English only · Odia translation in progress

Pre-Colonial Governance Systems of Major Tribal Communities in Odisha

Compiled: 2026-04-02 Scope: Governance structures, decision-making, land management, dispute resolution, and inter-community relations of seven major tribal communities in Odisha Sources: Academic papers, government ethnographic profiles (SCSTRTI, KBK), encyclopedia entries, ethnographic monographs, news reports, and institutional research

Table of Contents

  1. Gond Governance
  2. Kondh (Kandha) Governance
  3. Saora (Savara) Governance
  4. Juang Governance
  5. Bhuiyan/Bhuiya Governance
  6. Bonda Governance
  7. Santhal Governance
  8. Cross-Cutting Themes
  9. Key Academic Sources and References

1. Gond Governance

1.1 Overview and Distribution

The Gonds are numerically the second-largest tribal community in Odisha after the Kondhs. They are widely distributed across western Odisha, particularly in the districts of Kalahandi, Nuapada, Balangir, Sambalpur, Sundargarh, Bamanda, and Banei. The Gonds are believed to have migrated through the western part of Odisha via the Kalahandi-Nuapada region. They speak a Dravidian dialect known as Gondi, though the Gonds of Sundargarh, Sambalpur, and Balangir have been more deeply influenced by Hindu customs and speak Odia.

Source: SCSTRTI Odisha, Gond Profile (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/tribes/91-tribes/167-gond); Odisha State Tribal Museum (https://ostm.in/tribes_of_odisha/gond/)

1.2 The Garh System

The central unit of Gond political organization in western Odisha was the Garh (fort or territorial domain). When Rajput polity emerged in the region, particularly under the Chauhan dynasty of Sambalpur, new administrative nodes in the form of Garhs were superimposed on the earlier territorial distribution of the Gond people. The leaders or heads of each Gond territorial group (garh) were recognized as chieftains presiding over clusters of twelve villages called Barhons (or barhots).

This system evolved into the Attargarh (eighteen garhs) system in western Odisha. The Chauhan ruler was the undisputed overlord of eighteen garhs and bore the title of Atharagada-maudaamani (“the great jewel on Eighteen Garhs”). These eighteen garhs included: Sambalpur, Patna, Sonepur, Baud, Athmallika, Khariar, Rairhakhol, Bamanda, Gangpur, Bonai, Raigarh, Baragarh, Sarangparh, Sakti, Phuljhar, Chandrapur, Bindra-Nuagarh, and Surguja.

Each garh was controlled by a particular Gond clan. The garh was further divided into units of 84 villages called chourasi, which were further subdivided into barhots of 12 villages each. This created a federal structure that balanced the central authority of the Chauhan overlord with local autonomy under Gond clan chiefs. This system proved remarkably effective in maintaining political stability across a vast territory.

Source: IJMRA, “Chauhans Rule in Sambalpur in Pre-colonial Odisha” (https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2018/IJRSS_MAY2018/IJMRA-13786.pdf); JETIR, “Fair and Festival of Gonds Tribe in Western Odisha” (https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1811259.pdf)

1.3 The Four-Phratry (Saga) System

Gond society is organized around a four-phratry (saga) system that forms the basis of all social and clan organization. Each saga traces its descent to one of the four groups of gods who emerged from a primordial cave after their release by the culture hero Lingal. The phratries are subdivided into exogamous, totemic clans. Marriage is strictly prohibited between brother-clans (clans within the same phratry), enforcing exogamy across clan lines.

Each clan worships a deity called persa pen (“great god”), and in many cases the shrine of this deity lies within the ancestral clan land, creating a deep sacred geography. The most prestigious division are the Raj Gonds, who trace descent from the elder sister in the origin myth and are regarded as the eldest in the hierarchy. The Raj Gonds once maintained an elaborate feudal order and, in western Odisha, were allies of ruling groups, enjoying privileged economic status as Zamindars.

Source: Britannica, “Gond” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gond); Wikipedia, “Gondi people” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondi_people); Christoph von Furer-Haimendorf’s ethnographic studies on Raj Gond descent systems

1.4 Village-Level Governance and the Panchayat

At the village level, the Gonds operated through a traditional panchayat system. The village headman (variously called majhi, patel, or mukhiya depending on the sub-region) presided over a council of village elders. The panchayat functioned as both an administrative and judicial body.

Dispute resolution was handled through the panchayat, which settled inter-tribal and intra-tribal disputes. The system recognized specific categories of offenses including adultery, abduction of another man’s wife or daughter, and eating with a person of lower caste (reflecting Hindu acculturation). Guilt was established through direct eyewitness testimony, divination, or physical ordeals such as putting one’s hands in boiling oil or lifting a red-hot crowbar.

Source: SCSTRTI Odisha, Gond Profile; Testbook, “Gond Tribe: History, Religion, and Socio-Economic Practices” (https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/gond-tribe)

1.5 The Ghotul (Youth Dormitory)

Among the Muria Gonds of central India (Bastar, Chhattisgarh), the Ghotul was a central governance and socialization institution — a spacious hut serving as a community-based youth dormitory. While the Ghotul is most prominent in Bastar rather than Odisha specifically, the institution represents an important element of broader Gond political culture.

The Ghotul functioned as a community-based education system, with a governance structure of its own. The leader of dormitory boys was called Sirdar, and the leader of girls was called Belosa. Other positions included the Charia (responsible for cleanliness), Diwan (discipline), and Kotwair (attendance). No major social activity in Muria society could proceed without the participation of Ghotul members.

Verrier Elwin’s monograph The Murias and Their Ghotul (1947) remains the definitive ethnographic account, covering the clan system, clan rules, and the organization of the tribe through the dormitory institution.

Source: Wikipedia, “Ghotul” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghotul); Verrier Elwin, The Murias and Their Ghotul (1947); IJCRT, “Ghotul: Cultural Significance and Fraternity” (https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1135348.pdf)

1.6 Land Management

The Gonds practiced communal land ownership with clan-based land tenure. Their traditional livelihood revolved around shifting cultivation (podu or bewar), where small patches of forest were cleared, cultivated for a few seasons, and then left fallow to regenerate. This was a sophisticated form of sustainable agriculture that maintained biodiversity and allowed forest regeneration.

In the pre-colonial period, swidden cultivation was either not taxed or rents were merely nominal. Clan-based customary rights governed access to land, trees, and forests. British colonial forest laws proved devastating to this system, restricting access to forests that had sustained the Gonds for generations and transforming them from custodians of the land into “illegal” users. Hill slopes customarily used for shifting cultivation were taken over by the state as forest lands or revenue wastelands, effectively criminalizing shifting cultivation and ignoring customary claims.

Source: e-Tribal Tribune, “Tribal Land and Forest Issues in Odisha: An Overview” (https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-6/mv6i3/tribal-land-and-forest-issues-in-odisha-an-overview); Oxford Academic, “Erasing the Swiddens: Shifting Cultivation, Land and Forest Rights in Odisha” (https://academic.oup.com/book/2522/chapter/142828828)

1.7 Relationship with Non-Tribal Kingdoms

The Gond relationship with the Chauhan dynasty of Sambalpur was complex and symbiotic rather than purely subordinate. The Gonds occupied high positions in the estates of western Odisha. Key facts:

  • During the rule of Jayant Sai (1780s), the Gond chief of Sarangarh was the dewan (chief administrator) of Sambalpur estate.
  • One Chauhan ruler granted the Zamindari of Kharsal to a Gond soldier named Udam Singh, who was decorated with the hereditary title of Sardar.
  • Most Gond Zamindars of western Odisha held their Zamindari on military tenure — they did not pay any revenue or tribute to their overlord but had to extend help with men and money at times of emergency.
  • The Gonds of western Odisha have been highly acculturated into Hindu society and attained the status of a warrior caste in the regional social hierarchy.
  • The Binjhals and Gonds actively participated in the anti-colonial resistance in the Sambalpur region from 1857 to 1864.

The region under Gond and Binjhal chiefs was known as “Hirakhand Samrajya” during the Chauhan era, indicating the territory’s significance and the Gond role within it.

