RESHAPING SOCIAL IMAGINATION: A REVIEW ON SOCIAL UNITY

~ Zawlthanglien Khawzawl

Every interaction between various groups in a society at different levels, formal or otherwise, is defined by ends they each set for themselves.  The ends here are of differing ideological interests of standing nature, if not mere differences of opinion which usually is the case with us. Basically, it means there always will be differences between groups or individuals in a society over issues and matters of overlapping nature. The inevitable question that comes to the mind then is how to resolve such differences. The manner and methods employed in the interactions and of the strife towards the solution of it is a measure of societal maturity. If one were to measure our society on that scale of maturity principle, the likely measurement would be that of a teenager in terms of human existence. How and why it is so may well be a good thing to start a question with.  

The most significant historical moments of our society to the present day have been, unfortunately, met with misused of power and authority. There may only be few exceptions. The numerous split witnessed by NEIGM in 1953 and the subsequent split experienced by Independent Kohran in 1968 followed by the mushrooming of different denominational church up to the early nineties testify the negative character of power and authority playing a role in our society. However, a strict and exclusive application of the negative or positive nature of power to explain the phenomena may yield no conclusive conclusion but the huge efforts and struggle for power was hugely unmistakably there looking smugly back at us with a wide condescending grin. The struggle for it continued to this day.

The Root Cause Behind The Idea

We often think and perceive the numerous denominational churches in our society as a liability, an eternally divisive existence, a stumbling block to social solidarity and the root cause of our past and present predicament. This mode of thinking stems from the fact that church history constitutes our history or at least, half of it. The coming of Christianity and the subsequent formation of NEIGM and establishment of Independent Kohran thereafter formally united the whole lot of us who otherwise were scattered over numerous villages and across vast and different regions without any serious or formal link as social and political unit. Let not it be forgotten also that had it not been for the Independent Church the very language we now speak would never have survived the onslaught of Lusei hegemony.

Unfortunately, the very force that had united us became or rather was made a tool of division, a baton in the hands to beat others up who held views different from our own. The resultant environment was so saturated with general hatred and personal enmity that it failed to dissipate even after the passes of almost half a century long year. The child of that environment is denominational ideology whose prisoners we all are, perhaps. This is the foundational reason behind the interpretation of denominations as a liability, and therefore, a force against which anyone with the hope to achieve social unity and solidarity must struggle and fight like it’s a fundamental duty.  

The Struggle

The power base of those who hold such view is found mostly in the social groupings, sometimes formally called or named Fellowship or Welfare, in various cities of our country. They are the banners of hope of social unity and brotherhood, or so it is believed. The core belief of such view is, in time, in the demise of the numerous denominations towards which they keenly looked forward to. 

The belief in such thoughts is, however, not without its share of merit. 

Birds of different denominations flock together and found themselves enjoying the company each other in praise and worship. Such environment stimulates and awakens the feelings of togetherness and unity, a thing no denomination in all its luxury can hope to give. It is on the strength of such powerful social feelings that the hope to unify ourselves and consolidate social solidarity have been based and built. This project, social or otherwise, however, is the point interface where two opposing ideological forces meet and interact.

This basically can be understood as a struggle for power to capture the loyalty or allegiance of the masses on whose verdict their political fortune rests.  Two options are made available to be chosen – Fellowship/ Welfare as representing unifying force and denomination as representing division. Any attempt to paint grey areas between the two is met with such a fierce hostility that the situation looks like the Stalinist regime after the WW2 wherein the popular refrain and propaganda was - there is no murder in paradise! Of course, murders took place and murderers were there then but since murder was (regarded as) a capitalist disease it had to be denied.  So too was, and still is, our situations. Some things must be denied and has to be swept under the rug irrespective of its truth value.  And the way this conflict of interests plays out in the real social world is something which will continue to haunt and befuddle social thinkers.

Anti-Denomination as Self Defeating

Coming back to the view that held denominations as eternally divisive, one might ask how reasonable is it to believe in the real merit of it, and at what costs? There is a lot more rhetoric to it and less of substance and truth in such thoughts than its proponents may hope to admit. And I think imbibing such thoughts and creating an impression as such upon the youths of our society is a dangerous business to engage in simply because future social well-being of ours is at stake. Various objections against the view can be had a few of which are discussed as follow.

Firstly, the notion about denomination as eternally divisive presupposes the idea that the existence of denominations is inherently incompatible with social unity. This concept is rooted in the historical facts of church history from which all of us can’t seem to escape. Unfortunately, this fact is the thing which overshadows, with unfailing perseverance, our entire current predicament of social incoherence and disunity. The fault, therefore, on the part of the present generations is that all present social interactions are made contingent on this historical fact. Consequently, everyone and everything is brushed with the colour of denomination one is attached to irrespective of the neutrality or goodness of the actions. Therefore, there is an urgent need to break away with history and as quickly as possible, and ran away from it as if our life, social and private, depends on it.

  

We need to run as far away as possible and with all the energy our thinking mind could carry us from such thoughts because the existence of denominations in itself is not divisive. On the contrary, it is in the mishandling of competing group interests and the irresistible impulse to resort to majoritarian narratives to justify our actions that our divisions find expression. If, for the sake of argument, there are social groups as numerous as the denominational churches we see in our society today and they each replaced the latter, we would still face the same problems and difficulties of social solidarity. This tells us that the problem with our struggle for social unity is not because there are too many churches but because we fail to understand why there are so many churches in the first place. Rights, freedom and equality we must learn to imbibe. The active cultivation of these values will inculcate respect into our individual and social lives. Respect, therefore, must be the definition of every individual and social relationship if we ever hope of achieving real unity as a social and political unit. It is the only possible moral and logical path to solving the problems of uniting ourselves. 

The idea of denomination as divisive is false because it is based on church history.  It is false not because it is a historical truth but because we relive it. After all, why would we allow ourselves to be given to history that had in all its glory divided us and pitted us against one another?  History is to be celebrated and learned from and not to be relived. If the Blacks of America always dig into their past and actively dwell upon it, what do you think would happen in the US or in countries where they had been immensely hurt and subjugated? Conversely, why do you think the Middle East, and in particular Iraq, scramble over their dead and the destructions and mayhem they experience presently? At least in part, the active efforts made by a section of its people to establish the past and relives it in their present social settings are responsible for the current pain they experience.

We take more pride in reliving the past than learning from it because modern education and its values have not changed our basic mode of thinking and perception. We love living in a country where ‘unity and diversity’ is celebrated and respected but balked at our own diversity. We distrusted it and looked at it with contempt and scorn. The logical thinking and actions that follows is to attempt, real hard, at achieving social unity within the confines of uniformity.  We failed miserably, however, because we failed to understand that solidarity or for that matter unity is not contained in uniformity but celebrated and realized only in diversity. We try to realize social unity on the strength of shared group interests and values and reject anything or anybody who does not share thoughts which are not in line with ours. This approach is completely flawed because it makes us blind to the thoughts that social unity is like a house built and constructed with the bricks of disagreement and differences, and cemented together by the values of respect for the rights, freedom and equality of each individual and group as well. Therefore, the sooner we learn and acknowledge it the better it will be for the cause of our unity.  

Secondly, the very idea of denominational divisions as eternal is circular in its reasoning and effect, and therefore offers no logical exit solution for the very problem it seeks to solve in the first place. This is so because the idea necessarily entails the existence or creation of anti-denominational group, secular or otherwise, to counter the supposed divisive group character of denomination. The necessity nature of its existence necessarily, in turn, whipped up antagonism against denominations it refused to or can’t control among its proponents and die-hard supporters. This antagonism against denominations, which was supposed to exorcise society of its denominational possession, unwittingly metamorphosed itself into the very evil it had hoped to drive out of societal systems. In other words, the situation is akin to a Pastor who becomes possessed in the process of performing an exorcism. The Pastor becomes possessed perhaps because he lacks faith and we become possessed because we lacked real understanding of what we fight for.   

Anti-denominational group knows perfectly well that individual doesn’t stand a chance, and hence employed the scheme of group versus group strategy against denomination by absorbing individuals, as many as possible, into its circle of influence. In this way, it seeks to muster up power enough to nullify the supposed divisiveness of denomination so as to steamroll its way to social unity. It tries to increase its moral command and authority over people within and outside of its sphere of influence by passively or at times actively picking on denomination with particular emphasis on the divisions it causes within our society. However, the unfortunate thing about this whole idea is that the more it draws people in within its circle the more antagonism it will create between various groups in the society. This is so because it is afflicted by the same afflictions it sees in others. A vicious cycle of causes and effects is, thus, created with no solution in sight. All because the very force it chooses to use for the realization of its goal limits its capability to see beyond or escape the wall of divisions which it blurrily sees as having source from denominations. In the end, it becomes just another group or organisation no different from those it tries to remove or condemns as divisive.   

