CHAPTER 4
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE JHARKHAND MOVEMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
The UrSon, the Munda and the Khariya and many other tribes lived their own way of life for centuries in Jharkhand but from the 17th century the changes in the region disturbed their way of life. As mentioned earlier the UrSons and the Mundas chose a common R S j S to be the chief over them.
The RSJS recognized their land system and the clan organization and did not interfere in the internal administration of the village. Initially, the villagers offered him gifts on special occasions but later the R S j S demanded the gifts which eventually became tax. The
KhuntkattidSrs and the B h u i n h S r s were exempted from the tax.
The socio-economic and socio-political systems were not affected and the Adivasis lived in peace under RSjS. The change appeared when the R S j S was made tributary of the
Mughal Emperor. The British colonial rule deepened the change in the 18th century when the Chotanagpur raj fell in their hands. The post colonial government hastened the change through its modernization policies and programmes.
These tribes have been fighting against outsiders to bring back their glorious old days. The fight started with a
148 149 vengeance against the outsider oppressors by the Mundas, the
Santhal and the UrSons.
Gradually, many tribes were mobilized and formed a pan- tribal solidarity to voice their grievances. They demanded for the creation of a separate state for them first time in
1928 (Ghosh 1991:1174). They contested the municipal elections during the dawn of India’s independence and captured many seats. Educated elite emerged in the tribal society who launched a political party in 1950 to press their demand. Of late a new awareness has been created among the masses who have been aspiring for a separate Jharkhand state by all means. As a result every political party whether it is national or regional, is including the Jharkhand issue in its election manifesto.
In this chapter I have presented a brief history of the
Jharkhand Movement and highlighted its main events: its origin, growth and development up to the present dayt observed significant changes in its approach; noted its achievements and means and methods used by the leaders in different stages. The historical account has provided data for reflection on the ethnic political mobilization. 1 have divided the history of the movement in three periods and several phases according to major events that took place in each period. The outline of the history of the movement is as follows: 1 5 0
1st period : 18th and 19th centuries
2nd period : 1901 to 1947 (pre-independence)
phase 1 1912 - 1931
phase I I 1931 - 1938
phase 111 1939 - 1947
3rd period : 1948 to 1994 (post-independence)
phase I 1948 - 1963
phase I 1 1964 - 1980
phase III 1981 - 1989
phase IV 1990 - 1994
2. 1ST PERIOD; 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES
Although this period has been ignored by some historians, one cannot forget the Importance of numerous agrarian uprisings which served as the background of the formal organization of Jharkhand Movement in the 20th century. The Adivasis encountered three distinct sets of socio-political and economic systems during this period, which were introduced by Hindu R5jas, Mughal emperors and
British rulers successively.
The main problem all through this period was basically
'land alienation’, initiated by the intrusion of the
NSgbanshi RSijSs into the traditional ParhS system of the
Mundas and the UrSons. In 1585 Bairihal the 41st Raja of
KhukhrS (ChotSnSgpur) was made M a l g u j a r or tributary of the 151
Moghal Empire. When Durjan S51, one of his successors failed
to pay the tribute he was imprisoned by Je h S n g i r in 1616 (De
Sa 1975; Keshri 1992), After his release in 1628 he began to
imitate the life style of the Hindu kings whom he met in the
Gwalior jail (Roy 1982:30; Keshri 1992:55).* He brought
Brahmin priests and R5jput courtiers and gave them
responsible posts in his court. He had no money to pay their
salaries so he gave them J a g i r (the land grants) and they
were called J a g i r d S r s (grantees) (Sengupta 1982:244). They
were allowed to collect rents in cash and kind (.rakumats)
from the peasants. The J a g i r d S r s did not own land but later
they grabbed some of the best land of the village and started
oo i I i T .<6 rcrts from the B h u i n h a r s (the later settlers)
(Minj 1986:3-4; Keshri 1992; De Sa 1975; Roy 82). One of the 11.'"'.'Tiants put it, "The Hindus ruled us for thousand years, then ca.re Moghals who govern'^'’ for nearly seven hundred years before British came into Chotanagpur to rule for another 160 yeirs''.
When the Moghals made this region their H a l g u j a r they strengthened the system of land grants; divided the region into S u b a s (provinces) and introduced the Z a m i n d a r i systems.
They levied tributes through the Nagbanshi Rajas, the Moghals neither interfered with the internal administration of the
RSjas nor with the socio-cu1tura1 life of the Adivasis. The
Adivasis were exploited and alienated from their land but they did not revolt. May be because there were enough virgin 15 2 forest which they could clear and claim their own but later they began to revolt against their oppressors. Thus, the seed of the movement was sown during this period which can be noticed in two episodes:
i) The Adivasi Revolts:
The advent of the British in the region in the 18th century changed the whole situation. The exploitation and the land alienation was intensified. The D e w S n i of Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa were ceded to the East India Company in 1765 by Emperor ShSh Alam II and in 1771 the colonial rule brought
Jharkhand region under British rule (Basu 1994:4). This proved to be the beginning of misery and oppression of the
Adivasis which have continued even to this day in different and more subtle forms.
Under Lord Cornwallis the British r a j passed the
Permanent Settlement Act in 1793 which regarded the Z s m i n d a r s as landlords in Britain. They were allowed to keep the police force and the R a i y a t s (cultivators) were left to the mercy of these landlords. The Z a m i n d a r s grabbed the
K h u n t k a t t i land of the Mundas, the UrSTons and the Khayiyas; introduced varieties of rents and other service including
R u k u m a t and Bethbegar, The exploitation became unbearable for the Adivasis, Adding salt to the injury in 1780 the
'Military Collectorship of the RSmgarh Hill Tract’ was formed and non-Adivasi police officers were brought in the region 15 3 who sided with the Zamindars, By the end of the 16th century the British systems of civil and revenue administration, the
law court, and the police were fully established in the
Jharkhand region (De Sa 1975; Ghosh 1991; Roy 1984).
These changes upset the local population; Adivasis became landless; slavery and misery increased. The British transported the Adivasis to tea estates of Assam and Bengal, to indigo plantation of ChampSran and to the Andaman Island as reserve labour force.®
The discontent and anger of the people went out of bounds. They revolted at least five times between 1797 and
1820; the Munda uprising of BOndu under Bisnu Manki in 1797,
the BhOmij Revolt of MSTnbhum in 1798-9, the Chero uprising of
Pal5mu under Bhukhan Singh in 1800, the Munda uprising of
Tam5jr under Dukhan Manki in 1807 and the Munda uprising of
TamSr under Rugdeo and KontoT in 1819-20. All these revolts
had on^ single aim to drive out the J a g i r d S r s and the
ZamindSrs and the T h i k e d a r B fTom the region (Basu 1994; Ghosh
1991).
As time passed the discontent spread far and wide. The
biggest and perhaps the most violent uprising was the Kol
Insurrection of 1831-32, in which many non-Adivasis were
killed. The BhOmij Revolt (also known as Chuar Hangama) was
organized under the leadership of GangS Narayan in 1834. 154
Later, the Wilkinson Administration brought peace in the region which lasted for about 20 years. Again SanthSls revolted in 1855 and the so called Sepoy Mutiny in 1856-57 followed. The arrival of the German Lutheran Mission in 1845 was crucial to these revolts because the educated Christian
Adivasis took up the constitutional means to reclaim their
land.^ This is known as the SardSri Larai (the war of the
leaders) (Jha 1964; Gosh 1991; MacDougall 1985).
2) SardSri Larai (1889-1890)* ;
The Chotanagpur Tenures Act of 1869 could not solve the land problem. The educated Adivasis from Christian schools formed several groups and associations to get justice and redress. They claimed that the ancient forests and monuments found in ruins all over Chotanagpur had been built by their ancestors, they were the firstsettlers of the land and the whole region belonged to them, but their plight was due to the invasion of ruthless and rapacious landlords, traders and usurers. The D i k u s had no right to levy rents from them.
They encouraged the people to fight for their land and sent petitions to the government. As a whole, SardSri Larai was well organized and was militant. It only lacked a charismatic leader. On account of which it could not solve the group rivalry and failed to bear desired result for the
Adivasi community. It paved the way for the Birsa Movement of 1895-1900 (Singh 1983; Ghosh 1991; De Sa 1975; MacDougall
1985) . 15 5
Birsa Munda, claimed to possess supernatural power, gave a call to his people to unite and throw out the D i k u s from their land. He organized a highly motivated group to transform the Munda society and against the British troop.
The chief aim of his movement was to liberate the society from economic and political bondage of ZamindSrs and British rule. He used ethnic and religious sentiments of his people to mobilize
1900 (Singh 1983; Ghosh 1991; Das 1992).
i) The Achievements of this Phase:
Though sporadic and temporary in nature, these agitations were instrumental in bringing out various administrative and agrarian reforms:
1. The Wilkinson Rule was promulgated by creating the
'South West Frontier Agency* in 1833 which abolished the
'Military Co 11ectorship of the Ramgarh Hill Tract’ and put
Chotanagpur under 'non-regu1 ation Area’. The Governor
General resided at KisSnpur (Ranchi) who framed a few special rules for the administration of justice in the area (De Sa
1975; Srivastava 1981).
2. The Regulation XX was passed in 1854 which empowered the officer appointed by the Commissioner. The area was placed directly under the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and continued to be 'non-regu1 ation’ province with a new name,
'Chutia NSgpur Division’ consisting of the districts of
Manbhum, Singhbhum and the tributary states of Chotanagpur 15 6 area: SurgOj?, Jashpur, Udaipur, Gangpur and Bonai (Sinha
1968; De Sa 1975).
3. The registration of Bh u i a h a r i land was conducted
under Lokenath Sahi and the land that had been alienated
during or since the Mutiny of 1657 were restored to the
Adivasis (Sinha 1986).
4. The 'Chotanagpur Tenures Act’ also known as the
'Bhuinhari settlement Act’ was passed in 1869, which facilitated more extensive land investigation than Sahi’s and an accurate recordings of Bhuinhari and Majhias land were made (Sinha 1986; MacDougall 1985).
5. The general survey of Bhuinhari land was conducted during 1869-1880, which provided a thorough demarcation of
the Bhuinhari tenures and the Majhias land. The Majhias land was the landlords’ privileged land. Often this were the best
land of the village and traditionally no rent was charged on
this land but the labour dues were levied (MacDoughall
1985:41 ) .