Source: IJMRA, “Chauhans Rule in Sambalpur” (https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2018/IJRSS_MAY2018/IJMRA-13786.pdf); IJCRT, “Tribals of Western Odisha: A Study of Socio-…” (https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2301396.pdf); SCSTRTI Gond Profile

2. Kondh (Kandha) Governance

2.1 Overview and Distribution

The Kondhs (also spelled Kandha, Khond) are the largest tribal group in Odisha by population. They are a Dravidian-speaking community concentrated in southern and central Odisha, particularly in the districts of Kandhamal, Rayagada, Kalahandi, Koraput, Boudh, Ganjam, and Gajapati. They speak the Kui and Kuvi languages. Several sub-groups are recognized, including the Dongria Kondh (of the Niyamgiri Hills, Rayagada/Kalahandi) and the Kutia Kondh (of Belghar, Kandhamal), both classified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).

Source: KBK Tribal Profile, “Kandha” (https://kbk.nic.in/tribalprofile/KANDHA.pdf); Wikipedia, “Khond people” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khonds)

2.2 The Mutha System

The mutha is the foundational unit of Kondh social and territorial organization. There are approximately fifty muthas in Kandha society, including: Saiti, Paba, Jurapi, Bongodi, Baka, Bidu, Teriki, Damsing, Pira, and others. The mutha is simultaneously a clan unit and a territorial unit:

  • As a clan unit: Members of a mutha consider themselves related through common descent. Marriage within the mutha is strictly prohibited under rules of exogamy — a man cannot marry within his own mutha.
  • As a territorial unit: Each mutha encompasses a cluster of villages. Territorial and exogamous clan groups called Kuda or Bons form each section. These are organized into four functional groups called punja: mondal, bismajhi, jani, and pujari.

At the regional level, the mutha organization is headed by a Mandal, Majhi, or Patro (variously called muthadar in some accounts). This leader serves as the secular head of the territorial cluster and represents the mutha in inter-village and inter-mutha dealings.

Source: KBK Tribal Profile, “Kandha”; SCSTRTI, “Khond” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/91-tribes/176-khond); SDC Odisha, “Khond” (http://www.sdcodisha.in/index.php/communities/106-communities/tribes/312-khond)

2.3 Village-Level Governance

Traditional village functionaries among the Kondh include:

TitleRole
SaantaVillage headman (secular authority)
MondalAdministrative chief at mutha level
JaniPriest and ritual specialist
BismajhiDeputy headman
BarikVillage messenger

The village council, known as the Gudi, is the primary decision-making body. It is composed of elders known as mukhiyas who serve as the decision-makers. The council functions as a self-governance mechanism within the village.

Source: SDC Odisha, “Khond”; Village Square, “How Odisha’s Kondh tribe resolves conflicts” (https://villagesquare.in/odia-tribes-resolve-conflicts-through-dialogue/)

2.4 The Disari and Religious Specialists

The magico-religious activities of the Kondh are conducted by various specialists:

TitleRole
JaniFull-time religious-magico specialist, conducts major rituals
Dishari (Disari)Astrologer and diviner, consulted for auspicious timings
Beju / BejuniMale and female priests among the Dongria Kondh
LambaRitual specialist
PujariPriest for specific worship duties
KalisiSpecialist in specific ceremonial functions

Among the Dongria Kondh of Niyamgiri, there is notably no over-arching political or religious leader. Clans and villages have their own leaders, and individuals with specific ceremonial functions (particularly the beju and bejuni, male and female priests) hold spiritual authority without centralized political power. This decentralized structure was demonstrated powerfully in the 2013 gram sabha votes against Vedanta mining.

Source: KBK Tribal Profile, “Kandha”; Wikipedia, “Dangaria Kandha” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangaria_Kandha); Survival International, “Dongria Kondh” (https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/dongria)

2.5 Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution

When disputes arise within a Kondh village, the primary method is dialogue mediated by the mukhiyas (village elders). The process works as follows:

  1. When conflict arises between parties, one approaches a mukhiya.
  2. The mukhiya instructs the baarika (messenger) to invite all community members to a conflict resolution meeting.
  3. A council of elders convenes, with one mukhiya typically serving as tiebreaker.
  4. Both parties present their cases.
  5. A collective decision is reached.

Types of disputes handled: The most common matters involve inter-village elopement or extramarital affairs. Other issues include domestic conflicts between partners or brothers, animal theft, and land disputes.

Penalty structure: Both parties involved in the dispute contribute to a fine, with the accused typically paying more than the victim. This emphasis on shared responsibility fosters a sense of unity and communal support. The system’s success rests on the community’s trust and respect for the elderly, which is the key factor in effective resolution.

Source: Village Square, “How Odisha’s Kondh tribe resolves conflicts” (https://villagesquare.in/odia-tribes-resolve-conflicts-through-dialogue/)

2.6 Land Management

The Kondh traditionally held large tracts of fertile land and practiced a mixed economy of settled agriculture, hunting and gathering, and slash-and-burn cultivation (podu) in the forests. Land holding was communal at the clan/mutha level, with individual families cultivating specific plots but not holding alienable title in the modern sense.

The Dongria Kondh of Niyamgiri practice dongar chasa (hill-slope cultivation) on the slopes of the Niyamgiri range, growing a diverse array of crops including pineapple, orange, banana, jackfruit, turmeric, and ginger. Their agricultural system is intimately tied to the sacred geography of Niyamgiri — the hills are considered the abode of Niyam Raja, their supreme deity.

Land conflicts: Land encroachment has been the main source of tension between the Khond and Pano communities historically. The British period introduced new forms of land alienation, and post-colonial policies have continued to challenge traditional land tenure.

Source: Wikipedia, “Khond people”; Kalpavriksh, “The Niyamgiri Story” (https://kalpavriksh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NiyamgiricasestudyJuly2016.pdf); Odisha Review, “A Case Study of Kondhs of Kandhamal” (https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2011/Dec/engpdf/51-61.pdf)

2.7 The Niyamgiri Precedent: Traditional Governance in Modern Context

The 2013 Niyamgiri case represents the most dramatic modern assertion of Kondh traditional governance. When the Supreme Court of India ruled on April 18, 2013 that the Dongria Kondh would have a decisive say in Vedanta’s proposed bauxite mining project, it directed that gram sabhas be held under the provisions of PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996) and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Over three months, amidst heavy police presence and persistent threats from Vedanta, all 12 gram sabhas unanimously voted against the mining project. The 12th and final gram sabha delivered its “No” on August 19, 2013. In January 2014, the Ministry of Environment and Forests rejected the project completely.

This case established the norm of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) — free from intimidation, prior to any project activity, and informed by transparent sharing of all material information. It demonstrated that the decentralized governance structure of the Dongria Kondh, with no single paramount chief, could generate collective decisions of extraordinary coherence when traditional institutions and modern legal frameworks intersected.

Source: Participedia, “Indigenous Political Assertion on Niyamgiri Hills” (https://participedia.net/case/indigenous-political-assertion-on-niyamgiri-hills); Down to Earth, “Niyamgiri: 10 years since India’s first environmental referendum” (https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/niyamgiri-10-years-since-india-s-first-environmental-referendum-88850); Ritimo, “Claiming Niyamgiri” (https://www.ritimo.org/Claiming-Niyamgiri-the-Dongria-Kondh-s-Struggle-against-Vedanta)

2.8 Relationship with Non-Tribal Kingdoms and Colonial Powers

The Kondh relationship with surrounding non-tribal polities was marked by a degree of autonomy punctuated by violent intervention:

  • The Kondhs maintained tributary relationships with local rulers. The ruler of Ghumsur, Dhananjay Bhanja, fled into the jungle and sought Kondh assistance when pursued by the British. The Kondhs desired to assist him due to his status as their traditional overlord.
  • The Kondh practice of Meriah sacrifice (human sacrifice to the earth goddess Dharani Penu) brought them into direct conflict with the British East India Company beginning in the 1830s-40s. Captain Samuel Charteris Macpherson and later Major John Campbell were sent to suppress the practice in the Ghumsur and Kandhamal regions.
  • The suppression of Meriah was perceived as a direct attack on Kondh religious faith and triggered the Khond Uprisings (1837-1856). Under leaders like Dora Bisoi and subsequently Chakra Bisoi, the Kondhs mounted sustained resistance. By February 1846, Captain McPherson had rescued 170 Meriah victims, but the Kandha under Chakra Bisoi’s leadership assembled before his camp and demanded the victims back, forcing McPherson to release them.
  • Christian missionary activity further enraged the Kondhs and intensified rebellion.
  • British revenue collection of up to 50% of land revenue through coercion compounded tribal resentment.

