Soren’s government faces its most daunting test in the coming years. It must rise above the political fray and deliver on promises made to the tribal communities, while simultaneously challenging the forces of corporate hegemony. Over the next five years, the credibility of ‘Abua Sarkar’ will hinge on its ability to navigate this delicate balancing act, transforming itself into ‘Abua Raj.’

The Domicile Policy Debate: A Political Tug of War

The preceding tenure of Soren’s government witnessed the passage of the much-debated 1932 Khatiyan-based domicile bill, a policy aimed to safeguard the rights of Jharkhand’s original inhabitants. The bill linked eligibility for third- and fourth-grade government jobs to the 1932 land records, which was perceived by many as a necessary safeguard to protect indigenous rights. However, the policy encountered considerable resistance, particularly from those whose names were not included in the land ownership records. This bill was subsequently forwarded to the Union government for inclusion in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. Yet, the political quagmire surrounding its effective implementation remains an ongoing challenge.

Jharkhand’s Kolhan division, which encompasses West and East Singhbhum and Saraikela-Kharsawan, is particularly impacted by this policy. The 1932 Khatiyan-based domicile law would render an estimated 45 lakh people in Kolhan district effectively landless. The survey settlements carried out between 1964 and 1970 are not recognised as part of the 1932 records, further complicating the situation. Despite these formidable challenges, the Soren government has an opportunity to leverage this issue politically, presenting itself as a staunch defender of tribal rights, while positioning the Union government as a foe to the indigenous cause.

The Sarna Dharma Code: A Quest for Religious Identity

One of the most pivotal demands emanating from Jharkhand’s tribal communities is the recognition of their distinct religious identity through the Sarna Dharma Code. At present, tribals are categorised as either Hindus, Christians, or “Other,” thus diluting their unique religious practices and traditions. A separate code for the Sarna religion would ensure the recognition of tribal religious beliefs as a distinct identity, rooted in an intimate connection with nature and ecological harmony.

However, the Union government has been reluctant to endorse this demand, primarily due to concerns that recognising Sarna as a separate religion could provoke similar demands from other communities, leading to social fragmentation. Despite this hesitation, the call for a Sarna Dharma Code continues to grow louder, with tribal leaders arguing that this recognition is essential to preserve their cultural and spiritual practices. The issue also highlights the deep connection between tribal identity and their unique relationship with the environment, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Vedanta mining case in Odisha that protected the religious rights of local tribal populations.

Land Acquisition and the Land Bank Controversy: A Struggle for Land Rights

The issue of land acquisition remains one of the most contentious topics in Jharkhand’s political discourse, with the land bank policy being at the heart of the debate. The land bank was established under the previous Raghubar Das government to facilitate the acquisition of land for corporate projects, including mining. It included non-cultivated, common and religious lands, much to the displeasure of local tribal communities, who argue that these lands belong to the Gram Sabhas and should not be used for corporate gain. The Soren government, in its 2019 manifesto, promised to repeal the land bank law, but the task of delivering on this promise has proven more difficult than anticipated.

The creation of the land bank, along with the relaxation of the social impact assessment process, was intended to ease land acquisition for corporate interests. However, this has led to widespread protests from the local population, particularly tribal communities, who believe that their ancestral lands are being sold off to corporate entities without their consent. The state’s dependence on revenue from mining further complicates the issue as the mining industry holds considerable sway over local politics. Although the Soren government has expressed its intention to repeal the land bank, it remains to be seen whether it can fully implement this promise, given the entrenched interests at play.

In addition to the land bank controversy, the issue of illegal land transfers remains a major concern in Jharkhand. A report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in 2021 uncovered the illegal transfer of over 21,000 acres of tribal land to non-tribals. Despite the gravity of the findings, no concrete action has been taken by the Soren government to rectify the situation. The political influence of those involved in these illegal transactions has hampered the government’s ability to take action, leaving the affected communities in a state of limbo.

The Soren government is under immense pressure to address this issue, particularly by enforcing the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996, and the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Both these laws grant Gram Sabhas the authority to control land, water and forest resources, providing a powerful mechanism for tribal communities to assert their rights. However, despite their significance, the Jharkhand government has failed to implement these laws effectively. The delay in the implementation of PESA and FRA continues to undermine the rights of tribal communities, allowing corporate interests to operate unchecked.

The PESA and the FRA: A Missed Opportunity for Empowerment

The Union government has even threatened to withhold funds from Jharkhand for its failure to implement PESA, but the state government continues to prioritise corporate interests over the rights of local communities. The Soren government must act swiftly to implement these laws, as its failure to do so will leave tribal communities vulnerable to exploitation.

By implementing PESA and FRA, the government would not only empower local communities, but also ensure that development projects—particularly in the mining and industrial sectors—do not proceed without the explicit consent of the affected Gram Sabhas. This would mark a significant step forward to protect the rights of Jharkhand’s tribal population, but it would also require the government to challenge powerful corporate interests that have long had a stranglehold over the state’s political and economic landscape.

Navigating the Complexities of Community vs Corporate Interests

As Jharkhand moves forward, the government faces the daunting task of balancing the needs of its tribal communities with the pressures from corporate entities. The domicile policy, the Sarna Dharma Code, land acquisition laws and the protection of tribal land rights are deeply interconnected with the identity and survival of Jharkhand’s indigenous communities. Soren’s government must demonstrate the political will to uphold these rights, despite the numerous obstacles in its path.

The journey from ‘Abua Sarkar’ to ‘Abua Raj’ is not a simple one. It requires the Soren government to act decisively and courageously in the face of powerful corporate forces, while remaining steadfast in its commitment to the welfare of Jharkhand’s tribal and indigenous communities. Over the next five years, the success or failure of this political experiment will determine the future of Jharkhand’s governance model and its tribal communities’ rights.

The time for action is now. If the Soren government can navigate these challenges and deliver on its promises, it will solidify its place in history as a champion of tribal rights and social justice. However, the stakes are high, and the road ahead remains uncertain. The coming years will determine whether ‘Abua Sarkar’ can indeed evolve into ‘Abua Raj.’

(Views expressed are personal)

Sudhir Pal is a Senior Journalist and a Political Commentator

(This appeared in the print as 'The Adivasi Code')