Prelims (Polity–Fifth Schedule/PESA/FRA; Tribal culture; Jharkhand geography); Mains GS-I (tribal society/history), GS-II (governance in Scheduled Areas), GS-III (land/forest rights, mining)

Why in the news 

The Ho community in Kolhan region of southern Jharkhand (mainly West Singhbhum) recently protested, saying the district administration was interfering with their traditional village governance. The complaint came after directions from the Deputy Commissioner reminding village heads of duties and asking for more transparency. Many Ho people felt this touched their autonomy.
Why this matters: it sits at the meeting point of customary tribal self-rule, British-era rules that still apply, and modern district administration.

• Ho community: a major tribal group of Kolhan.
  
• Munda: hereditary village head who manages local order and everyday disputes.
  
• Manki: leader above a cluster of villages (often eight to fifteen, called a pidh). The Manki coordinates Mundas and handles issues between villages.

The Socio- political System of the Tribe 

Long before the British arrived, the Ho people used a community-based, decentralised system. Authority was close to the people and rested on trust in local elders.

Everyday working :

• Disputes and duties: The Munda and the village council settle small quarrels, share community work, protect common land and forests, and speak to outsiders on behalf of the village.
  
• Larger matters: When a problem spans many villages, the Manki brings the concerned Mundas together and steers a joint decision.
  
• Hereditary post with social consent: The role passes in a family line, but it survives only because the village accepts it.
  
• Consensus first: The aim is to finish matters inside the community before going to outside offices.
  

This setup gave people quick access to justice that spoke their language and matched their way of life.

British period, revenue pressure and Wilkinson’s Rules 

After the Company gained power in eastern India in the late eighteenth century, it pushed land revenue through zamindars. Outsiders began taking land, and heavy demands led to revolts in the early nineteenth century (including Ho uprisings of 1821–22 and 1831). When force did not solve the problem, the British tried a new method: write down the local system and use it.

In 1837, Captain Thomas Wilkinson drafted thirty-one rules, now called Wilkinson’s Rules. These rules:

• Recognised the powers of Mankis and Mundas for village order and small disputes.
  
• Connected the customary system to colonial officers, so serious cases or appeals could rise upwards.
  
• Allowed limited integration of outsiders and administrative procedures without breaking the tribal structure.
  
• Began issuing individual land deeds in many places, creating clearer ownership on paper.
  

Effect: the Manki–Munda system became a codified part of administration in Kolhan instead of a mere custom.

After Independence: continuity, friction, and the current flashpoint

Independent India did not scrap Wilkinson’s Rules in Kolhan. Courts and governments have treated them as still applicable because no full replacement law was enacted for this region. A pilot Nyay Manch model was tested, but a permanent alternative has not taken shape.

Why friction happens today

• The customary system moves by discussion and social consent; the district administration needs forms, registers, clear timelines, and standard signatures.
  
• Land and forest rights now sit inside paper-heavy procedures. If a Munda is inactive or hard to reach, villagers face delays in certificates, land papers, or benefit schemes.
  
• In recent complaints, villagers said they were not getting documents on time. The administration responded with a nine-point directive reminding Mundas of duties recorded historically and asking for transparency. Many people saw this as interference, and protests followed.
  

Bottom line: both sides want order and justice; they differ on how to reach it.

What Works, What does not, and a Reform Approach 

Strengths of the system

• High social trust: people accept decisions from known elders; this reduces day-to-day conflict.
  
• Cultural fit and speed: small disputes are settled near home, often faster than formal courts.
  
• Collective responsibility: protection of common resources is easier when rules come from within the community.
  

Limits and pain points

• Hereditary posts: hard to correct if an office-holder is inactive or unfair.
  
• Education and paperwork gap: some leaders struggle with today’s document-based administration.
  
• Overlap and confusion: villagers are unsure when to approach the Munda, the panchayat, or the Deputy Commissioner.
  
• Inclusion worries: women, landless people, and non-tribal tenants seek a clearer voice and protection.

Reforms that respects tradition and serves citizens

• Community consent and accountability: keep the cultural line but add a gram sabha confirmation for each Munda or Manki; allow community review when performance is poor.
  
• Simple registers and timelines: a one-page village register for applications and decisions; basic time limits for common tasks (issue of certificates, forwarding land papers).
  
• Joint benches for tough cases: Munda + one woman member + one youth member and a trained paralegal or revenue worker from the block office.
  
• Capacity building in local language: short trainings on land records, forest rights, and public schemes; picture-based guides for easy reference.
  
• Digital help without exclusion: a village help desk that uploads forms and tracks file numbers, and keeps a paper copy for people without smartphones.
  
• Clear map of “who signs what”: written chart at the village notice board—Munda’s role, panchayat role, when the matter must go to the block or district office, and when the police must be informed.
  
• Grievance ladder: Munda → Manki → notified district officer, with expected time limits at each step.
  

This approach keeps the soul of the Manki–Munda system while making it work smoothly with a twenty-first-century democracy.

Exam Hook

Key Takeawys

• Core theme: Kolhan shows how indigenous self-rule can live with the modern state if roles and processes are clearly written and regularly updated.
  
• History hook: tribal resistance to revenue pressure led to Wilkinson’s Rules (1837), which turned custom into recognised local administration.
  
• Current affairs hook: protests reflect fear of interference versus the state’s push for transparency and timely service delivery.
  
• Way forward: protect autonomy, add community-backed accountability, create simple records and timelines, and build joint forums for complex issues.
  

The Manki–Munda system grew from the Ho people’s own needs and has deep social legitimacy. British rule did not remove it; it wrote it down. Independent India still operates with that bridge in Kolhan, which is why the system shapes daily life even now. The path ahead is not either–or: let communities lead, while the state helps with clear rules, simple records, and time-bound services.

Mains Question: “Kolhan’s Manki–Munda system shows that customary self-rule and modern administration can co-exist, but only with clear roles and accountability.” Discuss with history, present challenges, and reforms.
Answer outline (use as headings in your answer):

• Context: recent protests; autonomy vs transparency.
  
• History: uprisings, Wilkinson’s Rules (1837) codifying Manki–Munda authority.
  
• Working today: Munda (village), Manki (cluster), strengths of trust and cultural fit.
  
• Challenges: hereditary posts, paperwork gap, overlap with panchayat and district offices, inclusion issues.
  
• Reforms: gram sabha confirmation, simple registers and timelines, joint benches, capacity building, digital help with paper copy, clear “who signs what”, grievance ladder.
  
• Conclusion: balance autonomy and accountability; make Kolhan a model for respectful integration of custom and democracy.

Prelims Question:
Which of the following is correct about Wilkinson’s Rules in Kolhan?
A. They abolished the roles of Manki and Munda.
B. They recognised Manki and Munda authority and linked it to colonial administration.
C. They created elected panchayats across Kolhan.
D. They applied only to forest offences and nothing else.
Answer: B. The rules acknowledged local leaders and connected the customary system with the colonial administration; they did not abolish the posts or create elected panchayats.