Just after assuming office, Das had assured the tribals to come out with the resident policy for protecting their interest. But the final decree found to be wanting on many counts. Even the party’s LokSabha members do not support the policy document and in a letter to the governor Droupadi Murmu and to Raghubar Das have strongly objected to it.

The MPs, all senior politicians, Ram Tahal Choudhary, Karia Munda, Laxman Gilua and Bidyut Baran Mahto alleged that the local residents' policy had several anomalies and ought to be rectified before implementing. They urged the governor to take corrective steps in view of mass discontent with its current provisions. They suspected that it was a design to dilute the claims of tribals and original settlers. The policy document was passed by the state cabinet on April 7, 2016. They also expected the state government to ensure all Class III and IV government jobs to go to the adivasi and moolvasi population.

While this petition from the four MPs makes it explicit that the Das government has not taken all sections of the party leaders into confidence, it also exposes the schism between party MPs and MLAs in the state. It also underlined that the interest of the dikus (outsiders) was more important than taking care of the concerns of the adivasis.

A day after four BJP MPs petitioned the governor Murmu the leaders of AJSU, a ruling ally of the BJP, led by its chief Sudesh Mahto, met the Assembly Speaker Dinesh Oraon and requested him to persuade the state government to bring in certain changes in the policy document that dilute the claims of adivasis and original settlers, the natives of Jharkhand. Mahto told: 'We are partners in the coalition government and we had fought Assembly elections under the NDA. We want the government to make certain changes in the policy to protect the interests of tribal and original non-tribal settlers in Jharkhand'. Ajsu opposed the 1985 cut-off date as it was not feasible and failed to protect tribal interest.

The AJSU holds that since there are crores of landless tribal and original non-tribal settlers, respective gram sabhas should be empowered to issue certificates so that they could avail of the facilities offered by the policy. But instead of fixing 1985 as cut off years the AJSU wanted the government to consider the date of the last land survey in respective divisions/districts as the basis of the policy. AJSU held for recruitments a hundred per cent reservation should be provided for those whose names, or their forefathers', were mentioned in the last land survey record. Corrective steps needed to be taken, otherwise it will create mass discontent because tribal and original settlers feel their rights have been compromised.

In protest against this move of the Das government a 24-hour statewide bandh was observed by Adivasi Moolvasi Janadhikar Manch on April 24. Though no significant response was witnessed in major urban areas of Bokaro, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur of the state, which are mostly inhabited by the outsiders, the district towns and rural areas enthusiastically responded to the bandh call. The reason being cited for this is, the urban areas have predominantly diku population and they are not willing to concede any space to the tribals.

It may be recalled that the term ‘domicile’ could not be decided ever since the state came into existence. In 2002, the Jharkhand High Court had given a detailed order directing the state government to fix the definition of domicile. The first chief minister of Jharkhand, Babulal Marandi had defined residency in 2002 but the high court quashed it, ordering the government to come up with a new local policy.

The Raghubar Das government has in fact revived the old proposal of the Marandi government. The Das government has in fact underlined six criteria for defining his concept of being Jharkhandi. It charted out six criteria to define who could be called asthaniyaniwasi or local resident of Jharkhand.

These are: Those who have their or their ancestors’ names in land records as per the last survey conducted back in 1932 ; The gram pradhan (village head) can identify the landless as a local resident on the basis of his language, cultural practices and traditions; Those living in Jharkhand for the past 30 years for reasons of business, jobs, etc., and have acquired immovable properties, and their children, would be considered locals Employees of the Jharkhand government, or government-aided institutions, organisations etc. and their spouses and children would be considered locals.

Though the government claims that the criteria were decided after wide ranging consultations with all stakeholders; political parties, social organizations, business houses, the fact remains that no specific committee or body of experts was formed to undertake this task. The entire exercise appears to be ambiguous. In fact in the past more than half-a-dozen such committees were set up but these bodies could not evolve the mechanism for identifying local residents.

Jharkhand, the adivasi region of erstwhile Bihar was supposed to be a colony and not more than that. The minerals were exploited ruthlessly. The dikus, outsiders, targeted the region. Huge influx of the dikus took place. In fact the dikus resisted this design but could not frustrate their move. Industries and mines were set up in the hills and jungles to tap into the rich mineral wealth of the region. This process intensified after separate state of Jharkhand was created.

Adivasi activists have a fundamental question; how could the resident policy put an adivasi with those people w ho have been in Jharkhand even for twenty years? It is sad the interest and basic rights of adivasis have been sacrificed. There are no safeguards for moolvasis in jobs at the local level. The domicile policy is a tool to allow outsiders to get jobs and other financial benefits. (IPA Service)