Data

General Issues
Human Rights & Civil Rights
Specific Topics
Indigenous Issues
Land Use
Location
India
Scope of Influence
Regional

CASE

Pathalgadi Movement- Adivasi Political Assertion in India

May 17, 2023 Niranjan
General Issues
Human Rights & Civil Rights
Specific Topics
Indigenous Issues
Land Use
Location
India
Scope of Influence
Regional

Munda tribe members in India erected carved stones to assert their rights over their ancestral land to stop land encroachment by non-tribe members.

The Pathalgadi movement started by the Munda Tribes of Jharkhand India not only brought a new wave of assertion of identity and customary rights by Schedule tribe (STs) communities of India but it also questioned the meaningful empowerment of participatory institutions such as Gram Sabha (village councils) of local governance created by the state (Singh 2019). Communities mobilizing themselves to challenge the authority of the government and establishing autonomy over their traditional land is not new to India or elsewhere. India’s forests, in particular forest areas inhabited by STs are characterised with conflicts and social mobilizations. There are multiple examples of ST communities demanding for right to self-rule in different parts of India (Bijoy 2001; Vaidya 2018). Munda tribe has reiterated the similar demand to secure their customary practices and rights to participate in local governance by initiating the Pathalgadi movement. 


Problems and Purpose

The Munda tribe of Khunti and Simdega district of Jharkhand in India started a one of its kind protests to protect their ancestral lands from non-tribal encroachments in early 2018. Between 2017-18, Pathalgadi movement emerged partially due to attempts made by Jharkhand Government to abolish the CNT 1908. The same government had amended the provisions of the act in order to transfer/divert the traditional land of tribal communities to non-tribals for commercial purposes. With an agenda of making this region of Jharkhand an industrial mining hub, the government entered into the contracts with mining companies. The government arrived at this decision without any consultation with the communities. The suggestion of revising the provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908 (CNT) and Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act 1876 (SPT) received self-mobilised resistance by the community. With the growing resistance form the community the Government withdrew their decision of amending the acts. However, the attempts of diluting the provisions under constitutional acts and laws meant to secure rights and encourage participation in local governance, gave rise to new spate of assertion of identity and demand for self-governed autonomous zones by STs (Davidsdottir 2021; Singh 2019).

 

The protest is popularly known as ‘Pathalghadi’. The word Pathalgadi literally means ‘a carved stone’ in the local language. The protest gets its name as the Munda tribe members erecting carved stones along the village boundaries to mark their ancestral lands (Davidsdottir 2021).  


Background History and Context

In order to understand the Pathalgadi resistance in Jharkhand by Munda tribes one needs to understand the history of tribal resistance and policy making in the region. Central India which houses large number of different tribal groups (STs) has complex history of domination and resilience from colonial to post-colonial era. Munda tribal community, the predominant group in Jharkhand in particular was subjected to struggle with regards to access to land and the forest resources. The historical denial of their rights has brought them at the loggerhead with the state authorities in past and present (Bijoy 2001). 

During colonial rule in the period 1885–1900, Birsa Munda, a tribal leader, resisted the British rule in the Munda occupied regions. Birsa Munda was ultimately captured and executed by the colonial rulers. In modern times, he is revered as a freedom fighter, and celebrated as a hero. After the execution of their leader, Munda tribal members continued to resist the occupation of their land by colonial rulers. The series of tribal rebellions fighting for their traditionally occupied land and forest led to the acknowledgement of rights by drafting two separate tenancy laws, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act, 1908) and Santal Pargana Tenancy Act (SPT Act, 1876), by British Colonial Rule. Both the acts were drafted to recognise land rights and protect the interests of the traditional societies in two administrative divisions of modern-day Jharkhand. The CNT Act enacted in 1908 after persistent resistance by Mundas, then regulated and restricted the transfer of land from Adivasi to non-Adivasi individuals. It specifically protects the rights of Mundari Khuntkattidari, a traditional type of tenancy that recognises the ownership of the original habitats of the forest. Through this process, tribal communities obtained legal claim by the means of law. In present days, the act has been instrumental in securing tenure rights of Jharkhand’s tribal communities over their ancestor land. Recognising the colonial subjugation and marginalization of forest dwelling STs, in post-independent era Government of India enacted the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) in 1996 which devolved the decision-making rights to the Gram Sabhas in tribal occupied areas. It integrated traditional spaces of participation of tribal communities for effective local governance. Similarly in 2006 Forest Rights Act (FRA) was introduced by the Government of India to recognise the tenure rights as well as governing right of STs and thereby to pave way for them to participate in forest governance. Both the acts essentially mandates participation of tribal communities in decision making pertaining to land and resources that fall within their traditional territories with an intention to undo the historical injustice (Patnaik 2007). On the background of unrest caused due to attempt of dilution of rights by government, in 2018 the Pathalgadi movement began mainly in two Munda populated districts of Jharkhand – Khunti and Simdega. 


Methods and Tools Used

Erecting megaliths with provision of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas, 1996. Removing children from the schools and not taking government-provided ration in protest of the government.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Munda tribes have a tradition of erecting megaliths for various purposes such as to perpetuate the existence of ancestors or honouring their heroes. Same practice of raising monoliths was instrumented by agitated community members to reassert their rightful claim on land and right to participate in local-level decision making. Although the exact number is not recorded, approximately 300 villages raised stone slabs with provisions of PESA and FRA written on it to convey their rights (Davidsdottir 2021). This was done in order to emphasize the power of Gram Sabha and thereby participation of village in matters such as natural resources management including waterbodies and minor minerals. Villagers participated in the movement across two districts and reiterated that no diversion of their traditional land can be done without consultation with the communities. Furthermore, it demanded meaningful implementation provisions mentioned under PESA and FRA to strengthen the participatory local governing bodies which allows integration of the customary laws, social and religious practices, and traditional management practice of community resource. The participants in the movement have essentially used the existing provisions made in the Constitution to support their claims of empowerment and to argue that the empowered Gram Sabha is the right entity to oversee communities and their resources (Singh 2019; Tewary 2018).

