TÛLÂI HRIPUI INLÊNG LE MÂNI INTODEL THLÎRLÊTNA

~ Dr. Immanuel Zarzosang Varte

Ṭha taka hriet le inchûk chun Intodel (Sâp ṭawnga ‘Self-reliance’) ei ti hi Pathien ringtû le a hnung zuitû hâi ta dinga duthusâm a nih. Amiruokchu, Pathien ṭhang loa intodel ei tum ruok chun lam indik a’nthawka mi ṭhuoihmang theitu a ni bawk. Intodel eiti hin thlarâu le taksa tieng a kâwk thei vê vê a, tuta ka thil hung zieka ruok hin chu taksa intodelna tiengpang hung thlûr ka tum bîk a nih.

Intodelna a um naw chun Pathien rawngbâwlna kawnga khawm harsatna tamtak ân tlun hlak. Iengtinam iengkhawm nei neilo chun pesuok thei a ta? Phîngṭam hâi fâk ding chu bu siena inah bû a um naw chun khawlâia inthawkin am hung suok a ta? Mi pasie hâi ṭhangpuina ding chu sum bâwm kawrawnga inthawkin a suok ngâi si nawa. Lungrila thlamuongna le hadamna neilo hâi a’nthawk chun hrietthiemna le ṭhangpuina a suok thei ngâi nawh. Chuongang bawk chun hrelo a inthawk chun hrietna a suok thei nawh. Chun, thlarâua inhil le ringna indiklo a’nthawkin thlarau keihruoina indik tak a suok ngâi naw bawk.

Tribal hnam dang danghâi hin intodel hi ei thupui vieu in ân lang. Hmar sung ngêia khawm “Pa le pa” eiti hai khawm hi ‘intodel’ nuomnaa inthawka suok a nih. Ka Doctorate thaw lâi Phûlpui khuo, Vangai, Tipaimukh ah zân ka zuk rieka, chu ṭuma Phûlpuia mi pakhatin a mi hril khaka la hriet zing chu tie. Intodel chungthuah ama chun hienghin ngâidân a lo nei ve “Tienlâi deu khan chu fâk le dâwn kawnga nananâ chu mautâm lei dâma ṭâm a tla a ni ngat naw chun mi dang chungah innghatna hi a tlâwm. Fâk le dâwn bâkah, thil dang khawm mani’n thaw thei a ni phawt chun mani’n thaw ei tum deu tlângpui. Ei nitin mamaw lem chu eiin todel tlângpui mi thabo taluo, iengkhawm thawpei lo a ningat naw chun. Nitin mamaw phuhrûkna dingin ei pî le pû hâi thiemna le hrietna hâi khawm ei la vawng ṭhaa, khâ thiemna le hrietna hâi kha mitin deu thaw’n an la hmang thei bawk a nih. Chun ei pî le pû hâi le ei ram, thing le ruo, ramsa le a sûnga um po po hâi inkâra inlâichînna khawm a la hrât a, kha lei khan ram leilung le khawmuolpui leh eiin zawmna khawm a la ṭha. Chuong po po chu hun iemani chen a’nthawk khan hung châuvin a hung da ṭan tah.” Hi taka ‘Hun iemani chen a’nthawk khan hung châuvin a hung da ṭan tah’ a tîtak tê hi zuk dilsût met a ngâi. Ei pî le pû haia inthawka intodelna lungrila ei lo put le ei nei hlak kha iengtika inthawka da ṭan am a ni a; iengleia da am a na? ti hâi hi tulaia ei ngîrhmun le hin ngaituo tham a va tling de!

Tûlâi chu mitin ei lungrila sip liem, Pathien thu nêk hman khawma ei sip liem deuthawna Corona Virus (Covid-19) hripui inlêng le inzawma sawrkâr pa’n a ram phêka inkhârkhupna thu a hung puong le inruolin ei fâk le dâwn ah ami suklunginzîng bêk bêk hi hang ngaituo dep ei tiu ie.

Ei hnam ṭhuoitu pakhat leh kan hohlimnaa chun “Tribal ruol kuhi sawrkâr pa’n hlêprûk dân le mi chunga innghatna a min chûktira, a bîk takin Development project tiengpanga thuneitu le politics ṭhuoitu ha’n. Amiruokchu hieng hâi hma hin Kohranin a tum reng niloin eiin todelna a mi sukchâu pêk hmasa lem ni’n ka hriet” ti’n a mi hril a. Hi a thil hril, a bîk takin Kohran a hang sâm kâisa hi, mi ṭhenkhat ruongzâng hmul tho nghâlna ding chu a ni phawt. Anachu zâ la hang ngâi met ei ta hang tiem pei ei tiu.

Hang sui chet chet chun, ei ‘harsat’ leia hun iemani chen a’nthawka Kohranin châwmna le rethei ṭhangpuina program ei nei hâi khawm hi ei thiltum a ṭhat vieu lâi zingin a râsuok ruok hi chu a rawng an chawkpawl nuoi tlat chu tie. Chuleiin hiengang ṭhangpuina hâi hi thawlo ding niloin ei thaw dân hâi hi fumfe taka ngaituo ṭhat nâwk zuol a ngâi âwm de. Chong naw chun mani khâta thaw thei ding ngêi ngêi khawm “Â… thaw naw lang khawm hung um el a tih” ti ngâidân a hung pung thei dân a um hle el.

Parbunga hotu (tûhin chu a siemtu Lalpa Pathien kuomah hadamin a lo châwl tah) pakhat chun ka kâwlah vawikhat chu“Iengleia ei ramah intodelna hi ei thlasam ta’m a na ti i mi’n dawn chun hi tienami kuhin a hril fie tak:

‘Khuongbai pakhat chu nilum lai ‘Chiriit chiriit chiriit’ ti’n hla a sak a saka, bu lâkkhâwlna châng hre lovin. Thlasik ṭhâl a hung ni a, bu fâk ding a hung nei ta nawa, chuphingleh ama le ama an fâk an fâk a, a tâwp taka a lu chau a um taa, khawm chu a beng thawi a, ama le ama an fâk bo dêr.” ti’n a hrila. Hi Khuongbai tienami hin hril a va hau lâwm lâwm de e…!

Ka pu H. V. Tawnga (tûhin chu a siemtu Lalpa Pathien kuomah hadamin a lo châwl tah) a pa kha mi taimaa hril a ni a, bu lo a thaw reng rêng khan an kumkhat fâk lêt thum bêk a thaw hlak an tih. Ama ṭawng an mi hril dân chun “Kan sungkuo’n bû ṭîn khat hmunin kum pângngâia a rasuok hi kum khat kan fâk khawp char a ni chun iengangin bû lo ṭhanaw sienkhawm kan fâk sênglo dep ka hlû lût theina dingin ṭîn li hmun bêk ka thaw tum ngêi ngêi hlak” a tih an ti chu. Fâk le dâwn an hnieng inhnâr reng bawk hlak. Dûâm lei niloin intodel a nuom lei a nih. Chuongang lungril chu tulai tlângram le phâirama um hâi lâi mi iengza’n am ei la nei ding aw…a bîkin ṭhangthar hâi. Mobile a Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter annawleh Youtube ringawt ei ngaituo tâwl el am an tah?

Sum hau chuong bêk bêk si lovin vâi bu le bâl ah eiin nghat nasa taluo ta hi ei thaw hla deu chu a nih. A ram ei nei nawh an nawh. Mi ram nêk nêka tha ei nei. A mipui le tha ei nei nawh an nawh. Taimâkna khawm ei thlasam chuong nawh. Puotieng bu le bâl a innghatna hi a ni deu tak buoina a um met a suonginsama ei um nghâl el nasan hi. Kohran ram a khawm, khawltâng a khawm, hi hi ei thawhlâ tak chu ni’n an lang.

Ei ramah Lalpa Chanchinṭha a hung lût khan eini râwiin ei zir naw bawk tho leh, mi ngo hâi kha ei ngâisâng taluo bawk leh (tukhawm hin ei la ngâisâng taluo ringawt), ei hnam dân le ei nunphunga tam tak, intodelna kawnga ṭha taluo ringawt hâi khawm kha ‘ṭhing’, ‘changkâng lo’ angin ngâi dân ei hung neia. Sâppui nun ei zui tumna luot luotin ei pî le pû hâi thiemna le hrietna, a bîk takin fâk le dâwn zawngna kawngah, ei mâksan nasa hlê. Khawvêl inṭhang lien pei lei khawmin iemani chena chu ei thu le hlâ lova intlâkthleng a ṭûlna lem chu a tam. Amiruokchu khâng hnam dang hâi khawsak dân ei zui tumna luot luotin eiin todelna nasatakin a suksiet chu a lo ni dêr ti hi chu inhmai ruol annawh. Tûlem lem hin nî danga ei khawtlâng lampui le kâwm hâi khawm sawrkâr ṭhangpuina um ṭhak loa khawtlâng mipui zuk pungkhâwma ei suk nâm le suk fâi thei ngâwi ngâwi hâi kha NREGS dâr an ri naw chun ei thaw thei ta naw chu a ni deu tak tah annâwm a nih.

Vawikhat chu Patpuihmun le Sârtuinêk inkâr lam ka hraw lâiin ka changtieng lam tlangah Sîzo kûng intuoi ṭha put el hi a bul tâwtah phûr thlûkin a lo um a, ka zuk en chieng chun a kâu pahni vêl chau a phûrtu khan tlamin a mâksan dai a lo ni a. Chu lâia ka ngâituonaa chun “Ei ram thing le ruo, ramsa le vate, ei ram leilung reng rêng hi inretna nei lêk lo le a neitu lo ang el a ei sawisak chu a ni deu an ta ie” ti a hung inlang vang vang. Churachandpur Tuiṭhaphâi khi hang en ta u… A kâwl vêla tlâng hâi hlak chu a kawl veng vung, vadungte tam tak hâi hlak an kang zo tah. Ei vadung ṭha êm êm Tuiṭha hlak chu fâk thlâk lo vângin ei siem. Sa le vatê hâi hlak chu ei thatin ei hnawt zâm zo. A phaizâwl bu chîngna hmun ṭha ṭha hâi hlak chu khawthar sâtna’n ei hmangzo vâng vâng tah. Kum sâwm, sâwm hni liemta lâi hman ei tuilo ha’n a mi châwm hne naw vânglâi tûhin mipui hlak a lêt tamin ei pung, a bu bil hlak chu a lêt tamin a kiem. Hmatieng ding chu a pik ngêi el.

Pathienin ei ram le tui hâi; ei thil nei hâi; ei nîna hâi hi a dit dân ang taka enkawl le sawrtu dinga a mi ruot; ama le ṭhangkhâwma hieng enkawlna sin hi ei thaw ding; ei thil dawng le ei nei hâi reng rêng hi ama ropuizie suklangtu vawng an nih ti hi hrechieng vawng inla chu tûm thlarâu le taksaah intodel nâwng a ta? 2 Korinth 3:5 a “Iengkhawm keinia inthawka suoka ruot dingin keini ngawtin kan tlin kan ti nawh a; kan tlin theina chu Pathien kuom a’nthawk a ni lem” tia a lo ziek kha a’ndik zie hang hrenawn nâwk ei tiu.

Tûta hripui Covid-19 hi a damdâwi lo hmusuokin annawleh a khât khâtin lo bo sienlakhawm khawvêl khawsakna le khawvêl sumdawngna nasatakin a suksiet ta tho tho leiin kum iemanizât chu ei la rimsi ding a nih tie chieng phawt ei tiu. Fâk le dâwn man hâi hung pung a ta, pawisa hlutna (value) tla thla zuol a ta, khawpui company haia ei sinthawtu tamtak an sin a’nthawka bân hung ni bawk an ta, sin thar hmu hung intak a ta, sawrkâr sin a vâng nâksap lâi hung vâng nâwk zuol bawk a ta. Chu hunah khawpui niloin ram le hmun ruok ei la hauna tlângram hâi hi fâk le dâwn kawngah mi tamtak innghatna le damna a la hung ni ding a nih. Chu pawimâwna lei bawk chun ei hmun le ram hâi hi mi tamtakin mi hung inchupui zuol ngêi bawk an tih ti chu ringhla a um nawh. Chuleichun, ei lo insingsat nasa a ngaia, fâk le dâwna bêk khawlâi hmun hmunah um khawm ni inla intodelna lampui ei dap sup sup a ngâi a nih. Chu chû lampui chu ei hmu vat theina ding chun Pathien ṭî a, indikna le titakna tieng pangah revival ei dawng thar takzet a ngâi.

Ei mipui, khawtlâng le Kohran ṭhuoitu hâi lâi hin indikna le titakna hi ei va thlasam ta de! Jeremia 17:7-8 a chun “Mi LALPA ringtu le LALPA beiseitu chu a hamṭha. Tui hâi sîra thing phun, a zung hâi khawm vadunga kâi ang, lumna a hung tlung pha khawma ṭi lo, a hna hâi hring zing lem, khaw inṭhâl kuma hâi khawm pawisa lo, ra insuo zing hlak ang a nih” a lo tî kha hang ennnawn nâwk ei tiu ie. Hun sâwt taka inthawka ei lo sukhmang tah ‘Intodelna’ hi Pathiena inthawka ringna indiktak le Kristien indiktak eini chun lâkkîr nâwk thei a nih. Ienganga khuolzin, annawleh râlzâm khawm lo ni reng inla(chu hlak chu eini teu sî nawa. A ram neitu indiktak eini lem si a), Pathienin ei i enkawl ding le ei fâk le dâwn zawngna dinga a mi pêk ei ram, thing le ruo, chunglêng le hnuoisa hâi, thiemna hâi, hrietna hâi hi inret tak le thiem takin sawr tum ei tiu. Chuongang bawk chun Pathienin ei fâk le dâwn khawp a hrieta, chu chu a mi pêk nawh a ti thei tu am um eita? Eini’n ei zir naw lei le eiin chêk leia thlasam eini tak ni’n an lang. Kohran hâi, hlêprûkna, thabona le indiknawna dang dang hâi hi pulpit a chau niloin a tak takin; a lang a changin do ngam mawl ei tiu khai. “Hlêprûkna a ṭha nawh” ti si’n hlêpru hâi ei huora, ei biek ṭha a, ei ditsak nâwk si chun ei thuhring hin umzie iem nei tâng a ta? Hieng po po hi ei sukdik tak tak chun ei ram le hnam hi intodel tieng hmâ sawn ngêi ngêi ei tih. Hi hi huoi takin ei hril ngam. Asanchu Philippi 4:13 a chun “A mi sukhrâttu Krista zâra chun iengkim ka thaw thei” ti ziek a nisi a.

Lalpa’n ei hma mi ṭhuoi mawl raw se.

Traditional Peacebuilding: A study of the Hmar Tribe

~ Dr. Immanuel Zarzosang Varte
(Paper presented at 2-day seminar on the theme Culture and Identity: The agents of social Integration, 12th-13th August 2014. Organised by IGNTUSU and sponsored by Tribal Research Institute)

Abstract: 
Conflict resolution may perhaps be one of the most important and crucial activity among all tribal communities. Being originally clannish and often having a closed village system with high level of competition for resources and power, most tribal societies were engaged in constant inter-clan and inter-village wars. Inter-tribe wars were also frequent but much less when compared to the high incidence of inter-clan and inter-village conflicts especially among the Mizo-Chin-Kuki group of peoples. Given the huge diversities of so-called tribal or ethnic groups in North East India and each with their own or related system of conflict resolution, the paper attempts to highlight the conflict resolution techniques and approaches employed in traditional societies with examples drawn from the Hmar tribe.

The Hmar tribe
“Hmar” is one of the tribes of North East India belonging to the Chin- Kuki- Mizo ethnic group. They are found today in Cachar and North Cachar Hills of Assam and the adjoining states of Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura in India and Bangladesh and Myanmar. The Hmar tribe became a recognized Scheduled Tribe of India in 1956. Colonial writers were confused about the real identity of the Hmars and commonly clubbed them asKukis. The term ‘Kuki’ was first used by the Bengalis and later on by British officials to identify the hill tribes of Manipur other than Nagas. Kuki was later on classified into two groups: Old Kuki and New Kuki in terms of the period of their migration to India2. J. Shakespeare included Hmar in the Old Kuki clans and also used the termKhawtlang (people who lived in the west) and Khawsak (people who lived in the east) interchangeably to mean Hmars3. J. W. Edgar, a civil officer who accompanied the British column to Tipaimukh on April 3, 1872 reported: “The name Kuki has been given to the tribe by the Bengalis and is not recognized by the hill men themselvesand I have never found any trace of a common name for the tribe among them, although they too consider different families belonging to a single group, which is certainly coexistent with what we call Kuki tribe” (emphasis added)4. As far as written literature is concerned, it was only in 1904 that the term ‘Hmar’ spelt as ‘Mhar’ was first formally used by G. A.Grierson in his Linguistic Survey of India5.

On the origin of the term ‘Hmar’, there are two theories. The first theory suggests that the term might have originated from the word ‘Hmar’ which happens to mean “north” in English6. Accordingly, it has been mentioned that the Hmars came from the north to Lushai Hills just before the Luseis7. This implies that the term came into use only after the Hmars settled down in Mizoram. The second theory contends that the term originated from “hmarh” which means “to tie one’s hair in a knot on the nape of one’s head”. According to Hmar oral history, there were once two brothers, Hrumsawm and Tukbemsawm. Hrumsawm, the elder one, tied his hair in a knot on his forehead because of a sore on the nape of his neck. After his death, all his descendents continued the same hair style and the Pawi/Lakher who live in South Mizoram are believed to be his progenies. Tukbemsawm, the younger one, however, tied his hair in a knot on the back of his head. The Hmars who tied their hair in a knot on the back of their head are therefore believed to be the progenies of Tukbemsawm and that their nomenclature must have also originated from “hmarh”8. However, the Luseis and other kindred tribes who used the same hairstyle were not called Hmar. Therefore, the first theory sounds more convincing than the second. Whatever may be the truth, it is clear that the term ‘Hmar’ gained popularity and wider acceptance as a common nomenclature among the Hmar ethnic group living in different parts of North East India only with the dawn of the 20th century9.

Traditional Practices as Conflict Resolution Tools
The Hmars, like their other tribal brethrens, are warlike and often come into conflict with their neighboring tribes or even with other rival clans/tribesmen. Conflicts are also common at the individual level. However, inspite of the common occurrence of conflicts within and without, the very fact that the Hmar society has been able to prevail against both the traditional and modern onslaughts of conflict elements proves one thing- the existence of a system that stop a conflict or a system that prevents conflict. Given this, there are two type of conflict resolution mechanism among the Hmars. The first is a mechanism deep rooted in their tradition and customary practices- a stop to conflict. The second is also a mechanism deep rooted in the Hmar custom and which complement the first- conflict prevention. These two mechanisms can again be segregated into several sub-mechanisms involving participation and activities of the parties involved. Among these, let us make mention of some particularly important peacemaking tools often employed to stop and prevent conflict.

Zu-dam:
In common parlance, Zu means wine and dam mean peace or pacification. As such Zu-dam mean Peace wineor Pacification wine and “Zu-dam dawn” means “drinking the peace wine” or “Drinking the wine of pacification”. Conflicts or tensions among individuals, households, community or between groups are often fatal. Slight altercations often lead to all-out fights resulting in deaths. An undesirable marriage often leads to fights within and without. Territorial disputes and competitions for resources and power are common that, more often than not, leads to war.

In all the conflict, the primary tool of peacemaking is the Zu-dam. This unique customary law of the Hmar is instrumental in bringing about peace and also ensuring an obligation to not continue or renew conflicts within the community and also between other cognate communities. Whenever there is conflict or in the likeliness of conflict to ensue, kinsmen or carefully selected tribesmen from the alleged erring side or perpetrators will be sent to the victim or the wronged tribe/community with a pot of Zu10 where they are bound by custom to apologize and to convince the party they are to pacify to accept and drink the Zu offered to them. The opposite party also composed of carefully selected kinsmen or community leaders are also duty bound by custom not to be violent and act like gentlemen. In many instances, the peace wine is refused and the erring party has to go back home and wait for another opportune time. However, inspite of the possibilities of the apology being turned down, it is also considered bad conduct to attack or commit violent acts upon the peace party during or after such parleys. However, the wronged victim or community has the right to verbally shout abuses but no further than that.

In most cases, it is considered improper to not accept the Zu-dam. So during negotiations, the peace delegate from the erring party is given full opportunity to speak and beg for forgiveness. Once that is done, the head kinsman or leader of the community (in case of community level negotiations, it is usually the Chief who heads the delegation) that has been wronged will lament, shout, advise or do anything but not physical. After that, the leader will pass the order to either serve the Zu or reject it. If it is the former, one of the delegates from the erring party11 will serve the peace wine to the other party. Only after all the members of the wronged party has accepted and drank the Zu, then the leader of the other party is allowed to stand, address the gathering and thank the wronged party for accepting their sincere apology.

In case of acceptance, the wronged party is obliged and bound by custom not to pursue the matter further- be it verbal or physical vengeance and vice versa. If such violations are committed, then such actions will invite the wrath of one and all- be it at village or inter-community level. It is even believed that disrespect of such treaties will invite divine retribution to the violator of the peace deal. As the consequences are great and heavy, it is usually the case that the Zu-dam acceptance is strictly adhered to by one and all. Due to the importance and strict adherence to this customary law, there have been instances of other kindred communities taking advantage of the Zu-dam to pacify the Hmars after committing intentional violence. “Just offer Zu/tea to the Hmars and they will be pacified” is a word often uttered by some tribes whenever there is intent to commit or actual violence perpetrated upon the Hmars. However, the Hmars so far are known to honor and respect this custom even in spite of such comments or remarks and as such not only averted conflicts within and without but also earned the respect of others- be it adherence to the Zu-dam or the Hmar people.

Inremna ruoi:

Another indispensable part of conflict resolution in the Hmar society is Inremna ruoi or Feast of reconciliation. Usually, a Zu-dam agreement is followed by a feast of reconciliation. This feast is organized mostly at inter-village or inter-tribal level although it is also occasionally done even at the family level.

For most tribal societies including the Hmars, feasting is always a welcome affair and therefore participated with gusto. In spite of the existence of tension, most Hmars do not like to stand in the way of an upcoming or plans for a feast. Given this, most peace negotiations are mostly followed by a feast so as to cement the truce. Once a feast has been organized and the food offered partook by both the parties involved under the watchful eye of the whole village and other neutral parties invited as witnesses, there is no turning back. One is to simply abide by the truce and do their utmost to respect it.

‘Eating off the same plate’ (Tleng hmunkhata bufak) have very deep meanings for the Hmars and as such symbolizes a sort of affinal relationship; a sign of oneness, unity and peace.
During the feast, the erring party makes it their duty to see that the wronged are treated properly and special care given to their needs. As such, certain parts of the animal slaughtered considered sacred or Sa-ser are given with due rituals to the latter along with the best parts of the meat.

Se-sun:

A feast of reconciliation also often involves, in the past, a very solemn ceremony where an animal, normally a Mithun (Indian Bison), is slaughtered to signify permanency in the peace accord, gratitude and to symbolize blood-brotherhood. This ceremony is called “Se-sun”. In this ceremony, either the head representatives or main contenders of the conflict will pierce the animal with a spear and kill it together. As animal has been killed and blood spilled together with mutual consent and the consequences of the killing resting equally on both the party, all enmities between them are to be gone and replaced by a special relationship bond called ‘blood-brothership’. By becoming blood-brothers, both the party has an obligation to help each other in times of needs and to live, regard and address each other as one family. All social norms, taboos and prohibitions kinsmen are also fully applicable to this new relationship.

In effect, the two groups became kinsmen or Laibung through this ceremony. Se-sun ceremony and its obligations to members of the clans are permanent and will continue to be so. An instance of such is the Se-sun ceremony between the Chief of the Lawitlang and Joute clans centuries ago at Champhai (now in Mizoram). Since then, the Lawitlang and Joute have been affinal kinsmen or Laibung and there has not been anyrecorded- orally or written- inter-clan conflicts between them. The clan members of both Lawitlang and Jouteclans continue to respect and execute their obligations as kinsmen or Laibung in any customary or traditional events.

Last but not the least
There have been arguments that such customary norms and values behind sporting matches and games have become obsolete but a closer look at Hmar society today reveals that this is not so. Pi le pu dan or the ways of the ancestors are still very much relevant, revered and are even accepted as desirable norms of behavior by the Church- the most powerful institution today- in many instances. Today, though, sports and games are more used to acquaint villages and individuals so that they get to know each other better and any violent reactions to losing or other untoward outcomes of activities are not condoned by majority and as such come along with heavy societal sanctions that deter most from behaving otherwise.

The entry of modernity among the Hmars has been responsible for the weakening of several traditional and customary practices among the Hmars. This in turn affects their societal cohesion. However, the practice and application of Zu-dam, inkhelna, inremna ruoi and other traditional practices are continued not only to resolve conflicts but to also prevent conflicts through increased interaction and dialogues enabled by these practices.

The irony is that most modern administrative and judiciary systems often suppress rather than encourage traditional conflict resolution systems little knowing that they owed their existence and evolution to tradition. The assumption that modernity and tradition are radically contradictory to each other is a misdiagnosis of the relationship between tradition and modernity and therefore, flawed. This misconception often led many to underestimate the potentialities of tradition12 in strengthening modern structures.

Nonetheless, the importance of traditional systems of peacebuilding has more or less remained important in lending social cohesion and continuity. The roles they play in resolving conflicts remaining crucial in spite of the onslaught of time, space and the elements that comes along with it. It can be said that these traditional and customary conflict resolution systems are the main complementary forces that strengthen modern judiciary and conflict resolution systems.

¹ Immanuel Zarzosang Varte is an anthropologist and currently Guest Faculty, Department of Tribal Studies, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University- Regional Campus Imphal & Executive Director, Center for Organisation Research and Education (CORE)

² See Dena, Lal. 2008. In Search of Identity: Hmars of North- East India. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.

³ See Shakespeare, John. 1912. The Lusei- Kuki Clans. London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

⁴ See Mackenzie, Alexander. 1979 (reprinted). The North East Frontier of India. Delhi: Mittal Publications.

⁵ See Grierson, G. A., 1904 (Reprinted 1967). Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. 3, Part iii. Delhi: Motilal Banarsides.

⁶ See Hutchinson, R. H. Sneyd. 1909. Eastern Bengal and Assam District Gazetteers- Chitagong Hill Tracts. Allahabad: Pioneer Press.

⁷ See Liangkhaia. 1976. Mizo Chanchin (Mizo History). Aizawl.

⁸ See Songate, Hranglien. 1956. Hmar Chanchin (Hmar History). Imphal: Mao Press

- Darliensung. 1988. The Hmars. Churachandpur: L & R Press. ⁹ See Liangkhaia. 1976. Mizo Chanchin (Mizo History). Aizawl.

- Dena, Lal. 2008. In Search of Identity: Hmars of North- East India. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.

- Varte, Immanuel Zarzosang. Chin-Kuki-Mizo Unification Movements and the Hmars: Problems and Prospects. A Research Paper for North East India Center for Indigenous Culture and Development Studies (NEICICDS): Shillong.

¹⁰ Now, after the arrival of Christianity and the banning of alcohol and other intoxicants, Zu or wine has been substituted by tea specially prepared for the purpose

¹¹ If it’s a matter or individuals or family, it is the head son-in-law. If it is at community level, it is the village crier or Tlangsam

¹² See Rudolph, Lloyd I and Susanne H. Rudolph. 1967. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India