Thirdly, another problem with the anti-denominational view is its one-dimensional usage of power and authority. In other words, power and authority is used solely to impose its views and enforce obedience in line with its ideology. Anyone found guilty of dereliction is made to suffer social ostracism or warn with threat of stigmatization. This inflexibility or irrationality in the use of power and authority or reasoning is a symptom of social groups with far-right political leanings howsoever persuasively it claims it stood for goals reflective of progress and social wellbeing. This sort of politics is currently prevailing the world over, be it Brexit, US under Trump or the politics of cow India presently witnesses, and it seems we too are not far behind in the game.

The perils of anti-denomination in its present form are, therefore, not only because it is divisive but more so in the execution of its power and authority. The current social conditions of the Hmars in Delhi bear testimony to it. Layman or not, we have no qualms and we show no compunction about what we are doing.  What does that tell us? Logically, we would not hesitate displaying the same emotional quality over the whole society given we are in a position to do it - suppress, harass, coerce or ostracize individual or people who hold different views and beliefs on what social behaviour should be like! Actually, we are no different than the RSS in terms of political thoughts and action but whom we snubbed and looked at with contempt and distrusts. This is the kind of madness we have embraced and the level of dignity we have climbed down to for the sake of self-justifications.  There is no dignity in hurting one’s own tribesmen; it is a sign of extreme desperation and immaturity of the mind and heart consumed by desire bereft of vision. It would indeed be a great sight and funny too, to see a man walking hand in hand with a monkey dressed in wedding gown with a wide grin in the face. So too is the social conditions of the Hmars in Delhi, not because it is funny necessarily but because it is an anachronism.  

Conclusion  

Anti-denominational view will not solve our problem of social unity. It will only help create more divisions in the society because it is self-defeating. It is an idea we can hope to follow at our own peril as a social political unit. It must be abandoned, the sooner the better. Social solidarity will not be found in the removal or annihilation of the diverse groups rather it is in the acceptance of our diversity that the solution to it lays.  Unfortunately, what is frighteningly alarming is the silence of public leaders and people who called themselves guardian of the interests of the society as well as civil societies on such issues. The silence is deafening, actually. Might be it has something to do with the lack of impartial observers or intellectuals because our environment has become so saturated with hatred that impartiality has become as rare a quality as diamond. Or still it may be the case that we don’t want to talk about it. That’s understandable. However, this fact of our social conditions will not go away by keeping our mouth shut or by stifling opinion. It may appear, for a time, to have gone away but it will certainly raise its ugly head again, and again, in the future. Therefore, in the interests of society as a whole discussion about social issues should be encouraged, talked about and debated as much as possible. We may fail to deliver but there never must be a time when we fail to protest against injustice.   

TLAWMNGAINA: A CRITIQUE (PART-II)

~  Zawlthanglien Khawzawl

ABSENCE OF TRADITIONS OF DISSENT

Prior to the time when our forefathers were still beyond the reach of the ever-incoming tides of modern values of civilization, life and livelihood were simpler and linear, at least, politically and economically. Life was simpler not because morality was but because they were relatively free from the scourge of rigid social hierarchical system and its attendant socio-economic complexity borne out of the wombs of state-making projects that were in full swing at the foot of the hills they lived in. Individual and social life was linear in the sense that all devoted their life to shifting cultivation. From dawn to dusk each individual, from the smallest to the biggest and the youngest to the oldest, struggle by the sweat of their brow to make themselves useful to suit their livelihood. Every single activity, personal or otherwise, dances to the tune and songs of the swidden fields.

The linearity in livelihood dictates that age, seniority and experienced be premium individual and social values worthy of respect and veneration. Young men, boys and girls alike have to learn to walk in the footsteps of their fathers, mothers, grandfathers, uncle etc as they go about their day to day life. In other words, obedience, submission and the willingness to learn from person senior to oneself in age was the key to success in the swidden field bounded life.

It is no wonder then ‘tlawmngaina’ demands the young to be still and in silent respect when amongst elders. The word of his elders was unquestionable, incontestable. It is not surprising, therefore, that society discouraged, as we now still do, dissention, argumentation against established policies, practices or decisions, which are perceived to be just and proper. So, logically, it is possible that in a particular social setting an irresponsible, crazy or irrational elder in command over obedient group of young men who pledge loyalty to the former could exist. In such a situation, the word mayhem or chaos doesn’t even begin to describe the devastation such relationship could cause.

This lack of tradition of dissent, I think, speaks volumes of the nature of our socio-political structure - the centralization of power and the penchant we have for it, and its destiny of which we are a witness. We pick a fight more easily than we could pay for or harangue at someone or things. We first fight, discuss and compromise latter on or sometimes not at all, when on every issue, a compromise could be reached through dialogue in the first place! Sadly enough, we don’t dialogue; we dictate and decide on our own terms and interests because we lack traditions of dissent. Dialogue cannot takes places where mouths are muffled, minds indoctrinated and critical thinking discouraged. The art of dialogue and critical thinking are the engine and wheels of development without which socio-political and economic landscape is but a place dotted by chaos, discord and disunity, and flooded by the waters of poverty and disempowerment.

The inescapable logical consequence that follows is the growth of an environment which is hostile to any kind of criticism, dissention and argumentations against the self-proclaimed keepers of the community’s interests. Healthy discussions, debate and meaningful reasoning on issues are thrown off the table to make space for autocratic hands of the old to manoeuvre and decide shoving authoritarianism down the public’s throat only to leave us choking and coughing with our eyes wide open and red, and whining at our helplessness. Tlawmngaina, as such, help create an environment wherein passionate intellect and the crops of meaningful reasoning are left with no real roots from which to draw energy, strength and grow up to bear fruits for public consumption. Without logical reasoning and intellect to guide the public, society becomes the hotbed of intrigues, high drama and show business throwing each groups or institution into a state of insularity.

This may explain why we struggle under democracy and by extension, against social unity and solidarity amongst ourselves not because we couldn’t but because our mode of thinking is paternalistic and not democratic. Tlawmngaina takes after the looks of a welfare society based on egalitarianism but at its core there is despotism, nepotism, patronism, paternalism and authoritarianism. Therefore, the prognosis of our continued existence and influence we hold, and could hold, with respect to others lies in the right understanding and application of ‘tlawmngaina’ in the context of the present. Why the present? Because life now is non-linear and its philosophy radically different; just mere seniority or age doesn’t guarantee knowledge, skills or even experience any more like it used to and hence, respect ought to be a two-way street unlike in the traditions of tlawmngaina. On every matter or issues respect must be shown by the young to elders as much as it is to be given to the former by the latter not only because of democratic principles but more so because justice demands it. The lack of respect we have of each other is the single biggest obstacle there is to social unity.

To take another instance, we need to take a long hard look at the series of events leading up to the Delhi Incident of March 2013 and the aftermath environment the incident help created. On the one hand, many or some, at least, were of the strong view that the decisions of the ICI Church ran counter to the basic narrative of the Gospel even as some were or are, to this day, of the view that the Church was well within its moral right to establish its unit as it saw fit; while on the other hand, many or some believes, and still do, that the Delhi Hmar Welfare did not really stand up to its commitment to the principle of social unity and brotherhood.

The policy of social ex-communication and ostracization executed against the members of the Delhi ICI unit by the Delhi Hmar Welfare subsequent to the church plantation strengthen such views. If one could argue that the church was on the wrong side of morality to have caused such a massive social and individual heartburn on the issue, it could be argued with equal vehemence that the Delhi Hmar Welfare and Fellowship lacks the sincerity to carry out its stated principle of social unity or solidarity and brotherhood to its logical conclusion. The whole issue of it may leave us turned a blind eye to one side or the other but one common thing both sides of the camp excelled at was the misapplication and exploitation of our beloved ‘tlawmngaina’.

It succumbs to the pressure of groupism and vested interests. In its name acts of selfish, narrow personal and group interests were committed when compromise and empathy was called for; it became the war-cry and an all-in-all justifying power for individual and groups who seeks to strengthen their own position against another. In the same vein, Associations, welfare groups, denominational churches, HSA, HYA and HI all exhorted and called upon the youths invoking the principles of ‘tlawmngaina’ only to serve their own interests. The very asset we inherited, in this sense, turns out to be a bad loan pushing us to the edge of a moral bankruptcy, a threatening costly lawsuit.

If we are to believe that the Delhi Incident was just an isolated case, we may be a mile wide off the target. Was it an isolated incident that happened in vacuum and with no consequences? What of the Sharon Incident of November 2016 and that of Khawmawi in February, 2017 in which a particular families or individuals were boycotted and shunted out? If one were to take the stand that a particular person has to face social boycott for the mere reason that his acts, beliefs and thinking does not conform to that of his own; why does it not occur to such people that his acts, beliefs and thinking too does not conform that of the other person? It would do us good to remember well that we live in a democratic society. Our acts, thinking and reasoning should reflect it – respect and abide by the laws and repose faith in its deliverances. Liberal democratic principles has shaped us and moulded us into who we now are, then why trampled it against people who doesn’t share our views? This is hypocrisy of the highest order. It will be a different matter if we plan on establishing a social fascist regime of our own with a commitment to actively propagate it.

