1932 cut-off: Heartburn even within ruling Jharkhand ally Cong, sees blow to its votes

One source said: “Gupta fears that the Congress is turning into a JMM dummy.” Another fear is more basic as most of the people in the constituency from where Gupta won last time by a huge margin of 97,000 votes, Jamshedpur West, comprise those who settled after 1932.

Earlier this year, at a three-day ‘Chintan Shivir’ of the Congress, Gupta had spoken openly about the JMM chipping away at the party’s vote base. “Jab manjhi hi naav dubaaye, usse kaun bachaye (when a boatman himself sinks the boat, who can save it),” he said.

Given the complexity around implementation of the domicile Bill, the Congress also believes that while it will face the anger of those left out, Soren will gain even if it eventually remains a promise. As earlier reported by The Indian Express, the Cabinet note on the draft Bill clearly states that it will become operational only after the Centre approves an amendment and includes the domicile point in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, to put it out of judicial review.

A senior Congress leader pointed out that this is easier said than done. “However, a perception has been created that only those possessing 1932-based land records will be considered locals. So people who don’t are in panic and are questioning their MLAs.”

While JMM allies concede that the decision to increase the OBC reservation in the state from 14% to 27% might offset some of the anger over the Bill – which is mainly meant to placate the JMM’s tribal base – they also question the lack of a detailed discussion over the entire matter. Or time for them to prepare a strategy.

“There is no back-plan in the Congress in case the 1932 issue gets out of hand,” a Congress leader pointed out. The Congress currently has 18 seats in the Assembly, six of these won from Scheduled Tribe reserved constituencies.

Incidentally, even within the tribal community, there is division on the cutoff date — as voiced by Geeta Kora, the Congress MLA from Singhbum, an ST-reserved seat. She has pointed out that people in the Kolhan region of the state — with 14 Assembly seats, nine of them ST-reserved, and two parliamentary constituencies — had seen a survey of settlements between 1964 and 1970.

“There are lakhs of people, mostly from tribal communities, whose survey settlement happened then, so that they won’t have any proof of land records from earlier. So, in their own land, they are being termed outsider… CM Soren should clarify because Kolhan will burn. We will launch a massive protest, and the responsibility will lie with Hemant Soren,” Kora told reporters on Friday.

Officially, the Congress has welcomed the draft Bill as a “landmark” decision. Its Jharkhand chief Rajesh Thakur expressed his thanks to Soren and state Congress in-charge Avinash Pande. “We have been continuously asking for 27% reservation (for OBCs) and (recognition of) 1932 land documents, from which all moolwaasis (natives) and Adivasis will get their rights. The Congress has been worried from the beginning (on both the issues).”

As per the draft Bill, locals will receive “certain rights, benefits, and preferential treatment” over their land; in development of local rivers, lakes, fisheries; in local traditional, cultural and commercial enterprises; in availing agricultural loans; in maintenance and protection of their land records; in social security; in employment both in the private and public sector; and in trade and commerce in the state.

However, the details of the possible benefits and how this will be implemented are yet to be discussed.

The BJP, which burnt its hands twice with its CMs trying to implement similar domicile policies, has been muted in its response. Babulal Marandi, who as CM first attempted a cut-off date in 2002, said the current government’s definition of a local is “incomplete”.

He added: “It is beyond my understanding why the domicile Bill is not being linked to the employment policy. The entire decision seems to have been taken in a hurry, and not as per the law. There seems to be no consensus.”