Manki-Munda System and the Challenge of Modern Governance
Context: A recent protest by the Ho tribe in West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, against the district administration has brought a century-old traditional governance system into conflict with modern state machinery. This incident raises questions about autonomy, reform, and the rights of non-tribal residents.
What is the Manki-Munda System?
The Manki-Munda system is the traditional, decentralised self-governance mechanism of the Ho tribe in the Kolhan region of Jharkhand. It is a socio-political structure designed for internal dispute resolution and community management, not a sovereign or revenue-collecting authority.
- Key stakeholders:
- Munda: The hereditary head of a single village. The Munda is the first point of contact for resolving socio-political disputes within the village community.
- Manki: The head of a Pidh (a cluster of 8 to 15 villages). The Manki acts as an appellate authority for cases that cannot be resolved at the village level by the Munda.
- Core Characteristics:
- Internal Mechanism: It was purely for internal self-governance with no authority over land or revenue matters initially.
- Hereditary Succession: The positions of Munda and Manki are inherited, typically from father to son.
- Community-Centric: The system’s authority was derived from and responsible to the community it served, not to any external king or state.
How has the system undergone changes since the advent of the British?
The British colonial administration fundamentally altered the nature and function of the Manki-Munda system through a strategy of co-option and codification, transforming community leaders into state agents.
A. The Strategy of Codification: Wilkinson’s Rules (1833):
- Change: Wilkinson drafted 31 rules that formally codified the traditional Manki-Munda system for the first time. This was a strategic compromise of indirect rule, after failing to subdue Ho through force.
- Impact:
- Co-option of Leaders: The British acknowledged the Mankis and Mundas but gave them official, state-sanctioned power, effectively turning community leaders into revenue collectors and agents of the colonial state.
- Integration into Colonial Economy: The system was used to implement the colonial land revenue model. The Ho community, which previously had no concept of private land ownership, was designated as raiyats (tenants) of the state, and land deeds (pattas) were issued.
- Influx of Outsiders: The Rules, while ostensibly meant to protect tribal areas, facilitated the influx of non-tribals (dikkus). Their population in the region increased ninefold between 1867 and 1897, leading to a significant demographic shift.
B. Post-Independence Continuity and Challenges:
- Legal Ambiguity: The Kolhan Government Estate was dissolved post-1947, but Wilkinson’s Rules continue to apply as custom, as no alternative law has been successfully enacted to replace them. In 2000, the Patna High Court (in Mora Ho vs State of Bihar) held them to be customs, not formal law, but allowed their continuation.
- Modern Challenges: The hereditary system now faces challenges in a modern, document-based administration:
- Lack of Formal Education: Many hereditary Mundas and Mankis lack the formal education needed to navigate today’s bureaucratic processes, causing delays for villagers needing official documents.
- Rights of Non-Tribals: The system’s authority over non-tribal residents (OBCs, SCs) living in Ho villages is a persistent source of conflict, as seen in the recent complaints that triggered the protest.
- Calls for Reform: There is a growing demand, especially among the youth, to reform the hereditary nature of the system and make it more accountable and compatible with 21st-century democratic norms.
