Why in news?
In September 2025 members of the Ho tribe in Jharkhand’s Kolhan region protested against the removal of some Mundas (village heads), alleging state interference in their traditional Manki–Munda self‑governance system.
Origin and history
The Manki–Munda system is a hereditary tribal institution that predates colonial rule. It operates through two tiers: the Munda, who heads a single village, and the Manki, who oversees a pidh (a group of 8–15 villages). Disputes are resolved through customary law, and decisions are made collectively in village assemblies.
During the early 19th century, Ho tribals rebelled against British intrusion. Realising that direct control was unsustainable, the British codified the system through Captain Thomas Wilkinson’s Rules in 1833 and applied them to the Kolhan Government Estate in 1837. This arrangement appointed Mankis and Mundas as intermediaries, allowing the British to collect revenue while preserving tribal autonomy. After Independence, Indian courts have generally permitted the system to continue due to a lack of alternative local governance mechanisms.
How it works
- Munda: A hereditary head who settles social and land disputes within a village.
- Manki: The head of a pidh who hears appeals from village decisions and coordinates among villages.
- Community participation: Decisions are made in open meetings resembling gram sabhas, fostering consensus and social cohesion.
Key features
- Hereditary leadership: Offices pass from father to son, ensuring continuity of customary practices.
- Cultural autonomy: The system safeguards Ho identity, land rights and traditions, operating parallel to statutory panchayats.
- Legal recognition: Courts have upheld Wilkinson’s Rules, acknowledging the absence of a more suitable framework and the system’s legitimacy in tribal areas.
Contemporary relevance
The Manki–Munda system illustrates how customary governance can coexist with modern law. However, conflicts arise when state authorities interfere or when hereditary leaders are perceived as unresponsive. Any reform should involve tribal communities, respect constitutional protections under the Fifth Schedule and balance autonomy with accountability.