Source: History of Odisha, “Ghumsar Rising under Dara Bisoi” (https://historyofodisha.in/ghumsar-rising-under-dara-bisoi/); History of Odisha, “Kandha Rising under Chakra Bisoi” (https://historyofodisha.in/kandha-rising-under-chakra-bisoi/); Social Research Foundation, “Suppression of Meriah Sacrifice Among Khond Tribe” (https://socialresearchfoundation.com/upoadreserchpapers/3/105/160625110222ramakanta%20bhuyan.pdf)

2.9 Kutia Kondh: Sub-Group Governance

The Kutia Kondh of Belghar in Kandhamal district represent a distinct PVTG sub-group managed through the Kutia Kondh Development Agency (KKDA) covering 55 villages/hamlets. They maintain a strong, unique social organization as an endogamous community with their own distinct language, territory, and lifestyle.

The family unit (mostly nuclear) is the center of economic, social, and religious activity. The Jani serves as the full-time religious-magico specialist at the village level. Ritual geography is marked by symbolic structures — wooden poles, notched bifurcated pillars, bamboo frames, stone pillars, and raised platforms with vermilion marks, each providing shelter to specific spirits and deities. Dharani Penu (earth goddess) is represented by three stones.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Kutia Khond” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/pvtg/113-pvtg/452-kutia-khond); SDC Odisha, “Kutia Kondh” (http://sdcodisha.in/index.php/communities/pvtg/107-communities/pvtg/271-kutia-kondh)

3. Saora (Savara) Governance

3.1 Overview and Distribution

The Saora (also spelled Sora, Saura, Savara, and historically Sabara) are a Munda (Austroasiatic) ethnic group inhabiting the Eastern Ghats of southern Odisha, primarily in the districts of Ganjam, Gajapati, Rayagada, and Koraput, extending into Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh. They speak the Sora language, which belongs to the Munda branch of the Austroasiatic language family.

The tribe recognizes two main internal divisions:

  • Lanjia Saora (Hill Saora): Reside in the hills, maintain traditional customs, practice shifting cultivation. The Lanjia Saora are classified as a PVTG. Named for their dress pattern of wearing a loin cloth hanging from behind.
  • Sudha Saora (Plain Saora): Live in the plains, more integrated into mainstream society and settled agriculture.

Source: Wikipedia, “Sora people” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sora_people); SCSTRTI, “Saora” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/pvtg/113-pvtg/455-saora); KBK Tribal Profile, “Saora” (https://kbk.nic.in/tribalprofile/Saora.pdf)

3.2 The Birinda (Extended Family/Lineage) System

The fundamental unit of Saora social organization is the birinda — an extended family or lineage group consisting of descendants from a common ancestor of four to five generations. Unlike some tribes that use a formalized clan (gothra) system, the Saora organize social life around these birinda lineages.

Key features:

  • The birinda functions as both a kinship unit and an economic unit controlling specific resources.
  • Village territories, especially hill-slope cultivation land, are distributed on the basis of birinda membership.
  • The traditional village council is composed of family heads from different birinda groups and is called the “Birinda Neti” (birinda council).
  • The political position of village headship is mostly confined to the Gamango Birinda (the headman’s lineage) but is not strictly limited to it.

Source: e-Tribal Tribune, “Origin, Culture and Kinship Structure of Hill Saora” (https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-5/mv5i1/origin-culture-and-kinship-structure-of-hill-saora); CIIL Sanchika, “Sora” (https://sanchika.ciil.org/communities/9c78ecec-557c-4c84-904c-b966573aa1e9)

3.3 Village Governance Structure

Every Saora village possesses a well-defined territory and a traditional governance structure with both secular and religious leadership:

TitleRole
Gomango (Gamong)Village headman, secular head. Hereditary, synonymous with the lineage-head.
Buyya (Buya)Village religious head, priest. Hereditary. Equally important as the Gomango.
MondalAdministrative assistant
RaitoRevenue-related functions
BarikVillage messenger

The dual leadership of Gomango (secular) and Buyya (sacred) is a defining feature of Saora governance. Both offices are normally hereditary. The Gomango exercises administrative and judicial authority, while the Buyya presides over all religious ceremonies, propitiation of spirits, and maintenance of ritual order.

Source: Wikipedia, “Sora people”; Encyclopedia.com, “Sora” (https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia/indian-political-geography/sora); KBK Tribal Profile, “Saora”

3.4 The Kudan (Shaman)

Alongside the formal village functionaries, the Kudan (and female counterpart Kudanboi) holds significant authority as a shaman who combines the functions of priest, prophet, and medicine man. Unlike the hereditary positions of Gomango and Buyya, the Kudan’s position is achieved rather than ascribed — meaning a person becomes a Kudan through perceived spiritual gifts and ability, not through birth.

The Kudan ranks just below the chief priest of the village and plays a critical role in diagnosis of illness (attributed to spiritual causes), communication with the dead, divination, and healing rituals. The elaborate Saora wall paintings (ittalan or idalon) are often created under the direction of or in consultation with the Kudan to propitiate spirits and heal the sick.

Verrier Elwin’s monograph The Religion of an Indian Tribe (1955), based on his ethnographic work among the Lanjia Saora, remains the most detailed account of Saora religious life and the role of the Kudan.

Additional religious specialists include:

  • Kuranmaran — shaman/medicine man
  • Idaimaran — assistant to the shaman
  • Siggamaran — funeral specialist

Source: KBK Tribal Profile, “Saora”; Verrier Elwin, The Religion of an Indian Tribe (Oxford University Press, 1955); Markazhi, “The Painting That Heals” (https://www.markazhi.com/the-painting-that-heals)

3.5 Land Management: The Garajang System

Every Saora village has a well-defined boundary. Land management follows the Garajang Andruku system (village community ownership), particularly among the Lanjia Saora:

  • Hills within the village boundary are distributed on the basis of birinda (lineage group).
  • A person cultivating a particular plot continues to own it as long as he is capable of cultivating it.
  • Members of different lineages and religious groups have claims over joint ownership and inheritance within the village territory.
  • Shifting cultivation on hill slopes is the primary agricultural practice, with plots rotated on fallow cycles.

This system creates a layered ownership structure: the village as a whole owns the territory; birinda groups hold customary rights over specific tracts; individual cultivators hold usufruct rights contingent on active cultivation. This is not private property in the modern sense but a complex system of nested, overlapping claims.

Source: KBK Tribal Profile, “Saora”; Encyclopedia.com, “Sora”; Gurusashram IAS, “Saora Tribes of Odisha” (https://gurusashramias.com/saora-tribe/)

3.6 Relationship with Other Communities

The Saora had complex relationships with surrounding Hindu polities. Historically, the Saora (as “Sabara”) appear in ancient Indian texts including the Mahabharata and the works of Pliny. The term “Sabara” connotes forest-dwelling people in classical Sanskrit literature.

The Lanjia Saora of the hills maintained significant autonomy from lowland Hindu kingdoms, protected by the inaccessibility of their terrain. The Sudha Saora in the plains were more integrated into the caste-Hindu social order, often serving as laborers or occupying a position in the lower reaches of the local caste hierarchy.

The British colonial period brought missionary activity and administrative interference that disrupted traditional governance, particularly through forest reservation policies and attempts to settle shifting cultivators.

