On a cloudy morning in August, fields of freshly sown paddy stretched out for acres near Mayurkola panchayat in Jharkhand’s Sahibganj district. The village is on the border with West Bengal, and less than 35 km from Bangladesh.
Kapra Tudu, the mukhiya, or chief, of Mayurkola, was playing with her three young children, when we stopped by her house, just off the main road.
She was not surprised to see us. Mayurkola has been in the news since July 28. Speaking to reporters that day, Asha Lakra, a Bharatiya Janata Party politician and member of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, listed it as one of the nine panchayats in Sahibganj where a total of ten Adivasi women elected representatives were married to “Bangladeshi infiltrators, Rohingya Muslims”.
While Lakra did not name any of the women, she did mention the posts they held – eight mukhiyas, including of Mayurkola, one panchayat samiti member and a zilla parishad chairperson.
Lakra was echoing what her party colleague and member of parliament, Nishikant Dubey, had said on the floor of the Lok Sabha. In his speech on July 25, Dubey had alleged that “Bangladeshi infiltrators” were marrying Adivasi women to grab their land and property, and to use them as proxies to gain power in the Santhal Pargana, the northeastern region of Jharkhand, traditionally home to the Santal Adivasi community. Dubey had claimed, without evidence, that 100 Adivasi women mukhiyas were married to Muslims.
His claims, meanwhile, echoed what Union Home Minister Amit Shah had said at a meeting of the BJP’s Jharkhand unit on July 20. Shah alleged that “thousands of infiltrators” were marrying Adivasi women to “obtain certificates and buy land”. Labelling this as “love jihad and land jihad”, the home minister claimed this was leading to changes in the demographic of the state.
Scroll travelled to Sahibganj to investigate the claims emanating from the highest rungs of India’s ruling party. Since Lakra was the only BJP leader who had cited specific evidence in support of her contentions, we used her list of nine panchayats as a starting point.
Scroll found that in four of the 10 cases, Lakra’s claims of Adivasi women being married to Muslim men were outright false. Three of the women had Adivasi husbands. The fourth, Kapra Tudu, had married outside the Adivasi community, but her husband, Nitin Saha, is Hindu, not Muslim.
In six cases, where Adivasi women panchayat leaders were indeed married to Muslims, all of them told us they had married out of choice. “The Indian constitution gives us the freedom to marry whom we please,” one of them said.
Lakra’s claim that the men who married these women had done so to take over their land rings hollow in light of the fact that none of the women had inherited any familial land.
On matters of inheritance, Scheduled Tribes are governed by customary laws, rather than inheritance laws like the Hindu Succession Act. As per custom, Adivasi women in Jharkhand “do not hold inheritance rights over their father’s land, so the argument that non-Adivasi men are marrying women to capture their land is baseless”, social activist Priyasheela Besra said.
Underlining the absurdity of the BJP’s allegations, the husband of one of the Adivasi women mukhiyas said, “We have been married for over ten years. Why is this being made an issue now?”
The controversy is playing out as the state prepares to hold an assembly election in a few months. The BJP is seeking to dislodge the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha government, which came to power in 2019, in a coalition with the Congress.
Against this backdrop, some have sought to stoke communal sentiments over the matter of the women leaders’ husbands. An anonymous list that began to circulate on WhatsApp soon after Lakra’s press conference accused the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha of “appeasing its vote bank” – a veiled reference to Muslims – and in the process, endangering the state’s Adivasis.
The post went further than Lakra and listed the names of the ten Adivasi women. In three instances, including Kapra Tudu’s, the names on the list did not correspond to those who actually held the posts.
Here is what Scroll found when we visited the nine panchayats.
Mayurkola: Kapra Tudu
Kapra Tudu is in her mid-twenties and has been married for six years. Tudu said she had heard of the list being circulated online through her family members. While she had not married a Muslim man, she had still married outside the community.
Tudu, who is unlettered, said that her husband supported her in her work as the panchayat mukhiya.
Her father, the eldest son of his family, had died when she was a young child, leaving behind his wife and four daughters. Tudu’s mother remarried and went to live with her second husband. Tudu and her sisters were left to fend for themselves in their paternal home.
“The control of my father’s land went to my uncle,” she said. The uncle “wanted to give me some land, but his sons were against this”.
It was impossible for her husband to try to access this land, she explained, when she herself could make no claims to it.
The list circulating on WhatsApp erroneously names Sona Kisku as the mukhiya of Mayurkola. Tudu explained that Kisku lived in Bada Sonakar, and was the mukhiya of that panchayat. Scroll attempted to meet her twice, first at her home and then at her office, but was told on both occasions that she was unavailable.
Madhuapada: Chunki Marandi
The village of Madhuapada lies about 20 km from the Ganga river – one of its tributaries splits the village in two halves.