Just so because we commanded majority in a particular social setting doesn’t mean we have the right to act at will to suit one’s tastes or socio-political persuasions. There is no more justification for it than there is any for casteism or brahminism. Any justification of it at best symbolizes unity rooted in uniformity and purity, which is a deeply flawed philosophy carrying the seeds of authoritarianism, despotism and direct threat of violence or war itself. Incidentally, we have a long tradition of exiling ‘unwanted’ people from society and it seems this particular practice is still alive and kicking even after 100 years of Christianity and exposure to liberal democratic ideas and values.

A small ethnic group like us doesn’t have the luxury to put ourselves into such a state. Tlawmngaina, as such, while being a great social capital is also a liability, a stumbling block for social, political and economic development. The results of its misapplication produced only but a massive outpouring of emotional heartbreaks followed by intense personal hatred and ill-will against one another, and generate widespread consternation against existing leadership and authorities. It created a post-truth moment. And in such a scenario, truth, reason and the sense of brotherhood became casualties whose voices simply gets drowned out by the din of wanton hurling of invectives and abuses.

The manipulation of this outdated tradition is socially virulently divisive and communal in the form of groupism, and politically, it is suicide. At the individual level, the constant efforts made to portray individual achievement and successes, or the possibility of it, as part of the goodwill of or involvement in group activism is also detrimental to personal growth. It is time we understand that not all success and achievement can be realised through group activism. For a wholesome, all round development of the society the individual has to be freed from the shackles of societal strictures. Only then will we learn to respect each other; and our decision making, planning & policy making and legislation will course itself in the right path within the walls of an overarching need to compromise and empathize just so that we, as a community, will rise to great heights of achievement and fulfilment.

PHYSICAL LABOUR OVER MENTAL ACTIVITY

Another interesting character of ‘tlawmngaina’ is its wholesale encouragement of physical work to the extreme exclusion of things that demands mentation, artistry or creativity. This was done, probably, by our forefathers to suit the environmental settings and their livelihood. The deliberate choice of our forefathers to go oral as against written traditions explained and simultaneously also justifies such social behaviour. The oral tradition was a deliberate historical choice because to them the ‘world of writing and texts is indelibly associated with states. As such, ‘acquisition of writing was despised and frowns upon due to its potential avenue for disempowerment inasmuch as it could have empowered. Thus, to refuse or abandon writing and literacy was a strategy among many to keep themselves out of reach of the state.’ This precluded the rise of division of labour and professionalism. Of course, the village crier, the blacksmiths and priests were there but there’s no more logic to it than to say that they were there to suit just the bare necessities of their livelihood.

The absence of professionalism in progressive stages tells that economy was rudimentary and never gets to be formalized. It was, in all probability, defined by give-and-take or barter system. Since it was untouched by modern sense of market economy theft, larceny or robbery was unheard of in the society. A simple act of placing firewood or two against the main entrance door of a house was enough a reason for a person not to go in and steal. The logic is simple- where do you sell or exchange even if there were things to steal when everybody has whatever the others have got? And the fact that life was extremely hard, if not impossible, outside of the village or community making it a society having less or no disregard for privacy. Therefore, theft and robbery were absent not because the moral condition was any better than it is now but because modern market economy was yet to leave footprints.

Diversification of labour and progressive professionalism was absent, and their evolution precluded for the simple reason that, apart from the desire to avoid the state, individuals were inextricably bounded to their swidden fields,and even when they did manage to free themselves from it, for a time like in the favang and phalbi, ‘tlawmngaina’ was right there waiting around the corner to steal away the leisure time they have at their disposal. In short, there was just not enough time for the growth of personality or qualities that could, in other circumstances, changed the course of their life nor was there any intention or thoughts to make one either. In fact, such encouragements don’t make much sense, at least, not in the modern sense. However, it would seem there is a method to it that hid itself from the plain sights of reason which asked and enquired as to why little or no efforts were made to educate or develop the reasoning faculties. The method to this disinterest shown at, as stated before, is exactly what our forefathers were after - to avoid incorporation into and formalization or codification by state systems.

The logical question behind this lopsided emphasis on and encouragement of physical work against mental activity is, therefore, very striking, at least, for the simple reason that without the development of mental faculties- the free mind, changes for the better just couldn’t takes place. Or was it the case that our forefathers were wary of the octopoid hold and its potential consequences the intellect could unleash on the society? Or was it that they were just complacent with just whatever they have got in tune with their time? But, could one really believe in the notion that a society will not strive to achieve higher levels of development and refinement in the fields of life and just stay put? If we are to believe in the notion of our forefathers as refugees, state-fleeing people who resides atop the misty rolling hills, it makes sense that their way of life was a social choice. It will, then, mean that whatever little socio-political arrangements they had conceived were just bare survival strategies. Nothing more. This would in turn also mean that tlawmngaina is not suitable, if not compatible, with formal state systems for successful survival strategies.

It is, therefore, not surprising that focus efforts were made to enforce tlawmngaina. For those disenchanted with it, however, the failure to conform to the standard practice of ‘tlawmngaina’ is to invite the ire of the elders and authorities, which to the extreme took the form ofpublic humiliation. As such no right thinking individual dare take the risk.Sadly, this line of reasoning and action, in the present day, is still the dominant view which should be dispensed with because it is an anachronism in modern age. The continued efforts to propagate and instilled such thoughts and acts will, and is sapping, the very moral will and strength to excel in every walk of life harming the community in the long run. I am beginning to suspect that the disinterest shown, in general, at specialized higher studies and professions that demands mental focus, commitments, devotion as well as efforts and the consequent lack of such qualified persons amongst us has something to do with it and the siege mentality we have every time competitive results are out. After all, the grip that traditions have on our thinking and actions is something none could simply be dismissive about.

TLAWMNGAINA IN TUNE WITH TIME?

We now live under state system with its various twists and turns. An empowering philosophy of liberalism and values of democratic principles have become our day to day political and social diet. However, the fact remain, how relevant would tlawmngaina be, then, in the present context? There is no doubt about its relevancy; nevertheless, its effectiveness and efficiency for mass mobilization to secure desired goals and objectives for the whole community is highly questionable as it tends to fracture and divide the people and individual alike along narrow channels of power and leadership. It may not be possible to discard it nor advisable to do so either; but how could, then, the same be used for survival strategies in the present? The solution to these problems, I think, lies in the right understanding of the socio-political and economic settings within which we live.

Those in power and authority should be more open to and tolerant of diverse views and opinions. Every issue and matters that touched upon the interests of the community should be made open to discussion and debate with the willingness to compromise. Formal institutions must learn to take questions with patience, not just stonewall it or put themselves above criticism. Welfare associations, denominational churches, groups and other formal institutions and leaders who wield the trust and loyalty of its members should think twice before asserting authority whether or not it satisfies the overall needs and good of the community. They should strive and give maximum space and respect to individual rights and dignity in the pursuance of their interests. Only then can an environment be had where individuals could feel themselves being in it. This would let each one to feel his worth and importance and the realization that the stakes are high when it comes to the interests of the community.

Individual should also be more confident and assertive in pursuing interests and goals it perceives are worth the efforts. Of course, this should be within the bound of what is rationale and lawful. Institutions will always justify its acts of omission or commission by portraying itself as the embodiment of the community’s interests or at times claimed to sit above it. This is just a rhetorical and sweeping statement designed to manipulate tlawmngaina and our addiction to it. It knows exactly that tlawmngaina and our ethnicity are inseparable any more than the two faces of a coin are inseparable. This will explain why every formal institution declared loyalty to Hmar and not to tlawmngaina. They did so because it opens up the opportunity to appropriate tlawmngaina for its own consumption to feed its interests and needs. However, the fact is, not one single organisation or institution we have in our society represents the sum total of our interests. Therefore, there is an urgent need to wake up from this deep slumber of ignorance if we dreams of wholesome development based on the foundation of social unity and solidarity.

Tlawmngaina was an asset our forefathers had used successfully to take care of their needs and interests. In fact, they were efficient in using it to suit the environment of their time to bring about a successful and secured social and individual livelihood. Our customs, traditions and social systems they had practiced are not the remnants of some primitive social life forms rather it was a social choice and a deliberate historical decision with which they got through admirably and successfully against the adversity heaped upon them by men and nature alike. We, who are living in the 21st century with all the modern wisdom, knowledge, skills and technologies of the world at the click of a mouse button, what have we to offer to further strengthen our society, not only for its survival but also to bring about a successful and secured social and individual livelihood to all those we called Hmar? How about starting with tlawmngaina to mean mutual co-operation as against its classic version of self-denial and self-sacrifice? It is time, I believe, we incorporate a bit of individualism, liberalism and democratic values into it to suit our context and interests. Tlawngaina was a success with our forefathers. The question then is, how and what is it going to be henceforth, with us?

