Session 113 summary
In his PhD fieldwork, Aashish conducted research in both Ranchi and Shillong. He selected these locations because Ranchi falls under the fifth schedule of the Indian Constitution, while Shillong is under the sixth schedule. At the outset of his PhD journey, Aashish pondered the rationale behind examining urban spaces in tribal areas. He realized that while extensive research existed on the acquisition of tribal land for industrial, irrigation, and mining projects, there was limited research on land procurement in the context of urban development in tribal regions across India. Thus, his focus was to explore the modalities and mechanisms of land procurement in the context of urban development, specifically in the emerging capital townships of Greater Ranchi and New Shillong. Employing a comparative perspective, he examined the processes of land acquisition and their implications on constitutional and legal rights, entitlements, governance modalities, and the articulation of issues by Adivasi and indigenous communities.
In his presentation, Aashish aims to compare the features and processes of urban development in Ranchi and Shillong. He focuses on nine key issues within this context. Firstly, he situates Ranchi and Shillong within their historical contexts. Secondly, exploring their land ownership systems. Thirdly, he discusses post-independence urban development in both locations. Fourthly, he examines constitutional provisions related to urbanization. Fifthly, he delves into the rationale behind the establishment of new townships. Sixthly, he analyzes the legal intricacies surrounding urban development. Seventhly, he explores the various stakeholders involved in urban development processes. Eighthly, he addresses governance issues within the context of urbanization. Finally, he discusses the politics surrounding the masterplan and its role as a gateway for new development projects.
Situating Ranchi and Shillong in the larger political context
When examining Ranchi and Shillong, both regions were formerly part of Bihar and Assam, respectively. The Jharkhand movement, considered the longest tribal movement in India, began in the late 1920s and gained momentum in the 1930s. The primary impetus behind this movement stemmed from the increasing influx of non-tribal populations into Jharkhand for resource exploitation, resulting in significant land and resource loss for the indigenous tribes. Under the leadership of figures like Jaipal Singh Munda, there was a concerted effort to establish autonomous states where tribal communities could assert their rights. Despite a protracted struggle, Jharkhand attained statehood in 2000, albeit with the indigenous tribes becoming minorities in their own state.
In contrast, Shillong witnessed a movement for autonomy starting in the 1960s. This movement was catalyzed by the Indian government’s post-independence development agenda for tribal areas, particularly in Assam (now Meghalaya), which was governed under the sixth schedule. However, the autonomous district council faced challenges in obtaining sufficient financial support from the Assam government for development activities. Additionally, there was a contentious move by the Assam government in the 1960s to introduce Assamese as the official language, further exacerbating tensions. These factors fueled disgruntlement among the Khasis, Garos, and Jaintia tribes, leading to the autonomy movement in the 1960s and eventual achievement of autonomy for Meghalaya in the 1970s. Unlike Jharkhand, tribal communities in Meghalaya constitute the majority population, with the non-tribal population being almost negligible.
To comprehend the contemporary land ownership dynamics in Ranchi and Shillong, it is imperative to delve into their historical contexts. Noted historian Irfan Habib has underscored that Jharkhand, comprising the eastern portion of the vast topography known as the Great Indian Forest, largely remained beyond the purview of the British Empire and the small kingdoms in the plains. While a loose connection with emerging princely states was established in the 16th century, the indigenous communities, known as Adivasis, residing in the Chotanagpur plateau were primarily settled agriculturalists and descendants of the pioneer settlers.
In his fieldwork, Aashish focused on two tribes, the Oraons and the Mundas, each with distinct land ownership systems: Khuntkatti among the Mundas and Bhuinhari among the Oraon tribes. These systems, organized around villages and communities, significantly shaped the geographic expansion of the region. However, with the advent of British rule and the introduction of the land revenue system, a transformative shift occurred. The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 marked the first instance of land being transferred into private ownership, with kings, zamindars, jagirdars, and thekedars assuming ownership while fixed revenues were settled permanently.
This upheaval disrupted traditional land ownership patterns, as the Mundas and Oraons lost ownership rights over their lands, making way for newcomers, primarily from northern Bihar, who were more adept and entrepreneurial in agriculture. The British colonial administration, seeking to transform land relations, fostered a trusteeship dynamic between villages and the Empire, aligning with their interests in agricultural productivity.