Madhuapada’s mukhiya is Chunki Marandi, a Santal Adivasi woman married to Babu Soren, who belongs to the same community. While Marandi has held the post previously as well, Soren has also served a term as mukhiya. Madhuapada’s mukhiya post is one that is reserved for Adivasis – since Marandi’s is the only Adivasi family in the village, they are in a prime position to win the seat.
Marandi and Soren had not heard of the list. Soren noted that they had nothing to do with Lakra’s list since they had married within the community. He said that their family had always had a harmonious relationship with other communities in the village, and that those who were spreading misinformation were doing so to create communal tension. Marandi said that the upmukhiya, or deputy chief, in Madhuapada was a Muslim woman and that they worked well together.
In the list circulated on social media, another Adivasi woman, named Marang Biti Hansda, is erroneously listed as the mukhiya of Madhuapada. Marandi said that Hansda was indeed married to a Muslim man, and that she lived in a village nearby. She noted that Hansda had contested the panchayat election but had lost.
Satgaachi: Aloka Soren
Aloka Soren, the mukhiya of Satgaachi, is married to Matal Tudu. Her husband, like her, is from the Santal Adivasi community and has also served as a mukhiya in the past.
On August 12, we met Soren outside her house. Tudu was away for some work. Soren was reluctant to speak, but said in Santali that she was unlettered and that her husband managed all her work as a mukhiya. This was the third time she was serving as a mukhiya.
She had not heard of the list.
As we spoke, her neighbours came by and joined the conversation. “We can’t stop people from marrying into other communities, they’re exercising their own rights,” said one elderly man. “But Adivasi land is protected under the SPT Act and nobody in our village has had their land captured by a non-Adivasi person.” He was referring to the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, which prevents the transfer of Adivasi land to non-Adivasis.
The list circulated on social media mistakenly named Martha Malto, an Adivasi woman from another village in the same panchayat, as the mukhiya of Satgaachi. Soren explained that Malto was indeed married to a Muslim man, and had contested panchayat elections in the past, but had never won.
Phoolbanga: Sunita Hansdak
Sunita Hansdak, committee member of Phoolbhanga panchayat, was extremely upset on finding her name on the social media list. Hansdak is not married to a Muslim man, but an Adivasi man from her own community named Dibyendu Marandi.
Hansdak said she had submitted a written complaint to the police station at Barhait to investigate the matter. She wanted to find out who had created the list and shared it online. Creating and circulating such lists was “disrespectful to women”, she said. So far, the police have told her it would be impossible to trace the origins of the list.
Barhait Santali Uttar: Selina Hansda
When we arrived at the house of Selina Hansda, the mukhiya of Barhait Santali Uttar panchayat, she immediately guessed the purpose of our visit. In early August, reporters from Zee News had arrived at her house and spoken at length with her and her husband about their marriage. Despite her clarifications that she was consensually and happily married to her husband Mohammed Azad, the video used her as an example of how Muslim men were entrapping Adivasi women in marriages. “I tried to talk about the real issues we face here, but they cut all of it out in the final video,” she said.
Hansda was angry about Zee News’ coverage and the list circulating on social media. “Why should outsiders interfere in my private affairs?” she said. “I have the right to choose my husband. The police station isn’t far from my house. If my husband was troubling me, couldn’t I go and complain to the police?”
Hansda said that the BJP was raising false allegations about Muslims to sway Adivasi voters before Jharkhand’s assembly election. She noted that the Santal Parganas was where the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha first began its politics. The BJP, “with their divisive politics want to attack JMM in its roots,” she said.
While inter-community marriages are traditionally not approved among Jharkhand’s Adivasi communities, according to custom, couples can redeem themselves by paying a fine to community leaders, or organising a meal for the community. Hansda said she and her husband had organised a meal and made things right with her community. “If people still have a problem, then they should make a law preventing women from intercaste marriages,” she said.
Hansda’s husband Azad said, “I fell in love with my wife and that’s why I married her.” He explained that he never had any aspirations to her family’s land or property, particularly since he was well-to-do himself. He argued that the BJP was making false allegations because it had no real “mudda”, or issue, that it could highlight for its campaign. “Muslims in Jharkhand are loyal to the JMM as voters,” he said. “That’s why this issue is being needlessly publicised to create communal conflict.”
Azad also said that there had been a significant population of Muslims living in the Santal Parganas for many generations, and that it was absurd to call them Bangladeshi. “Jharkhand doesn’t share a border with Bangladesh, and the Border Security Force is run by the central government,” he said. “If infiltration is occurring then it should be investigated properly.”
Gopaldih: Sunita Tudu
When we arrived at Sunita Tudu’s in Gopaldih village, she met us in the backyard of her house with the traditional Santal greeting, known as dobok’ johar – she placed a brass pot of water in front of us, and cupped her hands and raised them to her forehead before each of us.