Source: Korneldas.com, “Sabara Tribe in Indian History” (https://korneldas.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Sabara-Tribe-in-Indian-History.pdf); INTACH, “Cultural Mapping of the Sauras in Odisha” (http://intangibleheritage.intach.org/cultural-mapping-of-the-sauras-in-odisha/)

4. Juang Governance

4.1 Overview and Distribution

The Juang are one of the most ancient tribal groups in Odisha, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG). They are found primarily in Keonjhar district and parts of Dhenkanal district. They speak the Juang language, which belongs to the Mundari (Austroasiatic) family. Their self-designation translates to “Sons of Man” (Patua), reflecting their belief in being among the first inhabitants of their territory.

Two broad divisions are recognized:

  • Hill Juang — living in the hilly interior, maintaining a more primitive lifestyle based on shifting cultivation.
  • Plains Juang — settled in lower elevations, having adopted settled agriculture.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Juang” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/tribes/91-tribes/171-juang); Wikipedia, “Juang people” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juang_people); Dhaara Magazine, “Sons of Man: The Juang Tribe of Odisha” (https://dhaaramagazine.in/2023/11/16/sons-of-man-the-juang-tribe-of-odisha/)

4.2 The Pirha (Pirh) System

The Juang villages are organized into a territorial system of pirhs (also written pirha). There are four pirhs:

  1. Satkhand
  2. Jharkhand
  3. Kathua
  4. Rebena

Each pirh is led by a traditional tribal chief designated as Sardar. The area in Keonjhar district where the Juang predominantly live is called Juang Pirh (or Juangpirh), named after the tribe and their territorial system.

Each Juang village within a pirh is an autonomous socio-political unit, managed by a set of traditional leaders and a corporate body of village elders called bhalabhai (or barabhai). Among the Hill Juang, the village functioned as an independent socio-political entity within the pirh framework, with the sardar and council of bhalabhai managing inter-village affairs.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Juang”; Odisha State Tribal Museum, “Juang” (https://ostm.in/tribes_of_odisha/juang/); ATLC Odisha, “Juanga” (https://atlcodisha.in/uploads/images/tribes/JUANGA.pdf)

4.3 The Majang (Youth Dormitory) System

The majang (or mandaghar) is the most distinctive institution of Juang governance and social organization. It is a rectangular house standing conspicuously in the centre of the village and functions as a multi-purpose community institution:

FunctionDescription
Community house for youthUnmarried boys and girls become members
Court house for eldersThe barabhai (village elders) adjudicate disputes here
Guest houseVisitors to the village are housed here
Cooperative storeCommon grain and communal food stores
Musical instrument repositoryVillage instruments are kept here
Ritual venueCommunal rituals and ceremonies take place here
Cultural centerDance, music, storytelling
MuseumRepository of Juang art and craft

The majang serves critical functions in social reproduction:

  • Educational functions: Teaching traditional skills, cultural values, and social responsibilities through experiential learning.
  • Social integration: Youth from different families live together, reducing clan tensions and promoting inter-family unity.
  • Cultural preservation: Storytelling, song learning, and traditional craft instruction.
  • Conflict resolution skills: Young people learn to negotiate differences in close-quarters living.
  • Community labor: Organizing labor for community projects and maintaining village security.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Juang”; Dhaara Magazine, “Sons of Man”; Odisha State Tribal Museum, “Juang”; ExploreAnthro.com, “The Socio-Cultural Fabric of Tribes in the Eastern Zone of India” (https://exploreanthro.com/tribal-cultures-india/socio-cultural-tribes-eastern-india/)

4.4 Clan Organization

Clans are known locally as Bok and have a totemic origin, with members claiming descent from a common mythical or totemic ancestor. Key features:

  • Most Hill Juang villages have uni-clan composition (a single clan per village).
  • Village exogamy is the rule — marriage must occur outside one’s own village.
  • This creates a system where clan identity and village identity are closely aligned, and marriage networks connect villages across the pirh.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Juang”

4.5 Land Management

The Juang practice a communal land management system. The village community owns and manages all productive and useful natural resources within its boundary, including:

  • Swiddens (shifting cultivation plots)
  • Forests
  • Grazing land
  • Habitation sites

The Hill Juang subsist mainly on shifting cultivation (toila chasa). This was historically permitted in a regular manner in the Juangpirh of Keonjhar, where the feudatory state levied a plough tax or house tax on shifting cultivators rather than attempting to suppress the practice.

Plains Juang have transitioned to settled agriculture, but Hill Juang communities continue practicing shifting cultivation, though under increasing pressure from forest conservation policies.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Juang”; e-Tribal Tribune, “Tribal Land and Forest Issues in Odisha”; SocialDhara, “Exploring The Juang Tribe” (https://socialdhara.com/juang-tribe-culture-livelihoods-and-food-security/)

4.6 Relationship with the Keonjhar State

The Juang’s relationship with the feudatory Keonjhar state was distinct from the Bhuiyan relationship (discussed below). While the Bhuiyans held political power including king-making rights, the Juang occupied a more marginal position — recognized as original inhabitants but without the political leverage of the Bhuiyans. The Juangpirh territory within Keonjhar was recognized as a distinct zone where the Juang maintained a degree of autonomy, particularly in matters of shifting cultivation and internal governance.

Source: Keonjhar State information, Grokipedia (https://grokipedia.com/page/keonjhar_state); SCSTRTI, “Juang”

5. Bhuiyan/Bhuiya Governance

5.1 Overview and Distribution

The Bhuiyan (also spelled Bhuiya, Bhuyan) are found across several districts of Odisha, particularly Keonjhar, Sundargarh, Jharsuguda, Mayurbhanj, Sambalpur, and Angul. The name derives from the Sanskrit word bhumi (land), and they claim to be the autochthons (original inhabitants) of their territory. The area where they predominate in Keonjhar is known as Bhuyan Pirh after their name.

Two major divisions are recognized:

  • Paudi Bhuyan (Hill Bhuyan) — classified as a PVTG, living in hilly areas, more traditional.
  • Rajual Bhuyan (Plains Bhuyan) — living in the plains, more acculturated.

Source: Wikipedia, “Bhuiya” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhuyan); SCSTRTI, “Bhuiya” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/tribes/91-tribes/151-bhuiya); Encyclopedia.com, “Bhuiya” (https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bhuiya)

5.2 The Pirha (Pir/Pidha) System

The Paudi Bhuyan actively practice their traditional self-governance system known as the Pirha (also written pidha or pir). The system operates at multiple levels:

Village Level:

  • Each village has a Pradhan (village headman), a hereditary position usually passed to the eldest son.
  • The Pradhan enjoys high status and respect as the administrative head with final decision-making power.
  • A traditional panchayat (darbar) meets whenever required, with the Pradhan presiding.

Inter-Village (Pirha) Level:

  • A group of villages forms a confederation called a pirha.
  • The panchayat at this level is called the pirha panchayat, presided over by a secular headman called the sardar.
  • The pirha system includes key functionaries with prescribed roles:
    • Pirha Bhandari — treasurer/keeper of community resources
    • Behera — administrative assistant
    • Jati Behera — caste/community affairs official
    • Pirha Brahman — ritual specialist for the pirha

Source: ARF Journals, “Self-Governance (Pirha) of Paudi Bhuyan” (https://www.arfjournals.com/image/catalog/Journals%20Papers/SKYLINES%20OF%20ANTHROPOLOGY/2025/No%201%20(2025)/6_Paramananda%20Naik.pdf); Social Research Foundation, “Traditional Political Organisation of the Paudi Bhuyan Tribe” (https://socialresearchfoundation.com/upoadreserchpapers/7/451/21121203534714932.pdf); GRN Journal, “Traditional Socio-Political Structure & Institutions for Self-Governance of Paudi Bhuyan Tribe” (https://grnjournal.us/index.php/AJRCS/article/view/8663)

5.3 Dispute Resolution

The Pirha Panchayat system handles dispute resolution at two levels:

  • Village-level conflicts are resolved by a group of members led by the Pradhan.
  • Inter-village conflicts are referred to the territorial pirh council under the sardar.