6. The general Survey of Chotanagpur and special
Mundari Khuntkatti were conducted but in the Bhuinhari
survey, the Khuntkatti and the Rajhas land were not included.
7. Abolition of BethbegSr.
8. The Chotanagpur Tenancy Act of 1908 was passed to arrestthe alienation of Adivasis land. Its elaborate
provisions specified the limited conditions under which an
Adivasi could sell his land to non-Adivasi or use it as
collateral for loans (Sinha 1986). 15 7
9. Formation of Gumla sub-division in 1902 and KhOnti sub-division in 1905.
10. Large scale conversion of tribals to Christianity took place in this period. The German Lutheran Missionaries started work in Ranchi in 1845 but till 1857 they had only seven hundred converts. The number of the converts shot up alarmingly after 1857. Many believed it was because the government and the missionaries helped the Christian victims of so called t^^ e Mutiny. Whatever be the reason there was mass conversion to Christianity and the converts provided new leadership to the Adivasi community and displayed a new militancy against the Zamindars (De Sa 1975).
ii) Participants in the agitations
These uprisings and revolts were connected with the land alienation which affected all the local peasants. Therefore, almost all the major tribes of the region participated in the effort to drive away the Dikus, Particularly the Mundas, the
Hos, the UrSens, the Santhals and the Kherwars took
initiatives and provided leadership. Some SadSns mainly the
Koiris, the Rautias and the lower caste artisan also took keen interest in revolts but they were scattered population and impact was less felt.
iii) Means and the methods used by the Adivasis
Various means were used by the Adivasis to show their discontentment to the Z a m i n d a r s and the government; they 15 8
refused to work for the ZaaindSrs, stopped giving Rukumats,
forcibly cultivated the land that was allegedly captured by
the non-Adivasis and refused to pay tax. In some places they
beat up the persons who came to collect tax. So much so the
British sent troops frequently to Ranchi district to quell
disturbances or to force the R a j S of Chotanagpur to pay the
land revenue. The Adivasis did not hesitate to use violence
e.g. it is believed the Kol Rebellion lasted for about five
months, and was marked by fierce fighting, looting and
murder. It was wide spread and some four thousand troops
fought in one battle. The number killed on both sides has been estimated at several thousand (MacDougall 1985:22).
After the advent of Christianity in the region converts asked their pastors to intercede with the government on their
behalf. The Christian Missionaries were sympathetic towards
Adivasis at the initial stage sixteen Lutheran Missionaries
presented a petition to the government on behalf of them in
1876, and complained against the D i kus* oppression. The
Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal suggested them in reply, to confine themselves only to the spiritual welfare of the
tribals and not to give any encouragement on their agrarian
issues (Singh 1983). The missionaries obeyed the Governor’s order so the educated Christian Adivasis started writing petitions to the Secretary of State for India in London
(Appendix 6). They also used the constitutional means by 159 presenting memorandum (through their SardSrs) before the
Governor General to put before the Queen in England.
3- 2ND PERIOD; PRE-INDEPENDENCE (1901-1946)
This period was marked by the leadership of Christian
Adivasis who conscientized their tribesmen and put forward their grievances to the government through constitutional means: memorandum, charter of demands, etc. There is a difference between the first and the second period only in the approach and there is a continuity of the main issues raised in the earlier period. This period can be divided into three phases:
Phase 1; 1912-1930
The beginning of the 20th century saw two types of movements in Chotanagpur: the reformative and the religious.
These were quite different from earlier revolts and insurrections though their main aim was basically the same i.e. the liberation from the oppression of the Dikus. The first took keen interest on socio-economic reforms and gave birth to many associations and co-operative societies: the
'Christian Association’ which was founded in 1898 by
Lutheran Students and was renamed as 'Christian College
Union’ after the Catholics joined it in 1918 (Ghose
1991:1174); the 'Catholic Co-operative Society’ formed in 1 6 0
1906 (Singh 1982e); the 'Christian Students Organization’
founded by J. Bartholmeu in 1912.
The second set of movements also stressed on reforms but more on religious observances and took the means of Bhakti,
Different groups of Bhagats: TanaBhagats, Arwa Bhagats, Bisu
Bhagat, BachhidSTn Bhagats, etc. stressed on diverse aims and
did not spread. They remained as a set of ritual practices
(Ekka 1972; Roy 1984; Devalle 1992; Sharma 1988) whereas the
other movements paved the way for unified actions which can be seen in the formation of Unnati Samaj.
Unnati SanSj:
After the cruel repression of Birsa movement, Adivasis
remained quiet for about two decades. However, new elite emerged among the Adivasis during this time. The educated
youth who were very sensitive to their suffering brethren, organized themselves to work for the betterment of the
community. J. Bartholomew, an Anglican student of St.
Columba’s college, HazSribag, organized the Christian
students and formed Christian Students Organization in 1912
as a branch of Dacca Student Union. Later, Bandi RSim UrSon,
Alphonse Kujur, Elias Topno, Bir Singh Munda, Joel Lakra,
Theble UrSon and Anand Mashi topno joined, and 'Chotanagpur
Unnati SamSj’ was formed in 1915. It was primarily a welfare organization which aimed at development of the Chotanagpur
region by improving the social, economic and political life 161 the Adivasis. Though not a political organization the SamSj held regular meetings and opened its gate to non-Christian
Adivasis as well. It worked for inter-tribal unity by bringing into its fold a large number of educated youth
(Ghosh 1991; Pandey 1994; Devalle 1992; Singh 1977).
Initially it enjoyed the backing of all denominations and opened schools and grain co-operatives. It promoted
English, Hindi, Kurukh, Mundari and Sadri languages, and published a magazine called ' A d i v a s i ’ in these languages.
Thus it contributed towards inter-tribal unity in the region
(Singh 1977).
When the Simon Commission arrived in India in 1928 the members of the Chotanagpur Unnati SamSj, led by bishop Van
Ho6ck and Rev. Joel Lakra, took the opportunity to place a memorandum before the commission. They sought special privileges and urged the commission to consider the demand for a separate administrative unit in the Chotanagpur region
(Sachchidananda 1979:242; Ghosh 1991:1174-5; Singh 1977).
In the government of India Act 1935, Chotanagpur was described as a 'partially excluded area’ and was put under the special responsibility of the Governor under section 92 of the Act. The Chotanagpur Unnati SamSj opposed the provision through a resolutions and held number of meetings 16 2 though without much success. Because the government stood firm about the provision (ghosh 1991; Srivastava 1981).
The Sanaj could not enjoy the fruit of unity for long as most of its leaders were Christians from urban areas. Theble
UrSon felt that the interests of the rural farmers were not paid much attention to and the break up of the group was almost certain (Ghosh 1991).
General backwardness of the region and in particular the poverty, illiteracy and unemployment of the Adivasis made the situation pathetic which inspired educated tribal youth to work for the betterment of the society. Young men educated in Christian schools were fired with zeal to improve the condition of their brethren. They got united and began their activities with these aims and objectives:
a) to work for the welfare and upliftment of Chotanagpur in general and for the Adivasis in particular. Their organizations including the Unnati SamSj had socio-economic programme in their orientation.
b) to bring revolution in the region through education among the Adivasis. They were convinced that education would fetch employment for them. They also worked to secure jobs for the educated.
c) Besides these main objectives Unnati Sam5j had other programmes to reform the Adivasi community by control in drinking alcohol, revival of the traditional socio-cu1tura1 1 6 3 organization like D h u a k u r i a and /’ar / j a Panchayate (Singh 1977;
Ghosh 1991; Devalle 1992).
i) Achievements of this Phase:
Though short lived Chotanagpur Unnati SamSj had remarkable achievements. It was the first attempt of the new breed of Adivasi leaders to go beyond their village boundaries. The SamSij displayed their capacity for formal organization. It brought new consciousness among the people and prepared the platform for new Adivasi leadership.
ii) Participants
Both Christian and non-Christian (Sarna) Adivasis participated in the activities of the SamSj. The main body of persons who led it were urban dwellers and their efforts to spread the activities to villagers did not succeed much.
The Adivasi unity was witnessed in unity of purpose and action when Joel Lakra, Paul Dayal, Bandi Uraon, Theble and
Ur5on came together for definite purpose. But all these leaders were of urban breed and de-1inked the traditional leadership of UrSons and Mundas.
iii) Means and methods used
The means used by the Adivasi leaders to improve the condition of their society were more or less similar to that of their predecessors, who believed in formal organization and consultation. 164
Phase 11; 1931-1939
In the second phase two remarkable things happened in the region: first, there emerged an unavoidable division among the Adivasis on the basis of religion they professed.
The Adivasi communities grouped themselves into Christian
Adivasi (the converts) and non-Christian Adivasi (the pagans or SawnsSrs or Sarna). Second, the socio-economic reforms and other activities of various organizations acquired a political colouring. The main organizations among them were;
1) KisSin Sabha:
As mentioned above some members of the Chotanagpur
Unnati SamSj felt it neglected the cause of the farmers.
They resigned from the SamSj and formed a new group called
Kis5n SabhS in 1931 under the leadership of Theble Uraon, a
Sarna. But it was not entirely non-Christian group. Rather it was like Unnati SamSj a pan-tribal and inter denominational. Lorentius Bar la who was a Christian from
Munda community was a founder member of the group and Paul
Dayal was its Secretary. The Kis5n Sabha was more radical in its approach than Unnati SamSj and it did not believe in memorandum. It was organized and functioned in the line of
'Bihar KisSn Sabha’ which had policies and programmes more suitable for the Gangetic plain of Bihar. As a result it was not effective in Chotanagpur and SanthSl Parganas (Ghosh
1991:1175; see also Sengupta 1982:30-31). KisSTn Sabha fielded its candidates in 1937 election but all were defeated. 165
2) Chotanagpur Catholic Sabha:
The Catholics did not join the Unnati Sam5j and KisS'n
SabhSi because of some religious consideration.® They were equally eager to plunge themselves in the movement, in fact, they were looking for some better organization (Vidyarthl
1964:156). Some say their pastors were afraid of entering into politics and did not want to risk their co-operative society and other institutions (Minj 1968:12). When initiative came from the people, the then Arch Bishop Sevrin approved the formation of Chotanagpur Catholic SabhS in 1936.
Boniface Lakra was elected its first president and Ignas Beck its General Secretary. The aims and objectives of the
Catholic SabhS were purely socio-religious and economic. But some times it also involved itself in political issues of its interest. In 1937 elections it won two seats in the region
(Sharma 1988). The reason was that the Catholic SabhS had gained much popularity because of the better organized
Catholic mission.