(New Delhi, March 11, 2017)

References:

Thiek. H. (2014). History of the Hmars in Northeast India (With Special References to Assam).
Scott, J.C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia.

TLAWMNGAINA: A CRITIQUE (PART - I)

~ Zawlthanglien Khawzawl

For the last few months I have been thinking, time and again, over the state of affairs in our society trying to piece together the numerous puzzles behind the rampant dicord - from the alphabetical issues, absence of common economic strategy, our interest in electoral over real politics to church vs society issues, lack of mutual co-operations, respect and the distrusts we have against each other- like someone trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with the seriousness of a student about to sit for his final exam. After a long hard thought, it dawned on me that something very foundational about our society has something to do with our present woes and struggles. I shall, therefore, endeavour to discuss this ‘foundational’ thing in this write-up in the hope that it could at least be a small step towards the solution of it.

Ideas governed and conquered. Wherever it is found to be lacking in quality and vibrancy, the bearer or bearers of it lose out to others. As such, the rise and fall of society and civilizations is inextricably linked to how receptive to new ideas would-be bearers of these ideas are in tune with the change in time and circumstances. It would be worthwhile, therefore, to take a deep introspection about our existence as a social unit in the context of the present ideas and values that govern human welfare and system of justice to which we are all subjected to. It is in the light of such values, I believe, the time has come to examine the ins and outs of the philosophy of tlawmngaina (the nearest parallel to it in the English language would be ‘altruism’) and reformulate it, if need be, to suit our present existence.

Tlawmngaina had fed and looked after the needs of our forefathers, physically or otherwise, since the ages past. However, it could be said that, if I may not sound too impudent, tlawmngaina is nothing more than a subsistence philosophy any more than shifting cultivation is. Shifting cultivation may produce surpluses but not enough a surplus upon which kings, nobles and army could be installed and built. However, it is just as good enough to sustain livelihood for people who wants to keep such formal and often subjugating state power at arm’s length. Tlawmngaina too is as such. It served the purpose of sustaining the socio-political moral character of a village life. Social and individual livelihood depended on it injecting the necessary moral encouragements so that the weary and burdensome swidden bounded life is made alive with joy, nostalgia, and also celebrated. Without much assumption, it may be said that it was designed to suit the socio-political and economic environment of the time, to present a cultural and moral challenge against the formal state or to thwart state formation primarily to begin with.

A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT:
In modern times, tlawmngaina has become like an old hat that has lost its shape because everybody wears it. This definition takes after that of socialism as given by CEM Joad. The point here is, however, not about its identification with utilitarianism, socialism or communitarianism as a philosophical thought process, although there are elements of similarity and proximity between them, but as interpreted at the individual and social level for a ‘good’ cause and actions or for that matter as an ideology.

In fact, in today’s fast changing world its manipulation by the public and individual at large seems to have matched that of the Thangsuopuon, our beloved traditional shawl- which is used upon people and given to individual it never was supposed to. This could be a symptom of self-centeredness or simply a mind dismissive of our ethnicity and its interests as dictated by the increasing exposure to liberalism in the face of social strictures requiring us to act otherwise and be vigilant about its interests. Whatever it is, this phenomenon has contributed towards the gradual erosions of our traditional institutional values and ideals. The question is, therefore, about change and its accompanying value relative to the former state.

The concept of ‘Tlawmngaina’ as identified from cultural and traditional social behaviour found a place in the traditions of the Hmar, Mizo and some Naga tribes of the Northeastern states. Numerous write up from various writers, whose cultural and traditional practices embodies this concept, sounded more of a eulogy or tribute to it that should be cherished than critically analysing the concept to make or redefine it as an instrument of public mobilization for the purpose of social and political change and development. The issue central to the concept of ‘tlawmngaina’ always has been, I believe, a question about conception of the ‘good’, and it still is. This makes it a concept of deep philosophical meanings and implications on which hinges our interpersonal and social relationships, which in turn determined our political fortune as an ethnic community. In this sense, our forefathers were no less deep in philosophical thought than philosophers of the ancient or middle ages we know of. For instance, the concern for social welfare in the traditions of ‘tlawmngaina’ can be likened to the thoughts contained in utilitarianism, socialism and communitarians in matters of individual freedom and rights vis-a-vis the society and liberalism for its concern with justice.

Having briefly outlined the broad philosophical contours of ‘tlawmngaina’ and the absence of its critical analysis when conflated with social mobilization for the purpose of socio-economic and political changes, it is pertinent to analyse the extent to which it plays out in determining decision making, and by extension, the future course of action at different levels of societal system. It is my sincere belief that understanding of the core issue that underlie ‘tlawmngaina’ will be the key to self-discovery of one’s place in the society, our values and worth as moral beings capable of self-determination and conceptualizing what the ‘good’ is in a political society we lived in. This is, therefore, an honest and humble attempt to understand the concept of ‘tlawmngaina’ and its full socio-economic and political implications.

I shall endeavour to show that tlawmngaina as a philosophy compliments the characters of Hill societies as propounded by James C Scott in his book The Art of Not Being Governed; and will further attempt at establishing as to how socio-economic and political thinking and behaviours engendered by the long association with non-state systems have left us struggling to cope with modernity under democracy and liberalism. I concede, the attempt will have its flaws and limitations but nevertheless, it will be, I hope, of some help in understanding the basic flaws in our society within which we plan, decide and take decisions and directly address the crisis of our real or perceived disunity we all are obsessed with.

THE PRINCIPLES OF TLAWMNGAINA:
One could proudly emphasise the depth of philosophical thinking our forefathers had had in conceptualizing such a grand and beautiful, all-encompassing behavioural code of conduct; an ethical code for the overall welfare of the village, and in accordance with which individual choices and rights have to be exercised to suit the system of justice it conceived. To put it simple, tlawmngaina was the means through which welfare was served, the web of individual rights and freedom exercised and administered to secure social redistributive justice. Whether this adopted principle was enough to help secure and achieve the goal of redistributive justice in the society is, however, highly questionable.

It is questionable because the concept per se is flawed as much as the enforcing authority behind is. In other words, the concept has inbuilt limitations because it rests on the foundation of paternalism. This precludes the achievement and administration of justice as we know it. A separate and in depth discussion on this topic will be worth the try but for the present my efforts here is analysis, a modest attempt, so as to bring out the effectiveness and efficiency for which ‘tlawmngaina’ was thought out to be in the first place.

Likening ‘tlawmngaina’ with ‘altruism’ might not sound too far fetch an idea when one takes into account the moral force behind it. However, the full connotations of ‘tlawmngaina’ is difficult to be contained in a single word, it has to be explained with examples for one to comprehend its full philosophical import.

In an ideal situation, an individual who is tlawmngai will exhibit the following traits:-
(i) In desperate or dire situation of thirst, hunger, distribution of good/ eatables he must always put others before him in fulfilling his needs.
(ii) When on a hunting trip deep into the forest, he must adhere to, come hell or high water, the oath of loyalty demanded of him by ‘tlawmngaina’- never to give up on anyone! Besides, he must fight to be the first to wake up and do the cooking for the hunting party.
(iii) To be the spear tip of a front-line vanguard when on a warpath against an enemy or a wounded beast.
(iv) When in a search party for a missing person he fights to be the first person to find the lost person; and attend to him when found, whether dead or alive, and for which eventuality he comes prepared with cloth firmly girded around his waist.
(v) In the event a person dies whose village is far away from his own he must push himself forward for the task of carrying the corpse and deliver it to the decease family. Similarly, if somebody in the village dies he must volunteer, without being asked to, for delivering information to the relatives of the decease who lives in another village.
(vi) Respect of the highest form is to be exhibited towards any individual senior to him in age. It is not expected of him to question the words of his elders.
(vii) In offering condolences to the family of a deceased person he must put up at their home and sleep over at night to help the family tide over their trauma and difficulties.
(viii) To always be the first to help widow and people who are sick and wounded.
(ix) To always do the right thing and what is good in the sight of the law (?) and not for mere limelight and public recognition.

It could be observed from the aforementioned principles that tlawmngaina is a code of ethics whose core theme is self-denial and sacrifice, impartiality, unquestioned loyalty and fearlessness in the face of things it perceived as ‘evil’ or a threat or danger to its survival and existence. This obsession with self-sacrifice, self-denial and extreme loyalty to a cause fit the Christian narrative of love and sacrifice. This probably explained, in another sense, as to why or how Christianity couldspread like wild firewhen it first came to them. On the flip side, this same machoistic code of extreme fearlessness, loyalty and self-sacrifice melted and wilted in submission to the whims and fancies of the elders. This makes it a social and political tool of indoctrination to suit their environmental settings.

In order to comprehend the full significance of all these acts and behaviour as a standard test to qualify for being ‘tlawmngai’, it is necessary to understand the socio-political and economic environment within which these acts or behaviour were executed. It will be best to understand our forefathers as a ‘runaway, fugitive, maroon communities who have, over the course of two millennia, has been fleeing the oppressions of state-making projects in the valleys- slavery, conscription, taxes, corvee labour, epidemics, and warfare’.

The political structures were, therefore, ‘imitative’ in the sense that ‘while they have the trappings and rhetoric of monarchy, it lacks substance: a taxpaying subject population or direct control over constituent units, let alone a standing army.’ As such, political arrangements were ‘redistributive, competitive feasting system held together by benefits they were able to disburse.’ The shifting cultivation- an ‘escape agriculture designed to thwart state appropriation and our social structure- an escape social structure designed to aid dispersal and autonomy and to ward off political subordination. The society produces surplus but were not use to support kings and monks. The absence of large, permanent, surplus absorbing religious and political establishments makes it a society which is sociologically flat, local and egalitarian in character.’

It may not be too wide off the mark to say that socio-politically, relationships and livelihood were constructed by our forefathers in such a way that there was no life outside the community. A person might build his house, in exceptional cases, some distance from a village or live at the outskirt of a village but he lives within the embracing arms of the community. This was needed for security and safety from the enslaving eyes of marauding slave traders and agents of oppressive state making projects which were in full swing in the valleys. There also was the ever-present danger of inter village conflicts and rivalry that could blow up violently. Economically, individual and social life was dictated by the overarching need to practise swidden cultivation to survive.

These were the underlying conditions under which ‘tlawmngaina’ was conceived and practiced to secure social obedience and allegiance and to a limited extent, welfare and justice. Therefore, it could be said, with high degree of accuracy that serving the dish of welfare and justice were just a by-products and not the end objective of ‘tlawmngaina’. It was designed and used more of as an instrument of social control and securing loyalty, as we now still do, than about anything else. In other words, it was with deep intellect that societal setup was designed the purpose of which was to restrict individual and social behaviour.

Our society was not a free-for-all society like some people would have us believed. It was a society wherein social values were celebrated and not of individual. Great efforts were made to exalt and promote social values through the individual. It was a society wherein individual excellence was promoted, encouraged and stimulated through the social and not the social through individual values. Tlawmngaina was the thing that made it possible to secure such objectives. It was the vehicle that pulled them through the rough and brutal terrain of life to achieve the goal of social integration, co-operation and a secured individual and social existence.

GROUP ACTIVISM AT THE COST OF THE INDIVIDUAL:
On close examination of the concept it could be discerned that ‘tlawmngaina’ put great emphasis on group activity (ies). Even when it did not, it becomes the driving force behind the activity (ies) by making itself binding on every individual of the community. These were so because it based itself firmly on the foundation of ethnicity and woven together with the sublime moral values of obedience and loyalty to form a philosophical cord by which the hearts and emotions of the community gets bounded together, durable and lasting enough to withstand the corrosive pressures of time and change. This binding condition of ‘tlawmngaina’ was necessitated by the socio-economic and political environment within which they lived. Submission and loyalty to ethnicity being the binding condition, it becomes susceptible to hijacking and therein lays its vulnerability and hence, liability for the community. This is the processual point where it becomes vulnerable to the machinations of individual or groups with vested interests.

Why is such situation even possible in the first place? I am inclined to say that it is due to the inherent flaws underlying tlawmngaina. The misunderstanding of it coupled with its continued application by the society at large over time amplified the magnitude of its fallout. For instance, one needs to have a close look at the massive efforts being made by each denomination, Welfare, Fellowship and other formal institutions to secure their own socio-economic interests by way of demanding active participation of its members, directly or indirectly. Such efforts not only seek to take advantage of or appropriate individual values but worse it doesn’t give a hoot about individualism. Our whole socio-political life have been so used to doing things and overcoming obstacles through social or group activism that we are afraid to let the individual walk his own path lest we can’t appropriate or take advantage of the individual values. Society will grow only when it shed this fear of the individual.

Appeals are made in the name of ‘tlawmngaina’ or God to contribute, go somewhere or do these and that, or at times by a mix of both. If God fails to make the right effect with the audience tlawmngaina would be called in to secure whatever objectives there are to be secured. As surely as night follows day, tlawmngaina will do the job of whatever there is to be done. The reason is that every capable member of the society is under oath of loyalty to it and also because the moral boundary of tlawmngaina outstretched that of the scripture. It is apt to say, therefore, that where God fails tlawmngaina triumph and succeed. This is an irony because the core moral theme -self sacrifice and self denial for the good of others- is the same in both, if not exactly.

The social environment of the Hmars in Delhi is a living example which is being operated, or say experimented, on a grand scale. In areas we populated, it operated at the micro level with subtlety, and on regular basis, by way of selective execution of tlawmngaina on the basis of denominational membership or any other formal institutional membership. Our social behaviour especially in times of obituary events, wedding programmes and other events of social significance constitute an example of the manifestation of selective tlawmngaina. The irony here is that tlawmngaina was supposed to be non-selective in its application, a bulwark against discriminations of any kind to help the society achieve the goal of egalitarianism.

It will be worth remembering the fact that the exihibition or operation of tlawmngaina in times of obituary event predates the denominational church. Unfortunately, the entire operations of tlawmngaina are now more or less wholly appropriated by the Church, welfare groups and others to suit the interests of its members and itself. The first instance when this appropriation began is a question I am not aware of but the beginning of it was, in all probability, not deliberate just pure social administrative expediency which over time became deliberate and intentional. The appropriation and hijacking of tlawmngaina has become so severe and saturated that individual and members cower in fear at the thought of being abandoned by their institution. Individual must take the blame of being not courageous enough and institutions too should take the blame of being despotic in asserting authority.

The susceptibility of ‘tlawmngaina’ to manipulation or hijacking by individuals and groups is, therefore, an existential social crisis the solution of which lies with all of us. It is a tragedy that a community whose very social heart beat with ‘tlawmngaina’ struggles to hold itself together in the face of issues which question its very social and political existence and the influence it could command vis-a-vis the other sister tribes it shared the world with. Why is this so? Why can’t we use it to suit our political and social goals and objectives? Normal thinking suggests we would be adept at its execution to secure the right amount of control and loyalty from the masses given the facts of legacy as it was from our forefathers. But that is not the case, unfortunately.

It was destined not to be because the very nature of tlawmngaina nurtured the growth of autocratic germs who will rise to the occasion with unfailing perseverance to swarm over and manipulate the whole garden of our social structures and relationships. The sole intentions of such individuals is to let grow only a particular kind of plant suited to its taste and persuasion.The fruits and flowers of such plant are, as such, tasteless and without the fragrance of brotherhood or care but its stench, like a miasma suffocates the environment and everything within its circle of influence.

The full implications of abiding to it runs counter to the basic narrative of individualism – soft or hard; and that, I think, is an anathema to any kinds of development in any area of endeavour in life. It had been a great convenient tool for social, economic and political undertakings for a particular environmental setting within which our forefathers lived out their life; but it would be in the fitness of things to say it has outlived its rationale.

NGAITUO NA KHAWTUOL LENG

~ Zawlthanglien Khawzawl

Tarik 5, April khan ka sangnu bawrsawmna leiin daktor pan dingin Andrew Ganj Dispensary ah kan zu fe a. In kan zuk tlung a, Singleng News watsapp group ka zuk hawng chu thupui fun deu thuril um hih memberhai in an lo hril tlang luoi luoi a. Tienlai, pawlsawm ka exam tawm, thla li sung deu thaw hostel room lien rak lo ka lo intawmpui hlak Shri Thachunghnung Joute aka Pu Sniper le Delhi khawpuia Hmar khawtlanga mi inlar le mi hriet pawl tak Hotupa Lalramsang Hrangate aka JG (Jim Green) hai pahni chun Delhi Thalaipawlhai chu mani zaumna (dignity/ honour) theinghil rak khawpa sum lam pawi ti lo, ti zawngin selkalna musep chun group chu an hung kap chuoi chuoi el a.

Pathien ram a dingin thahnemngaina le hotuhai thupek le phalna thanga sum hlawdawk chu thiltha tak a nih, ti ngaituona lei chun an pahni chuh ka zuk sel ta a nih. Hmar FC khawm an fiehlim bik nawh, tiin  thalaihai an selna dawnrilrem (logic) hmang chun ka hang khak ta pei a. Mi dang dang in ngaidan hung hril a, inselna ri’n boruok a tuom zing lai chun Pu Sniper le Hotupa JG tawngbau hlek hung suok hai chu ka lo bi ve zing a. Ngaituona zau tawk le mi danghai ngaidan hrietthiemna le hlutsakna thanga thuril kan hriltlang chuh ngaituona kampui hmanga sawichip tul a nih, ti ngaidan neiin ‘hmathlir le ngaituona hlatak nei tha hleng a tih’ ti’n kam ka saksuok ve a nih.

Chu zo sawtnawte hnung chun ‘hmathlir nei a comment chau a (keiin ka) phal…..’ tiin ka tawng la kawi in ka hming hmer in khawtlang a ka nina chen a hung tlangsampui el chu mak ka ti ve khawpel. Chuong ang zawnga ka comment hlak ka hmu nawh, member danghai khawmin an hmu bik chuong nawh. Guwahati vaak hawn suk lungsen ang el in phungsawr thaw in a zinga chun a comment tin el chu a thil hril leh inkungkeina nei le nei naw thu ni lovin “hmathlir a nei am aw!!” ti’n an zui tir ngat ngat el ta a.  An kawktir tak lem chuh hriet an tak khawpel. Pu VK watsapp signature “wang wang” ang deu anih zuk ti ding hlakin a ser suok tu ka ni bawk si, a thu hi lo dit hle a nih zuk ti dingin ami sel tu kha ama ni nawk bawk. A ieng po khawm chu nisien Pu JG in “ ‘hmathlir a nei am aw!!’ ti hi ka ‘signature’ ani a, ‘thupui paranga lak ding annoh…’” a lo ti hi an dik a, khel khawm a ni bawk a nih. A ieng lem hi’m a buk rik lem a ta? ti ani chun Pathien in hnuoi le van an duong ruol ruol a an um tir ve thudik bukna phahla mihriem lungrilah ruok chun buk a tling naw nih. A thil hril indik na khi khel ani a, khel ani na khin khel ani zie a namdet a nih.

Guwahati vaak hai khu a hawn deu in an um hlak a, fak ding zawngin hmunhnawk dehawna lai le lampui vel a hai hin vuongin kil tin ah hmu dingin an um zing hlak. Khawpui a khawsa anni leiin ramsa dang le vate danghai lakah fak hmuna le zawngna kawngah a hawna um hin himna insang lem a pek khawm ni mei a tih. An var bawk, huoi khawm an huoi kher el. An ri hi a sie bek bek bawk. An umna tieng tieng mi nghawk an kai a, hawl pangai a zuk hawl zam el thei khawm an ni nawh. A sukbuoitu le tawkbuoituhai chu inchik kar in, khawlaiah dung, lamapui hai khawm nisien an umzui a, sawn nau pai inzak ang el in mi an siem hlak. Inah an lut khawmin a hung suok an inchan el hlak a nih. Vate e ti lo chun nasa ve tak chu an nih.

Chuong ang a comment a pek pei chu ieng chen am a aw ding ti ka lo thlir zing a, Thawtanni/ Thawleni a intan chu Nigani zantieng dar 3 an ri vang chen a aw nih! Zote hai hi an tiksiet dan inchen lo thuomin ka lo tawnhriet ve zeu zeu ta a, hieng ang teireipeina hi chu ka vawikhat tawnhrietna a nih. Ieng lungril put a hienga um amani aw ti’n ka lo ngaituo a. Ka sel dan khan a lo sun na deu a, a thang a tlawm deu ani el dim.. Thangtlawm ti hi mimal nun a innghat a nih. An khumna lungril sunga inthawk in a suok a, thilthaw in an chang a, thil tha tak phuorsuok dinga an siem khawmin a kakhawk a that naw tiengin a fe nuom vieu hlak. A tuor hmasatak tu le nasa taka tuortu chu a paitu mihriem ani bawk hlak a nih. Chuleiin thangtlawmna pang a hliemnahai hi chuh a paitu lungril chempui ha be an ni chawk hlak.

TAWNG INKHING (DEBATE)

Entu le thlirtu mipui hma ah mani ngaidan le thil hmu danhai tawng hmang hum hne a, mipui in an intawmpui thei khawp a mani thil ngaituohai hril thiem le mi dang selna lakah venghim hi tawng inkhingna (debate) chu a nih. Hi thil hlu em em hih tienlai Greek hai a inthawk a tuchen a ram-le-hnam changkang le hrathai in an khawtlang rurel le sawrkar kut-le-ke khawlpuihai po po an inthutna lungphum (foundation) a an hmang chu a nih. Tawng inkhingna hlawtling taka hmangthiemhai chu thil tha a inthawk in thil tha dangah inban kai pei in, an changkang duok duok a, hnam hrat le changkang mi inhnar an ni hlak. Amiruokchu, hieng ang thil hlawtling tak tak na ding chun khawtlang le hnam chuh titna lakah a fihlim ding a nih. Titna a inthawk a fihlim ding chun thiem inchuk (education) a pawimaw em em. Asanchu mihriemah varna le hrietna a siem a nih. Chu varna le hrietna chun hrietthiemna lungril a siem nawk thung a, hrietthiemna chun zau na lungril le thudik an vawn tir a, zalen na a pieng hlak a nih. 

Delhi hmunah Thiemfin a vawithumna hmang a ni tum khan tawng insuolna thupui ding khan ‘Hnam hmasawnna dingin hnam sipai hai hi an la pawimaw’ ti kha hmang a ni a. Insel pawl hai insel lai khawm limlakna khawl (video) a khum khawm ei ngam naw ni kha tie!! Hieng lawm hin khawvel in hma a sawn a, mi haiin Sikeisen ah inkapkai an tum ta khawma a ram hmangpui a dan suongtawlawi “tharum hrat” titna khawvel ah ei lan tang zing a nih, ti a chieng khawpel. Lungsiet um tak chu ei nih. Hnam inthuruol lo, hnam dawi ei ta ei chier ei chier a, Pathien thu chu-e-kha-e ei ti de a chu inrem nuomna lungril nei ngawi ngawi hih ei um naw a, inremna hnawt tukhawm ei um bawk nawh. Hnam dawi hi an um ngai bawk nawh. Thuoitu an huoi leh hnungzuitu an huoisen el. Thudik a nih.

Zawna hrim hrim in hmai pahni a nei hlak a. Chu zawna chun thuril a pai tei hlak a, mani that ti zawng ang pei in ramri khang in khingpui ei nei hlak a nih. Chuleiin un taka tawng insuolna khelmuola lut hai hrim hrim chun lungvar hmanga hrietna le thiemna in mani khingpui hai chu an buon thluk tum ding a nih (inzatawnna lungril thienghlim tak nei pum in). Dawha le thudik chenve tawnghai in hmun an chang naw a; dawnrilrem fumfe taka selkalrem (arguments) siem si lova sel ding ani lei ringawt a sel pawtawk thawtu chun thudik insanglem beiseina a nei naw a, thiltha lem dit na lungril a nei ngai bawk nawh. Chuong ang mi chu ieng ang dawnna tha, indik le thudik khawm pe la vawk hawn lai a lunghlu dehawn ang chau a nih. Chuleiin dawnna dawng tlak mihriem a ni naw a, a ning ning a in ning tir el ding an nih.

Thulaimu khel phak si lova mani khingpuihai mimal khawvel khawsakna dem tu chun mawl na chempui a vilik a nih ti an hriet naw a, an siengna (taksa insiengna ni kher lo) inhnuoi zie suklang in mi lai a mawng hlim a thaw anih. Khel hmanga hne na chang tum tu ruok chu boxing ring sung ah mi’n ke a hmang ang hi a nih. Dan ani naw a, hremna a phutawk pek a ni hlak. Ani naw tawp khawmin dan a bawsiet ang char a inkhingpui ning a ta, sawisel hrim nei thei naw nih. Chuongchu thil um dan ani zinglai in a var deu le thil hre deu a ei ngai, mani inchukna tieng khawm phak hla ve fut ta haiin tul lo le mi thil hril le inkungkeina nei lo em em a “hmathlir na a nei am aw!!” ti ang khawvel ah ei la cheng el hi chu hril a hai khawpel. Hnuoi ei en leh a dawng, van ei en leh an sang. Thiem inchuk hin mihriem hi varna le hrietna a lo pek de a chu hrietthiemna a lo pek sa ve kher kher ngai naw a lo nih. Ei khawtlang le hnam ngirhmun hi ei chantawk char a lo ni ding hrim a nih.

SAMURAI

Nikum khan “The Last Knights” ti film tlangzar a ni a. Hi film hi Japanese hai thurachi laia inlar em em “The Ronin 47” ti besan a siem en nuom um em tak a nih.  Ronin 47 ti film tawp khawmin 2013 khan siem a lo ni ta bawk. Hi film hi chieng deu a ei en chun tienlai a inthawk hung inthlasawng pei a rengpui dang dang awpna hnuoi ah Japan a um lai a sipai hnam ti khawp rau a hriet Samurai inti hai khawsak dan thu tam tak hmu le hriet thei dingin a um a nih. Zaumna (dignity/ honour) hih an ngaihlu em em a, mani zaumna hum na dingin ani phawt chun an hringna khawm an chan ngam a nih. Samurai hai hin an nina le inzawma pehel hlek lo a an zawm ding an ‘bible’ chu ‘Bushido code’ ti a ni a. Hi dan bu a zui ding iemanizat laia pakhat chu ‘ringumna’ hi a nih. Hi ringumna hin thina khawvel hrietlo hma ah titna thang der lo a thaw ding chu thaw el ngam a huoisen na nei ding ti na a nih.  