Among the Paudi Bhuyan, oaths and ordeals form a vital component of traditional justice administered by the Pirha Panchayat. These include various forms of trial by ordeal to establish truth in disputed matters.

Source: ARF Journals, “Self-Governance (Pirha) of Paudi Bhuyan”; IntechOpen, “Changing Socioeconomic Structure of Paudi Bhuyans” (https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/84687)

5.4 “Lords of the Soil”: The King-Making Function

The Bhuiyan’s most distinctive political feature was their king-making authority in the feudatory states of Keonjhar and Bonai. This was not merely ceremonial but constituted a genuine check on royal power:

  • The Bhuiyans had traditional rights to install the Raja of Keonjhar.
  • According to Bhuiyan tradition, they originally stole a boy from the royal family and made him their king, offering him the right to rule and punish wrongdoers, but simultaneously reserving the right to dethrone him if he became oppressive.
  • In the coronation ceremony, the Bhuiyans played a vital role without whom the coronation was not considered complete.
  • Chiefs who held higher positions in the administrative machinery had no right to exercise any authority until they had received the tilak (token of investiture) from their powerful Bhuyan vassals.
  • The rulers of the Keonjhar state were dependent on Bhuiyan support for their political legitimacy.

This relationship inverted the expected power dynamic: the Bhuiyans, as “lords of the soil,” held a form of popular sovereignty over the Raja, who ruled at their sufferance. The Bhuiyan body functioned as an organized militia, holding lands on conditions of military service and maintaining themselves in readiness to either oppose their Raja or fight for him.

Source: Wikipedia, “Bhuiya”; Encyclopedia.com, “Bhuiya”; Bharatpedia, “Bhuyan” (https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Bhuyan); The Researchers Asia, “History and Identity of the Bhuyans of Odisha” (https://theresearchers.asia/old_website_2014-23/Papers/Vol-VII,%20Issue-I-2021/6%20History%20and%20Identity%20of%20the%20Bhuyans%20of%20Odisha.pdf)

5.5 The Bhuiyan Uprisings

The Bhuiyan king-making tradition brought them into direct conflict with British colonial administration, which sought to impose its own candidates and control over the feudatory states:

The 1867 Uprising: The biggest tribal uprising in 19th-century Odisha. The rebellion was triggered by British interference in the Bhuiyans’ age-long practice of crowning or rejecting the king of their choice. It was a direct assertion of their traditional sovereignty against colonial overreach.

The 1891 Uprising (Dharanidhar Naik): The second phase of the Bhuiyan uprising, led by Dharanidhar Naik, a Bhuyan by birth. This struggle lasted five years (1890-1895) and represented sustained armed resistance against British authority.

These uprisings demonstrate that the Bhuiyan pir system was not a quaint cultural artifact but a living political institution capable of organizing military resistance in defense of its prerogatives.

Source: e-Tribal Tribune, “Bhuiyan Uprising” (https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-2/mv2i5/bhuiyan-uprising); History of Odisha, “Bhuyan Rising Under Ratna Naik” (https://historyofodisha.in/bhuyan-rising-under-ratna-naik/); History of Odisha, “Bhuyan Rising Under Dharani Dhar Naik” (https://historyofodisha.in/bhuyan-rising-under-dharani-dhar-naik/); SpringerLink, “The Raz, the Rajas and the Bhuiyans” (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-3424-6_10)

5.6 Impact of Modern Governance

The introduction of the Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) system has led to modifications in the traditional pirha council’s dynamics. The role and status of the village head (Pradhan) has been diminished with the election of ward members and other PRI members, creating tension between traditional and constitutional governance systems.

Source: ARF Journals, “Self-Governance (Pirha) of Paudi Bhuyan”

6. Bonda Governance

6.1 Overview and Distribution

The Bonda (also known as Bondo, Bondo Poraja, Bhonda, or Remo — their self-designation) are a Munda (Austroasiatic) ethnic group inhabiting 32 villages confined to approximately 130 sq. km of hill area in the Khairput Block of Malkangiri district, southwestern Odisha, near the tri-junction of Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh.

They are one of India’s 75 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups and are believed to be among the earliest human settlers in the Indian subcontinent, with genetic studies linking them to the first wave of migration out of Africa approximately 60,000 years ago. Their population numbered approximately 12,000 as of the 2011 Census.

Source: Wikipedia, “Bonda people” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonda_people); The Raisina Hills, “PVTG Bonda Tribe of Odisha” (https://theraisinahills.com/pvtg-bonda-tribe-of-odisha-prides-in-independent-stubborn-spirits/); SCSTRTI, “Bondo Poraja” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/tribes/91-tribes/158-bondoporaja)

6.2 Village-Level Governance: The Naik System

Bonda villages are traditionally autonomous, with each village functioning as an independent socio-political unit. Social order is maintained by a set of traditional functionaries:

TitleRole
Naik (Bada Naik)Village chief. An elderly person with knowledge and experience. Presides over village council meetings and adjudicates village affairs.
Challan (Chalan)Organizer of village meetings
BarikVillage messenger
Sisa (Pujari)Village priest, performs worship of deities on various occasions
DishariMedicine man, healer

For more serious matters — homicide, adultery, divorce, and land-related disputes — cases are referred to the Munda of the Badnaik clan, who acts as the secular head of the village and enforces law and order. The Badnaik is assisted by the Kirsani Munda, who in turn is assisted by the Chalan Munda.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Bondo Poraja”; SDC Odisha, “Bondo Poraja” (http://sdcodisha.in/index.php/106-communities/tribes/332-bondo-poraja); Vajiramandravi, “Bonda Tribe” (https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/bonda-tribe/)

6.3 The Sindibor: Sacred Council Platform

The Sindibor is a megalithic stone platform built either at the centre or at a convenient place in each Bonda village. It serves dual functions:

  1. Secular: Village council meetings are held here. The Naik presides over these meetings, where cases concerning village affairs are heard. Punishment is given to offenders in accordance with the gravity of the case.
  2. Sacred: The Sindibor functions as a shrine where demi-gods are worshipped. Important socio-religious activities are conducted here. The platform represents the intersection of political authority and spiritual power.

The architectural centrality of the Sindibor in village layout reflects the centrality of the council in Bonda political life. Trials and community decisions take place in the same space where deities are propitiated, blending judicial and religious authority.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Bondo Poraja”; SDC Odisha, “Bondo Poraja”; The Raisina Hills, “PVTG Bonda Tribe”

6.4 Social Organization and the Sisa Institution

Bonda society exhibits several distinctive organizational features:

  • Council of elders: Important decisions for the community are made by a hierarchical council of elders. The emphasis is on community decisions through collective deliberation.
  • Animistic beliefs: The society centers on nature worship and ancestral spirits.
  • Women’s authority: Bonda society has matriarchal elements, with women having significant authority in family and social matters. Bonda women often marry men 8-10 years younger than them, making family structure distinctly women-centric.
  • The Sisa (Pujari): The village priest who performs worship at the Sindibor and at specific shrines. The Sisa’s role connects spiritual authority with the maintenance of social order.
  • Marriage system (Diosing): Marriage involves a form of dowry called Gining, and Bonda boys are expected to marry between ages 10-12.

Source: Wikipedia, “Bonda people”; BunkarValley, “Bonda Tribe: History, Culture, Traditions, and Challenges” (https://www.bunkarvalley.com/bonda-tribe/); DesiaKoraput, “Exploring the Culture, Traditions, and Life of the Bonda Tribes of Odisha” (https://www.desiakoraput.com/exploring-the-culture-traditions-and-life-of-the-bonda-tribes-of-odisha/)

6.5 Land Management and Agriculture

The Bonda practice a unique blend of settled and shifting cultivation:

  • Shifting cultivation (dangar chas / podu): Farming is done in small patches on hill slopes, created by cutting and burning weeds and undergrowth. After cultivation, patches are left fallow for over three years for natural regeneration.
  • Settled agriculture: They also practice settled cultivation in lower-lying areas, growing paddy, millet, pulses, and vegetables.
  • Biodiversity: They grow over 20 crop varieties while preserving rich biodiversity — a sophisticated agroecological system.
  • Sustainability: Their farming system has been recognized as an effective indigenous response to climate change, maintaining soil health and biodiversity through diversified cropping and fallowing practices.