The political awakening was on the rise. Jharkhand
Adivasis were on the threshold of party politics. Congress party of Bihar made every effort to recruit Adivasis for its political gain. Thus, Adim JSti Seva Mandal and Sanstan
Adivasi MahSsabhST were organized during this time (Weiner
1988; Singh 1977; Ghosh 1991). 166
3) Adim Jati Seva flandal:
'Adim Jati Seva Mandal' a social reform organization formed by RSjendra Prasad to conduct welfare activities among the Adivasis. It was financed by the government, with the objective of weakening the movement led by the Christian
Adivasis for a separate Jharkhand state.* It provided free education and medical aid to the Adivasis to bring them out of the missionary influence (Ghosh 1991:1175). Gradually, the Sev5 Mandal came to be identified with the Hindus and a convert non-convert division followed and adversely affected the cause of the Jharkhand Movement (Weiner 1988:192).
4) Sanatan Adivasi Mahasabha:
Theble UrSon also formed another group called SanS’tan
Adivasi MahSsabhST to counteract the social works of Unnati
SamSij. There was nothing spectacular about this organization
(Ghosh 1991).
5) Adivasi Mahasabha:
The election result of 1937 led to change the attitude of the Adivasi leaders and attempts were made to bridge the gap between Christian and Sarna Adivasis. As a result in the year 1938 the Unnati SamSj, the Kisan Sabhas and the
Chotanagpur Catholic SabhSi merged together under the
leadership of Ignas Beck to form the Adivasi MahSsabhST. For the first time unlike Unnati SamSj this organization made an open declaration of a separate Adivasi state. At this juncture Adivasi political awakening was formally 1 6 7
inaugurated. It allowed the non-Adivasis of the region to
participate in its activities, at least officially. The
Bengalis who considered themselves unsafe in Bihar and the
Muslim League planning to build a corridor; linking the east and west wings of Pakistan also provided moral and material
support to the MahSsabha (Ghosh 1991:1175). It remained out side the National Movement and in fact ended up supporting the British (Devalle 1992:138; Minj 1968). It launched a struggle not against the British RSj but against the D i k u
RStj. It was led by highly educated and professional leaders and demanded complete separation from Bihar.
The MahSsabha contested the Municipal election in 1938
and all its candidates won. When the Congress government in
Bihar resigned on October 31, 1939 it administered the Ranchi
municipality for a ful1 term with great success (Minj
1968;13). Jaipal remained faithful to the British government
and recruited Adivasis in the British army (Sharma 1988).
Jaipal Singh^ who was then a minister in Bikanar state
came over to Ranchi on his way to Patna in the beginning of
1939. By this time his fame had already spread in Bihar.
The members of the Adivasi MahSsabha took the opportunity and
asked him to preside over their meeting. He gladly accepted
the invitation and then on became the regular member of the
MahoTsabha and later became its president. He contested the
election for Provincial Council in 1946 but was defeated by 16 8 Congress. The defeat was largely because of the emergence of
the 'Adim Jati Seva Mandal’ and the 'Sanatan Adivasi
MahSsabhS-'. Just after his defeat Jaipal Singh came out with the slogan "we shall take Jharkhand" and declared "Jharkhand is the land of Adivasis" non-Adivasis have exploited Adivasis economically and politically, there is hardly any hope for their regeneration unless the intruders quit Jharkhand. He did not hesitate to arouse primordial loyalties of the
Adivasis and used violent means to put an end to north Bihari dominance in the region (Ghosh 1991:1175). The educated
Adivasi youth plunged into themovement against the non-
Adi vas i s.
Later the link between Muslim league and the Adivasi
MahSsabha was broken in 1947 the riots in Calcutta and the partition of Bengal shook the Bengalis living in Bihar a great deal (Ghosh 1991:1175).
i) Problems during this Phase
The problems of the region and that of the Adivasis remained the same as in the earlier phase. Added to that the division among them on the ethnic and religious line (Adivasi and non-Adivasi, Christian and non-Christians) crept up.
ii) Objectives of the movement during this Phase
The objectives of earlier phase were carried on but the demand for a separate state and theprotection of Adivasis 16 9 against the exploitative tactics of D i k u s crystallized in
this phase. These objectives were clearly of a 'sub national’ character and ultimately led to the formation of the 'Jharkhand Party’ in 1950, and the vitalization of the
Jharkhand Movement.
iii) Achievements of this Phase
In spite of splits and divisions, reunification under
Adivasi MahSsabha was the biggest victory for the movement.
The Adivasis and their leaders were introduced po1itica1 and election systems of the country. The Adivasi leaders were able to win almost universal support for the creation of a separate Jharkhand state. There was successful mobilization of the masses by Adivasi MahSsabha under the leadership of
Jaipal Singh.
iv) Participants in the movement during this Phase
Almost all the local population irrespective of their caste and religion supported the movement (except the north-
Biharis). All Adivasis, Bengalis and Muslims, both rural and
urban were in favour of separate state. The leadership
remained with the urban Adivasis and much wider participation
of people was evident.
v) Means and methods used
Apart from the means and methods of the earlier phase
political platforms; elections and demonstrations were 17 0 adopted. Unlike in the earlier phase the nature of the movement tilted more towards party politics than socio economic upliftment of the people. Till now the leadership was primarily in the hands of the Christians.
Phase 111; 1939-1947
Very soon Adivasi Mahaisabha became a political organization and it wanted to have a close tie with Congress
Party. However, some of the Congress party workers and the vested interest groups took it as a threat and kept the SabhS at a distance. A memorandum was submitted to Rajendra
Prasad, the then president of Bihar Pradesh Congress
Committee (BPCC) in March 1946 for fair representation of the
Adivasi leadership in local organs of the Congress Party.
When this demand was not accepted by the Congress bosses a series of clashes took place between the Congress and the
Adivasi Mah5sabha workers at Khunti and Ranchi. Soon Various divisive elements made infiltration into the MahSsabha particularly in the communal line. In the election of 1946
Congress routed all the candidates of the MahSsabha.
Violence in election adopted by the Congress was allegedly witnessed in many constituencies. For the rest nothing significant occurred during this period connected with the movement (Ghosh 1991; Rekhi 1988).
The means and the methods of the movement remained the same as in the previous phase. The objectives became more 171
crystallized and various groups merged together to form soli dar i ty.
Cone I us i on
In short, the Christian Adivasis led the Movement. They
were urban oriented and used the Constitutional means. They
stressed on improvement of their society and tried to unite
all the Adivasis but the ethnic division arose.
Nevertheless, the demand for separate state crystallized.
4. 3RD PERIOD: 1948-1994 (POST INDEPENDENCE)
This period was full of political activities. The
regional as well as national parties increased their
operations in the region and the movement entered into active
politics. The Adivasi leaders had no choice but to get
involved in what Paul Brass calls, the "elite competition"
(Brass 1991). The movement witnessed lots of ups and downs.
It experienced unification and fragmentation, hope and
despair. It received sympathy and support from the people
within the country and abroad. At the same time it also saw
betrayal from its own leaders. So much so some people became
cynical about Jharkhand Party especially after 1963 when the
party was merged with the ruling Congress. Jharkhand
political party saw its glorious days; declined; decay;
disarray and occasional rise but many falls. The same story
keeps repeating till today. Yet the spirit of the movement
is very much alive as the available data show. Obviously, this is the period most important for this study to observe the ways and means of ethnic political mobilization used by the Adivasis. This period is divided into four phases:
Phase I: 19A8-1963
This phase was the glorious days of the Jharkhand
Movement. It had dynamic leaders who had single motive to work for the creation of a separate state in order to remove the misery of their people. The movement experienced the inter-denominationa1 unity. It grew into strong political force even to pose a threat to the Indian National Congress.
This phase saw the birth of United Jharkhand Bloc which prepared the way for Jharkhand Party.
1) United Jharkhand Bloc:
Adivasi MahSsabhS was mostly active in Ranchi area among the Mundas and the UrSTons. It had still to attract the Hos and the Santhals. Therefore, with a view to universalize the cause of a separate Jharkhand state, Justin Richard organized the United Jharkhand Bloc in 1948. The Bloc was opened to both Adivasis and non-Adivasis and challenged the Adivasi
MahSisabhS’ to follow its broader principle. After initial hesitation in its Jamshedpur session in 1949-50 Adivasi
MahSsabha extended its membership to non-Adivasis and avoided controversy of Adivasi and non-Adivasi. It was renamed as
Jharkhand Party in 1950 (Sharma 1988; Rekhi 1988:144). 1 7 3
2) Jharkhand Party:
Jharkhand Party became full fledged political party in
1950 with Jaipal Singh its president and Ignas Beck its secretary. The Adivasi movement of Chotanagpur and SanthSl
Parganas evolved into a modern political organization. In the initial stage the Jharkhand Party showed four traits:
a) Urban orientation in thinking and activity,
b) Christian domination and close links with the
churches,
c) Predominance of Mundas and UrSons (the two main
tribes of Ranchi area) and,
d) Sectarian behaviour against non-Adivasi population in
the name of tribal solidarity (Sengupta 1982:29).
Ethnicity was gradually replaced by regionalism as the rallying point for the Jharkhand Party and the militant movement gave rise to an organized political party. This was partly because of the recognition of the Adivasis’ need for special protection under the Constitution of free India and provisions inserted under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules for their emancipation. The Jharkhand leaders were probably also influenced by the stand taken by the Congress Party that language, not ethnicity, should determine the formation of a province (Ghosh 1991; Singh 1977; Basu 1994).
Jharkhand Party became a sign of hope for the people of
Chotanagpur and SanthSl Parganas. There was no prescribed membership fee, every tribal was considered a member of the 1 7 4
Jharkhand Party. Its president Jaipal Singh prepared the people well in advance to fight the elections. 'Alag PrSnt'
(separate land) became the rallying point. People supported the Party whole heatedly as a result in the first general election of 1952 it won all 32 Assembly seats from south
Bihar and 5 Lok Sabhar seats. The table 4 shows clearly that it became the largest opposition party in the Bihar legislative assembly. This electoral victory gave new impetus to the movement in and out side the assembly (Ghosh
1991; Rekhi 1988). Every Chotanagpuri was sure of achieving
'Alag Prant'.
