary Parts. It was known to all how the states and their boundaries had been formed by the British. No principle was involved. These States and their boundaries, if they meant anything they meant, the different dates on which they were brought under the British Rule. The Congress had decided long before that after independence the states would be reorganised on the basis of their language and culture. It was realised that all development plans would fail and that exploitation of one by another would be the only result if people of one culture were kept under a state government of those with a different culture. The British had not mentioned even about parting with any power but the names of Andhra, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka (Kerala), were all in mouths of the Congressmen themselves. The Jharkhand Party was gaining momentum rapidly; Bihar Congressmen were perturbed. In one of the Congress sessions at all India level, they tried to impress on the A.LC.C. that culture could never be the criterion for new state formation, that there should only be one language. They maintained that we are their ‘bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh’ even though our culture was slightly different. The fact was that they didn’t want to be caught napping. They could never deny that Jharkhand and its Adivasis differed from Bihar and Biharis not a bit less than what the Aryans did from non-Aryans, living anywhere on earth. Nor could they deny that we lived in homogeneity, united and compact. That in our history, geography and all other matters of human study, we differed from them. But they scored in one point; we had several tongues to go by. With this they tried their best to fight our demand. 17Jharkhand Betrayed States Reorganisation Commission In the last week of December 1953, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India announced the formation of a commission, the State Reorganisation Commission. Sri Fazle Ali, Shri Hriday Nath Kunzru and Sardar KM. Pannikar were appointed the members to it. To this Commission was given the task of investigation of differing lingual and cultural areas in all the states of the Union and find out their social, economic, historic, geographic and administrative links to them. On the result of their findings they were to recommend alteration in their boundaries by amalgamation or bifurcation as also by the formation of new states. ‘There were some cogent reasons for forming this Commission. Firstly, as already observed, the Congress was committed to it. It had become clear that any programme of large scale planning of the whole country must take enduring political unit into consideration. The schemes of development could not be implemented in a state, if because of exploitation, a section of the people therein evinced no concern. The most forcible reason for forming this Commission was that further deferment of the question would lead to sure unrest in the country. The state of Andhra had been formed early that same year and there was enough evidence of brewing trouble in Bombay already. The Jharkhand Party was also expecting the formation of some such commission for a long time. It was precisely by raising the very same question of a ‘boundary commission’ in the minds of its voters that it had won 32 seats in the Bihar Assembly and had emerged the largest opposition party. Shri Jaipal Singh the president of the Party told the followers to be ready to prove their case. The year 1954 will not easily be forgotten from the history of Jharkhand Movement, for this was the year which marked the beginning of the end. Early in February, Shri K.B. Sahay, the then Revenue Minister of Bihar, met Shri Singh at New Delhi. The former known as Chotanagpur Kesri in Congress circles was a sworn enemy of Jharkhand demand. He was continually pulling out our leaders from the fold and giving them either some lucrative position or post in order to weaken our movement. Shri Singh had never appeared to have a single good word for him. Their opposing views had always kept the two leaders fencing each other. On this occasion it was reported in the papers that they had a very cordial talk on the problems of Chotanagpur in general and Adivasis in particular. Immediately after this talk at New Delhi, Shri Singh asked his party workers to arrange public meetings all over the Jharkhand area in order to inform the people of the grave situation, which had arisen on the wake of the S.R.C. visit in these parts. These meetings, amongst others, were held at Dumka, 18Jharkhand Movement Dhanbad, Jhalda, Chandil, Purulia, Ranchi, Chaibasa, Rairangpur, and Gangpur. ‘What was surprising, was that in all these places he avoided making any case for Jharkhand. He spoke to his audience referring to Bengal or Orissa most of the time. He said that both these states had suddenly developed land grabbing attitude: that Bengal wanted Dhanbad and Orissa wanted Singhbum. He added that in order to save them he had joined hands with the Government of Bihar. It was interesting to hear him speak with a double voice in one and the same breath. He believed that the Adivasis of Manbhum wouldn’t allow themselves to be mauled by the Bengal tiger, that