Source: Down to Earth, “Bonda Tribe Cultivation: Unique Mix of Settled and Shifting Farming in Odisha” (https://www.downtoearth.org.in/agriculture/an-ancient-tribe-that-practices-both-settled-and-shifting-cultivation); Down to Earth, “This Odisha tribe grows 20 crop varieties without jeopardising biodiversity” (https://www.downtoearth.org.in/agriculture/this-odisha-tribe-grows-20-crop-varieties-without-jeopardising-biodiversity-65738); IndiaSpend, “How A Tribal Community In Odisha Is Battling Climate Change With Traditional Farming” (https://www.indiaspend.com/climate-change/tribal-community-odisha-battling-climate-change-with-traditional-farming-758207)

6.6 Relationship with Other Communities

The Bonda have historically maintained a posture of fierce independence and isolation. Living in the remote hills of Malkangiri, they were largely beyond the effective reach of lowland kingdoms and even colonial administration. Their reputation for independence led the British to describe them as “stubborn” — a characterization the tribe appears to embrace.

Their geographic isolation (130 sq. km of hill terrain) and small population have meant limited interaction with neighboring communities. The introduction of modern governance, development programs through the Bonda Development Agency (BDA), and increasing contact with mainstream society represent ongoing challenges to their traditional governance structures.

Source: The Raisina Hills, “PVTG Bonda Tribe”; Intercontinental Cry, “A changing landscape for the Bonda Highlanders” (https://icmagazine.org/a-changing-landscape-for-the-bonda-highlanders/)

7. Santhal Governance

7.1 Overview and Distribution

The Santhal (also spelled Santal) are one of the largest tribal communities in India, found primarily in Jharkhand, West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, and Assam. In Odisha, they are concentrated in the districts of Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar, and Balasore. In Mayurbhanj, tribal people (mainly Santal and Munda) constitute around 60% of the total population.

The Santhal governance system, known as the Manjhi Regime or Manjhi-Pargana system, is one of the most elaborate and well-documented tribal governance structures in India. It was formulated in the remote past but has survived through the colonial and post-colonial periods with remarkable resilience.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Santal” (https://www.scstrti.in/index.php/communities/tribes/91-tribes/203-santal); Odisha Review, “The Santals of Mayurbhanj” (https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2009/July/engpdf/52-57.pdf); Wikipedia, “Santal people” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santal_people)

7.2 Village-Level Governance: The Seven Officials

Each Santhal village has a governing council consisting of seven officials, each with defined roles:

TitleRole
Manjhi (Manjhi Hadam)Village headman. Administrative and judicial head. Also serves as primary worshipper. Hereditary position.
ParanikDeputy village headman. Takes over all responsibilities in the Manjhi’s absence. Serves as the officiating head.
Jog ManjhiSecond assistant to the Manjhi. Supervises the youth of the village. Ensures moral and social conduct aligns with tribal customs and traditions. Oversees the atur (youth dormitory).
Jog ParanikAssistant to the Jog Manjhi.
GodetMessenger of the Manjhi. Functions as a peon, informing villagers when meetings are to be held on behalf of the Panchayat.
NaekeVillage priest. Conducts worship and religious ceremonies.
Kudam NaekeAssistant to the Naeke. Worships forests and nature. Propitiates local spirits believed to reside in jungles and hills.

This seven-person structure ensures that secular authority (Manjhi, Paranik), youth oversight (Jog Manjhi, Jog Paranik), communication (Godet), and religious functions (Naeke, Kudam Naeke) are all represented in village governance.

Source: e-Tribal Tribune, “Leadership and Community Administrative Structure of Santal” (https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-3/mv3i5/252-leadership-and-community-administrative-structure-of-santal); Simoti Classes, “Santhal Governance System (Manjhi Regime)” (https://www.simoticlasses.com/2021/05/santhal-governance-system-manjhi-regime.html); IJHSSI, “Administrative System of Santals: Past and Present” (http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/vol9(4)/Series-1/O0904017072.pdf)

7.3 The Pargana System: Inter-Village Governance

Beyond the village, the Santhal organize into a multi-tiered governance structure:

Pargana level: A Pargana consisting of 15-20 villages forms an intramural organization. Its head is called the Parganat (or Parganaet). Disputes between villages that cannot be resolved at the village level are settled by the Pargana panchayat.

Deshmanjhi level: Above the Parganat, the Deshmanjhi serves as a higher authority. When the Deshmanjhi or Manjhi cannot resolve a matter, it is sent up to the Parganat.

7.4 The Four-Tier Judicial System

The Santhal traditional judicial system comprises four tiers of courts:

  1. Manjhi Baisi — Village-level court, presided over by the Manjhi. Handles disputes within the village.
  2. Mapanjhi Baisi — Intermediate court for disputes between neighboring villages.
  3. Pargana Baisi — Pargana-level court, presided over by the Parganat. Handles inter-village disputes.
  4. Lo Bir Baisi — The highest and most remarkable tier.

7.5 The Lo Bir: The Democratic Assembly

The Lo Bir (or Lo Bir Sindra / dihri shikar) represents the highest authority in Santhal society and is one of the most democratic institutions in any pre-colonial tribal governance system. It was an assembly of the people (males) of the entire region, convened during the annual communal hunt in January.

The process:

  1. The annual communal hunt is organized.
  2. After the hunt, a people’s assembly is held at night.
  3. All pending issues are discussed and appropriate decisions taken.
  4. Everyone can speak — complaints can be brought forward by even the poorest person.
  5. Even complaints against the parganas, deshmanjhis, or manjhis themselves can be raised and adjudicated.

This institution functioned as a form of popular accountability mechanism, ensuring that even hereditary leaders were answerable to the community as a whole. The Lo Bir was simultaneously a hunting event, a judicial assembly, a legislative body, and a social gathering — the most comprehensive expression of Santhal collective governance.

Source: Simoti Classes, “Santhal Governance System”; Grassroots Institute, “Inquiry into Tribal Self-Governance in Santal Parganas” (http://www.grassrootsinstitute.net/files/inquiry.pdf); Philosophy Institute, “The Santal Village: A Model of Tribal Governance and Social Harmony” (https://philosophy.institute/tribal-philosophy/santal-village-tribal-governance-social-harmony/)

7.6 Land Management and Distribution

The Santhal system includes a formalized land distribution mechanism tied to governance roles:

When a new Santhal village is established:

  1. The appointed rulers of the village sit together and divide the land and homestead fields.
  2. Agricultural land is divided into units based on what is needed for one person to plough.
  3. Rent is fixed.
  4. Land is allocated to each office as office-land in the following proportions:
    • Manjhi — 4 portions
    • Paranik — 3 portions
    • Jog Manjhi — 2 portions
    • Jog Paranik, Godet, Naeke, Kudam Naeke — 1 portion each

This system links political office with land allocation, providing material support for governance functions while maintaining a proportional hierarchy.

Sacred groves (Jaher/Jaheera): Each Santhal village maintains a sacred grove on the outskirts, regarded as the abode of all Santal deities. In front of the Manjhi’s house, they maintain the Manjhithan — a sacred place and seat of Manjhi-haram, the founding ancestor deity. The sacred grove system represents a form of community-managed conservation.

Source: e-Tribal Tribune, “Leadership and Community Administrative Structure of Santal”; SCSTRTI, “Santal”; KBK, “Santal” (https://kbk.nic.in/tribalprofile/Santal.pdf)

7.7 Clan Organization

In Odisha, the Santhal tribe is divided into several totemic exogamous clans called Paris. Each clan is further divided into:

  • Sub-clans
  • Maximal lineages (Bansa)
  • Minimal lineages (Kutum)

Santhal settlements follow a distinctive parallel-row pattern, with houses facing a common street. This settlement pattern reflects the egalitarian social organization of the community.