Table 4:
Bihar Asseably and Lok Sabha General Election 1952
P o 1i t i caI Party No.of seats won No. of seats won in Assembly in Lok Sabha
Congress 241 45 Socialist Party 23 3 Jharkhand Party 32 5 Krishak Mazdoor Praja Party 1 — Lok Sevak Sangh 7 - Janata Party 11 — Forward Bloc 1 Gantantar Parishad 1 - RSim Rajya Parishad 1 ” Jan Sangh - — CPI - Hindu MahSsabhST - - R.S.Party - - Other Parties - - Independents 13 1
Tota 1 331 54
Source: U.S.Rekhi (1988:150). 175
On the other hand Jharkhand Movement posed a threat not only to the Congress Party but to all its followers. For, the growing power of the Jharkhand Party meant eventually separation of Jharkhand from Bihar which many did not like.
Jharkhand was the haven for them from where they got most of their wealth and cheap labour.
The demand for separate state was intensified which culminated in submission of a memorandum on 22 April 1954 to the State Reorganization Commission (Rekhi 1988). The memorandum was signed by 34 members of the Bihar legislative assembly. It demanded formation of a separate Jharkhand state comprising Chotanagpur and Santh51 Parganas, part of
Gaya, Shahabad, Bhagalpur and Monghyur districts of Bihar, some 'tehsils' of the Mirjapur district of Uttar Pradesh,
Surguja district of Madhya Pradesh and districts of Keonjhar and Mayurbhanj in Orissa. The proposed state according to the memorandum was to comprise of an area of 63,859 square miles with a population of 1,63,67,177 persons which was bigger than West Bengal in area and Orissa in population
(Appendi x-1).
When the two members of the States Reorganization
Commission: K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru, visited
Chotanagpur region from January 27 to February 10, 1955
Jharkhand Party put up massive demonstrations at Ranchi and
Dumka. The demonstrations were so impressive that those who 17 6
opposed to Jharkhandis could not believe that simple Adivasis
could organize such show of strength. The Commission, in its
report did not agree with the idea of a separate Jharkhand
state. Some of the members of the commission even supported
the claims of Orissa over Seraikela and kharsawan and almost
2,407 square miles of the proposed Jharkhand state was given
to West Bengal. The main reason sighted by the commission for not granting a separate statehood to the Chotanagpur plateau was the lack of viability of theregion as a
linguistic unit (Munda 1988; Ghosh 1991).
At this juncture of the growing movement, the common argument was put forward by the opponents of Jharkhand
Movement (the dikus) that Adivasis are simple and they can
not organize such large movement unless some wider strength
is behind them. It was alleged that the Foreign Christian
Missionaries were masterminding the movement. Therefore,
Madhya Pradesh government set up 'Niyogi Commission’ in 1956
to investigate whether the allegation was true.As expected
by the Adivasis froma D i k u commission, it (the Niyogi
Commission) supported the popular argument and Roman
Catholics in particular were held responsible for that. The
missionaries reacted sharply to the Commission’s report (cf,
Soares 1957).
A number of anti-money 1ender agrarian struggles were led
by the SanthSl activists of the Jharkhand Party in Santhal 17 7
Parganas between 1955 and 1961. Prominent among the leaders was Satrughan Besra, a MLA from Jamtara. Interestingly the
Jharkhand Movement among the SanthSls was always oriented towards the agrarian cause (Sengupta 1982:31-32).
The performance of the Jharkhand Party in 1957 General elections was not satisfactory as compared to the 1952 elections. Its popularity went down slightly, though it won
65.63 per cent of the seats of the reserved constituencies in
Bihar Assembly and six seats in the Lok Sabh5 out of 14 candidates fielded. Its influence was on the decline, where as the Congress and the independents gained. It was due to many reasons: the Party failed to get the separate state when
SRC visited the region; on the eve of the elections people were disillusioned about the honesty of their leaders; Jaipal
Singh himself lost his credibility when he invited Minoo
Massani (a Parsee who was not known to the local people) to fight the election as Jharkhand candidate. Minoo Massani won the election but the Adivasis did not like him. They believed Jaipal Singh took money from Massani for allowing him to fight election on Jharkhand ticket (Vidyarthi and
Sahay 1976:98-99; Munda 1988). The Jharkhand Party remained a major party in the region as can be seen in the table 5 and could mobilize thousands of people even at short notices. 1 7 8
Tab 1e 5 :
Bihar Assenbly and Lok Sabha General Election 1957
Political Party No. of seats won No. of seats won in Assembly in Lok Sabha
Congress 210 41 Praja Socialist Party 31 2 Socialist Party 1 CPI 7 - Janata Party 23 Jharkhand Party 32 6 Jan Sangh S.C.Federation Gantantra Parishad Other Parties - 3 Independence lA 1
Total 318» 53»
» The delimitation had reduced the assembly seats from 331 to 318 and Lok SabhST seats from 54 to 53 in the 1957 General E 1ect i on.
Source: U.S.Rekhi (1988:156).
After the 1957 general elections Congress government
started many programmes in Chotanagpur to woo the Adivasis.
It is believed that Jawaharlal Nehru himself was involved in
breaking the Jharkhand Party. Ms. Jahanara, a Tamilian from
Jafna and a daughter of Indian civil servant, was introduced
to Jaipal Singh. They got married in 1957. Soon after
marriage Jahanara joined politics and was elected to Rajya
SabhSr in 1958. She was approached by Nehru to convince
Jaipal Singh to merge his party with Congress, It is also
believed that Nehru promised to give a ministerial post to
Jaipan Singh in the State (Bhelari 1989:10). 179
The strength of the Jharkhand Party still went down in the fourth general elections in 1962. It won 59.38 per cent seats of the reserved constituencies. In Bihar legislative assembly its seats were reduced to only 20 and in Lok SabhS
3 seats. The reasons for the failure of the Jharkhand Party in winning more seats were as follows:
a) The growing impact of the developmental programmes in the region which worked on two ways: first, it caused an influx of non-Adivasis in the region and second, the Adivasis who benefitted from the developmental schemes were moved out from the agitational path at least temporarily.
b) The split between comparatively better educated
Christian Adivasis and relatively backward Sarnas due to compet i tion for scarce resources: jobs; opportuni ties in educational and training institutions; political and economic power; control of natural and human resources, etc.
c) The experiments in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, where
Adivasis were given a share in the council of ministers in
Congress government, amply proved sharing of power and even
the Congress could protect Adivasi interests up to a certain
level. 'Garibi HatSo’ (eradication of poverty) programme of
Congress caught the attention of some Adivasis.
d) Jharkhand Party had neither agrarian programme nor could provide leadership to the growing industrial workers. 18 0
Its leaders were town based professionals who had lost their regular contact with the rural people. Moreover, the Party needed funds to run such a big organization, which the
Adivasi population could not provide. The search for money led the leaders to strange alignment with some D i k v elements
(the traditional enemies of the Adivasis). The non-Bihari
D i k u s who joined the Party had vested interests.
e) Meantime, some new States had also come into being as a result of movements launched from within the Congress.
Jharkhand leaders felt that they could perhaps serve the
Adivasi interest better from within the ruling Congress
Party. Jaipal Singh facing severe criticism for his dictatorial attitude also sought refuge under the Congress umbrella (Ghosh 1991; Singh 1977; Rekhi 1988; Sharma 1988).
Jharkhand leaders had been seeking to share power with
Congress Party but as long as S.K. Sinha was Chief Minister Q \ \ of Bihar he never gave any recognition to them.^Contrary, he always tried to reduce the influence of the Jharkhand leaders^ h after his demise BinodSnand Jha became the Chief Minister of
Bihar and Jawaharlal Nehru asked him to be soft with the
Jharkhand leaders especially with Jaipal Singh. There was a secret deal between Jha and Jaipal Singh about the power sharing. Even S.K. Bage, the close companion of Jaipal and a prominent Jharkhand leader was kept unaware of this agreement (Ramashish Roy 1992:98). Some people say that 181
Jaipal Singh was persuaded through his wife Jahanara to merge the Jharkhand Party with Congress. Others say that Nehru himself promised to give separate state as a reward for merger.After the elections Jaipal Singh merged the
Jharkhand Party with Congress abruptly, without even any formal meeting in June 1963. The popular Party symbol of
'cock* with all its legal identity was surrendered. Bage was
infuriated at the betrayal of Jaipal Singh. Ignas Beck could not bear it and left the Party along with 5 MLAs (Ghosh
1991:1176; Sharma 1988; Devalle 1992).
i) Problems during this Phase
The general backwardness of the region continued. The
poverty, illiteracy, land grabbing, and the unemployment among the Adivasis went on increasing. Added to these a
serious division between the Christians and the Sarna
Adivasis was created allegedly by Congress Party and vested
interest groups for political and economic gain.
ii) Objectives of the Jharkhand Movement
The main objective of the Jharkhand Movement remained
the same. The demand for creation of a separate state was
more crystallized which can be seen in the memorandum given
to the States Re-Organization Commission (cf. Appendix-1).
The leaders tried their best to make the Jharkhand Party the
biggest opposition to the ruling Congress Party. Various 18 2 activities to demand more employment; concessions; and education and the welfare of Adivasis.
iii) Achievements of the Movement during this Phase
The movement attained the highest level of Adivasi unity during this period. It increased its political power and in
General elections the Jharkhand Party figured as the single largest opposition party and maintained so till 1957. The memorandums were submitted to the government for the creation of a separate state. Large number of people were mobilized under one single issue - separate Jharkhand State. The movement also saw the popularity of the Charismatic leader -
Jaipal Singh. The Mundas provided the major leadership to the movement during this time. They were at their highest peak in 1957 but the glorious days did not last long as mentioned above.
iv) Participants in the movement during this time
The politically motivated people, both rural and urban were active in the Jharkhand Movement during this time.
Practically all the Adivasis trusted their leaders and followed them without hesitation. The people dreamt for separate Jharkhand state and they were very enthusiastic about it. Ordinary people were ready for any sacrifice for the cause of a separate state. 1 8 3
v) Means and methods used during this Phase
Mostly political platforms were used to realize the aspirations of the people. The leaders took part in party
politics and encouraged their people to participate in
elections by casting their votes. Elections became the main
means of the movement to realize its goal. The leaders
believed in sharing of political power. They also expressed
their grievances through memorandums. They had hoped that
they will be heard.
