---

One of the most significant events under Human Rights - Community Rights (Gram Sabha Rule/Swashasan) – in 2003 was the Delhi Round Table Discourse on Self-Rule in Jharkhand. Issues of Self-Rule and Panchayat Raj Elections have been much debated and agitated for in Jharkhand but its impact was felt only in Jharkhand. Very little was known outside. It was thought this could be dealt with a round table discourse on in New Delhi. Dates for Round Table Discourse were fixed for 2nd and 3rd December 2004. Sixteen persons from Jharkhand and another 15 persons from Delhi and other places participated in it.

Jharkhand participants included – Ghanshyam, Executive Director, JUDAV, Arun Vinayak, Project Coordinator for the project “assertion of Indigenocracy in Jharkhand through gram sabhas and people’s organisations”, leaders of people’s organisations including Baijanath Prasad Baiju, Luqman Ansari and Vinod Kumar (Jharkhand Ulgulan Manch), Ms. Salge Mardi, Ms. Nirmala Murmu and Ms. Bernadette Tirkey (Jharkhand Hulgulan Mahila Manch), Siddheshwar (Gaon Ganarajya Parishad) and Swashasan Saathis, Ms. Veena Verma, Ms. Tara Kranti, Ms. Amelia Hansda, Ms. Prashanti Murmu and Raj Kumar.
Among representatives from Delhi were, Mr. Anil Choudhary, noted political scientist from PEACE, New Delhi, Mr. George Mathew of Institute of Social Service, Prof. Gopal Aiyar of Chandigarh University, Mr. Surendra Mohan, Socialist Thinker and Ideologue, Ms. Medha Patkar leader of National Alliance of Peoples’ Movement, Mr. Vijay Pratap of Vasudeva Kutumbakam, Ms. Nandini Sundar, Associate Professor Jawaharlal Nehru University and others.
Initiating discussions Mr. Ghanshyam, Executive Director of JUDAV said goal set for Round Table Discourse included:

1. Putting pressure on Jharkhand Government to recognise Self-rule through traditional gram sabhas in adivasi areas protected by the Constitution under Schedule V.
2. Initiate a dialogue among Jharkhandis and noted personalities at the National Level about self-rule struggle in Jharkhand;
3. Preventing Jharkhand from becoming another Gujarat, as is conspired by communal fascists and globalisation forces;
4. Get national recognition of forces struggling for new politics in Jharkhand where power to people is the goal and initiate dialogue between people of Jharkhand struggling for self-rule and similar forces elsewhere in India and in South Asia.

Mr. Ghanshyam said Jharkhandis believe that Self-Rule is their traditional governance system. Communal Forces led by BJP were playing the same role as of moneylenders of yore and to protect them Jharkhand Government spent over Rs. 200 crores on law and security in the state. This was the immediate step taken to terrorise people and the funds spent for the purpose included deployment of more than 30,000 people Rapid Action Force.
There was an intervention by Pasmanda Samaj (Backward Classes among Muslims) leader; Ali Anwar said higher classes/castes in all religions dominated all socio-economic, political and cultural scenes. Constitutional Rights of poorer sections of Society were trod upon. He said mainstream political parties were ignoring OBCs in all religious sectors. They were more concerned with ‘creamy layer’ rather than giving OBCs their rightful claims.
Mr. Anil Choudhary moderating the session said some participants that they asserted self-rule in villages through traditional means were a negation of village rule through Panchayat Raj Institutions. There was a need to undertake an evaluation of these traditional means and update them. In Panchayat Raj/self rule Gram Sabha was sovereign. Administration had no right to interfere in village development processes of the villages. This would mean challenging powers of dominant castes, which had enjoyed their ‘Jamindari’ like rights since independence.
Director of Institute of Social Service, New Delhi, and Mr. George Mathew said Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) had four enemies – MLAs, MPs and Ministers, who were afraid of losing their power over villages. The bureaucracy made adjustments with politicians and contractors and were used to remote control over development. Contractors used the system to their benefit. Dominant castes/landlords could not accept lower castes taking over rule in villages.
On 3rd December 2004, Siddheshwar presented historical context of the struggle for Self-Rule in Jharkhand. He said that four years had passed since formation of the state but no advance had been made towards self-rule. Whenever people’s organisations sought this, bureaucracy termed it as extremism.
Mr. Arun Vinayak talked about the retention of the communitarian lifestyles of the people of Jharkhand, which deliberately sought to be destroyed by the bureaucracy making loot of the natural resources of the communities possible. This has to be confronted at all levels, he asserted. Ms Salge Mardi spoke of downfall in women’s status. Adivasi Society which was free from gender inequality had become prey to machinations of Dikus and Globalisation. Women were being raped in places never heard before and incidence of women, more particularly adivasi women being oppressed in as Dien (witches) were on the increase.
Leader of National Alliance for People’s Movements (NAPM), Ms. Medha Patkar called for building up alliances of peoples’ movements in rural areas. Peoples’ movements should develop new politics as an alternative to current oppressive and exploitative one. Political intervention would be a three-pronged one:

a) Attack should be made on World Bank/Multi-Nationals for their pressure for globalisation.
b) Attack should be against Communalism and
c) The most important was that of self-rule.

Socialist leader and ideologue Mr. Surendra Mohan heard participants of Jharkhand stating their issues. He said these struggles should not be confined to spaces in villages, district and Jharkhand. Struggle for re-achieving communitarian lifestyle through self-rule of villages was long and arduous. This necessitated in depth study, ideological clarity and efforts to widen the alliance. The voice must become national and worldwide. He called for newer methods of peaceful agitation.
Discourse ended with an understanding that such events are held in other metropolises of India, building up wide alliances should be pursued vigorously and movements should make one attempt to bring Government debate on impact of globalisation, communal fascism and self-rule.

---