The Santal Village: A Model of Tribal Governance and Social Harmony

Most governance systems we know today are built on elections, constitutions, and state authority. But long before these formal structures existed, the Santal people – one of the largest tribal communities in India – had already developed a sophisticated, self-sustaining model of village governance. Their system wasn’t written into a law book. It was lived, practised, and passed down through generations. At its core was something surprisingly modern: collective decision-making, accountable leadership, and community-driven justice.

Who are the Santals? 🔗

The Santals are an Austroasiatic-speaking Munda ethnic group native to the Indian subcontinent. Their greatest concentration is found across the states of Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, and Bihar in eastern India, with smaller communities in Bangladesh and Nepal. According to the 2011 Census of India, they number over 6.5 million, making them among the three largest tribal communities in the country.

Their history is marked by resilience and resistance – most famously through the Santhal Rebellion of 1855-56, led by Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu, against colonial exploitation. But beyond their history of revolt, the Santals are equally remarkable for what they built: a village society with an internal logic so well-ordered that British administrative officer L.S.S. O’Malley described them as having an excellent and well-ordered village organization with a hierarchy of officials and courts for dispensing their unwritten law.

The village as the fundamental unit 🔗

For the Santals, the village is not just a place of residence – it is the primary political, social, and religious unit of life. Each village is the key political unit, and the largest formally organized territorial grouping above it is the pargana, a loose confederation of neighbouring villages bound together to settle judicial questions and shared concerns. Everything begins at the village level, and most matters are resolved there before reaching any higher body.

Santal villages enjoy a large measure of internal autonomy and are mainly governed by their own traditional laws and customs. The primary feature of every Santal village is the Manjhi Council, or village council – a structured body of seven officials, each with a clearly defined role.

The seven officials of the Manjhi Council 🔗

The village council consists of seven members: the Manjhi, Paranik, Naike, Jog Manjhi, Jog Paranik, Godet, and Kudam Naike. Together, they form the governing and spiritual backbone of the village. Understanding each role reveals just how comprehensively the Santals had organized community life.

Manjhi – the village headman 🔗

At the helm of the village council is the Manjhi, the village headman. It is a hereditary position of great respect, responsible for the overall management of the village including communal property and social work. The Manjhi manages village affairs, maintains order, presides over meetings, settles disputes, and grants permission for marriages. His presence is considered essential in every ceremony. The Santal system of governance is known as the Manjhi-Paragana system, comparable in structure to local self-governance.

Importantly, the Manjhi’s authority is not absolute. All village functionaries lay down their charge annually, and there exists a process of collective evaluation, review, and re-selection of the functionaries by the villagers during the Magh festival (held in January-February). This annual accountability mechanism means that hereditary leadership does not shield anyone from community scrutiny.

Paranik – the deputy headman 🔗

The Paranik (also rendered as Paramanik or Parnik) is the Manjhi’s deputy. In the absence of the Manjhi, the Paranik performs all of his duties. If the Manjhi resigns or dies without a successor, the Paranik assumes the position of Manjhi. Historically, the Paranik was also responsible for overseeing agricultural interests, ensuring equitable distribution of fertile land among villagers, welcoming new settlers, and collecting contributions to entertain village guests. Like the Manjhi, the Paranik was traditionally assigned manland – a plot of land as recognition of his service to the community.

The Parnik excels in judgment and determines the source of wrongdoing, ensuring justice and equality in the village. He is not just a stand-in leader but a critical check within the governance system.

Jog Manjhi and Jog Paranik – guardians of social conduct 🔗

The Jog Manjhi holds a socially vital role: his main responsibility is to look after the youth of the village. He oversees matters of morality, behavior, and discipline – particularly those involving young men and women. He investigates and adjudicates issues related to love and marriage, and ensures the safety of villagers during festivals. The Jog Paranik assists the Jog Manjhi and acts in his place during absences.

Naike and Kudam Naike – the spiritual officials 🔗

The Naike is the village priest. He fixes the dates of religious ceremonies and sacrificial rituals in consultation with the Manjhi, connecting the governance of the community to its spiritual life. The Kudam Naike, his assistant, is the worshipper of forests and nature, propitiating local spirits believed to dwell in jungles and hills. Together, these two roles underscore that Santal village governance is not merely administrative – it is deeply intertwined with the community’s relationship to the natural and spiritual world.

Godet – the village messenger 🔗

The Godet serves as the official messenger of the Manjhi. He informs people about meetings of the gram sabha, festivals, and instructions issued by the Manjhi. While this may seem like a minor administrative function, the Godet plays a crucial role in ensuring that every villager is reached and that the council’s communications are transparent and inclusive. He is also involved in organizing village elections and managing logistics during community events.

Consensus as the governing principle 🔗

What sets the Santal village apart from many governance systems is not just its structure, but its philosophy. Decisions could be taken only through the collective consensus of the community in a kulhi durup, or village meeting, in which all adult members of the village participated. This is not a majority-vote system. The goal is deliberation until a genuine consensus is reached – a process that demands patience, dialogue, and mutual respect.

Most decisions on social, cultural, and political issues were taken at the village level. The council functions as a platform where issues – from land disputes to marriage conflicts to matters of justice – are discussed openly. No single official, not even the Manjhi, can override the community’s collective will. This is governance rooted in participation, not authority.

