Introduction: Custom and Codification

The recent protests by members of the Ho tribe in Jharkhand’s Kolhan region over alleged state interference in the Manki-Munda system bring to the fore deeper issues of tribal autonomy, customary governance, and post-colonial state integration. The episode is not an isolated protest but reflects a larger historical and sociological struggle between indigenous self-rule and bureaucratic modernity.

Manki-Munda system as a case of tribal governance, contextualizes it within colonial and post-colonial transformations, and analyzes the present tensions through the lenses of tribal sociology, legal pluralism, resistance theory, and cultural autonomy.

The Manki-Munda System: An Indigenous Sociopolitical Order

The Manki-Munda system is a centuries-old, hereditary and decentralized tribal governance framework practiced by the Ho tribe in Jharkhand’s Kolhan region.

• Munda: Head of a single village, responsible for dispute resolution, social cohesion, and community rituals.
• Manki: Oversees a group of 8–15 villages (pidh), handling inter-village conflicts and higher-level issues.

Key Features:

• No taxation or revenue role, unlike the state’s Panchayati Raj institutions.
• Built on collective identity, oral tradition, and clan-based authority structures.
• Rooted in tribal customary law, operating outside codified legal frameworks.

From a sociological standpoint, this system is an embodiment of mechanical solidarity (Émile Durkheim), where cohesion arises from shared traditions, collective beliefs, and kinship.

Colonial Transformation and Codification: The British Co-option of Tribal Authority

Following the East India Company’s takeover post-1764 (Battle of Buxar), colonial intervention in tribal lands began through taxation and Permanent Settlement (1793). This led to:

• Alienation of communal land.
• Rise of Zamindars and dikkus (outsiders).
• Massive tribal uprisings—Ho Rebellion (1821–22) and Kol Uprising (1831–33).

Rather than eliminating the Manki-Munda system, the British co-opted and codified it in Wilkinson’s Rules (1833), under Captain Thomas Wilkinson. This reflects Antonio Gramsci’s concept of passive revolution—where colonial powers integrated indigenous elites (Mankis/Mundas) to stabilize rule without transformative change.

This codification served multiple colonial objectives:

• Control over rebellious areas.
• Surveillance through native functionaries.
• Use of customary authority to legitimize British power.

From a Foucauldian lens, this was an instance of governmentality—the art of governing not just through coercion, but by structuring the field of possible action of others, using native institutions.

Post-Independence Legal Pluralism and the Question of Customary Law

Post-1947, the Indian state largely retained Wilkinson’s Rules in Kolhan, recognizing them as valid customary practices. This is an example of legal pluralism—the coexistence of multiple legal systems (formal law, customary law, religious law).

However, the Patna High Court’s judgment in Mora Ho v. State of Bihar (2000) clarified that Wilkinson’s Rules are not statutory law, but customary—thus offering soft recognition, not legal enforceability.

Implications:

• Undermines the legal standing of Mankis and Mundas.
• Allows for state encroachment, as their roles aren’t constitutionally protected.
• Reinforces a hierarchy of law, where codified, state-sanctioned law dominates indigenous systems.

Sally Falk Moore’s concept of the “semi-autonomous social field” is apt here: the Manki-Munda system operates within the state’s larger legal domain but retains relative autonomy, now increasingly threatened.

The Present Protest: Crisis of Legitimacy and Tribal Assertion

In 2024, tensions have escalated due to:

• Vacant hereditary posts, weakening leadership continuity.
• Demands for reform from within (e.g., addressing inefficiencies).
• Administrative encroachment, with the state allegedly bypassing traditional authorities.

The Nyay Manch initiative (2021) proposed integrating the system into modern structures but was never enacted. This institutional limbo has frustrated the Ho community, who view the state’s silence or interference as a denial of self-governance rights.

Sociological Analysis:

• Weber’s traditional authority is being undermined by the rational-legal authority of the state.
• Clash of epistemologies: Oral, performative, relational modes of tribal justice versus abstract, codified, bureaucratic law.
• The Ho protest is a form of identity assertion and cultural resistance, reclaiming indigenous sovereignty in governance.

Tribal Identity, Cultural Ecology, and Land

For the Ho people, governance is not just political—it is embedded in their cultural ecology, worldview, and relationship with land.