Source: SCSTRTI, “Santal”; Odisha Review, “The Santals of Mayurbhanj”

7.8 Relationship with the Mayurbhanj State and Other Communities

The Santhal Pargana system in Mayurbhanj was influenced by the broader Santhal governance traditions originating in what is now Jharkhand. The Mayurbhanj princely state was one of the largest feudatory states in Odisha, with a vast mountainous area inhabited by Santhal, Munda, Ho, and Kisan peoples. The Santhals constituted a major demographic force in Mayurbhanj.

The Santhal Rebellion of 1855-56 (Santhal Hool), centered in the Santhal Parganas of present-day Jharkhand, was one of the largest tribal uprisings against the British East India Company and zamindari exploitation. While centered outside Odisha, the rebellion’s impact reverberated through Santhal communities across the region, including Mayurbhanj. The British response — creating the separate Santhal Parganas administrative district — represented a recognition of the Manjhi-Pargana system as a functioning governance structure.

Source: IIPA, “Report on District Governance in Mayurbhanj” (https://iipa.org.in/upload/Odisha_Mayurbhanj_Report.pdf); India Seminar, “Tribal participation” (https://india-seminar.com/2002/514/514%20arbind%20kumar.htm); Deccan Herald, “A brief history of the Santhal tribe” (https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india/a-brief-history-of-the-santhal-tribe-1129883.html)

8. Cross-Cutting Themes

8.1 Common Governance Structures

Despite the diversity of these seven communities — spanning Dravidian (Gond, Kondh), Munda/Austroasiatic (Saora, Juang, Bhuiyan, Bonda, Santhal), and distinct linguistic-cultural traditions — several structural commonalities emerge:

FeatureGondKondhSaoraJuangBhuiyanBondaSanthal
Territorial unitGarh/BarhonMuthaVillage/BirindaPirhPirhaAutonomous villagePargana
Village headmanMajhi/PatelSaanta/MondalGomangoSardar/BhalabhaiPradhanNaikManjhi
Religious specialistPersa Pen priestJani/Dishari/BejuBuyya/Kudan—Pirha BrahmanSisa/DishariNaeke
Messenger/aide—BarikBarik——Barik/ChallanGodet
Youth institutionGhotul (Muria)——Majang——Atur
Clan system4-phratry/sagaMutha (50 named)BirindaBok (totemic)—Clan-basedParis (totemic)
Exogamy ruleClan exogamyMutha exogamyBirinda exogamyVillage exogamy—Village-basedClan exogamy
Land managementCommunal/clanCommunal/muthaGarajang/birindaCommunal/villageCommunal/pirhaCommunal/villageOffice-proportional

8.2 Dual Secular-Sacred Authority

A striking common feature is the separation (or complementarity) of secular and sacred authority:

  • Saora: Gomango (secular) and Buyya (sacred) as co-equal heads
  • Kondh: Saanta/Mondal (secular) and Jani/Dishari (sacred)
  • Bonda: Naik (secular) and Sisa (sacred)
  • Santhal: Manjhi (secular, but also worshipper) and Naeke (sacred)

This dual structure prevented concentration of power and ensured that governance decisions incorporated both practical and spiritual considerations.

8.3 The Dormitory Institution

Three of the seven communities maintain(ed) formal youth dormitory systems:

  • Gond (Muria): Ghotul — elaborate, with internal governance structure
  • Juang: Majang/Mandaghar — multi-functional community center
  • Santhal: Atur — youth supervision under Jog Manjhi

These dormitories served as institutions of education, socialization, cultural transmission, labor organization, and conflict resolution training. They represent a pre-colonial form of community-based education that operated parallel to governance structures.

8.4 Land as Commons, Not Property

All seven communities shared a fundamental orientation toward communal land tenure:

  • Land belonged to the community (village, clan, or birinda), not to individuals.
  • Individual families held usufruct rights contingent on active cultivation.
  • Shifting cultivation was the dominant agricultural practice, requiring communal management of fallow cycles.
  • Sacred groves and forests were managed as community commons.

The colonial transformation of this communal system into state-owned “forest land” and private revenue-generating “settled land” was the single most destructive intervention in tribal governance across all seven communities.

8.5 The King-Making Pattern

Several tribal communities maintained ritualized authority over non-tribal rulers:

  • Bhuiyan: Installed the Raja of Keonjhar through tilak ceremony; reserved the right to dethrone oppressive kings.
  • Gond: Held positions as dewans and zamindars under the Chauhan rulers, on military tenure without revenue obligation.
  • Kondh: Maintained tributary relationships with local rajas (e.g., Ghumsur), who sought Kondh military support.

This pattern challenges the colonial-era assumption that tribal peoples were simply “ruled” by Hindu kingdoms. The relationship was more often a complex negotiation of mutual dependency, with tribal communities holding real political leverage.

8.6 Resistance Patterns

All seven communities resisted colonial intervention, but the form of resistance mapped to their governance structures:

  • Bhuiyan (1867, 1891): Resistance centered on defending the king-making institution.
  • Kondh (1837-1856): Resistance centered on defending religious practices (Meriah) and land rights.
  • Gond (1857-1864): Resistance aligned with the broader anti-colonial uprising, leveraging zamindari military tenure.
  • Santhal (1855-56): The Hool (rebellion) was the largest tribal uprising, driven by zamindari exploitation.
  • Bonda: Resistance took the form of absolute withdrawal and isolation.

9. Key Academic Sources and References

Ethnographic Monographs

  • Elwin, Verrier. The Murias and Their Ghotul (Oxford University Press, 1947). Definitive study of Muria Gond dormitory institution.
  • Elwin, Verrier. The Religion of an Indian Tribe (Oxford University Press, 1955). Detailed account of Saora religious life and the kudan/shaman system.
  • Elwin, Verrier. Leaves from the Jungle: Life in a Gond Village (1936). Early ethnographic account.
  • Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph von. Studies on Raj Gond descent group systems (various, mid-20th century).

Government Institutional Sources

Academic Papers and Journals

Encyclopedia and Reference

News, Advocacy, and Documentary Sources

10. The Khuntkattidar System

10.1 Origins and Logic

The Khuntkattidar system (from khunta — axe, and katti — to clear) was a tribal land tenure system in which land belonged to the community that first cleared the forest. It operated primarily among the Munda, Ho, and Bhuiyan communities in the Chotanagpur plateau and western Odisha border regions. The system was not a primitive precursor to property law — it was a fully articulated framework of communal ownership based on the principle that the act of bringing wild land into cultivation created a permanent bond between the community and the territory.

Core principles:

  • First-clearing right: The original community that cleared forest for cultivation held permanent communal title. This was not individual ownership but collective stewardship.
  • Inalienability: Khuntkattidar land could not be sold, mortgaged, or transferred to outsiders (dikus). The right was inherent and communal.
  • The Munda as custodian: The village Munda (headman) was the keeper of the community’s land claim, responsible for allocating use rights within the community but never for alienating the land itself.
  • Religious sanction: The Pahan (village priest) performed rituals connecting the community to the land. Fertility rites, harvest celebrations, and seasonal ceremonies reinforced the spiritual relationship between people and territory.

10.2 Codification and Subversion

The Chotanagpur Tenancy Act of 1908 — itself a partial result of Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan (1899-1900) — attempted to codify khuntkattidar rights. It introduced the “Mundari Khuntkkattidar” category, restricted land transfers to non-tribals, and protected customary rights to water, forests, and land (Jal, Jungle, Zameen). But codification was double-edged: it recognized existing rights while simultaneously embedding them in a colonial legal framework that could be manipulated by revenue officials and moneylenders.

The British used the system for revenue collection and administrative control. Traditional heads were transformed into rent collectors and agents of British rule — functionally subverting the system they were supposed to protect.

