TGPSC CARE 15th September 2025 Current Affairs

Why in News?

The recent protest by Ho adivasis in Jharkhand’s Kolhan region arose due to fears of interference in their traditional Manki-Munda self-governance system by the state administration.

Introduction

• The recent protests in Jharkhand’s Kolhan region have highlighted a deep-rooted socio-political issue concerning the traditional self-governance system of the Ho adivasi community, known as the Manki-Munda system.
• On September 9, 2025, the adivasis of the Ho tribe staged a protest in West Singhbhum district, accusing the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of interfering in their centuries-old system by allegedly removing traditional village heads — the Mundas.
• The protests underscore the persistent fear among adivasis of losing autonomy over their traditional governance institutions.

Historical Background of the Manki-Munda System

• Pre-British Period
  • Before British colonial intervention, the Ho adivasis of Kolhan, in present-day Jharkhand, practiced a decentralized and hereditary self-governance system.
  • Each village was administered by a Munda (village head), responsible for resolving local social and political disputes. The Munda operated as a custodian of customary norms but had no authority in revenue or land-related matters.
  • A group of 8 to 15 villages was led by a Manki, who acted as an appellate authority if disputes remained unresolved at the village level. Importantly, this governance system was not linked to any sovereign authority or tax mechanism but functioned purely as a traditional judicial and administrative framework intrinsic to the community’s self-rule.

(Image Source: Indian Express)

Colonial Intervention and the East India Company

• After the British East India Company’s victory at the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the subsequent Treaty of Allahabad (1765), the Company acquired Diwani rights in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, including Kolhan.
• The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 fundamentally changed land relations. Zamindars were tasked with tax collection under fixed land revenue demands. In Kolhan, zamindars, under British support, began encroaching upon Ho tribal lands to expand colonial control, triggering multiple adivasi revolts such as:
  • Ho Revolt (1821–22)
  • Kol Revolt (1831–32)
• Due to repeated failures to suppress the adivasis by force, the British opted for a strategic compromise: integrating the traditional Manki-Munda system into colonial administration.

Wilkinson’s Rules (1833): Formal Codification

• Captain Thomas Wilkinson, appointed as Political Agent in Kolhan in 1837, drafted 31 guiding principles, termed Wilkinson’s Rules, which formalized the role of Mankis and Mundas in local governance. This was the first official recognition of any adivasi customary governance by colonial authorities.
• The British incentivized the Manki and Munda to act as intermediaries between the colonial government and the tribal community. While the system preserved an appearance of tribal autonomy, it also enabled the British to integrate Kolhan into the colonial administrative framework.

Key Impacts of Colonial Integration

1. Demographic Shift: Between 1867 and 1897, the number of non-tribal people (referred to as dikkus) in the region increased dramatically—from 1,579 to 15,755—fueled by infrastructural development such as railways.
2. Introduction of Private Property: The concept of private land ownership replaced the community-based system. The issuance of pattas (land titles) made adivasis into tenants (raiyats), significantly altering their traditional relationship with land.
3. Loss of Autonomy: While the Manki-Munda system was allowed to continue, it became integrated into the revenue and administrative machinery of the colonial state, restricting its independence.

Post-Independence Scenario

• Post-1947, the Kolhan Government Estate (KGE) was dissolved, but Wilkinson’s Rules remained in use. Indian courts, in the absence of alternative codified legislation, continued to uphold these customary rules.
• Landmark Judgment: In Mora Ho vs State of Bihar (2000), Patna High Court ruled that Wilkinson’s Rules are not formal law but old customs. However, due to lack of legislative alternatives, they continued to operate, creating a legal ambiguity.
• In February 2021, Jharkhand government formally recognized the Nyaya Panchayat system, integrating traditional structures into administrative functions like:
  • Tax collection
  • Reporting of land transactions
  • Maintaining law and order
  • Settlement of disputes

The Current Conflict

• The recent protests (September 2025) are symptomatic of a long-standing tension between the adivasi self-governance system and the formal state machinery.
• The Deputy Commissioner of West Singhbhum, Chandan Kumar, noted that the conflict stemmed from grievances raised by Scheduled Castes (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) living in Ho-majority villages, accusing Mankis and Mundas of bias and malpractice.
• Adivasis fear a gradual erosion of their cultural and political autonomy under the pretext of administrative reform or social justice.

Conclusion

The Manki-Munda system is not merely a relic of the past but a living institution that has provided local self-governance to the Ho adivasis for centuries. While integration into the formal legal framework is important for uniform governance, the challenge lies in balancing constitutional rights and modern governance with the preservation of indigenous systems.

CARE MCQ

Q1. Which of the following statements correctly describe the Manki-Munda system of the Ho tribe in Jharkhand?

1. The Munda was the head of a group of villages and responsible for collecting revenue from tribal communities.
2. The Manki was responsible for resolving disputes that the Mundas could not settle at the village level.
3. The system was purely traditional, with no link to the colonial state until it was formally codified by Wilkinson’s Rules in the 19th century.
4. After Independence, Wilkinson’s Rules were repealed, and the system was fully abolished.

Select the correct answer using the code below:

A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1, 2, and 4 only
D) 2, 3, and 4 only

Answer 1- B

Explanation

• Statement 1 is incorrect: The Munda was the head of a single village, not a group of villages, and the Munda had no responsibilities for revenue or tax collection. Their role was to resolve socio-political disputes within the village.
• Statement 2 is correct: The Manki was indeed responsible for resolving disputes that the Mundas could not settle at the village level. A Manki typically presided over a group of 8 to 15 villages and acted as an appellate authority.
• Statement 3 is correct: The system was purely traditional before British arrival. The British formally codified it through Wilkinson’s Rules in the 19th century, integrating it into the colonial administrative structure.
• Statement 4 is incorrect: After Independence, Wilkinson’s Rules were not repealed or abolished. Instead, they continued to operate in practice because no alternative legal framework was created. Even as recently as 2021, the Jharkhand government officially recognized traditional bodies like Nyaya Panchayats to work alongside state functions.
• Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

UPSC PYQ

Q.   Consider the following statements about Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India: (2019)

1. PVTGs reside in 18 States and one Union Territory.
2. A stagnant or declining population is one of the criteria for determining PVTG status.
3. There are 95 PVTGs officially notified in the country so far.
4. Irular and Konda Reddi tribes are included in the list of PVTGs.

Which of the statements given above are correct?  

(a) 1, 2 and 3
(b) 2, 3 and 4
(c) 1, 2 and 4
(d) 1, 3 and 4

Ans: C