A small patch of land around 30 km southwest of Martello Tower and Sidhu Kanu Park in Jharkhand’s Pakur district town became a battleground this July between adivasis and Muslims over ownership, four months ahead of assembly polls, with Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma raising the allegation of “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants” grabbing land from indigenous people, carrying clear undertones of the familiar Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) narrative in the Northeastern state. The Muslims were accused of encroaching on tribal land and retaliating violently when opposed. The clashes stopped only after Section 144 was imposed in Gaibthan village of Maheshpur block in the Santhal Pargana region. When Sarma and BJP State President Babulal Marandi visited the area a few days after the clashes, both linked the Muslim residents of Gaibthan village to Bangladeshi infiltration.
“I don’t know where they came from, but they have been here since my grandfather’s time,” says 48-year-old Hopni Marandi, sitting on a cot outside the mud house of her son, Parmeshwar Hembram, on the edge of the disputed plot. “My grandfather gave them this land so they could keep their horses here. We did not object when they built a house here after my father-in-law died. But when we started building a house on our land adjacent to it, they began protesting. Hence the conflict.” Asked whether the Muslim families residing here are from Bangladesh, Marandi’s statements are clear—they took the land from her grandfather, and the family has lived here for at least generations.
In 1855, this region had seen “8,000 Santhals armed with bows and arrows and hand axes”, as the district website puts it, take over the mofussil centre of Pakur during the Santhal Hul (uprising) and burn down bungalows of British administrators and the queen’s palace that was symbolic of domination by landlords and moneylenders. The Martello Tower built in 1856 offers a “panoramic view of the adjoining hills towards the west and the hills of Rajmahal towards the northeast”, enabling the British counterinsurgency to ruthlessly snuff out the indigenous rebels using their superior firepower and putting thousands of Santhals to death.
“Muslims have been living here for decades. We have land deeds and voter IDs from long before Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar,” says Samajuddin Ansari.
Gaibthan was calm on the evening of November 3, just as it had been on previous evenings. People were sitting on their verandas and the chowk (open market area), discussing elections. About 300 metres from the chowk is the disputed plot of land over whose ownership the scuffle took place between the families of Hembram and Safaruddin Ansari. Though the BJP has raised the issue of alleged Bangladeshi infiltration in Santhal Pargana for years, it was only ahead of the November election that it was turned into a full-fledged electoral campaign. BJP Jharkhand chief Marandi, who claimed the Muslims of Gaibthan are Bangladeshi infiltrators, provided no evidence. Nearly 120 of the 300 houses in the village belong to Muslim families. Among them is 52-year-old Samajuddin Ansari, who points to a 1932 land record that mentions his great-grandfather, Budhu Momin, and says, “All the Muslims have been living here for decades. We have land deeds, voter IDs, PAN cards and ration cards from long before Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar. We did not come from Bangladesh.” Ansari claims everyone in the village has such records.
“The villagers (both tribals and Muslims) here are all locals with land records from the last settlement (1932),” says village head Ganesh Murmu, 52. “Tribals and Muslims always lived here in harmony. Before this incident, there had never been any conflict. Muslims too, attend all village meetings.” Murmu believes harmony has been restored since the incident.
Pakur is one of the five districts of Santhal Pargana—the others are Sahibganj, Dumka, Godda and Jamtara. Though Pakur and Sahibganj seem to have found a special place in the BJP’s plans due to the alleged Bangladeshi infiltration, Pakur Superintendent of Police Prabhat Kumar says “there is no evidence” of such infiltration. “Those who claim there are infiltrators should provide evidence. Investigation following the Gaibthan incident showed no evidence of any Bangladeshi in Pakur.”
That didn’t stop the BJP’s Godda MP Nishikant Dubey, however, from claiming in Parliament on July 25 that Bangladeshi infiltrators had married around 100 tribal women leaders in Santhal Pargana and taken their land. Again, no evidence. On July 28, BJP leader and member of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Asha Lakra, alleged that the spouses of 10 tribal women leaders in nine panchayats in Sahibganj district were Bangladeshi infiltrators or Rohingya Muslims. Lakra and Dubey claimed Bangladeshi infiltrators were marrying tribal women to gain influence in panchayats.