Samurai pakhat in a hotu le ama chunga thuneitu dingin mi pakhat kuomah sa phun a thaw ta chun chu pa ta ding chun thi chen in a ringum ding ti na a nih. A saphun na pa ta dingin ral do a ta, a lo hne naw pal a, ama le ama inat hlum (Seppuku/ Harakiri) dingin a sa phun na pa’n thu a pek chun makmaw thil, pumpel thak lovin chu thupek chu a zawm ngei ding a nih. Mi’n Seppuku a thaw ding chun chemte ngei tak el hi la in a nak nem a sun lut a ta, vawitieng a inthawkin changtieng keiin a chem sun lut chu hem a ta ama phing vek chu a at kawi ding a nih. Mani ringumna suklang a mani zaumna hum na ding a thil thaw lai chuh a turu le nasa pawl tak ni mei a tih. Thenkhat in an hril dan lem chun ral kutah an thi ding khawm in a thal zawnga thi hi an rin em em a, hmai in hnuoi sik a hmatieng baw zawngin bawk pum in thi an tum tei tei hlak an tih. Chu umzie chu thi ding khawmin hnung sawn lo ding, hmatieng pan ding ti ani tawp el a nih. A thei ani phot lem chun thluk lova ngir pum annawleh khup in hnuoi sik in inthung pum a thi tawp an thlang lem a, an chemsei chawiin an ke hai chu hnuoi leh sunde in an insun ding fawm a an thi el hlak ti dam in an hril. Pasal tak chu an lo nih!

Thil pakhat mak ve tak chu mani le mani inat hlum dinga thupek hi thuawi taka zawm in an thaw el hlak a nih! Asanchu Samurai nina dan in a khuop tlat leiin, ral kut a thi nek chun anni kut ngeia thi chu mani zaumna hum na lampui umsun chu a ni tlat a nih. An ni a zaumnah an hum hne phawt chun mani khingpui hai hne le hne naw thu khan an buoi naw nih. Thi leh ruom khatah, inthang leh tlang khatah ti a pi-le-pu haiin an lo changchawi buklung leh hin tum rik lem a ta? Hringnun hi huoisen na chau hi a lo ni naw nih. Nisienkhawm huoisen na hih inngaitlawm na le ringumna leh inkungkeina inril tak a nei tlat a nih khawlai hmun a khawm. Thil inkawkal ang deu ni si thudik chu a nih.

Of Bills And Politics

~   Zawlthanglien Khawzawl

Manipur is on the boil yet again. However, this time it is the hills that has erupted in unison like never seen before in history. The spontaneous manner in which the anger and frustration flows out so real and powerfully seems to match the very politics which has caused it to happen. Manipur is a mini-India wherein diverse ethnic groups thrives together. There are close to 30 different ethnic tribes excluding the Meiteis having their own language, customs and traditions and who have settled in Manipur since as far back to the time one could go down the realm of history. Philosophically, the existence of diverse groups of people inhabiting a common territory is an ideal thing in the sense that heterogeneity is beauty and the preferred form of existence in nature. Sadly enough, and in as much as we want it to, politics sometimes stubbornly refuse to coincide with philosophy. This is a rub of reality facing the inhabitants of Manipur.

The Root Cause 

A brief look into the history of Manipur shows that it is replete with violence linked to insurgency particularly after the formation of the (United National Liberation Front) UNLF in 1964 and the subsequent mushrooming of armed militant groups later on. Evidently, this insurgency seems to be the root cause of all the troubles and problems being faced by the state. The story behind as to how Manipur has come to such a state of affairs is long and complex. However, the one thing which is clear about the politics of insurgency in Manipur is that it is inextricably linked with the political movement of the Nagas. The journey of Manipur from an independent princely state during the British rule (when blended with the idea of a rich and deep rooted history dating back to 1st century AD) to a Constitutional Monarchy in 1947, and further reduced to being a mere Union Territory in 1956 devoid of any real power, was a total disgrace and an insult to the Meiteis of the Manipur valley. When the Nagas, who were considered no more than just a mere ‘village republic’ were granted statehood in 1963, it greatly hurt the already wounded honour of the valley inhabitants that insurgency took over in Manipur ever since, and the rest is history.

Call it a unique historical pride or superior racial ego but as one go down the realm of history, one could see that the conception of shared memories and historical imagination as conceived by the Meiteis is not shared with and subscribed to by those inhabiting the hills of Manipur particularly the Nagas and Kukis. This plurality of historical imagination is the root cause of insurgency, desperation and panic that has gripped Manipur till date. And it is against the backdrop of this parallel and competing political aspirations based on separate historical imagination of the hills of Manipur especially the Nagas and Kukis that have tested the sanity and leadership of the Meiteis. However, time and again they have failed the people (as a whole) of the state they professedly seeks to protect. This is quite evident and conspicuous if one give a mild scratch to the the historical top soil of Manipur during the last one or two decades.

The obsession of the Meiteis with the political movement of the Nagas and the subsequent siege mentality that slowly gripped their thinking has made them blind to the needs and aspirations, not necessarily political, of the other tribes of the Hills like Hmar, Paite, Zo etc. These groups really didn’t care about the Nagas and their problems except the Thadous as they felt threaten by the Naga politics. Being the dominant inhabitants, a helping hand in need that listen and care; and good measure of focus on governance could have done the trick to the other hill tribes. However, in their enthusiasm to compete and blunt, if possible, the Naga Movement they chose to encourage insurgency. They ended up frustrating and hurting every tribe of the hill districts.

Nobody really care about the Nagas and their movement at the emotional level, at least, those inhabiting the district of Churachandpur, the second largest district of Manipur. However, the subtle form of systematic manipulations, social and political intrigues employed and done or harboured against the Tribals as a whole did slowly tip the balance against them. The occupation of Tipaimukh sub-division by the valley based insurgents from November 2005 to February 2006 and the subsequent mass rape of 25 Hmar girls at Lungthulien and Parbung Village by the militants of United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) in January, 2006 downright betrayed the ties of being a Manipuris (i.e. we are all the children of Manipur).

However, it did speaks volumes of the hatred, an empty racial superiority complex, a selfish and exclusive political ideology, approach and vision the Meiteis had of and for Manipur. This undeniable truth continue to show itself conspicuously or inconspicuously in one form or the other like in the demand for Hill State, ST status and ILP system. The justification that the action of militants does not always reflect the attitude and the philosophy that underlie the idea of Manipur as held by the public of the valley is simply misleading at best. There is nothing worth the trust of the Tribals in such assertion has been the popular perception and general attitude of the Hills ever since the incident. Even those tribes who identified themselves as Nagas in Senapati and other districts of Manipur were not vocal in their support for the Naga movement, at least, in broad general terms until recently. The demand of the All Naga Students’ Association Manipur (ANSAM) to have all the Schools in the four hill districts affiliated to Nagaland Board of Secondary Education (NBSE) way back in 2006 in protest against the efforts to impose Meiteilon (Manipuri language) in the tribal areas is a case in point.

The tacit encouragement of insurgency in the valley by the government and general public of the Meiteis in an attempt to balance and offset the power play animated by the Naga movement has gone far for too long. Of course, almost all the ethnic groups have their own insurgents but the lion’s share of the blame for the sorry state of affairs we are in should lie with the Meiteis. Insurgency has weaken the government by draining its finance and polluting its morale directly or indirectly spawning corruption, extortion, kidnapping and killing of people within and outside of one’s community out of hatred or for reasons best left unsaid. It is hard to imagine a healthy socio-politico-cultural life in an environment where those who are supposed to be looked upon as an example failed to behave by acting irresponsibly and yet demands loyalty and order from others. This is a sign of incompetency, weakness and vulnerability. The Meiteis should stop this covert or overt show of siege mentality and deal with the myriad problems facing Manipur with calm, openness and with maturity of the mind and heart that is expected of them.

The Immediate Cause 

The recently concluded peace talk between the Nagas and GoI on August 3, 2015 and the apparent headway and progress perceived to have been made has caused the minds of the valley to stir and jitters. The secrecy surrounding the peace accord has added fuel to the fire of suspicion and insecurity in Manipur particularly amongst the valley inhabitants. This feelings coupled with the realization of the demographic limitations of their existence is more than enough a fertile ground for crops of treachery and chicanery to start growing, and a well thought out politics of self-interests promotion shorn of any feelings for the other Manipuris.