Tuda, a former para teacher, a term for schoolteachers employed contractually by the government, is married to Shaimul Ansari, whose family has long been involved in local politics. They belong to the Julaha community, a major Muslim community in Jharkhand and neighbouring states, who were traditionally weavers. “They have lived with Adivasis for generations and adopted many of their customs,” said activist Emiliya Hansda. “It is wrong to call them infiltrators.”
Tudu and Ansari lived in the same village, and had fallen in love. When Sunita’s family began to talk of arranging her marriage to somebody else, the two decided to get married.
Tudu had also been visited by Zee News and was unhappy with their coverage. “I have married with my own consent,” she said. “There are four other inter-caste marriages in this village. Why isn’t anyone making that an issue?”
Her husband added, “We have been married for over ten years, why is this being made an issue now?This is an election issue. And when the elections get over, this issue will also get over.”
Tudu has no brothers and only one sister. Her father passed away many years ago, after which his property went into her uncle’s control.
Kadma: Elijence Hansda
It was time for the evening prayers at the local mosque in Kadma village when we arrived there on August 11. Elijence Hansda, the mukhiya of Kadma panchayat, was at home alone.
Hansda recounted that she had had a difficult childhood, with her family often struggling for money. She used to tutor children to earn some income. “I wanted to make something of myself,” she said. “I wanted to study and have a job.”
On reaching adulthood, she was eager to get married and start her own family. When her brother’s friend, Jaimul Ansari, showed an interest in her, she realised that she liked him too. But she told him she could only interact with him further if he married her – and so, he did.
Initially, Hansda’s family was against the marriage and even filed a case against the couple. But the two made peace with her family and paid the customary fine – the case was eventually quashed.
At present, she said, her natal family gets along well with her husband and children. “We celebrate all festivals together and my kids attend classes conducted by the church during Christmas,” she said.
After her marriage, Hansda continued to study and completed a BEd degree. She then worked as an aanganwadi sevika for years in her village before quitting to stand for panchayat elections in 2022. “I thought I would be able to serve people better as a mukhiya,” she said.
She first heard of the list a few weeks ago from her mother. “But I didn’t feel much tension,” she said. “I realised that they’re raising this issue for political fodder. But in this country, women have the right to marry who they want.”
Dakshin Begamganj: Lalita Tudu
Lalita Tudu is the mukhiya of Dakshin Begamganj panchayat, which lies in the Udhwa block of Sahibganj. When we visited her, the road to her house was flooded with rainwater, and so we had to cut through her neighbours’ yards to reach it.
Tudu said she had not heard of the list, but had seen a video of BJP leader Babulal Marandi talking about Adivasi women being trapped into marriages with Muslim men. “Nobody has forced me into this marriage,” she said. “I have a happy marriage. My husband is a good man who takes care of my family.”
Tudu was previously married to an Adivasi man from her community and had two children with her ex-husband. That marriage had been a difficult one. Tudu’s first child was born with a cleft lip, which prevented her from breast-feeding. Her ex-husband had responded by rejecting the child, and Tudu had to return to her natal family’s home for a few years. Her father had died soon after her first marriage, leaving her uncles with complete control of his land. Tudu alleged that her father’s extended family mistreated her and wanted her gone.
Rejected by her ex-husband and close relatives, Tudu struggled for years.
In 2017, at a wedding, she was introduced to her current husband Usman Sheikh. A year later, they had a court marriage.
There was no question of her husband going after her familial land, as Tudu herself could make no claims to it, according to custom.
The newly constructed house that she was living in was on land that her husband, a trader, had bought from a Hindu man. Tudu said that her husband had embraced not only her, but her family too. Her two children from her previous marriage and her elderly mother live with them.
“Adivasi women should be able to inherit their natal family’s land and property, then they won’t marry outside the community,” she said in a matter-of-fact way.
Lakhipur: Sohagini Soren
The mukhiya of Lakhipur panchayat in Rajmahal block is Sohagini Soren. Soren too had a failed marriage with an Adivasi man, after which she returned to her natal home. A few years later, she met Sanaool Sheikh and married him. When we visited, we learnt that Sheikh had passed away six months earlier from an illness.
Our visit was the first time Soren was hearing of the list. “This is being done by people who have a communal agenda,” she said. “They want to divide people in the name of religion.” Soren too, said that she had not inherited any land or property from her parents.
Zilla parishad chairperson: Monika Kisku
Monika Kisku is the chairperson of the Sahibganj district zilla parishad. When we visited her house, her family invited us in, but it was a while before we could speak to her. She had already been visited by other journalists and was now wary. She sent her family members to verify our identities before deciding to speak to us.
Kisku was married to Umed Ali Ansari, who died during the Covid-19 pandemic. She observed that media and political focus on who Adivasi women were marrying was taking away attention from pressing ground issues like electrification, health, and hunger.
She was adamant that the media or politicians have no business discussing her private matters. “The Indian constitution gives us the freedom to marry whom we please,” she said. “It’s not as if I work for just one community. As a chairperson I work for everybody, so I don’t see how this issue matters.”