In Sahibganj’s Barhet block, where many Muslim men had indeed married tribal women and even helped them run for panchayat posts, there was no evidence suggesting connection to Bangladesh or land grabs. “It is my constitutional right to choose whom I marry,” says Celina Hansda, head of the Barhet Santhali Utri panchayat, whose husband Mohammad Azad was accused of being a Bangladeshi infiltrator. “He was asked for papers. He has not just 1932 documents but even 1832 papers. Why did they not investigate when the BJP was in power (2014-19)? They are raising the issue only for the election.”
Kadma panchayat head Ilijens Hansda, 36, who found her husband’s name on the “infiltrator list”, says, “Those who say Muslim men are marrying tribal women and grabbing land are lying. I married Zainul Ansari from my village 18 years ago when we did not even know about panchayat posts.” Hansda’s sister, Sheila, who married a Hindu man, was never targeted, she adds.
The list also includes Renuka Murmu, from Barhet Bazar, whose husband Anjit Bhagat is a Hindu member of the BJP. Murmu headed the Sahibganj district council from 2015 to 2020. “A list circulating in Barhet block mentioned the names of tribal women heads whose husbands were Muslims,” she says. “I know none of them are Bangladeshi. There are no Bangladeshis in Barhet. Both Hindus and Muslims have married tribal girls here, but never by force.” Bhagat says that instead of creating a divide on religious lines, parties should focus on stopping mass migration caused by economic misery and provide employment.
Siraj Dutta of the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha believes the issue is being used to create a divide between adivasis and Muslims to gain some tribal seats in Santhal Pargana.
Benifred Murmu, 62, a panchayat head from Barhet Bazar, also refuted the claim that her husband, Jagarnath Das, a Hindu, is a Bangladeshi infiltrator. “All the people here are locals,” she says. Yet, the issue of Bangladeshi infiltration has polarised adivasis and Muslims in Santhal Pargana, and Hindus and Muslims in other regions, with other issues taking a back seat. What started as the BJP’s election campaign on Bangladeshi infiltration has now evolved into slogans such as “Batenge to Katenge (If we split, we will be dead)”.
At every election rally in Jharkhand, Assam CM Sarma has spoken about Bangladeshi infiltration. At one rally, he promised the BJP would rename towns like Hussainabad and Haider Nagar in the Palamu region. His recent remarks, urging Hindus to unite with slogans like “Hindus will be safe if they stay united, if divided, Irfan Ansari, Alamgir Alam and their people will rule”, have sparked criticism. Alam is a former minister in Jharkhand, and Ansari an incumbent minister in the Hemant Soren government.
Having long claimed that Bangladeshi infiltration has reduced the tribal population in Santhal Pargana, the BJP has promised to implement a National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise in Jharkhand to deport Bangladeshi infiltrators. However, they have yet to make any such promise in writing or through advertisements. Meanwhile, the Centre’s affidavit in the Jharkhand High Court in response to a public interest litigation did not cite any evidence of infiltration, though it claimed infiltration since 1947 had changed the demographic profile of Santhal Pargana. Between 1991 and 2011, it states, when the Muslim population increased by 13 per cent, it grew by 35 per cent in Sahibganj and Pakur districts, even as the tribal population in Santhal Pargana declined from 44 per cent to 28 per cent between 1951 and 2011.
Siraj Dutta of the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha believes the issue is being used to create a divide between adivasis and Muslims with the aim of gaining some tribal seats in Santhal Pargana. He claims the BJP is using the issue to target Muslims in the Kolhan region, too. Through Sarma, the party has again revived Hindutva in Jharkhand. A journalist from Assam, who didn’t wish to be identified, says Sarma changed the narrative around Bangladeshi infiltration in Assam. The issue had been raised during decades of Congress rule, with people from all castes and religions demanding the expulsion of illegal immigrants. However, the BJP narrowed this focus to Muslims, making infiltration synonymous with the Muslim community. Sarma played a key role in setting this narrative, which proved successful for the BJP. According to the journalist, Sarma is now trying to bring the same narrative to Santhal Pargana in order to gain political power. With its significant Muslim and Adivasi population, Santhal Pargana is considered a stronghold of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), the largest party in Soren’s ruling coalition.
(Translated by Tarique Anwar)
(This appeared in the print as 'Who Stole The Horses’ Land?')
