Acute tensions flared in the Deuria village in Bansihari, South Dinajpur, on Saturday, May 9 after unidentified persons damaged statues of tribal freedom fighters Sidhu Murmu and Kanhu Murmu on Friday and reported placed BJP flags at the site. The vandalism triggered protests by members of the tribal community who accused BJP supporters, reported The Telegraph.
The outraged demonstrators damaged some shops and a BJP office, setting fire to party flags, chairs and tables. Local residents said the statues of Sidhu and Kanhu — revered figures of the Santhal rebellion against British rule — had been installed nearly a decade ago.
“This morning, we saw that the hands of the statues of Sidhu and Kanhu had been broken and BJP flags had been placed there. From this, we suspected BJP involvement,” said Khudiram Mardi, a protester. This led to public outrage and hundreds of agitated villagers, many carrying bows, arrows, sticks and brooms, blocked the Buniadpur–Daulatpur road with bamboo barricades. Women were seen leading much of the demonstration.
Last Saturday, protesters started with a road blockade began around 7am, bringing traffic to a halt. A large contingent from Bansihari police station, along with central forces and combat personnel, rushed to the spot. The protesters demanded that those responsible for damaging the statues be immediately identified and given strict punishment. The officers assured them that necessary steps would be taken, and the blockade was withdrawn around 11.30 am.
The matter turned into a slugfest between the now ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Trinamool Congress (TMC). While the BJP was quick to deny any involvement, the Trinamool leaders brushed aside the claims.
West Bengal and Adivasi rights
West Bengal, of which South Dinajpur is a part is affected by the Sonthal Parganas Act, 1855 is a classic example of a colonial law, not yet repealed. Enacted by the British as a response to the Santhal uprising against the East India Company, the Act excludes certain districts in the erstwhile Bengal Presidency from the application of the ‘general Regulations and Acts of Government’. This exclusion is based on a simple premise – Santhals are too ‘uncivilised’ a people to be governed by the legal system. This is shockingly even stated explicitly in the preamble of the Act.
What was the Santhal uprising and who were its leaders? A vibrant protest and rebellion in this region in colonial times with Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu as its heroes but who have rarely featured in any Indian history book. Ironically, the Sonthal Parganas Act, 1855 remains prominent in another book – the Indian statute book.
Indian Adivasis including those who live in several districts of West Bengal are inflicted with certain laws. For instance the 1952 Habitual Offenders’ Model Bill that replaced the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 and served as the basis for state-level Habitual Offenders’ Acts; while the previous law, the 1871 Act described certain tribes as ‘addicted to the systematic commission of … offences’ and enabled the government to notify them as ‘criminal tribes’. Using this power, nearly 200 tribes were branded hereditary criminals. However, with the repeal of this Act, the ‘criminal tribes’ came to be ‘de-notified’. As one would expect, the Habitual Offenders’ Acts, unlike their colonial counterpart, do not explicitly single out these tribes. However, in practice, not much has changed. In almost every state where Habitual Offenders’ Acts are in force, individuals belonging to the de-notified tribes have been disproportionately targeted. The substantive provisions are worryingly similar to those in the 1871 Act.
There is also the hindrance caused by the old colonial idea of primitivism continues under the guise of protecting cultural autonomy. The Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution lay out a set of special provisions for tribal areas. Among other things, governors are empowered to prevent or modify the application of both central and state laws to these scheduled areas.
These areas were previously ‘typically and really backward tracts’ under the Government of India Act, 1919 and ‘partially and wholly excluded areas’ under the Government of India Act, 1935.
It has been argued that both the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution perpetuate the language, and more worryingly, the patronising logic of these colonial statutes – that there is a need to ‘protect’ the tribal population and ‘help’ them. If that means keep them in a state of permanent exception away from the regular legal system intended for all citizens, so be it.
This is not to say that it is not the duty of the government to address the social and educational backwardness affecting members of the tribal population. But the starting point cannot be one of protection or assimilation, but rather respect and equality.
Sardar Patel, echoed Jaipal Singh Munda and grasped this instinctively in the Constituent Assembly, “All the laws that have given them protection are there. But have they protected them?” If the aim is to disrupt colonial continuities and decolonise our laws, the first step is to decolonise our minds.
Related:
Bengal after the Ballot: Fear, retaliation and the politics of territorial power