His seat on brink, Hemant Soren tries domicile policy cushion

Questions around the definition of a “Jharkhandi” had led to the resignation of the state’s first chief minister, Babulal Marandi, in 2002, with successive governments thereafter steering clear of the issue. After the formation of Jharkhand as a state in 2000, CM Marandi thought it was necessary to define a “Jharkhandi” in order to provide them various benefits, including government jobs. At an all-party meeting attended by senior leaders, including from the JMM, a consensus was reached on replicating the Bihar government’s policy for defining a local.

The Bihar government’s 1982 circular defined a local as someone whose forefathers’ name appears in ‘record of rights’ — a document with details of the property / land, linked with the last survey, whenever conducted and in districts in the year 1932. The Marandi government said that based on the new policy, “locals” will be given priority in Grade 3 and 4 jobs at the district level over “non-locals” in case their marks were tied.

The matter soon exploded, triggering widespread protests by those, especially non-tribals, who had migrated to Jharkhand at a later stage. The decision went to the court, and the notification was made null and avoid.

The situation since

After 2002, all Jharkhand governments refrained from touching the domicile issue, until the BJP-led government, headed by Raghubar Das, took the helm in 2014. The Das government notified a “relaxed domicile policy” in 2016, mentioning several ways in which one could be treated as a Jharkhand domicile. First, if his or her father’s name is in the land records, with the gram sabha to identify if a person was landless. Second, those who have had a business or been employed in the state for 30 years or more, along with their heirs, which essentially made 1985 the domicile cut-off year. Consequently, those employed with the state or central government in Jharkhand, holding any constitutional or statutory post, along with their spouses and children could be considered domicile of the state. So would people born in the state who had completed their matriculation or equivalent examination.

Experts, however, said this policy was “flawed” as it did not give priority to tribals, for whom the state was created in the first place.

Post-JMM government

After the JMM-led coalition government, headed by Hemant Soren, assumed office in December 2019, JMM president Shibu Soren said that 1932 “Khatiyan (proof of a person’s land document)” should be made the cut-off year to formulate the “Sthaniya Niti (domicile policy)”. The Soren government then set up a Cabinet sub-committee to redefine domicile.

On March 14, the Jharkhand government told the Assembly that deliberations on the state’s new domicile policy were still continuing, indicating that the land records of 1932 will not be its “only basis”. Rural Development Minister Alamgir Alam told the House that many districts had been left out in the 1932 land survey and the government was studying all aspects of the issue. “It is clear that 1932 land records will remain as proof. However, we are studying it as many surveys were undertaken in various other districts till 1964; for Palamu it was done in 1997. Now, consider a family staying in Jharkhand for five generations, and if the land records were made in 1974, they will miss out on the domicile (if 1932 is taken as the base year); and where will they go,” Alam had said.

What happens now

Sources said the Bill will be introduced in the Assembly and, after the passage, the state government will send it to the Centre as well as the Governor, with a proposal to seek an amendment to place this law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution to avoid judicial scrutiny. A top-level source said: “The Soren regime wants to put the onus on the BJP government. It was done keeping in mind the massive protests and numerous litigations challenging the domicile policy under the Babulal Marandi government.”