Jharkhand: Agony of failed hopes

Statehood: Agony of failed hopes

By Shitanshu Shekhar Shukla
New Delhi, December 24

The recent assembly election in Jharkhand served the tribals and the indigenous people an opportunity to change their representatives.
Nine years have passed since the state was created out of Bihar. The state has seen four chief ministers and six governments.
But the records of money spent on development betray a ‘Koda’ syndrome. The populace could have taught the politicians a lesson on political accountability.
But the fractured verdict coupled with win of Koda accomplices, sweeping victory of Sibu Soren, spring a surprising non-chalance.

There were many uncomfortable questions, most of which were of politicians’ making.
For example, Jharkhand spent just about 57% of the funds available in 2008-09 under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA).
While the likes of Enos and Koda flourished, the state spent barely Rs 500 crore in a year. Rajasthan spends four times as much. If the state lacks capacity to implement development schemes, why has not it been increased since Jharkhand became a state?

Besides, the state continues to lag considerably behind all-India averages in almost all development indicators. Rural poverty in Jharkhand at 46% in 2004-05 is second only to that in Orissa.

The Congress-led government at the centre has been seen to take measures with re¬gard to NREGA, loan waivers for farmers. It paid the party rich electoral dividends in last Parliamentary polls.
But investigation of Madhu Koda and his accomplices for a possible embezzle of public money proves that the Jharkhand politicians don’t think along those lines?

The state is in real mess. The statehood appears to have done the people more harm than good, one wonders.
The chronicle of struggle for statehood merits a closer look to understand the agony of failed hopes.

Jharkhand was born in the early hours of 15 November 2000, birth anniversary of Birsa Munda the leader of Santhali Hul (rebellion). Jharkhand struggle, incrementally evolved from 1756, invests it with a mystique and history unique in character. When the country became independent many believed like Jharkhand leader Jaipal Singh that the SRC (State Reorganisation Commission) would consider the demand more sympathetically. However the principle of a homogenous political identity based on access and control over a comprehensive territorial unit in independent India failed to go further. The commission reasoned that Jharkhand lacked an uniform linguistic identity. Within a couple of decades since SRC’s implementation the country had however began to realise the inevitability of acknowledging the relevance of identities other than language. It was tribal identity in case of Jharkhand, geographical in Uttaranchal, combination of both in Chhattisgarh. Year 2000 saw the cultural differences as a basis for indigenous identity and recognition not only receiving institutional legitimacy but also serving as a strategy for mobilisation using place and territory as integral strategic variables. It might and ought to have catalysed indigenous activities to evolve into a transnational cultural and political movement determined to nurture, protect and expand the right of indigenous people. The statehood had the advantage of keeping the poor tribals in anticipation of its advent as a state with difference, given abundance of natural resources. More so, when the statehood coincided with the UN decade of indigenous peoples. The Samis of Norway earned themselves a parliament.

The populace in Jharkhand had hoped that it won’t be too much for the new political regime to honour their inalienable identification with jal, jamin, jungle to have a system of governance in keeping with the ethos of the tribal culture, emphasis on dignity of the labour.
Patna-centric dispensation was done away to begin with. Honest bureaucrats of Bihar cadre opted for Jharkhand promising for a clear and distinct break from the corruption of past. The problem started ominously with none of the ethnic parties able to reap the political benefit when it was finally created. It was Hindutva swearing BJP which pushed the various Jharkhand parties to the background and became the leader of the National Democratic Alliance in Ranchi. The reason lies in recent character history of Jharkhand movement, marked by a multiplicity of organisations, each claiming to uphold Jharkhand movement, merely complicating the course. The tribal leaders concentrated more on infighting than on mobilising support for the cause. The leaders allowed the electoral politics to influence them. It led to BJP co-opting Jharkhand parties across erstwhile south Bihar.

Within one year of the statehood there was already a sense of disillusionment because the people had before them display of same familiar culture of unscrupulous and unprincipled political behaviour. It became a hotbed of communal politics with the organisations of various tribal groups, SCs, OBCs fighting for enhanced reservation for their respective communities in government jobs and positions in panchayati raj institutions. The demands and the counter demands put before the state government were such that if implemented they would lead to 100% reservation.

AJJM (Adivasi Jharkhand Janadhikar Manch), led by Salkhan Murmu, a BJP MP, demanded 100 % reservation (60% for the tribals in state govt services, educational institutions, assembly and 40% for the original inhabitants). It was the beginning of the ethnic politics, tempered without realism, degenerating into self-deluding ploy. Although the Christian missionaries in the state refused to join hands with AJJM, they had their tacit support. Even the sangh parivar was divided on Murmu’s role. One section was unhappy with his hobnobbing with the missionaries. It believed he was playing a spoilsport at a time when the BJP should have a smooth sailing in the state. Another section believed that Murmu was actually helping the party’s cause co-opting the forces in Santhal pargana, home to many huls (rebellion). Then came the Dumka parliamentary by election (seat vacated by the then Chief Minister Babu Lal Marandi) in mid 2002. And the tribals expressed their disappointment by electing JMM chief Sibu Soren on a negative swing. Marandi got the message and decided to resurrect an old notification putting the tribal and indigenous people in the reserved categories in recruitments to the factories and workshops. It was called a domicile policy. He dropped hints to widen the ambit of notification to the government offices and educational institutions. Jharkhand was on the boil. The society was divided between pro-domicile and anti-domicile groups. The government’s failure to evolve a mechanism to identify the original residents added to the confusion. Marandi even ignored the demands to constitute a commission to expedite the mechanisms for identification. It lent credibility to the impression that Babu Lal Marandi, himself a tribal, stoked the fire and fomented the trouble. Even the tribal members of Marandi ministry ranged themselves against the non-tribal Ministers keeping them away from the decision making on important issues. Only High court’s intervention rejecting the controversial domicile policy put an end to the orgy of violence, terming the policy as “hostile discrimination of the public at large”. 17 March 2003 turned out to be a day of high voltage drama. Arjun Munda replaced Marandi, whose distinctions included arrests of children of 12 under POTA. Curious role of the speaker of the Assembly Inder Singh Namdhari, remains etched in memory for refusing to resign from the office of Speaker before staking claims to Chief Minister.
Babu Lal Marandi has however since had a penchant for raking controversies on amendments to 2 Acts (Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act) considered so sacred and sacrosanct to the tribals as forced the BJP leadership to eat the words. Besides, last 3 years have seen the rapidly built houses about the municipal areas of Dumka and Deogarh, all on no-transferable raiyati land, changing the landscape. The poor tribals were arm-twisted to write the gift-deeds in favour of a third party claiming to be friends or kin.

The poor have been pushed to wall. The Maoists are enjoying a free run. The government run departments which had once surplus of funds have run out of money. Yet, the state response has been to use police and legal apparatus to smother public voices. Officials too have very short tenures, just about a year each for district collectors and superintendents of police.

The state is simply not functioning, whether for the Ho (Madhu Koda’s community) or other adivasis, particularly in rural Jharkhand. Unless the provision of basic services becomes an issue in deciding votes, the formation of the state of Jharkhand will only mean corrupted polity. The investigation of former Jharkhand chief minister Madhu Koda (and now state officials too) for possible illegally acquiring funds in con¬nection with mining leases, seems to pro¬vide the answer to a question with regard to all the Jharkhand governments so far.

Jharkhand has experienced nothing new but typical of what passes for democracy in the state after state in the country that never tires of boasting of world’s largest democracy.