they wouldn’t part with an inch of their land to it; but he could find no Adivasis there to justify the demand of Jharkhand before the S.R. Commission. Prior to its visit to the places concerned, the Commission had given notice of its detailed programme and asked for memoranda, memorials or Tepresentation from interested parties. The whole nation got excited over the issue. Over three thousand memoranda were received by the Commission. They had been submitted to it by all kinds of parties, political, non-political, social, communal, non-communal, educational, etc. and even by governments. Almost all the leaders of the country appeared to give their evidence before it. Even Shri Nehru did so; but not Shri Singh. The Commission visited our state in the last week of January 1955. We demonstrated before it. In each of the places—Dumka, Ranchi and Chaibasa— about 2-3 lakhs of people rent the skies with the slogan of ‘Jharkhand Alag Prant!” The Congressmen also tried to state a counter demonstration for their claim of keeping Bihar intact. They were nowhere near us, as their demonstrators were being transported in buses and trucks from place to place. Shri Singh was also present on the occasion. He was Prancing right and left of the Commission during its visit of these areas, but he did not meet with it. Nor did he submit any memorandum to it. The S.R.C. took about two years and a half to complete the work entrusted to it. Its report was published in June 1956; it was a voluminous report of 264 Pages. It suggested the formation of number of new states as also increase or decrease of area in certain states, lying adjacent to one another by alteration of their boundaries. In dealing with the question, too great an importance was not given to the issue of language and culture. They were important enough; but it was stated that before making any suggestion for any change three more vital points were considered. Firstly whether such a change would be desirable from the viewpoint of preservation and strengthening the unity and security of India. Secondly the question of financial and economic feasibility and administrative convenience. And thirdly the successful working of the National Plan 19Jharkhand Betrayed In fact the S.R.C. was against the creation of purely linguistic states. They observed that the idea of a federating unit, organised as the political expression of a single language group would encourage exclusivism and that it would even tend to blur, if not obliterate national unity. The self image that such language group creates is necessarily one of superiority as compared to others and this will inevitably be reflected in its educational and cultural institutions. It looked as though the principles enunciated were to make an unassailable case for Jharkhand itself. The maps too printed on the occasion showed its extent; but however much one tried to find it in the report, it was not there. In its place, we were recommended a special development board for Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas, which was not even remotely mentioned in the terms of reference. I shall refer to this board later when I shall be dealing with the merger of the Party with the Congress. The above is the story of how the Jharkhand Party failed to win our battle on at least one count. Our pain over our defeat was all the more piercing as political observers drew the conclusion that we lost because we actually had no case. This was also the view of all the Bihar newspapers. Very few observed that we were let down. What I have got to say below will reveal that our failure was neither due to the fact that we had no case nor due to any external cause. The rot had set in internally. Shri Singh had, by the time, fallen down to immeasurable depths. Induction of Non-Party Men Ever since the Maharaja-Adhiraj of Darbhanga, Shri Kameshwar Singh was given the party ticket for his election to the New Delhi Rajya Sabha; in the Party, entered an element of doubt and suspicion, which could never be forgotten. Even today the incident is occasionally referred to by elderly Adivasis as the ‘Darbhanga episorh’ (episode). The Maharaja was ushered in the Party in 1952 at the wake of the Biennial Rajya Sabha elections of the year. He never had any connections with Adivasis. Obviously the MLAs were directed to vote for him for some consideration other than that of Jharkhand. Later when the news permeated the countryside, they resented their galling position but dared not ask Shri Singh for any explanation for fear of falling from his grace and risk their future of Assembly membership. This incident proved to be the one which gave tremendous powers to Shri Singh; he emerged a virtual dictator. In earlier days he had appeared dedicated to the cause of Jharkhand. It was beyond imagination that an Adivasi who had so deep a feeling for his people; could ever go astray. It was considered not only unnecessary, but even harmful to have other-elected leaders in the executive or working committees. Thus he always took his decisions all by himself, be it a matter of policy or selection of a candidate. There was the seeming sanction of a Parliamentary Board invariably in all matters; but it was 20