The Protection of Manipur People Act, 2015, The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and The Manipur Shops and Establishment (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 are the child of such thoughts. This politics of self-interests promotion is the common thread that runs through in the demand for ST status, Hill state and ILP system. Therefore, the allegations that the Tribals are unnecessarily being hysterical over the issues of these bills is an uncharitable remarks of a hypocritical thoughts.

The Bill 

Three bills namely The Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015, The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 were passed by the Manipur Legislative Assembly on 31st August, 2015. The so called intelligentsia and the press and media dominated by the Meiteis were quick to defend the bills. They have been consistent in reminding the public at the state and national level that the controversial three bills will have no effects of any measures in the hill districts inhabited by the Tribals. Oddly enough, there is not one who is critical enough of the three Bills and have it publish in the media so as to allay the apprehensions of the hilly areas. However, a close scrutiny of the bills especially the Protection of Manipur People’s Bill, 2015 seems to contain something more than admitted by its proponents and the intelligentsia.

Firstly, clause (2) of Section 1 of the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 categorically stated that the Protection of Manipur People Act, 2015 shall extend to the whole of Manipur. This is absolute in the sense that there is no limitation clause to it. Nowhere in the Bill does it mention explicitly that it will not be applicable to the hill districts of the State. However, clause (a) of Section 8 of the Bill states that it shall not apply to the ‘native people of the State of Manipur’ without defining who the ‘native people’ are! And suddenly, the word ‘native people’ came out of nowhere. No definition, no section or clause to relate to for one to understand it. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill too contained no reference of the term ‘native people’. It seems this ‘native people’ clause was inserted as a smokescreen to argue the Tribals into believing that the hill districts will not be touched by the Bill. The insertion of this ‘native people’ clause is at best misleading, and at worst a sinister political ploy of the worst kind. A separate Section or clause categorically stating that the hill districts of Manipur shall not be covered by the Act would have suffice had the real intention was not to touch upon the interest of the Tribals.

Secondly, clause (b) of Section 2 of the Bill defined the term ‘Manipur People’. It says that Manipur People means Persons of Manipur whose names are in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, Census Report, 1951 and Village Directory of 1951 and their descendants who have contributed collective social, cultural and economic life of Manipur. Even a brief look at the surface of it begets more questions than the Bill seeks to answer, ironically. What is really disturbing about this clause is that the definition it gives of as to who a ‘Manipur People’ is inextricably linked to the other two Bills namely The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and The Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 which will regulate the sale and purchase of lands to Non Manipur Persons and regulations of employments of Non Manipur Persons.

In the event a bonafide settler has been identified as ‘outsider’ for failing to prove himself as a Manipur Person as defined by the Bill it becomes a life and death situation for the simple reason that he stands to lose everything that he possesses i.e. land, house etc and his identity. This is the reason why the idea behind the used of 1951 as base year for defining ‘Manipur People’ is so sensitive. By the looks of the Bill, however, the rationale behind it lacks clarity of thoughts, articulations and is problematic logically.

Further, the major difficulty in the said definition is the insertion of the word ‘and’ as a criteria for one to be eligible as Manipur People. Thus, one whose name figured in the National Register of Citizens, 1951 could easily be identified as ‘outsider’ if his name did not figured in the corresponding two other records namely, the Census Report, 1951 and Village Directory of 1951. For all the Tribals of the hilly areas living in 1951, the probability of one’s name being recorded in all the three is so highly unlikely that it is akin to randomly throwing stones in all directions and expecting one of it will hit a bird when there is not one bird in sight! The implication of this is that if my grandfather’s name or father’s name is missing in all the three, one literally become an ‘outsider’ with no recourse to seek justice simply because the Bill does not provide it as we shall see later on. There is no other way to interpret such a crafty definition as being harmless other than to give it as a political ploy to subsume slowly and encroach upon the interests of the Tribals. Leaving out the word ‘native people’ undefined and free to interpretations as mentioned in clause (a) of Section 8 in the Bill greatly strengthens this idea. The justification that even the valley people are also subjected to the same Act falls flat in the face when one takes into account the fact that political powers and the media are completely in the hands of the Meiteis.

Thirdly, Section 3 of the Bill sought to establish a Directorate of Registration for the purpose of registration of Non-Manipur persons and tenants, and establishment of registration centres. The Bill does not provide any recourse of action once registration is denied by the Director who heads the Directorate. This is made possible by Section 9 of the Bill which states that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer of the State Government for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Act. It appears that this has been inserted in anticipation of any problems, legal or otherwise the implementation of the Act will faces, and to insulate and protect the officials by enabling them to justify their action as being ‘done or intended to be done in good faith’.

This is blunt and undemocratic. Besides, once an individual failed the three tests as required by the Bill he faces the fate of being an ‘outsider’. And with luck one may be provided a temporary ‘Pass’ issued by the Directorate of Registration to be renewed at the pleasure of the Director from time to time! Once identified as ‘outsider’ making a living in Manipur will be really hard and difficult. Life will be constantly monitored by the government through the Registering Officer as required under the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015. And finding employment and employers who is willing to employ outsiders will be hard to find, at least for the reason that private employers is duty bound to report their employee to the government from time to time under clause (2) of Section 3 of the MSE (2nd Amendment) Act, 2015. Besides, there will always be enough Manipur People to be employed. Government jobs will be out of reach, if not impossible. After all, the Bill has been sought to be enacted to throw out the Non Manipur People in the first place!

Fourthly, clause (1) of Section 10 of the PMP Act, 2015 gives to the State Government the power to ‘make rules to carry out the purpose’ of the Act by way of Notification. This would mean that once the Bill becomes an Act the State Government has the absolute authority to make ‘rules’ accordingly to its wishes which can further harm the interests of the Tribals by simply issuing a notification in the official gazette. If the Bill per se is considered harmful and looked upon as encroaching upon the rights of the Tribals there is not an iota of doubt that further harm will be done against their interests.

Finally, Section 11 of the PMP Act, 2015, states that “if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the State Government ‘may, by order make such provisions or give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty; Provided that no such power shall be exercised after the expiry of a period of two years from the commencement of this Act.”

The positive thing about the Bill once it becomes an Act is that modification aimed at removing difficulties is possible, but only on the condition that the ‘removal’ must not be inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act which in reality means that there is no way of securing the interests of the Tribals within this Act. What the Bill really says is a circular arguments which has no exit for a possible solutions. So, the positive thing about the Bill is also not really positive in the final analysis.

Negatively, the power of amendment to remove ‘difficulty’ will no longer be available even to the government after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the PMP Act, 2015. Evidently, it seems this particular PMP Act, 2015 and the rules that flows from it will be kept insulated from the power of amendments available to the Legislature and also from judicial review much like those laws kept under the Nine Schedule of the Constitution of India. Now, that is a really depressing scenario. This is the reason why the Bill should not be allowed to become an Act.

When one considered the whole import of the Bill especially from the perspective of the hilly areas, the consequences of it are huge having the potential to break up the fabrics that tie together the hills and the valley. The Churachandpur incidents and the various agitations, dharnas and condemnations that have come up in the aftermath of the passage of the Bill from different parts of the state and outside of it should serve as a stern warning that the Bill needs re-working in the interests of the people of Manipur.

The solution 

The Meiteis have been crying hoarse over the issue of land pressure currently experienced in the valley. The new found realization of this demographic pressure is the main reason behind the introduction of the three bills and to a more subtle and lesser extent in the demand for Hill State, ST status and ILP. The hills too did not miss to catch the basic issues involved, hence their disinterest in the politics of the valley! So, after all is said and done all the hues and cries over these myriad issues at present is nothing but a fight for resources. The plight of the valley is understandable at the humanitarian level but, unfortunately, that is all there is.

Whether they admit it or not the valley is playing this humanitarian card to push through their agenda. They are under the impression that the current state of affairs is unfair which could be rectified through the use of government muscles and power mixed with political chicanery. However, they seem to forget that even though they sit on only 10% of the total land they are enjoying all the attention of whomever mattered, monopolized political powers and finance, control and dominated the media and the press since the birth of the state.

The valley never really cared whether or not the hills made progress in health, educations or whether or not villages are connected by metallic roads given the difficult terrain and conditions of living. MLAs are there but no one seems to bother that these MLAs are under their control! This condition of imbalances of political power needs a course correction. After all, Manipur does not exist just to satisfy the needs and aspirations of the valley Meiteis.

The needs and aspirations of the Tribals of the hilly areas grounded in the conception of their shared memories and historical imagination should be respected and given space. New political arrangements that accommodate their needs and aspirations based on equal share of political power is the need of the hour. Until and unless steps are taken in this direction, a healthy and fruitful socio-cultural life based on the shared community life between the valley and hills will always elude reality throwing the state into a vicious circle of political intrigues with no exit in sight.