On the Future of Indigenous Traditions - Munin

in Jharkhand. They argue that reserving the chair’s seat for Adivasis in scheduled
areas violates their own citizenship rights, and have called strikes to de-schedule
certain areas where they claim Adivasis are in a minority. 102 As it is, only 2,228 gram
–village panchayats out of 4,544 gram panchayats are reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes and of these some 35 panchayats have recently been de-reserved. 103
The third set of groups are the Left parties, some NGOs (and the government of
India), demanding panchayat elections under existing laws, pointing to the fact that
panchayat elections have not been held in Jharkhand (and Bihar) for 28 years.
Followed by the fourth set of groups consists of the Maoists who are opposed to
elections, but have formed their own village assemblies to replace traditional “feudal”
structures like that of the headmen.
In this discussion, Sundar observes, that the Jharkhand Government is playing a
dubious role, asking the district officials to consult the gram sabhas in Scheduled
Areas when identifying development schemes and its beneficiaries despite its own
repeated circulars. 104 At the same time it pleads in the court that in the absence of
Jharkhand Panchayti Raj elections, there can be no gram sabhas. 105 The aim of the
Jharkhand government here was to circumvent the PESA provision (4i) requiring
consultation with gram sabhas before land acquisition for any developmental
purposes. 106 To do this, first the government of Jharkhand argues in the court that
customary structures have died out, and therefore there is no need for any special law
for Scheduled Areas, 107 while at the same time it is sending circulars describing these
102
There are some eight blocks in different districts of Jharkhand where the population of Adivasis has
been shown as less than 50 per cent, criteria for a block to be de-scheduled from the Fifth Schedule
privileges. Jharkhand Indigenous Peoples Forum, consisting of 48 Adivasi organisations by issuing a
public statement on August 9, 2005 have contested that the census figures there has been systematic
undercounting the Adivasis.
103
Nandini Sundar, “Custom' and 'Democracy' in Jharkhand”, Economic and Political Weekly (8
October, 2005), 4430.
104
Reference made to the circulars of Bihar government, from Mining Department to all
commissioners, March 6, 1998, 3/BM/L/51/97/1014; from Panchayati Raj Department to all DCs,
scheduled areas, January 12, 1999, 7P/N-20/97-97; Regional Development Office to all DCs scheduled
areas, June 12, 1999, No 1037 – all reiterating the need to involve gram sabhas in scheduled areas.
105
Jharkhand Government’s counsel submission in the Rajmahal Pahad Bachao Andolan vs Union of
India case WP 6348 of 2003.
106 The Jharkhand Panchayti Raj Act 2001 is silent on this provision but this can be legally challenged
with reference to PESA.
107 Government of Jharkhand counsel submission in SATHEE (Society for Advancement in Tribes
Health Education and Environment) vs State of Jharkhand, WP 5669 of 2001.
69