The Pathalgadi movement was carried out in a ceremonious way with all the villagers participating in the act. Villages organised the traditional Gram Sabhas. These gram Sabhas were attended by both men and women, although traditionally women did not participate in Gram Sabhas. The meetings were attended by villagers in traditional attires and they carried their traditional hunting weaponries to the meetings and rallies. The rituals, folk dances, etc were performed. The monoliths erected during the movement were different from monolith erected traditionally. During the movement the monoliths were painted in green, symbolically showcasing the close association of community with forest and forest resources (Singh 2019).

It important to note here that the approach of villagers to movement was different in Khunti and Simdega. The district Khunti is historically important site for Munda tribe being the birthplace of Birsa Munda. This is also where the movement started. The participation of tribal people in Pathalgadi from Khuti was larger than Simdega. In Khunti movement was not limited to raising the monoliths. The few handful villagers collectively decided to remove the children from government schools and stop receiving the ration from Public Distribution Systems. Moving ahead, they declared autonomy over the villages and prohibited the government officials from entering into the villages. The villagers using their customary laws established their self-rule which became a challenge for the government. However, larger population was still focused on asserting their rights as per the provision under PESA and FRA.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The movement took unexpected turn when the cases were filed on villagers who were protesting in Khuti with bow and arrow (Tewary 2018). The participants in the movement were then portrayed as violent in media and movement was labelled at ‘anti-constitutional’. Some villagers were booked with sedition charges by the state government (“Pathalgadi Movement: Thousands’ Fate Hangs In The Balance” n.d.). With the media coverage and police action, Pathalgadi movement attracted attention from ST communities from nearby states of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. The communities from other state also raised stones to reassert tribal identity and to stand in solidarity with Munda Tribe. Against the move of the STs for the self-governance in the Scheduled Area the respective governments have reacted very strongly. The movement turned disastrous when the villagers took 25 police men hostage in Kanki village of Khunti. Consequently, in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh the government declared the ‘Pathalgadi’ movement as anti-national and anti-constitutional activity and outrightly rejected the self-assertion of the tribes (Singh 2019). With the strong action against villagers and distorted image of movement as ‘anti-constitutional’ in mainstream media, movement became unpopular among the STs themselves and now reduced to small, sporadic protest meetings. Many villagers are afraid of participating in the movement, civil society organizations have withdrawn the support while many arrested villagers still await release from the jail. 


Analysis and Lessons Learned

Resistance to the top-down approach to the decision making of the government by reasserting tribal identity and customary laws are at the core of Pathalgadi movement. Pathalgadi movement contributes to the debate of participatory governance by questioning the attempts of government to dilute the constitution rights of STs to participate in the decision making at the local level. However with the different groups emerging within the movement which was seeking sovereignty from the state and engaged in violence, this movement the movement fell apart with the more moderate supporters distancing themselves from this movement. It was essentially a failed attempt of the tribal community to reassert and use the democratic spaces, created by the government, to participate in local governance. The failure of the movement was mainly attributed by scholars and journalists to handful of villagers demonstrating the different motivations and trajectories to express their demands. While others were merely pointing out to the inadequacy of government in implementing the provisions of the constitutional acts that recognise their traditional spaces of participation. Few villagers deep rooted faith in customary laws and institution and demand for complete sovereignty over the landscape was neither accepted by fellow tribe members nor by the state government. It showed discrepancies in the intent among the participants of the movement which led to failure of the movement. Although, it failed as a collective movement, the movement in its early days sshowed a unique way of asserting land rights and demanding their right to participate at the village-level in determining their future in a democratic and constitutional way before some members turned violent. 


References

Bijoy, C.R. (2001) “The Adivasis of India – A History of Discrimination, Conflict and Resistance,” Indigenous Affairs : 54–61

Davidsdottir, E. (2021) “Our rights are carved in stone: the case of the Pathalgadi movement in Simdega, Jharkhand,” The International Journal of Human Rights 25.7: 1111–1125, http://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1878351

“Pathalgadi: Assertion of Adivasi Rights Over Land” (n.d.), https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/pathalgadi-assertion-adivasi-rights-over-land (accessed November 3, 2022)

“Pathalgadi Movement: Thousands’ Fate Hangs In The Balance” (n.d.), https://www.outlookindia.com/national/pathalgadi-movement-thousands-fate-hangs-in-the-balance-magazine-231263 (accessed March 29, 2023)

Patnaik, S. (2007) “PESA, the Forest Rights Act, and Tribal Rights in India,” Presented at the International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests, Bangkok

Singh, A. (2019) “Many faces of the Pathalgadi movement in Jharkhand,” Economic and Political Weekly 54: 28–33

Tewary, A. (2018, April 13) “The Pathalgadi rebellion,” The Hindu, 13 April, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/the-pathalgadi-rebellion/article23530998.ece (accessed March 29, 2023)

Vaidya, A.A. (2018) “Shadows of Colonialism: Structural Violence, Development and Adivasi Rights in Post-Colonial Madhya Pradesh,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies