Tribal property relations under customary tenure are structured by customary conventions, traditional institutions and collective rights, with authority vested in traditional leadership. Land and forest in tribal communities are often considered to be imbued with collective identity, perceived as community or common resources with different patterns of commoning. This article examines the typologies of landed property, including forest; classification of resource systems; access rights; external provisioning; and governance mechanisms thereof amongst the Marams of Manipur. The article demonstrates that the notion of property among the Marams is not a binary of private versus commons, that the governance mechanism is polycentric and kin-nested, that commons function as social insurance for livelihood sustenance and security and that the existence of a collective governance mechanism over commons limits accumulation of landed property by elites.
AndersonK.E. (2011) ‘Communal Tenure and the Governance of Common Property Resources in Asia: Lessons from Experiences in Selected Countries’. FAO (UN): Land Tenure Working Paper 20.
2.
AthickalJ. (1992) Maram Nagas: A Socio-Cultural Study. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
3.
BeckT. & GhoshM.G. (2000) ‘Common Property Resources and the Poor: Findings from West Bengal’, Economic & Political Weekly, 35(3): 147–53.
4.
BhatiaB. (2010) ‘Justice Denied to Tribals in the Hills of Manipur’, Economic & Political Weekly, 45(31): 38–46.
5.
ChaubeS.K. (1999) Hill Politics in Northeast India. Hyderabad: Sangam Books.
6.
ChimhowuA. & WoodhouseP. (2006) ‘Customary vs Private Property Rights? Dynamics and Trajectories of Vernacular Land Markets in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 6(3): 346–71.
7.
ChopraK. & DasguptaP. (2002) ‘Common Pool Resources in India: Evidence, Significance and New Management Initiatives’. Report on the Workshop Held at the Institute for Economic Growth. Delhi: Institute for Economic Growth.
8.
ComaroffJ. & ComaroffJ. (2018) The Politics of Customs: Chiefship, Capital and the State in Contemporary Africa. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
9.
DeviB.P. (2006) Tribal Land System of Manipur. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.
10.
GadgilM. (2002) Diversity: The Cornerstone of Life. New Delhi and Mumbai: Vigyan Prasar and Sanctuary Magazine.
11.
GadgilM. & GuhaR. (1992) This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
12.
HaokipL. (2021) ‘Competing Landed Interests: Customary Claims, Land Titles and Formal Law in Manipur, Circa 1890–1990’, History and Sociology of South Asia, 14(1–2): 22–38.
13.
HaokipT. (2022) ‘Unwillingness to Share Power: Manipur and ADC Bill, 2021’, Economic & Political Weekly, 57(14): 25–8.
14.
HausingK.K.S. (2022) ‘Autonomy and the Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflicts in Northeast India’, Territory, Politics, Governance, 10(1): 120–43.
15.
JodhaN.S. (1989) ‘Depletion of Common Property Resources in India: Micro Level Evidence’, Population and Development Review, 15: 261–83.
16.
JodhaN.S. (1990) ‘Rural Common Property Resources: Contribution and Crisis’, Economic & Political Weekly, 25(26): A65–78.
17.
JodhaN.S. (1995) ‘Common Property Resources and the Environmental Context: Role of Biophysical versus Social Stresses’, Economic & Political Weekly, 30(51): 3278–83.
18.
KadekodiG.K., ChopraK. & MurtyN.M. (1989) ‘People’s Participation and Common Property Resources’, Economic & Political Weekly, 24(51–52): A189–95.
19.
KameiR. (2018) ‘Tribal Land, Customary Law and the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act’, Economic & Political Weekly, 53(19): 52–56.
20.
KarlssonB. G. (2011). Unruly Hills: Nature and Nation in India’s Northeast. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
21.
KumarP.J.D. (2013) ‘Village Communities and Their Common Property Forests’, Economic & Political Weekly, 48(35): 33–36.
22.
KurianP. (1988) ‘Commercialisation of Common Property Resource: Kushnur Satyagraha’, Economic & Political Weekly, 23(3): 73–74.
23.
LundC. (2000) ‘African Land Tenure: Questioning Basic Assumptions’. Dry lands Programme Issue Paper No. 100. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
24.
MaramK. & KhanM.K. (1998) ‘Regeneration Status of Trees in Various Categories of Forests in Manipur’, Journal of Hill Research, 11(2): 178–82.
25.
MarchangR. (2017) ‘Land, Agriculture and Livelihood of Scheduled Tribes in North-East India’, Journal of Land and Rural Studies, 6(1): 67–84.
26.
MenonA. & VadiveluG.A. (2006) ‘Common Property Resource in Different Agro-Climatic Landscape in India’, Conservation and Society, 4(1): 132–54.
27.
NgajokpaF. (2004) ‘Land Use System of the Marams’. In SinghN.L. (Ed.), Land Use System in Manipur Hills (pp. 46–49). Delhi: Rajesh Publications.
28.
OstromE. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
OstromE., GardnerR., & WalkerJ. (1994) Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
30.
PiangL.L.K. (2015) ‘Overlapping Territorial Claims and Ethnic Conflict in Manipur’, South Asia Research, 35(2): 158–76.
31.
RayA.K. (1991) ‘Rural Studies: A Case of Manipur’. In SamantaR.K. (Ed.), Rural Development in North-East India: Perspectives, Issues and Experiences (pp. 161–76) Delhi: Uppal Publishing House.
32.
SchlagerE. & OstromE. (1992) ‘Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis’, Land Economics, 68(3): 249–62.
33.
SenS. (1992) Tribe and Caste in Manipur. New Delhi: Mittal.
34.
ShimrayU.A. (2006) ‘Tribal Land Alienation in the North Eastern Region: Laws and Land Relations’. Guwahati: Northeastern Social Research Centre and Indigenous Women’s Forum of North East India.
35.
ShimrayU.A. (2009) Land Use System in Manipur Hills: A Case Study of the Tangkhul Nagas. In FernendesW. & BarboraS. (Eds), Land, People and Politics: Contest Over Tribal Land in Northeast India (pp. 88–112). Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research Centre (NESRC) and International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).
36.
SikorT. & LundC. (2009) ‘Access and Property: A Question of Power and Authority’, Development and Change, 40(1): 1–22.
37.
SinghM.A. (2025) ‘Assessing the Effect of Topographical Distribution of Ethnic Groups and Absence of Uniform Land Governance in the Homeland Politics of Manipur, India’, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 61(2): 1367–75.
38.
SitlhouH. (2015) ‘Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur’, Economic & Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–7.
39.
TibaR.T. (2013) History and Culture of the Maram Nagas: A Reconstruction from the Oral and Folklore Traditions. New Delhi: Akansha.
40.
WilyL.A. (2007) ‘Customs and Commonage in Africa: Rethinking the Orthodoxies’, Land Use Policy, 25(1): 43–52.
41.
WoodhouseP. (2006) ‘African Enclosures: A Default Mode of Development’, World Development, 31(10): 1705–20.
42.
WoutersJ.J.P. (2020) ‘Neoliberal Capitalism and Ethno-Territoriality in Highland Northeast India: Resource-Extraction, Capitalist Desires and Ethnic Closure’, Geopolitics, 28(1): 99–121.
43.
XaxaV. (2008) State, Society, and Tribes: Issues in Post-Colonial India. Noida: Pearson.