Sources:

11. Shifting Cultivation (Podu/Jhum) as Sustainable Forest Management

11.1 How It Worked

Shifting cultivation — known variously as podu, jhum, dangar chas, dahi, kaman, or taila depending on the community — was not the “primitive” practice colonial administrators characterized it as. It was a sophisticated rotational agriculture adapted to low-density hill environments.

The cycle:

  1. A patch of hillside forest (typically 1-3 acres) is cleared by cutting and burning undergrowth
  2. Crops are planted in the ash-enriched soil for 1-3 seasons
  3. The patch is abandoned and left fallow for 5-20 years (depending on community and terrain)
  4. During the fallow period, the forest regenerates naturally
  5. After regeneration, the cycle repeats

Ecological rationality: In low population density environments, this system maintained forest cover, preserved biodiversity, and avoided the soil depletion that permanent cultivation causes on steep hillsides. The Bonda of Malkangiri grow over 20 crop varieties using this method while preserving the rich biodiversity of their hill environment. The Juang call their system dahi (firing), kaman (saving), and taila (upland) — the very terminology encoding the conservation logic.

11.2 Colonial Criminalization

The Indian Forest Acts of 1865, 1878, and 1927 progressively criminalized shifting cultivation:

  • 1865 Act: Gave the state power to declare any forested land as “government forest”
  • 1878 Act: Created the “reserved forest” and “protected forest” categories, restricting all activities within designated areas
  • 1927 Act: Consolidated state control, requiring permits for forest use and criminalizing unauthorized cultivation

The restriction of podu cultivation transformed forest inhabitants into “encroachers” overnight. Clan and lineage territories were not recognized in forest settlement operations — the very unit of governance that had maintained the forests for centuries was rendered legally invisible.

Research in Keonjhar shows that state-led afforestation efforts systematically selected shifting cultivation (podu) uplands for enclosure and tree plantation, creating a “lose-lose situation where neither forest restoration nor forest rights are realized.”

Sources:

12. Sacred Groves and Community Forest Conservation

12.1 Scale and Diversity

Odisha has identified at least 11,000 sacred groves across its tribal areas. A 2015 government survey documented 2,163 groves needing protection, though this list excluded mineral-rich areas like Niyamgiri. Different tribal communities use different terms:

CommunityTerm for Sacred GroveLocation
SantalJahera/JaheeraKeonjhar, Mayurbhanj
Bathudi, Gond, SaoraPatKeonjhar, Mayurbhanj, Rayagada, Gajapati
KondhVarious local termsKandhamal, Rayagada, Kalahandi
General Odisha usageThakuraniAcross tribal districts

12.2 Governance Rules and Taboos

Sacred groves operated under strict community-enforced rules that functioned as de facto environmental law:

  • Absolute prohibition on tree cutting: Violation was believed to invite punishment from presiding deities — often death to the individual, disease or crop failure to the community
  • No collection from forest floor: Even fallen leaves, branches, or fruit were prohibited in many groves
  • No hunting: Animals and birds within groves were protected
  • Deity represented by natural objects: Stones, trees, or natural features — not constructed temples

12.3 The Niyamgiri Case

The Dongria Kondh regard the entire Niyamgiri hill range as sacred. Their most revered god, Niyam Raja (“the giver of law”), is believed to reside on the highest peak. The hills are a living deity, not merely a resource base. When the Supreme Court ruled in April 2013 that the gram sabhas must be consulted before mining could proceed, all 12 gram sabhas voted unanimously against mining — a rare instance of a traditional conservation ethic prevailing against industrial capital in a formal legal process.

12.4 Forests as Community Commons vs. State Property

The fundamental conflict was conceptual. In the tribal worldview, forests were community commons — governed by collective rules, spiritual sanctions, and customary law. Nobody “owned” the forest; the community was its custodian. The colonial state introduced forests as state property — a resource to be classified, controlled, and commercially exploited. Over 50% of tribal land in Odisha has been lost to non-tribals through indebtedness, mortgage, and forcible possession. In Scheduled Areas, three-fourths of land remains state-owned, and average tribal landholding stands at just 1.12 standard acres per household.

Sources:

13. The Concept of “Ownership” Before Property Law

13.1 Tribal Understanding of Land Relations

Before colonial property law, tribal communities understood their relationship with land through fundamentally different categories:

Usufruct rights, not ownership: Natural resources were shared in common. Some communities lacked the concept of land ownership entirely, holding only traditions of community control and usufruct rights — the right to use land and benefit from its produce, without the right to exclude others or to sell.

Stewardship, not sovereignty: The Munda khuntkattidar concept was not “we own this land” but “we are the people who brought this land into being through labor, and we have a continuing obligation to it.”

Community as the unit of relationship: The individual was not the basic unit of land relations. The clan, the village, the lineage — these were the entities that held rights.

13.2 The British Imposition of Property Law

The British introduced a fundamentally alien framework:

  • Land as state property: Community ceased to exist in courts’ eyes
  • Individual, alienable title: Land became something you could buy, sell, mortgage, and lose
  • Permanent Settlement Act (1793): Created revenue-collecting zamindars with no organic relationship to the land
  • Revenue as legitimacy: Right to land contingent on paying revenue — failure meant forfeiture

13.3 The Fundamental Incompatibility

DimensionTribal SystemColonial System
LegibilityRelational, contextual, oralMappable, taxable, documented
MobilityShifting cultivation moves across landscapeFixed plots with clear boundaries
UnitCommunalIndividual taxpayer
MediumOral tradition, collective memoryWritten records, registration

This incompatibility persists: post-Independence legislation (Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1952, Orissa Land Reforms Act 1960) created new problems, as large landholders exploited interim periods to evict tribal tenants before land ceiling reductions took effect.

Sources:

14. Pre-Colonial Trade Networks

14.1 The Forest Economy

Tribal communities were not isolated subsistence units — they were embedded in regional trade networks through high-value forest products:

Key products:

  • Lac: Used for medicine, food preservation, varnish, polish. Commercially significant, linking tribal producers to regional and international markets
  • Tussar (Tasar) silk: Indigenous silk produced primarily by Santhal and Munda communities. The silkworm (Antheraea mylitta) feeds on forest species — sal, arjun, asan. During the Gupta and Maurya periods, tussar silk was a fabric of royalty
  • Sal seeds: Oil used for cooking, lighting, medicine. Critical income source linking forest communities to plains traders
  • Tendu/Kendu leaves: Bidi wrappers. Over 3 million people engage in bidi processing nationally; 7.5 million laborers gather tendu leaves annually
  • Mahua (Madhuca longifolia): Flowers for food, oil, alcoholic beverages, medicine. Staple of tribal ceremonial life
  • Other: Honey, tamarind, medicinal herbs, broom grass, amla, karanj seeds, mushrooms (10+ wild edible species in Mayurbhanj)

14.2 The Weekly Haat (Market) System

The haat was the primary institution of tribal-non-tribal economic exchange:

  • Temporal structure: Set up on specified days, creating rotating market circuits across regions
  • Neutral ground: Markets functioned as “No Man’s Land” — a neutral meeting place irrespective of tribe and caste. One of the few institutions where caste and tribal boundaries were suspended
  • Barter persistence: At markets near Lamtaput in Koraput, traditional barter persists — tribal women exchange produce basket-for-basket, rice for vegetables, ragi for chillies
  • Specific markets: Kunduli (Koraput), Lamtaput (Koraput — Bonda and Gadaba), Kakiriguma (Koraput — Kondh)

14.3 Hill-Plains Exchange

Hill communities provided: Forest produce (lac, silk cocoons, honey, herbs), horticultural products (turmeric, ginger), labor Plains communities provided: Salt, iron tools, cloth, rice (in deficit years), cash and credit

The credit trap: Monetization through revenue demands created dependency on moneylenders (sahukars) who advanced cash against future forest produce at exploitative rates. This was the mechanism through which over 50% of tribal land was lost.

Tribals derive 20-40% of annual income from minor forest produce, with women predominantly involved in collection and marketing.

Sources:

Word count: ~12,000 Communities covered: 7 Sources cited: 80+ Compiled for: SeeUtkal reference library

Cited in

The narrative series that build on this research.