Just hours after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Mahayuti alliance staged a sweeping comeback bagging 230 of the 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra after its dismal show in the Lok Sabha elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated the most popular slogan of this poll season—“ek hain toh safe hain” (united we survive)—to which former Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had attributed the victory. It was shorthand for a strategy to accuse the Congress-led Opposition of “dividing castes and tribes”, which the PM at an election rally in Dhule called “the biggest conspiracy against India”. Complemented with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s “batenge toh katenge” (divided we die) rhetoric stressing on “Hindu unity” across castes and tribes, the “ek…safe…” slogan worked in the BJP’s favour in what is known as the land of Shivaji, but fell flat in the land of Birsa Munda—Jharkhand—the other state that went to polls in November and where the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)-led INDIA bloc’s thumping triumph with 56 of the 81 seats signalled a counterintuitive enigma of sorts.

The indigenous people across Santhal Pargana, Chottanagpur, Kolhan and Palamu regions, with their long history of resisting the domination of the ‘diku’ (mostly moneylenders, traders and petty officials from ‘outside’) and the authority of the colonial state in the Hul, Ulgulan and other uprisings did not fall for the BJP’s tweak on the theme labelling Muslims in the Adivasi-majority territories as “Bangladeshi infiltrators”. In fact, the BJP and its allies lost all the 28 seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes (STs), save one that was bagged by former JMM leader Champai Soren, who joined the saffron party after Hemant Soren asked him to vacate the CM’s chair for his reinstatement following bail from the Jharkhand High Court in a case of money laundering linked to an alleged land scam. In Santhal Pargana, where their campaigns against “Bangladeshi infiltrators” gained momentum, they won only one seat out of 18.

Adivasi scholars suggest that at least three factors make Jharkhand different: political consciousness of its Adivasis; memories of the statehood movement; and, traditional relations between the Adivasi and the Muslims. “Most media discussions mention the state’s welfare schemes, but what really cornered the BJP was the history of resistance against ‘outsiders’ and the political consciousness of Jharkhand’s Adivasis,” says scholar A. K. Pankaj. For centuries, Jharkhand has been known as a “land of resistance” where people’s memories were shaped by the rebellions of Birsa Munda, Sidhu-Kanhu and Tana Bhagat among others. “The whole history of my people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India, punctuated by rebellions and disorder,” Marang Gomke Jaipal Singh Munda on January 24, 1947, told the Constituent Assembly as the only representative of India’s indigenous people, whom he called the “unrecognised warriors of freedom”. Indeed, the Ulgulan of 1899-90 led by Birsa had forced the Britishers to acknowledge the separate identity of Adivasis with the enactment of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act in 1908, which later became a major safeguard for the Adivasi lands.

Proudly embracing the moniker “jungli” (a pejorative for forest-dweller bordering on “primate”), Jaipal Singh Munda told the Constituent Assembly, “Most of you here are intruders as far as I am concerned… the newcomers who have driven away my people from the Indus Valley to the jungle fastnesses.” After almost 77 years, Hemant Soren invoked similar sentiments following his arrest. “They consider us jungli; they cannot digest the fact that an Adivasi can ride a BMW,” he said. Indeed, the sense of “Adivasiyat” lies in taking pride in being the land’s original inhabitants who always resisted attempts to tinker with their culture, religion or language.

The Jharkhandi Adivasi’s political consciousness could be traced back to 1921, when Dulu Manki from Chaibasa became the first Adivasi representative from central India in the first legislative assembly that was formed. After a big setback in the 1937 assembly elections that they contested under the banners of various parties, the indigenous people came together to form the Adivasi Mahasabha and consolidated Adivasi votes in consecutive elections.

“More than 70 organisations led by Thakkar Bapa were trying to ‘Hinduise’ the Adivasis in the 1940s,” says Pankaj. “However, they were identified for what they truly were. Since then, right-wing parties could never garner a majority in Jharkhand’s Adivasi-majority seats.” The JMM deployed the ‘outsider’ pitch quite extensively, centring it around “Abua Sarkar” (our government)—a phrase first used by Birsa. In 1899-90, thousands of his followers had proclaimed “Diku Raj tuntu jana, Abua Raj ete jana” (The rule of outsiders is over, our self-rule has begun). Invoking that history seemingly worked to the JMM’s advantage, as the INDIA coalition won 27 out of the 28 ST-reserved seats. Even at the peak of the Modi wave that swept the country in 2014, the BJP had won only 11 of these seats. The number fell to two in the 2019 assembly election, and the party couldn’t open its account in the 2024 Lok Sabha election.

“This time the BJP tried to downplay the issue of ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ on the pretext of Bangladeshi infiltration but, after Hemant Soren’s arrest, the issue re-emerged in the minds of Adivasis who ended up seeing the saffron party as an anti-Adivasi outsider and voted against its candidates,” says Ranjit Mahli, who teaches political science at Nilamber-Pitamber University, Medininagar.

Moreover, the memory of the JMM-led statehood movement is still rife, and so is the affinity among different communities. “Jharkhand is a state of ‘Andolankaris’ (movement people),” says social activist Shamim S. Ali. “People gave their lives for statehood. And so many from other states have come here and bought land. Therefore, the infiltrator narrative just doesn’t hold water.” Those who participated in the statehood movement are now mostly in their 50s and 60s. “They will never forget those who tried to play divisive politics in Jharkhand even during the statehood movement,” says an Andolankari.

Though Jharkhand has often seen sectarian disturbances during Ram Navami, the only major riot that the state witnessed was in 1967. Since then, the mobilisation for separate statehood didn’t leave much ground for any sectarian agenda. As the son of Shibu Soren, a leading voice in the statehood movement, Hemant Soren, helming the JMM campaign, was also a nudge to walk the nostalgia street. “His father fought for statehood. How can we just leave him when he needs us the most?” asks the Andolankari.

Referring to the history of Adivasi resistance, senior journalist Faisal Anurag says, “There is continuity in their struggle of 150 years. The rebellions of Tilka Manjhi, Sidhu-Kanhu, Birsa Munda or the Ho of Chaibasa are all testimony to this. The Jharkhandi Adivasis’ traditional system, socio-political identity and style of living differentiate them from the indigenous people in other states. The sense of the collective is their biggest strength that even the British had to acknowledge when they could not bring them under their system and had to make laws like the CNT for their separate tribal system.”

The BJP’s efforts to pit Adivasis against Muslims in Jharkhand found little traction as their mutual social relationship dates back to the 13th century. While Adivasis were skilled in agriculture, the Muslims, mostly Ansaris, complemented them with their weaving skills, building a transactional relationship that gradually snowballed into cultural and political bonhomie. “The Bangladeshis who came to Jharkhand during 1962-71 were mostly Hindus,” says Ali. “Adivasis share a long camaraderie with Muslims in districts like Pakur and Sahebgunj. How can they believe that Muslims are infiltrators? During 2017-18, the then CM Raghubar Das asked the Indian Institute of Management to conduct a survey on alleged conversions. Adivasis who converted to Hinduism were found to be far more than those who embraced Islam.”

(This appeared in the print as 'A State of Difference')