Unmindful of history: on Biren Singh and Manipur

Unmindful of history: on Biren Singh and Manipur
By Kham Khan Suan Hausing

A proposed memorial to a Meitei king could send the wrong signal in Manipur

The Chief Minister of Manipur, N. Biren Singh (in photograph), dares to do things differently. Unlike his predecessors, he has invested a great deal of time and energy in symbolism and in building a tribal-friendly image since he led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to capture power in the State.

The tribal issue

Given that the BJP won only 21 seats against the 28 seats won by the Congress in the 60-member Assembly in the 2017 elections, Mr. Singh has to make a special effort to maintain a stable coalition government of 21 BJP, four Nagaland People’s Front, four National People’s Party and one Lok Janshakti Party MLAs. He has to tread cautiously as he inherited a troublesome legacy from his predecessor, Ibobi Singh, whose government passed three controversial bills in August 2015 — the Protection of Manipur People Bill, the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, and the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill — which upset the tribals and led to violent protests. Against this backdrop, Mr. Singh’s most formidable task was to bridge the hills-valley divide.

However, Mr. Singh has created a political storm of sorts by inaugurating the Zou Gal Memorial Cemetery on December 19 at Behiang, an important trading outpost on the India-Myanmar border, and also laying the foundation stone for the Maharaja Chandrakirti Memorial Park at Chibu (locally known as Chivu) around 2 km away from Behiang.

Intended to commemorate the valour of 94-odd Zou martyrs who sacrificed their lives fighting against the British attempt to forcibly deploy them as labour corps during World War I, the memorial was intended to symbolise the independence and lordship of the Zo people over their land. On the other hand, Chivu and the name of Maharaja Chandrakirti Singh evoked a sense of betrayal of trust among the local people. This is because one of their powerful chiefs, Go Khaw Thang, died in 1872 in jail after he was ‘treacherously seized’ — to borrow words from Brigadier General Bourchier, commander of the Cachar Column of the Lushai Expedition (1871-1872) — on March 7, 1872 at Chivu camp by Chandrakirti’s soldiers led by Majors Thangal and K. Balaram Singh. The 2000 Meitei soldiers were enlisted by Major General Nuthall, the then officiating Political Agent of Manipur, as a part of the Cachar column.

In a distortion of historical facts, the Chibu Stone Inscription, subsequently commissioned by Chandrakirti, commemorates the successful completion of the British expedition as if it was a victory of the Maharaja over the tribals. Interestingly, the three stone slabs (each edifying the Maharaja, Nuthall and the two Meitei majors) are being used as a marker of the Maharaja’s, and by extension, Manipur’s border. This amounts to over-stretching the imagination as no Meitei king ever succeeded in extending their border and control over the ‘ferocious’ and ‘independent’ tribes beyond Moirang town, a fact supported by all colonial and local oral historical accounts. The state has given protection to the site in Chivu where the inscription was placed by passing an order in 1990 and included the inscriptions among the 49 monuments protected under the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976. The Archaeological Survey of India seemed to be oblivious to these spurious facts when it accepted this problematic version in one of its publications titled Indian Archaeology 1987-88: A Review edited by its then director M.C. Joshi in 1993 (p.120).

Murmurs of protest

Possibly mindful of the past which continues to inform hills-valley relations in Manipur, neither the State nor the ASI has ever attempted to invoke the name of Maharaja Chandrakirti. In his attempt to develop the site into a tourism park as part of the larger exercise to develop Behiang and Chivu as the “second gateway to Southeast Asia” under India’s Look East Policy, Mr. Singh not only ignores this historical fact but also panders to majoritarian nationalism. In the process he opens up an old wound and hurts the sentiments of the Zo people.

Given that Chandrakirti was not particularly known for his successful military exploits, but for his cowardice and treachery in dealing with the Zo people along the India-Myanmar border, invoking his name would not be particularly useful for Mr. Singh in winning the hearts of the tribal people. His Facebook post about the laying of the foundation stone of Chandrakirti Park elicited mixed responses. While some applauded Mr. Singh for this bold gesture and already proclaimed him as a Meitei ‘nationalist’, ‘patriot’ and ‘hero’, tribals castigated him for his ‘insensitivity’ and asked him to ‘apologise’ to the hill people.