• They are among the earliest adivasi groups to adopt settled agriculture.
• Sal forests are ecologically and spiritually central; the community resists teak plantations that threaten biodiversity and ritual spaces.
• Festivals like Mage Parab, Sohrai, and Jomnama Parab are deeply tied to seasonal cycles, land, and communal life.

Clifford Geertz’s interpretive sociology reminds us that systems like Manki-Munda are “webs of meaning.” Administrative reforms that treat them as outdated or inefficient miss their symbolic and moral dimensions.

State-Tribe Relations: From Integration to Contestation

The Indian state’s approach toward tribal governance has shifted from integrationist to developmentalist and now increasingly to extractive, especially in mineral-rich areas like Jharkhand.

Key Issues:

• Mining and displacement often occur without adequate consultation with tribal authorities.
• PESA Act (1996) and Fifth Schedule protections are poorly implemented.
• Bureaucratic institutions often override traditional ones in land acquisition, forest rights, and public service delivery.

The Manki-Munda protest thus becomes a site of contestation—between:

• Top-down development vs. bottom-up governance.
• Technocratic rationality vs. customary legitimacy.
• Assimilationist nationalism vs. pluralist democracy.

Resistance, Identity Politics, and the Assertion of Adivasi Modernity

The Ho protest isn’t anti-modern—it reflects a plural modernity, where indigenous governance structures seek recognition, reform, and relevance.

• Rejection of outdated hierarchies within the Manki-Munda system is being debated within the tribe itself.
• There’s a push for women’s participation, better training, and hybrid models.
• Many youth leaders advocate digital documentation of customary laws, showing that tradition and technology need not be oppositional.

From a subaltern perspective (Ranajit Guha, Partha Chatterjee), these movements represent the politics of the governed—not merely demanding inclusion, but contesting the very terms of inclusion.

Lessons for Sociological Understanding and Policy

• Customary Systems Need Empowerment, Not Erasure

Rather than bypassing or diluting them, the state should legally recognize, fund, and train customary bodies to enhance governance.

• Decentralization Must Be Respectful

State decentralization (via PRIs) should not come at the cost of de-indigenizing tribal governance.

• Intersectionality is Key

Policies must recognize how caste, tribe, gender, and region intersect to create diverse experiences within Adivasi communities.

• Cultural Rights are Political Rights

Festivals, forests, and traditional laws are not cultural footnotes; they are central to tribal citizenship and political agency.

Sociological Thinkers’ Perspectives on the Manki-Munda System & Adivasi Resistance

• Émile Durkheim – Mechanical Solidarity
  • Tribal cohesion in the Ho community is based on shared customs, kinship, and collective rituals.
  • The Manki-Munda system reflects traditional forms of social integration, not contractual or state-based.
• Max Weber – Types of Authority
  • The Manki-Munda system is rooted in traditional authority, passed down through heredity and social legitimacy.
  • Conflict arises as the rational-legal authority of the modern bureaucratic state challenges this traditional structure.
• Michel Foucault – Governmentality
  • The state’s attempts to “modernize” or regulate tribal governance reflect disciplinary power that reshapes how communities govern themselves.
  • Governance becomes about control through institutions and rules, not just laws.
• Antonio Gramsci – Passive Revolution
  • The colonial codification of the Manki-Munda system (e.g. Wilkinson’s Rules) is a form of co-optation, where dominant powers absorb indigenous structures without real transformation in power dynamics.
• Sally Falk Moore – Semi-Autonomous Social Fields
  • The Manki-Munda system exists as a semi-autonomous legal and social space, interacting with but not fully absorbed by state law.
  • Current tensions show this autonomy is under strain from state and legal intrusion.
• Subaltern Studies (Ranajit Guha, Partha Chatterjee)
  • The protest is not simply about resistance, but about asserting indigenous political modernity.
  • It challenges the state’s monopoly over legitimacy, demanding recognition of alternative governance models rooted in tribal culture.

Conclusion: Reimagining the Indian State through the Lens of Tribal Autonomy

The Manki-Munda protests are not just about a tribal institution—they are about what kind of democracy India aspires to be. A democracy that includes only codified, state-centric systems cannot accommodate the plural realities of its people.

Adivasi systems like that of the Ho are not relics—they are living institutions, adaptable and evolving. Recognizing their value offers not just justice to India’s tribal citizens but also enriches the moral and institutional repertoire of Indian democracy.