Thus, the villages served as trustees of the British Empire, facilitating the transformation of land to further British interests. This arrangement sparked a series of tribal revolts, beginning as early as 1757 and continuing into the early 20th century. It’s noteworthy to correct the common misconception perpetuated by some Indian historians that the Indian rebellion of 1857 marked the first uprising against British rule. In truth, the first resistance occurred in 1757. Throughout this period, figures like Siddhu Kanu and Birsa Munda led movements against British dominance. The British eventually realized that the indigenous communities, or Adivasis, inhabiting these regions differed significantly from the caste-based societies encountered in the fertile Gangetic plains. Unlike their counterparts, the Adivasis’ economic and spiritual lives were deeply intertwined with the land. Due to their unique relationship with the land, Adivasi communities exhibit distinct land ownership patterns not commonly found elsewhere. Recognizing this, the British implemented legislative measures tailored to these regions. In central India, where Adivasi tribes interacted more frequently with caste communities, the British designated large tracts as partially excluded areas. In contrast, the northeast, where such interactions were less prevalent, was labeled as excluded areas. This distinction acknowledged the historical differences in social dynamics and land use practices between the two regions.
The designation of partially excluded areas in central India and excluded areas in the Northeast during the colonial era laid the groundwork for their subsequent incorporation into the fifth and sixth schedules of the Indian constitution post-independence.
Turning attention to Shillong, during the advent of British colonization, three distinct land tenure systems were established, which persist to this day. These systems comprise the Ri-Raid land or community land, the Ri-Kur land (clan land), and the Ri-Kynti land (individual land). Upon Shillong being designated the administrative headquarters of the Assam province by the British, lands were leased in key areas such as Police Bazaar, Bara Bazaar, Jail Road, and the European wards. Shillong’s strategic significance for the British administration stemmed from its role as a pivotal hub for trade and commerce with Southeast Asia. This geographical advantage facilitated trade connections extending from Burma and Bhutan to Southeast Asian nations like Thailand and Malaysia, positioning Shillong as a gateway to expanding trade networks and accessing larger economic markets. Recognizing the strategic significance of Shillong, the British administration concluded that maintaining control over the region necessitated non-interference with existing land ownership patterns. Consequently, while tribal revolts occurred in Meghalaya, their scale was notably less compared to those witnessed in Jharkhand. This disparity can be attributed to the perception that Jharkhand lacked the strategic importance of Shillong in facilitating international trade and commerce.
Given Shillong’s role as a gateway to international trading networks, the British understood that preserving the loyalty of the tribes required respecting traditional land ownership structures. As a result, to this day, the land ownership patterns in the region remain largely unchanged. To this day, the land ownership patterns observed in Shillong largely resemble those established during the British colonial era. Despite differences, certain commonalities between Ranchi and Shillong persist. Both cities served as administrative headquarters and were designated as summer capitals of their respective regions. Furthermore, they emerged as significant hubs for education and military operations. Shillong, in particular, has maintained its status as a prominent educational center for the entire Northeast region. Additionally, both cities housed garrison cantonment centers and fell under non-regulated tracks. This designation, connected to the previously mentioned excluded and partially excluded areas, meant that laws passed in the British Parliament applied to these regions without local legislative oversight.
During colonial times, laws passed in the British Parliament were not automatically applicable to these areas; instead, they underwent scrutiny by local governing forces. Only after thorough examination were such laws permitted to be enforced in these regions. Transitioning to the post-independence era, Ranchi, renowned for its abundant mineral resources, has long been considered a resource-rich state. However, despite its wealth of resources, the benefits of this abundance have often eluded the local populace. Both during colonial rule and in the post-independence period, the state has primarily benefited from the extraction and exploitation of these resources. Following India’s independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru articulated the goal of India’s transformation into a developed nation, marking a pivotal shift in the nation’s developmental trajectory.
