Basics
- Issue: Recent protests in Jharkhand’s West Singhbhum district by Ho Adivasis over interference in their traditional Manki-Munda self-governance system.
- Background:
- The system is a hereditary, village-based governance structure with Munda (village head) and Manki (overseeing 15 villages).
- It predates colonial rule and was codified by the Wilkinson’s Rules (1837).
- Fact: The system covers ~3,000 villages across Kolhan region (Ho-majority).
Relevance : GS-I (Indian Society, Tribal Culture), GS-II (Panchayati Raj, PESA Act, Customary Governance).
Why in News
- Ho tribal groups accused the Deputy Commissioner of interfering in their customary system by removing Mundas.
- DC later clarified the protest was based on misinformation but issued a directive to bring transparency in functioning.
Overview
- Polity/Legal
- Wilkinson’s Rules gave formal recognition to Manki-Munda authority.
- Courts (2000, Patna HC) noted they are customs, not laws, but still practiced.
- Tension with PESA Act (1996) and Panchayati Raj institutions.
- Governance/Administrative
- Dual system: state administration vs traditional heads.
- Creates friction over accountability, transparency, and adaptation to democratic norms.
- Mundas often lack education, making record-keeping and modern administration difficult.
- Economy
- Originally ensured land protection; now complicated by zamindari legacy, revenue demands, and land alienation.
- Protests highlight fear of losing land rights under state intervention.
- Society
- System fosters community cohesion and respect for customary authority.
- But hereditary leadership may exclude capable individuals and limit representation of women and youth.
- International (comparative)
- Similar indigenous governance debates exist worldwide (e.g., Maori in New Zealand, First Nations in Canada).
- Global best practice: blending customary systems with constitutional democracy.
Challenges
- Clash between hereditary traditional authority and democratic state structures.
- Lack of transparency, exclusion of women/youth, hereditary rigidity.
- Land alienation, revenue pressures, and poor documentation of rights.
- Administrative conflict between PESA institutions and Wilkinson’s Rules.
- Rising distrust between state officials and tribal communities.
Way Forward
- Codify reforms: Harmonize Wilkinson’s Rules with PESA Act provisions.
- Capacity-building: Train Manki-Mundas in record-keeping, legal literacy, and governance.
- Participatory approach: Ensure women/youth representation within customary councils.
- Legal clarity: State government should revisit the system via consultation, possibly through a commission of inquiry.
- Global learnings: Adopt hybrid governance models (e.g., Maori councils with legal powers in NZ).
Conclusion
The Manki-Munda system reflects the deep cultural autonomy of the Ho community, but to remain relevant in the 21st century, it must be reformed and integrated with democratic governance while safeguarding tribal identity and rights.