Phase 11; 1964- 1980
The Congress-Jharkhand merger dealt a severe blow to the
movement and ushered in an era of confusion. This phase of
political history of Chotanagpur was infused with a set of
the worse crisis in the Jharkhand Movement. There were inner
conflicts; diversions; divisions; communa1ization; new
faction; bogus leadership; victimization by other parties and
occasional efforts by the leaders to reunite and revive the
movement.
After the merger Jaipal Singh was included in the Bihar
cabinet led by Jha. However, in August 1963 Jha had to
resign as chief minister under the Kamraj Plan (Rekhi
1988:165-66)." The new Chief Minister Sahay relieved him
(Jaipal Singh) of his post of education minister and
appointed Bage as a minister (Lai 1983:36). His followers
left him and declared the merger illegal and started reviving
the old party. The party spirit though revived was 164 fragmented and lapsed back to its ethnic character (Munda
1988) .
An anti-Congress wave was evident in the Chotanagpur plateau during the fifth General elections in 1967. Adivasi
leaders in Congress fared badly. Jaipal Singh scraped through with a very narrow margin. While Bage, a minister in the Bihar cabinet, lost his deposit. The symbol of 'Murga'
(the cock) allotted to the Jharkhand Party, was frozen and those opposed to the merger were also divided in various groups. Therefore they fought the election as independents and succeeded in winning nine seats in total.
Many Adivasi leaders opposed the Congress-Jharkhand merger and were against Jaipal Singh but they were not united. They fought among themselves and formed as many groups as they were. None of these groups were large enough to claim the old party symbol - 'Murga'. The ordinary villagers did not know that Jharkhand Party was merged with the party of Dikus. It was reported that when the villagers came to cast their vote, they were frantically looking for
'the Murga*. They were disheartened when they came to know that their beloved 'Murga' was swallowed up by the D i k u s
(Sharna 1988).
Not a single party got the clear majority in 1967 general election. As a result after this election Bihar 185 passed through a period of political instability. From 1969 to 1971 was the period of coalition government in Bihar politics. In this short span of time six coalition governments were installed. The ideology played minimum role during this period. Conflicts stemming from the ideology were by and large successfully resolved through the methods of excluding controversial issues. There were mainly two sources of conflict: intra-party dissensions within the
Congress and wrangles over ministerial positions among the smaller coalescing parties. Lack of any unified political group of the Adivasis further added to the confusion. A number of splinter groups: Birsa SevS Dal, Veer Birsa Dal,
KrSntikSTri Mukti Morcha, Chotanagpur Plateau Praja Parishad,
Adivasi ChhStra Parishad, Chotanagpur Front and others claiming to be the real Jharkhand Party appeared on the scene
(Lai 1983; Sharma 1988; Rekhi 1988). None of these groups w j ? ^ ^ backed by Christian organizations which furthered the suffering of the Adivasis (Ghosh 1991:1176). So during this period the Jharkhand Party splinter groups played the role of weights to tilt the balance either in favour of the ruling coalition government or in that of the opposition to topple it.
1) The All India Jharkhand Party;
It was realized after the General election of 1967 that as long as there will be more than one group in the name of
Jharkhand, none will win support of the Adivasis. As a result a conference was organized at HazSribag in November 18 6
1968 in which many splinter groups took part. Among prominent leaders were David Munjni, Bage, Horo and Simon
Tigga. In spite of differences one united party emerged from this conference and it was renamed All India Jharkhand Party.
Bargun Sumbrui became its president and Horo its Secretary
(Sharma 1988).
The party had not even cleared the old divisions and the differences emerged between Sumbrui and Horo. Mean time split came in Congress Party in 1969 and the 'Political horse trading’ began which caused split in the All India Jharkhand
Party. The Party was divided into two: one, the Horo faction which was commonly known as Jharkhand Party and supported the new Congress or Congress (R) and the other, the Sumbrui faction which came to be known as All India Jharkhand Party and supported the old Congress (Sharma 1988; Rekhi 1988).
2) The New Jharkhand Party;
The New Jharkhand Party was revived under the leadership of Horo but it could not give the original life and vigour.
Horo submitted a memorandum to the prime minister Indira
Gandhi on March 12, 1972 (cf. Appendix-2) and demanded the creation of a separate state. This was actually a modified version of the demand placed before the state Reorganization
Commission in 1954 by Jaipal Singh. 187
3) Hul Jharkhand Party:
The SanthSls of Santhal Parganas felt that in spite of their being more numerous than the Mundas and the UrSiSns of
Chotanagpur, they do not command adequate influence in the
Jharkhand politics. So they broke away from the Jharkhand
Party and started their own party in 1968. It was named Hul
Jharkhand Party after the Hul (revolution) of 1055-56.’
Justin Richard became its president. The party got seven seats in the mid-term poll of Bihar in 1969. It sought to project a non-ethnic, non-parochia1 image by appointing non-
SanthSil members in its executive committees, at the central level. Christian and non-Christian (including both Hindus and Muslims) SanthSls as well as representatives from Ranchi and Singbhum districts were taken in the committee (Ghosh
1991; Sharma 1986).
The party could not enjoy the unity for long time.
There arose personal differences among the leaders and it was divided into 'Progressive Hul Jharkhand’ and 'Bihar PrSnt Hul
Jharkhand’ in 1972 (Singh 1977:324-26; Sachchidananda
1976:19).
A) The Birsa Seva Dal:
The Birsa SevSi Dal (BSD) was formed as an urban pressure group in 1967. It was formed on the suggestion of Jaipal
Singh at Ranchi by La 1it Kujur. Moses Guria was its General
Secretary and Prem Kujur was Additional Secretary. The BSD 188 attracted the young people, especially the high school and the college students. It focused on the industrial complexes and on the demand for jobs and educational reservations for the Adivasis. Named after the great leader Birsa Munda
(Sharma 1988; Devalle 1992; Ghosh 1991; Weiner 1988; Singh
1977).
The organization came into public eye in 1968-69 when it launched violent attacks against landlords and led mass demonstrations in the streets of Ranchi for the creation of a tribal state. It embraced socialism as its basic economic goal; boycotted the elections and gave a new direction to the movement (Ghosh 1991). La 1it Kujur believed in
' detriba1isation ’ i.e. doing away with their primitive way of living and preferred to be called 'Chotanagpuria' than
'AdivasiB' or ' tribal s’ as both the terms were considered to be 'hateful’ words (Weiner 1988:178-79).
The Naxalite outfit CP-M infiltrated the Dal in 1969 and it became viojent. People got alarmed including some of its leaders and soon violence was checked by the leaders themselves. After this, BSD pledged itself to play a constitution role and adopt peaceful methods of struggle.
Some of its leaders sought refuge in the All India Jharkhand
Party and now it functions mainly in industrial town of
Jamshedpur. The BSD had never been a political party in the 189 strict sense of the term. It has been basically a socio political organization though it works for a political party.
Mr. K5rtik Uraon who was an engineer at H.E.C. Ranchi, entered politics during this time of confusion and coalition.
He was backed by Congress Party and first time he was elected for parliament in 1967. He moved a bill in parliament stating; "No person who has given up tribal faith or faiths and has embraced either Christianity or Islam should be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe" (Sharma 1988;
Weiner 1988). This made him popular among the non-Christian
Adivasis and a favourite candidate of Congress Party but on the other hand it damaged the unity efforts of other
Adivasis. The Jharkhand Party was nearly frozen but leaders like David Munjni tried to revive it under All India
Jharkhand Party. The BSD came up during this time and the charismatic Munda leader Jaipal Singh died in 1970. Keeping general elections in view activities began for new alliances and grouping. The Adivasi leaders won few seats under different parties.
The Congress Party strengthened its position in 1972 election mostly because the success in Bangla Desh war was attributed to Congress. The Jharkhand parties managed to get only seven seats in Assembly election and only one in Lok
SabhS. 1 9 0
The Adivasis were disappointed by their leaders, but the spirit of protest went on mounting. Consequently various groups were formed. Drought and famine of 1966 in Bihar made the situation worse. People had been starving in many parts of the region and the relief from the government was not enough. The frustrated people took law in their hand. They went out to harvest their alienated lands which were cultivated by landlords and moneylenders. This came to be known as 'DhSn Kato Andolan’ among the Santhals. The organizations like 'All India Sidu-Kanhu Baisi’ and the
'Adivasi Socio-Educationa1 and Cultural Association’ came up to revive the Adivasi culture and to defend the land rights
(Das 1992; Maharaj and Iyer 1982).
5) Jharkhand Mukti Morcha:
Jharkhand Mukti MorchS (JMM) is another major out come of the period of confusion (1969-71). It is a united force of rural farmers and the industrial workers. So far
Jharkhand factions were lacking this combination. In fact it is a combination of three radical groups;
a) Shibu Soren like La 1it Kujur of Ranchi, initiated the reform works among the SanthSls in 1969-70. He is son of a school teacher who opposed the money lenders by organizing the Adivasis against them. Eventually he was murdered by the money lenders. Shibu was an young boy of 15 at that time and had to leave school and go to work as a labourer. So he experienced the problems of his people in his young age. He organized 'Sonat Santhal Saaaj’ similar to BSD to fight 191 against the evils of liquor and to drive away the D i k u money lenders and the land grabbers. He became an esteemed leader of the SanthSls. In Tundi block of Dhanbad district he organized the people to demand a better deal for the agricultural labourers and the sharecroppers in 1971 and also led the Dhan Kato Andolan (Das 1992; Maharaj & Iyer 1962;
Ghosh 1991).
b) Binod Bihari Mahto, a lawyer by profession, emerged as a leader from the detribalised Kurmi community during the same period. He organized Shivaji Samaj in 1970 to work for the interests of the Kurmis of HazSribag area (Ghosh 1991;
Devalle 1992; Das 1992).
c) A.K. Roy, an independent trade-union leader, was leading the Bihar Colliery Kangar Union (BGKU) to fight for the betterment of the colliery worker in Dhanbad and
HazSiribag coal mines again in the same period (Ghosh 1991;
Devalle 1992; Das 1992).
Thus, the people of different segments of the society were mobilized by their respective leaders. The time was ripe for a large scale movement. It needed only an unifying organization and which was provided by Jharkhand Mukti MorchS
(JMM), when the above mentioned three groups; Sonat Santhal
Samaj, ShivSji Samaj and the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union
(BCKU) merged together and formed Jharkhand Mukti MorchS
(JMM) in February 4, 1973. This coalition operated under a triple leadership comprised of the Kurmi lawyer Binod Bihari 19 2
Mahato as its president and the SanthSl leader Shibu Sor6n
its general secretary and Roy of Marxist Coordination
Comm i ttee.
The agrarian radicalism of the JMM was combined with its
interest in cultural revivalism. The ancient practice of
'tribal self-government’ was partially revived. The ' B a i e i ’
(assembly) was revived in SanthSl parganas. The traditional collective farming on common lands was reintroduced in some areas (Singh 1982e:12-13).
The JMM organized the industrial workers and strengthened its base in Dhanbad. An attempt was made to unite the workers and the peasant under one umbrella. The
JMM projected the non-Adivasi leaders Mahto, Roy and K.S.
Chatterji, and attracted considerable number of non-Adivasi supporters otherwise Jharkhand Movement so far had been exclusively an Adivasi movement (Ghosh 1991:1177).
Achievements of JMM
Under the leadership of JMM the Adivasi peasants,
landless labourers and industrial workers jointly started a popular movement against exploitation with following aims;
a) To recover lands illegally taken away from the
Adivasis by the money-lenders.
b) To obtain employment for the local people in public
undertakings established in Jharkhand. 1 9 3
c) To get proper compensation for the lands taken from
the Adivasis for big projects.
d) To agitate against the anti-people forest policies
adopted by the government.
e) To fight for the formation of Jharkhand State for the
downtrodden people of the region for their living
with prosperity and dignity.
To achieve these aims JMM organized 'DhSn Kato Andolan’ and recovered forcibly the Adivasi land that were illegally captured by the Dikus. This led to many arson; loots and murders in‘many places. Police and para-military force were deployed in the region who allegedly harassed the people in
every possible ways (Devalle 1992:144). Realizing alcohol as
source of many evils the organization started boycotting
liquor shops and led a ' A n d o l a n ’ against liquor traders with
a popular slogan 'Kalali Toro Jharkhand Chhoro' (demolish
liquor shops and quit Jharkhand). Some positive steps to
improve the condition of the society were also taken. The
JMM organized 'Akli Akheras' (the night schools) in the
villages, started co-operative societies and grain Golas (the
grain banks). It tried to revive the SanthaJ Baiei and
celebrated of 'Jharkhand Divas' on the 4th February 1973.
While popular protest was underway and Roy, Mahato and
other Jharkhand leaders were in jail, Sibu Soren entered into 19A
a compromise with the Congress (I) in 1974 and 1975 (Devalle
1992:1A3).
6) Movement under Jharkhand United Front
From 1976 onward the movement for a separate Jharkhand
state began on a united front basis. This United Front
comprised of the Jharkhand Party; the MCC, the JMM, the CP I-
ML, the BSD, the Jharkhnad Muslim MorchS, the Hu 1 Jharkhand
Party, the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the Congress.
It had 20 important leaders in it. It was third important
period of the Jharkhand Movement and the Adivasi politics.
During this period there was further involvement of the masses in the movement. There began a political battle for
Jharkhand state but it was more a movement for political
Jharkhand than territorial Jharkhand though this aim was
never to be lost sight of.
The Jharkhand Movement kept a low profile during Jay
Prakash Narayan’s movement, though Jay Prakash himself was in
favour of smaller states. Janata Dal came in power both in
the centre and the State through general elections of 1977, after the emergency. Roy managed to retain his position.
Bagun Sumbrui of the All India Jharkhand Party joined the
Janata Party and left Horo alone to keep the Jharkhand flag
flying (Sharma 1988).
All the political parties including Congress Party,
created their own cell to appeal to the pro-JhSarkhand
sentiment of the Adivasis during the Janata rule. The 1 9 5
otherwise dead political movement started gaining ground again since 1978.
Shibu Soren by this time emerged as a true mass leader
in Dhanbad and SanthSl Parganas. He organized violent
rallies and mass demonstrations against moneylenders, big
landholders and 'mafia’ leaders during 1878-80. He also
popularized the 'Jungle Bachao Andolan’ (save forest)
centering around the forest areas of Sinbhum (Das 1992).
The Congress Party formed an alliance with Sibu Soren
during the seventh general elections for the Lok Sabha in
January 1980 to gain ground in the tribal belt of
Chotanagpur. The same pattern was followed in the subsequent
State assembly elections held in June the same year. The
Congress returned to power both in the Centre and the State
and signalled a virtual end to the militancy of Sibu Soren,
who gradually distanced himself from Mahto and Roy.
Meanwhile, Bagun Sumbrui, another important leader of the
'HCs’ with considerable influence in the Singbhum region,
joined the Congress Party. The Chotanagpur and SanthSl
Parganas Developmental Authority was formed by the time in
1981 under the initiative of Kartik Ur5on (Munda 1988). The
authority intended to reinforce the developmental process in
the area, however, failed to implement its resolutions
effectively. Kartik UrSon like both Soren and Sumbrui
thought of fighting for the cause of Adivasis from within the 19 6 system and preferred to join hands with the Congress. Thus, the Jharkhand Movement reverted back to its infancy with the dream of a separate Jharkhand State enjoying little practical value (Ghosh 1991:1177).
A Department of Tribal and Regional Languages was opened in the Ranchi University in May 1980. B.P. Kesri vice- president of the All India Jharkhand Party Horo faction and a teacher of Hindi in GLA College, Daltonganj, joined the department. A.K. DhSin, a western educated Christian Adivasi who was serving in the North East Hill University, was appointed vice-chancellor of the Ranchi University in June
1980. Soon the university, specially the regional language department became the nerve centre of Adivasi activities.
DhSin himself patronized missionary institutions like St.
Augustine College Manoharpur, Albert Ekka College Chainpur,
St. Paul’s College Ranchi, and the B.Ed. Colleges at
Lohardaga and Jamshedpur run by the Christians (Ghosh
1991;1177).
Kartik UrSon, a Sarna version of Jaipal Singh, with
Western education and experience, emerged as a reaction against the Christian domination of the Adivasi scene by this time. He was against the special privileges enjoyed by the
Christian Adivasis under the Constitution of India. He thought the Christians were in a better position vis-a-vis the non-Christian in educational and other fields. He appealed to the visiting 'Chanda Committee’ in November 1968 19 7 to divert the money spent on Christian Adivasis to the welfare of thebackward non-Christian Adivasis (Lai 1983).
KSrtik Uraon was rewarded with the vice-chairmanship of
the Chotanagpur and SanthSl Parganas Development Authority
located at Ranchi. He also won parliamentary elections of
1967 and 1971. The Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation Act of
1969 put restrictions on the a 1 i enatgl^iif Adivasi land to non-
Adivasis.This was importantlegislation in preventing
further loss of Adivasi land to the outsiders and in
restoring the confidence of Adivasis (Ghosh 1991:1176).
i) Means and methods
The means and methods used during this period were mostly: the hunger strike, D h a r n a (sit-in), mass rally,
GherSo, conference of intellectuals, meetings and propaganda,
distribution of pamphlets, and writing slogans on the walls.
ii) Achievements
There was nothing spectacular during this period the
leaders mostly tried to get political power and save their
position. Many individual leaders appeared but there was no
unity among them. The aims; the objectives and the achievements were all so distorted that any political
observer would be confused. Survival of leaders and
different Jharkhand factions was the only aim. Allurements
of money by the big parties to buy up leaders were common in 1 9 8 this phase. The cause of the movement was forgotten. The bill moved by KSCrtik Uraon caused the biggest harm to the
Adivasi unity and added to it the infiltration of the Diku communal elements in the region.
Phase 111; 1981-1989;
This was the era of indigenous intellectuals in reviving the original zest of the Jharkhand Movement. This was also a period of students organization. A time of much wider solidarity of diverse organizations and groups; students, teachers, , politicians, voluntary organizations, peasants, factory workers,.1abour unions, and landless labourers, etc.
The favourite Adivasi leader of the Congress Party,
KSrtik Uraon died in 1981. The leadership vacuum was created; so the Congress had to work hard to keep the
Adivasis in its side. It is believed that in 1982 quite a number of educated Adivasis got appointments as lecturers and principals in different colleges of the region. The higher posts in the university administration: registrar, deputy registrar, director of physical education, etc. were also filled up by Adivasi candidates.'® The students hostels of the university were virtually converted into Adivasi hostels, providing shelters to the Adivasi politicians and agitators.
Raids were conducted on Adivasi hostels during a visit of
Chandra Sekhar Singh the then chief minister of Bihar to
Dumka in 1983 and a number of arms were recovered and large number of activists were arrested.‘‘ 199
Ranchi University and its Department of Tribal and
Regional Languages became a training centre for activists working under different front organizations of Chotanagpur and Santhai Parganas; Sangharsh Vahini, Chotanagpuri
Intellectual Forum, Chotanagpuri Teachers Association, etc.
(Ghosh 1991).
Sibu Soren lost eighth Lok Sabha election in 1984 along with Roy. But the JMM won 14 seats in the subsequent assembly elections and became a major opposition party in the
Bihar legislature. Fifty two MLAs representing the region sent a joint memorandum to the prime minister in 1985, under the leadership of Devendra N5th Champia demanding for a
Central administration in the region (Munda 1988).
Mr. Subodh KSnt Sahay won the election from Ranchi, became the Minister of State for Home Affairs during the reign of the National Front Government. He was sympathetic towards Jharkhand Movement in general and was able to table the reports of the Committee for Jharkhand Matters in both the houses of Parliament.
The lack of co-ordination among the different factions of Jharkhand activists was a constant source of anxiety for the well wishers of the movement. The idea of co-ordinating the activities of different factions was mooted towards the end of 1986, but without much success. Meanwhile, the president of JMM Nirmal Mahto was killed on August 8, 1987 200 allegedly by Congressmen at Jamshedpur. This led to a vigorous agitation and further underlined the need for unity and co-ordination among different factions.
Ram Daya1 Munda was appointed Vice Chancellor of Ranchi university in the year 1986. He gave his patronage to All
Jharkhand Students’ Union as long as he was in the office.
Later he became a prominent Jharkhand idealogue of the organization in August 1988.
1) All Jharkhand Students’ Union (AJSU):
All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU) was formed in a meeting, attended by JMM, Jharkhand KrSnti Dal and Jharkhand
Students Fellowship on June 22, 1986. The inspiration was taken from All Assam Students’ Union. Mr. Prabhakar Tirkey, a student of Birsa Agriculture University, Ranchi became its president and Mr. Suraj Singh BesrS, a student of the
Department of Tribal and Regional Languages Ranchi
University, became its secretary. Formerly it was the students’ wing of JMM but during the formation of Jharkhand
Co-ordination Committee (JCC) it cut itself off from JMM. In the same year Ram Daya 1 Munda was elevated to the post of acting vice-chancellor of Ranchi University in June 1986.
Thus the formation of AJSU led to a rift between politicians and students, resulting in further fragmentation of the movement (Ghosh 1991; 1177). 201
It sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister of India on
September 26, 1986 and stated, "...our demand is for a
separate state of Jharkhand within the Indian Union, which
should be created as per the provision ofArticle 3(a) of the
Indian Constitution. In case Delhi fails to respond
favourably by the end of December, 1986 AJSU would be
compelled to start a movement to bring to standstill
transport of all resources from Jharkhand to outside. All
roads and railway movement will be stopped. But our movement
will remain non-violent."
A conference of students and intellectuals was held at
Jamshedpur from October 19 to 20, 1986 in which Horo and Ram
Daya1 Munda along with other prominent leaders took part. A
demand was made in the conference to grant an independent
status to AJSU.'* This was followed by another conference
at HazSTribag between December 30 and 31 of the same year.
The old demand for separate state was revived and it was
decided to launch a militant agitation to achieve the
goa 1 .•’
As stated through the memorandum AJSU started its
agitation in February 1987. Bandh was observed and ultimatum
was served to the Central Government to create separate
Jharkhand state by the end of 1988. Realizing the growing
popularity of AJSU, the Central Government invited the
students leaders for talk with the Home Minister in January 202
1988.‘’ The then Home Minister Mr. Butta Singh accepted the Jharkhand issue as an identity question as well as a national problem. A talk was arranged with the Central
Government again in 1989. The 'Committee for Jharkhand
Matters’ (COJM) was formed as outcome of the talk, to study the Problem in which both the president and the secretary of
AJSU were included. The student leaders divided the whole of
Proposed Jharkhand state into five areas and led the
Committee to these places.
Mean time hectic activities were going on to create an united force. Jharkhand Budhijivi Manch and Jharkhand Co ordination Committee were formed. AJSU became the active member of JCC.
2) Jharkhand Co-ordination Connittee (JCC):
A conference was held at RSmgarh from September 11 to
13, 1987 to bring different Jharkhand groups, irrespective of their nature and composition on one platform. It was attended by 438 delegates representing almost 50 political; cultural; students’ and women’s organization (Ghosh
1991:1177). Forty seven of these groups formed the JCC (cf.
Appendix-4) with Keshri its convener.
At one stage it looked that Jharkhand force has been built. But soon differences appeared with regard to approach. Some opted to settle the problem with talks with the Governments (both Centre and State), others were willing 2 0 3 to continue the agitation until their basic demands were conceded. The AJSU was in the latter group which even boycotted the 1989 Lok SabhSi elections in support of their demands.- The AJSU severed its link with the JCC in the third week of August 1909, disagreeing on the question of participation in the Lok SabhS Election.
Another sever blow to the unity came from JMM-(S), when it demanded a reconstitution of the JCC excluding non political men like Keshri and others. In a meeting of the
JCC convened by Keshri to chalk out the future strategy for the movement, Sibu Soren stressed two points: first, since
Jharkhand Movement was a political one, JCC should be formed by political parties only. Secondly, if JCC comprises both of political and non-political organizations, half of its members should be taken from the JMM alone, by virtue of its stronghold in the area. Keshri, however, did not concede any of the demands and held that all the JCC members were co ordinators of the Jharkhand Movement with equal status (Ghosh
1991:1178).
The AJSU was adamant to boycott the 9th Lok SabhS elections in which Congress failed to get majority vote and
National Front Government was formed in the Centre in
November 1989. But after a few months, in 1990 AJSU allowed its 35 members to contest for Bihar Assembly seats as independent candidates out of which only 3 won. The original dedication and the unity of organization was broken. There 2 0 4 came envy and suspicion against one another among the leaders. Thus the AJSU was reduced to a splinter group of some self-centred, ambitious and disenchanted people. Bihar government led by Bindeswari Dube had planned measures to suppress the movement. Even during Bhagwat Jha AzSd’s reign there was unnecessary police repression (Das 1992:154).
In short, the youth got involved in the movement whole heatedly during this phase. The AJSU turned out to be very vocal and radical force. It took militant approach and boycotted the election. The Central government reckoned this force and called its members for talk. It posed a threat to the older leaders of the Movement who had tasted the fruit of parliamentary politics. They began to isolate the AJSU. The
Jharkhand Party and the JMM formed their own youth wings and were ready to compromise with the government. The JCC participated in the tripartite talk at Patna on August 31,
1989. Eventually the pro-Jharkhand parties disintegrated before the ninth general elections, which marked the forth phase of this period.
i) Means and methods
Jharkhand Movement became militant during this phase and used more radical means: Bandhs, Rasta Roko, Chakka Jam, strikes, economic blockade and damaging public properties, etc. Though the political means like contesting election, submitting memorandums and using political pressure were not given up. 2 0 5 ii) Achievements
The intellectuals and the youth, especially the students got involved in the movement. They established links with national and international organizations; spread the message of the movement far and wide to get sympathy and support; made the movement more radical and aggressive which gave new impetus to the struggle. Various groups were better organized and were linked up with one another during this time. Once again the Jharkhand unity wa6 experienced in the formation of JCC though it did not last long. Many non-
Adivasis provided the leadership to the movement.
Phase IV; 1990-1994;
The Jharkhand parties were divided during the general election. The AJSU boycotted the Lok SbhS election but its members contested the Assembly elections as independent candidates. Whereas other parties took part in both the elections. The JMM emerged as a major party by winning 3 Lok
SabhS and 18 Assembly and spearheaded the Jharkhand Movement.
It supported the ruling Janata Party in the state and the
Congress in the Centre. At both the levels ruling parties needed support of JMM and thus JMM became a pressure group to press its demand for a separate state.
The JMM waited for six months to see the definite stand of the centre government on Jharkhand issue. Perceiving the delay tactics of the Congress party the JMM served an ultimatum to create separate state by 30th June 1990. The 2 0 6 government failed to fulfill *he demand. The JMM threatened to declare unilaterally the creation of the state comprising the Chotanagpur and SanthSl Fsrganas region. It called all the MLAs and the MPs of the region for a meeting on 18th June
1990 (Indian Express, June 18, 1990). The meeting was attended by nearly two dozens legislatures from various par t i es.
On the other hand, on 15 June the activists of AJSU led by its chief Mr. Binod Bhagat and the general secretary Mr.
Bablu Murmu started a fast unto death before the office of the commissioner, South Chota-agpur, in support of a separate
Jharkhand state and release of the report qf the COJM.
Meanwhile the JCC convener, Dr. Keshri and Mr. Basu Ma11ik urged the Union Home ministry ur^g'^d intervention for the condition of the agitators were deteriorating.
The ruling Congress ir. the Centre was brought under pressure. It had to come out with some answer so in response to the ultimatum the Centre sought two months time to study the report submitted by the :ommittee for Jharkhand Matters
(COJM)*=. A meeting was called by the Home Ministry to discuss the issue. The Central government refused to create a separate state instead it proposed to form a Council like that of Derjeeling Hill Council . The Jharkhand leaders formed a 'Jharkhand pa-.el’** which rejected the
Government’s offer. The radical groups did not like it. The
AJSU and the JCC called fo: 72 hours Economic Blockade in 2 0 7
February 1991. The JMM too organized a 13 day economic
Blockade in March which affected the production of coal and other mineral wealth in the region.
Another pressure to the Central government came from its own party members in the first week of October 1991. A 37 member delegation was led by Mr. Mochi Rai Munda to meet party high command Mr. Narahimha Rao and demanded for
Regional Congress Committee (RCC) with its independent status. The delegates alleged that politicians from north
Bihar had always treated the Jharkhand region as their
'grazing ground* and never allowed the party to grow at the grassroots level. The PCC leaders frequently sought to appoint their 'puppets’ office-bearers of the party and even nominated them for elections. They also reminded Mr. M.M.
Jacob, the union minister of state for home that the COJM was appointed by the former prime minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi with the assurance to tribals that its recommendations would be fully implemented but the recommendation of the committee had been gathering dust (Times of India, Oct.11, 1991).
The Prime Minister sent two special emissaries to the tribal belt inOctober 1991 to study the situation but the reports of two did not tally with one another so nothing concrete came out of this.
The JMM started economic blockade on March 22, 1991.
The mining industry was badly affected. Janata Dal needed 2 0 8 the support of JMM in the Bihar Assembly. It had to keep the
Adivasi leaders happy. So in July 1991 it passed 'the
Jharkhand Area Development Council’ (JADC) bill 1991. The
JADC was to replace 'the Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas
Developaental Authority’ which was created in 1971 and had failed to meet the expected results. The new bill empowered the Chief Minister to nominate a chairman and vice-chairman to the council from among Adivasi, The finance minister; the planning minister and the welfare minister were to be the members of the council besides all the MLAs, the MLCs and the
MPs of the region. The officials of the state government, connected with the developmental programmes were ex-officio members. Other five members were to be nominated from UrSSn,
Munda and other Adivasi communities of the region. The terms of the members were to be at the discretion of the government. While the term of the chairman and the vice- chairman were decided for five years. The Council was to prepare long term and short term schemes which would fall in the purview of the state government. It was given recommending power for the settlement of government lands.
But the major irrigation schemes, health, hospitals, training and research were kept out of the jurisdiction of the council. Thus, practically all major power remained with the state government. So the student leaders Mr. Besra and general secretary of JMM Mr. Shailendra Mahto MP, and the BJP called it 'Anti-triba 1 ’ and protested the bill. Surprisingly the JMM MLAs did not oppose the bill in the Assembly (Times of India, July 31; August 3, 1991). 209
The differences between the AJSU and the JMM increased and finally the students leaders launched a new political party which they thought would offer alternative to the JMM.
1) Jharkhand People’s Party:
The All Jharkhand Students' Union (AJSU) being more radical in its approach was not satisfied with the JMM and it
launched the Jharkhand People’s Party (JPP) in November 1991.
Ram Dayal Munda became its president and Suraj Singh Besra
its general secretary. Ram Dayal Munda met the prime
Minister Narsimha Rao during later’s visit to the region in
January 1992 at Jamshedpur and had closed door talk. It is said that the meeting was more of an exercise in monologue.