In terms of industrial development, Ranchi emerged as a pivotal site, notably with the establishment of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (HECL) in the early 1950s. Referred to as the “mother of all industries,” HECL was envisioned to provide raw materials for various industries across India, prompting the initial acquisition of village lands for public sector enterprises. Despite being governed under the fifth schedule, which mandates tribal consent for land acquisition, the government classified HECL as a public sector enterprise, enabling the acquisition of tribal land without community consent. Consequently, a significant influx of non-tribal populations from Bihar, Bengal, and other parts of India occurred to work in HECL. This influx led to the widespread usurpation of tribal land through methods such as debt mortgage, forceful capture, and other unjust means. In comparison to Shillong, it is observed that due to its location in the northeast, the city was not initially perceived as a hub for industrial development due to the geographical fragility of the region. However, this did not hinder the gradual transformation of surrounding villages into suburbs over time.
Despite providing residential accommodations for both government and non-government employees, congestion ensued with the further expansion of the township in Ranchi. This expansion led to increased pressure on infrastructure, including roads, civic amenities, and housing, not only within the urban municipality but also in areas under the jurisdiction of village councils. In Shillong, villages fall under the authority of village councils rather than the municipality. However, as the township expands beyond its borders, neighboring villages are inevitably brought under its jurisdiction, leading to conflicts between urban municipalities and village councils, especially in areas governed by the sixth schedule. Constitutionally, Ranchi falls under the fifth schedule, where the governor serves as the custodian of tribal interests, particularly concerning land, forests, and livelihoods. The governor holds the authority to extend, modify, or repeal laws passed by central or state legislatures as deemed necessary, with the assistance of the Tribal Advisory Council, contributing to the governance of tribal areas.
The legacy of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the Fifth Schedule, and the PESA Act has significantly shaped governance in Ranchi, falling under the fifth schedule, and in Shillong, governed by the sixth schedule. In Shillong, the Autonomous District Council holds exclusive authority over governing the region, reflecting a stronger emphasis on self-governance in the Khasi Hill district compared to Jharkhand. Under the sixth schedule, legislative, executive, and judicial decisions pertaining to forests, villages, rivers, and other matters are entrusted to the Autonomous District Council. The sixth schedule also imposes restrictions on the transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal entities, safeguarding tribal land from usurpation. However, despite these protective measures, urban development initiatives often encroach upon tribal land, highlighting the complexities of land and law in these regions. The purported “need” for new townships, as indicated in quotes, raises questions about the necessity for such developments when existing capital townships already exist in Ranchi and Shillong. The Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act in Ranchi, for instance, prohibits the transfer of land from tribes to non-tribes, reflecting a legal framework aimed at protecting tribal land rights. In the context of Shillong, the autonomous district council initially prevented the transfer of land from tribes to non-tribes. However, over the past six decades, historical instances of land acquisition by the state for public sector projects have resulted in significant displacement of tribal communities without adequate rehabilitation and resettlement measures.
During this period, the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (HECL) experienced a decline in performance, ultimately being declared a non-performing asset industry by the early 1990s. The site of the HECL, situated in the northern part of Ranchi, became synonymous with industrial decline. This coincided with the peak of the Jharkhand movement, which would take nearly a decade to achieve statehood. Following Jharkhand’s attainment of statehood, there was a growing consensus within the political establishment regarding the need to establish a new township that would embody the aspirations of the newly formed state. Under the leadership of Babulal Marandi, the inaugural chief minister of Jharkhand, the vision for a capital township reflective of the state’s tribal ethos began to take shape. The concept originated from the notion that since HECL was underperforming, the land it occupied could be repurposed for a capital township. Thus, the government reacquired the land, initially acquired by the central government in the 1950s for the establishment of HECL, for the creation of the Greater Ranchi Township. In contrast, industrial development had not significantly impacted Shillong.
However, the burgeoning population and severe congestion in the old Shillong town prompted a dire need for additional space. As early as the 1980s, discussions arose about the necessity for a new township, particularly in the northernmost part of Shillong, where the town could expand into agricultural land for the development of a new capital township. This underscores the significance of the traditional landholding patterns of tribal communities. In Ranchi, there was substantial contention between HECL and the displaced tribal population, particularly the Gonds and Mahars, who inhabited the affected areas. Other tribes also inhabited the area, but predominantly, it was the Oraons and Mundas. Massive contentions arose from the 1950s through the early 1990s and into the early 2000s. Referring to Clause 27 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which was amended as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act 2013, one of its main provisions states that if tribal land is acquired and no development occurs in that area for five years, the land must be returned to the tribal communities. However, this did not happen in Jharkhand, leading to a series of protests, legal battles, and cases reaching the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes.