The pattern of village governance of the Santals is mostly democratic in character. The council members perform their functions in accordance with tribal customs and traditions, and the functions are carefully divided among members to avoid any overlap or concentration of power.

Hereditary yet accountable: a balanced leadership model 🔗

A common assumption about hereditary leadership is that it breeds unchecked power. The Santal system challenges this directly. All Panchayat officials are elected at the time of the foundation of a village and from that point, the posts are hereditary. But when people find an official unsuitable, they have the right to change him and elect a new person – a principle that reflects the democratic foundation beneath the hereditary surface.

The annual review during the Magh festival formalizes this accountability. Unlike modern electoral systems where leaders face judgment only every four or five years, the Santal system builds in an annual moment of collective evaluation. Leaders were held accountable through an annual performance review – not a five-yearly voting system without a right to recall. This mechanism kept leadership responsive and grounded in community needs.

The three-tier judicial structure 🔗

The village council is only the first tier of the Santal justice system. The traditional governance of the Santals in the Santal Pargana region of Jharkhand operated through a three-tier system.

The first tier is the Manjhi Council (village level), which handles most day-to-day disputes. When a matter cannot be resolved there, it moves to the second tier: the Pargana, a council of 10-20 neighbouring villages headed by a Parganait. The Parganait is selected by several village headmen and serves for life. He has no administrative revenue powers but acts as the spokesperson and president of the inter-village council.

The third and highest tier is the Lo Bir (also known as Dihri Shikar or Lo Bir Baisi) – the Supreme Court or highest law court of the Santals, where everyone has equal rights and is bound to obey the decision. This council convenes during the annual hunt and is presided over by the Dihri, who serves simultaneously as the master of the hunt and the presiding judge. Matters unresolved at lower tiers, including serious violations of tribal law, are brought before this assembly.

Justice and the practice of Bitlaha 🔗

The most severe sanction in Santal customary law is Bitlaha – a form of complete social ostracism. The severest punishment known in tradition has been Bitlaha, meaning complete social boycott, in which the offender is cut off from social relations and loses all community support.

Bitlaha is the most extreme form of punishment for serious offenses, particularly those seen as threatening the purity or social integrity of the tribe. The excommunicated individual or family is excluded from community life, though the system does allow for reinstatement: the guilty party can perform prescribed rites, offer a communal feast, and be accepted back into society. The law of the tribals is more elastic than the codified modern system – Bitlaha has the provision of the accused giving up old ways and being forgiven.

This flexibility – punishment that is serious but not irreversible – reveals a restorative rather than purely punitive philosophy at the heart of Santal justice.

A living system under pressure 🔗

The Santal governance system has survived for centuries, but it is not without its pressures. Today, the Santal administrative system has gone through drastic change under the pressure of administration within the jurisdiction of the Indian Constitution. Government-sponsored elected panchayats have taken over many functions that the traditional Manjhi Council once performed, and the formal legal system has displaced customary law in an increasing number of disputes.

Yet the Manjhi system persists. The Manjhi system continues to exist in many parts of Santal Pargana even today. In many villages, both the traditional council and the government panchayat operate in parallel – with social, marital, and moral matters still flowing through the Manjhi system, while formal legal disputes go through state channels. This dual existence speaks to the deep cultural legitimacy the traditional system continues to hold.

The combination of hereditary leadership and consultative governance creates a distinctive culture among the Santals – one that has proved durable precisely because it is rooted in the community’s own values, rather than imposed from outside.

What the Santal model teaches us 🔗

The Santal village is not a relic. It is a working example of a governance philosophy that many modern democracies still struggle to achieve: distributed power, built-in accountability, consensus over coercion, and justice with the possibility of restoration. The Manjhi Council’s seven officials each manage a distinct dimension of community life – administration, morality, spirituality, communication – ensuring that no single person carries, or abuses, all power.

The annual review of all officials, the open village meeting as the decision-making forum, and the tiered judicial structure for escalating disputes – these are not primitive traditions. They are sophisticated institutional innovations developed by a community that understood, long before modern governance theory, that stable societies require both structure and participation.

What do you think? The Santal system holds leaders accountable through an annual community review rather than periodic elections – does that model seem more or less effective than what we practice today? And in a world where governance is increasingly centralized, what might be lost when traditional community-based systems like the Manjhi Council are gradually displaced by state institutions?

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Santhal
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santal_people
3. https://www.clearias.com/santhal-tribes/
4. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/santals
5. https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/14743/in
6. http://srpbypst.blogspot.com/2011/10/short-history-of-santals-in-bangladesh.html
7. http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/vol9(4)/Series-1/O0904017072.pdf
8. https://theacademic.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/59.pdf
9. https://india-seminar.com/2002/514/514%20arbind%20kumar.htm
10. https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-3/mv3i5/252-leadership-and-community-administrative-structure-of-santal
11. https://www.sankalpinstitute.live/2026/02/manjhi-regime-santhal-governance.html
12. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/a-law-unto-themselves-32032
13. https://globalindiannetwork.com/culture-of-the-santhal-tribe/