Dr. Munda spoke and the Prime Ministered remained playing the passive listener.
The AJSU and the JPP organized 24 hours 'Jharkhand
Bandh* and subsequent 5 day economic blockade on March 1,
1992. They demanded the COJM report to be placed in
Parliament and to find early solution to the Jharkhand
problems. There was sporadic violence all over the region.
The CDJM report was placed in Parliament on March 30, 1992 with a suggestion to create a council for Jharkhand region
like that of Gorkhaland. The state government did not give
consent to it. The Jharkhand leaders rejected the Centre’s
offer of autonomous council under the Bihar Assembly. In a
meeting with the minister of state for internal security Mr. 210
Rajesh Pilot they said, "We have no trust in the Bihar
government. Be it Laloo Prasad or any other Chief Minister.
We do not want any linkwith the state assembly as far as
financial and administration matter are concerned" (Times of
India March 10,1992).
A section of Janata Dal and Congress in addition to the
IPF agreed to lend support in rally and economic blockade
organized by the JMM. A mammoth rally was organized on the
15th March 1992 at Ranchi where Sibu Soren, the president of
the JMM announced, "If needed all the MLAs and MPs will
resign from their post and take up arms to fight for
Jharkhand". He also gave call for another Jharkhand Bandh on
21st March and subsequent economic blockade from 22 March to
April 3, 1992. The leaders said that the government does not understand the language of Gandhism therefore they have to
speak now the language of Punjab and Kashmir.
The Home Minister called JMM leaders for a talk on March
28, 1992 which did not reach at any conclusion and they agreed to meet again on the 5th April. The other parties questioned why only JMM was called for the meeting and
demanded for the all party meeting. The ruling parties in
Centre and the state continued their political game with JMM and in August 1992 JMM splinted into two: the Mardi faction and the Soren faction. On the other hand the student leaders
contacted the leaders of other movements who were struggling
for the creation of separate state in other parts of the 211 country. They invited J.K. Basumatri (president of Bodo
People’s Action Committee) to address the rally on June 22,
1992 on the occasion of foundation day at Jamshedpur. Five political parties: the CPI, the IPF, the MCC, the AJSU and
JPP formed Jharkhand Front on August 14, 1992 to fight for the creation of a separate state.
The Union Home Minister Mr. Chavan announced that "only a separate state or an Union Territory can solve the
Jharkhand problem" in September 1992 (Indian Express,
September 9, 1992). Many political leaders criticized
Chavan’s announcement. Chief Minister of Bihar called an all party meeting to discuss the announcement on September 10,
1992. Chavan denied the announcement and called a meeting on the 12th to clarify his statement. The meeting was attended by Janata Dal chief Laloo Prasad Yadav, BPCC head Jagnnath
Mishra, the AJSU and the JPP. The Jharkhand leaders rejected the Government’s plea and organized Jharkhand Bandh and 15 day economic blockade from 15 September. There was wide spread violence in the region and the public properties were attacked by the activists. The Government revised the
Jharkhand Area Development Council on the 16th September but it did not satisfy the Jharkhand leaders.
The political activities escalated: Chavan had series of talks with different political leaders; the JMM tried to unite the like minded parties under one umbrella; the AJSU and the JPP intensified their agitation; Congress leaders 212
from the region organized rally and three panata Dal ministers dared the Chief Minister on the Jharkhand issue.
Forty five MLAs cutting across the party lines announced to
convene a parallel Assembly and launch a Satyagraha in
January 1993. Bandhs, Economic blockade, strikes and
violence became the order of the day. Government had to do
something. Prime Minister, Mr. Narsimha Rao assured an
early decision on Jharkhand on November 4, 1992.
The discussion began at different quarters to form
Jharkhand Autonomous Territory like Bodo Autonomous Council
in Assam. Several Jharkhand parties and groups formed All
Party Jharkhand Struggle Committee which organized Bandh and
indefinite economic blockade in March 1993. The Centre
agreed to form Jharkhand Autonomous Territory but the
Jharkhand leaders were not happy and appealed to the masses
to "actively participate" in the on going blockade. Not all
followers were happy with their leaders and the unity did not
last long.
Once again the agitation began. The JMM(s) announced on
the 10th August 1994 if the Prime Minister fails to concede
the demand it would formally announce the formation of a
separate Jharkhand state on August 15, 1994. The Prime
Minister’s reported assurance to delegation from south Bihar
leaders that a solution to the Jharkhand problem would be
found by the 15th August. The ultimatum expired. The JMM
leaders were planning their course of action for the 15th 2 1 3
August but the Union Minister of state for Home Affairs,
Rajesh Pilot came to Ranchi and addressed the meeting and gave public assurance that the Centre would act on its own to facilitate the formation of a Jharkhand Autonomous Council if the Bihar Assembly fails to adopt a new bill for the purpose before September 10, 1994. The Jharkhand leader waited for the day to come. The Central government managed to convince the Bihar Chief Minister and on 27th September 1994 Jharkhand
Area Autonomous Council (JAAC) was signed in New Delhi.
i) Means and methods
The means and the methods used in the previous phase were continued and they became more aggressive and violent during this time.
ii) Achievements
This was the first time when the Centre and the State were ruled by different government and needed support from other parties. The JMM had significant number of MLAs and
MPs and spearheaded the movement. Though the AJSU and the
JPP always crossed sword because of it. In spite of many differences several parties united together to put pressure on the government.
Conclusion
From the above discussion on the Jharkhand Movement
three points emerged: first, the Adivasis of Chotanagpur 2 1 4 encountered at least four different groups of people and
their culture brought significant changes in their socio economic and political life. Their contact with Hindus
inspired them to establish aristocracy but alienated them
from their R a ja . The Muslims introduced a net set of administrative systems. The J a g i r d a r s and the Z a a in d a r B
ruled over them. The British rule separated them from rest of the country, introduced private ownership of land and new
judiciary system. Thus, the traditional socio-economic and
the political systems were replaced by new ones. The tribal
society was in stress and strain. The village elders were confused. The Christian missionaries came to Chotanagpur at
this juncture of the tribal history. They were sympathetic
towards the UrSons, the Mundas and the Khariyas and opened
schools and health centres in their villages. They helped
them in court cases to protect their land from the D ikus, (7-S’ This gave the tribals hope and self-confidence and^a result new tribal elite emerged in the society who mobilized the
masses to respond to the oppressive situation.
Secondly, the charismatic tribal leaders infused in
their tribesmen love and appreciation for their culture.
They enkindled the ethnic consciousness in their respective
communities and as need appear they formed pan-tribal
solidarity. Finally, all the 'sons of the soil’, the
tribals, the SadSn and the Muslims forged the Jharkhand
identity. 215
Thirdly, the roots of the identity formation goes back
to their armed revolts against oppressors. The tribal
revolts transformed into prophetic movements, ethnic
movements and social movement. The movement entered the
politics in the middle of the present century and presently
seems to be at the threshold of a regional movement.
These three sets of changes explain the reasons for, the
process of and the dynamics of the ethnic political
mobilization among the tribes of Chotanagpur which have been
discussed in the remaining chapters.
NOTES
1. J .Van Troy (1991:40) has put 1627 as the year his return from the captivity.
2. The people still sing about the misery of this time, "Etai bara Ranchi Zila, Nai mile jina khana, chail jabSn ohe Assam rSTij re, chail jabSn ohe Bhotang raij" (In such a big Ranchi District 1 can’t find livelihood, I will go to Assam state, 1 will go to Bhutan state).
3. The three different and rival sects of Christianity : Anglican, Lutheran and the Catholic came to Jharkhand in the second half of the 19th century and opened schools and dispensaries. Many tribals embraced Christianity and were educated. The educated men became the leaders of their commun i ties.
A. Authors have difference of opinion regarding the period in which Sardar Larai was fought. Munda (1988) mentioned 1875-95, MacDougall (1985) 1858-95, Singh (1983:32) 1858-95, Minj (1968:8) from 1869-80 till 1890, and Weiner (1988:163) mentioned 1880s. 2 1 6
5. Catholics and protestants (Christian denominations other than Catholic) were rivals in Europe. The rivalry continued even in India when Christianity came here. The members of different denominations could not mix freely with one another.
6. Satyabrata Chakrabarty, 'Jharkhand Movement in West Bengal: A Case Study of Sub-National Politics’ in Rakhahari Chatarji (ed.), Politics in West Bengal. Calcutta 1985, pp.173, World Press, as cited by Ghosh 1991:1175.
7. Jaipal Singh was an Oxford educated Christian Munda. He was born in a Pahan (tribal priest) family in Takara village near Ranchi. He excelled in the field of sports and eventually obtained a 'Full Blue’ in hockey at Oxford. He led the Indian hockey team to victory at the 9th Olympic at Amsterdam and consequently received special congratulation from the Viceroy of India. He also held some important and responsible positions in other fields as well. Tribal Bihar was proud of him and called him 'Marang Gomke’ (the supreme leader).
8. K.Kamraj was Chief Minister of Madras (now Tamil Nadu) and was also the president of the Indian National Congress. As president he planned to revitalize the party and suggested that the leading Congress men should voluntarily step down from their ministerial posts and offer themselves for full time organizational works. As response to his call six Chief Ministers and six Union ministers resigned from their posts.
9. According to A.P.Sharma 'Hul Jharkhand’ was established on December 28,1968, but according to Satyabrata Chakrabarty it was established in 1969.
10. P.K. Poojari, Parde ke Peeche (in Hindi), Ranchi, 1983.
11. Times of India, New Delhi, November 19 and 20, 1983.
12. Shyamal Sarkar, 'Rekindling Pride in Tribal Culture’ in The Statesman, Calcutta, December 18, 1987.
113. Ranchi Express (Hindi daily), Ranchi, January 2, 1987,
14. The four AJSU leaders were escorted by Mrs. Sumati Oraon the widow of Kartik Oraon and now cabinet minister from Lohardaga. At Delhi the then Home Minister Mr. Butta Singh listened to the grievances sympathetically.
15. The committee for Jharkhand Matters was constituted in August 1989 to study the grievances of Adivasis in the Jharkhand region and it submitted its report on May 18, 1990. It suggested three options for the solution of Jharkhand problem: 1) granting a status of Union Territory, 2) a Hill developmental council like Darjeeling Hill Council, and 3) a Autonomous Board as in Maharashtra. 217
16. The panel consisted of 24 members including the MPs of the BJP; the JfiM; the Janata Dal; the MCC; from the region.