In Shillong, the scale of protests remained relatively small, largely due to the new townships not capturing public attention for an extended period. It’s only recently that discussions about these developments have gained traction. Displacement in Shillong primarily occurred on land owned by the village community, the Ri-Raid. As mentioned earlier, three land ownership patterns— Ri-Raid, the Ri-Kur and the Ri-Kynti —were discussed, and the land acquisition did not target any specific community or clan land. The land acquisition occurred on village land where the village headman had already issued a no objection certificate for the state’s acquisition. In the Khasi Hills, the sale or transfer of land must undergo various stages and processes, including approval by the village council, the CM ship council (the traditional state), and the autonomous district council. However, many of these procedures were not followed, leading to legal and constitutional violations in both Ranchi and Shillong for urban development purposes.
Despite the existence of traditional land ownership patterns and constitutional safeguards against land acquisition, mechanisms persist for acquiring land for urban development in both Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas. This underscores the significance of understanding the politics of master plans, as they often shape the development of cities. For instance, the first master plan of Delhi, formulated in the 1960s, served as a model for urban development. However, replicating such plans in regions like Ranchi or Shillong, which have different geographical, legal, cultural, and political contexts, can lead to challenges. In Ranchi, two master plans were implemented post-state autonomy, focusing on issues such as housing, education, infrastructure, and public services. However, these plans often overlook the diverse land ownership patterns and fail to address crucial laws like the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act (CNT), PESA Act, and MESA Act (Municipal Extension of Scheduled Areas). Despite attempts to introduce legislation like the MESA Act, which aims to regulate urban areas in scheduled regions, progress has been slow due to various factors, including resistance from tribal communities concerned about their constitutional rights and land ownership. Similarly, in the case of Shillong, the issues of housing, education, infrastructure, and public services have been addressed in the three master plans developed after its autonomy. However, these plans overlook crucial laws like the Sixth Schedule or the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act of the 1970s. Both master plans primarily focus on housing, education, infrastructure, and public services, serving as gateways to neoliberal projects. The history of anthropology borders and settler colonialism highlights that indigenous communities’ intrinsic link to land makes them vulnerable to displacement when settler colonialism, either domestic or foreign, encroaches upon their land.
It’s noteworthy that the British acknowledged the distinct land ownership patterns of these communities, recognizing the need to govern in accordance with them. However, in the post-colonial era, the surge of neoliberal policies has led to significant displacement, disregarding these traditional land rights.
In conclusion, it is imperative to recognize that tribal communities will play a crucial role in the increasingly urbanized future. Safeguarding their lands and achieving self-autonomy within their own backgrounds is paramount. Neglecting historical contexts can jeopardize our future, as urban development often disregards traditional land rights. This disregard, coupled with violations of constitutional provisions, has fueled contestations and tensions. Urban development in tribal areas requires alternative planning mechanisms that respect and incorporate traditional landholding patterns.
About the Speaker
Professor Aashish Xaxa
Professor Aashish Xaxa is an Assistant Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences discipline at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar. He also serves as Associate Faculty at the Dr. Kiran C. Patel Centre for Sustainable Development at IIT Gandhinagar. Holding a Ph.D. in Development Studies from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Mumbai, obtained in 2021, Aashish was recognized as an ICSSR Doctoral Fellow during his time at TISS. Aashish’s scholarly pursuits delve into the complex dynamics of urbanization and the evolving landscapes of India. His research illuminates often overlooked dimensions of equity, governance, and social justice within the Indian context. His doctoral thesis investigated the development challenges faced by tribes and indigenous peoples in Central and Northeast India, focusing on urbanization, constitutional and legal provisions, land tenure systems, local governance, and democracy, through a comparative lens. With expertise spanning development sociology, urban sociology, development theories and histories, public policy, comparative studies, governance, contemporary indigenous studies, social inclusion, and adverse inclusion, Aashish’s contributions to academia are multifaceted and far-reaching.
