JMM threatens agitation over domicile policy, other opposition parties also cry foul

[related-post]

JMM’s general secretary Supriyo Bhattacharya said: “How can they compare and put on the same pedestal the people who have been living here for the past 300 years and those who have been here for the past 30 years only? Also, the ones living for the past 30 years had come here primarily for business or jobs. Obviously, they had not come for agriculture.”

Bhattacharya added that the concept of Jharkhand itself originated from a need to assert its own identity. “We separated from Bihar because our culture, language, rituals and clothes were all very different from the rest of Bihar. Now, a person from that community and the one who came just for business will be treated at par. Then, the question of identity remains unresolved,” he said.

The Party also complained that the state government did not consult with it. “The government’s claim that it consulted us is an eye-wash. The policy was announced within a couple of hours of the Party getting the letter, although written on March 17, inviting our opinions on the matter,” said a statement issued by JMM spokesperson.

The JMM has decided to hold a meeting of its executive on April 17, in which the further strategy on how to move ahead on the issue would be decided. “If the government agrees to our demand for re-think and withdraws provisions that are causing problems, well and good. Otherwise, agitation would be the only way left,” said Bhattacharya.

Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik) and Congress too have complained against policy. While JVM (P) has maintained that a domicile policy without a well-defined employment policy would mean little for the original residents, the Congress has criticised it saying that, more than a domicile policy, it was an employment policy.

Across the board, the Parties are maintaining that the provisions would again put those who migrated into the state for business or jobs in a favourable situation vis-à-vis the original residents.

Meanwhile, BJP’s ally All-Jharkhand Students’ Union (AJSU) has welcomed the policy, calling it a ‘brave step’. But, it has sought re-consideration on certain issues.

Deo Sharan Bhagat, Party spokesperson, said: “The Party had suggested to the government that there should be separate definitions and provisions for the ‘bhumiputras’ (sons of the soil) and those who came here voluntarily in search of jobs, business etc. This has not been done.”

In a statement, the Party said: “The matriculation certificate, along with the condition that the person was born here, could not be kept at par with the 1932 land records. Also, for those in the government jobs, there is no mention of the periodicity for which a person ought to have remained within the state before being considered an original resident.”

On April 7, the state cabinet cleared the definition of ‘domicile’ based on following criteria: Those having names in the land records of the last survey and their children; the ones identified by the gram pradhan on the basis of language one spoke and cultural practices; ones born in Jharkhand and having matriculated from here; those living in the state for the past 30 years for business and jobs; the ones employed by the Jharkhand government or the central government or holding constitutional posts and their children.

The then Chief Minister Babulal Marandi, now leading JVM (P), had in 2002, decided to implement the domicile policy on the basis of land records of 1932. However, it led to severe backlash and brought tribal face-to-face with non-tribal in several agitations across the state. The proposal was withdrawn.