Rumblings in the various local social media indicate that the issue will not disappear any time soon. If Mr. Singh genuinely believes in Ching-tam Amani (hill-valley are one), he will need to respect and honour the Zo people in particular and the hill tribal people in general both in words and deed. The big question is whether Mr. Singh can navigate his politics in ways which would be capacious enough to transcend mere symbolism and genuinely accommodate tribal icons, sensitivity and autonomy aspirations or whether he will be increasingly integrative/assimilationist by embarking upon a majoritarian path. Time will tell.

Kham Khan Suan Hausing is professor, department of political science, University of Hyderabad.

Prayer for a Sustainable and Acceptable Political Solution for the indigenous Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in present Manipur

Joint Memorandum submitted to
Shri Narendra Modiji,
The Honourable Prime Minister,
Government of India, New Delhi.
Prayer for a Sustainable and Acceptable Political Solution for the indigenous Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in present Manipur
Submitted by
Civil Societies and Political Parties of Mizoram
Comprising of
Central Young Mizo Association (CYMA);
Mizoram Upa Pawl (MUP),
Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl (MHIP);
Mizo Zirlai Pawl [(Mizo Students’ Association) (MZP)];
Mizo Students’ Union (MSU);
Zo Re-Unification Organization (ZORO);
Bharatiya Janata Party, Mizoram State (BJP - Mizoram);
Indian National Congress, Mizoram Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC);
Mizo National Front (MNF);
Zoram Nationalist Party (ZNP) and
Mizoram People’s Conference (MPC)
on July 13, 2017
To,
Shri Narendra Modiji,
The Honourable Prime Minister,
Government of India, New Delhi.
Hon’ble Sir,
This joint memorandum is a desperate prayer submitted by the civil society organizations and political parties of Mizoram comprising of the Central Young Mizo Association (CYMA), Mizoram Upa Pawl (MUP); Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl (MHIP); Mizo Zirlai Pawl [(Mizo Students Association) (MZP)]; Mizo Students’ Union (MSU) Zo Re-Unification Organization (ZORO); Bharatiya Janata Party, Mizoram State (BJP-Mizoram); Indian National Congress, Mizoram Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC); Mizo National Front (MNF); Mizoram People’s Conference (MPC) and Zoram Nationalist Party (ZNP) to bring to your kind attention the plight of our people in present Manipur – the indigenous Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) living in the undisputed ancestral territory of the Zo descendants – their ever-worsening and continuously withering state of relationship with the dominant Valley-dwelling Meiteis, and the need for the Government of India to take immediate necessary steps to bring about a sustainable and lasting solution for our brothers.
The unending cries of our indigenous Zo brothers in the present Manipur following the public outburst due to the passing of the three anti-tribal bills by the Manipur Legislative Assembly on August 31, 2015, namely, the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015, the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and the Manipur Shops & Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 that led to the death of innocent Zo brave hearts has still been conveniently ignored by both the Manipur Government as well as the Government of India in Delhi; their mortal remains still await an honorable burial and a solution acceptable to the indigenous tribal people, especially the Zo indigenous people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi).
We, the various civil societies and political parties of Mizoram, through this joint representation would like to highlight the following issues and grievances concerning our Zo brothers in present Manipur, and bring to the fore the ever-worsening distress of our brothers for their self-determination, with the desperate hope for the Government of India to arrive at a sustainable and acceptable solution for the indigenous tribal people in present Manipur in general, and the indigenous Zo people in particular:
I. The zo people of present Manipur – hISTORICALly distinct Entity
The indigenous Zo tribes of present Manipur are distinct from the Valley-dwelling majority Meitei community in every spheres of life – ethnically, culturally, linguistically and socially. Indeed, the Zo people (Kuki-Chin-Mizo/Zomi) living in the present Manipur are one and the same with the Mizo of Mizoram and the Chin of Myanmar’s Chin State and hardly share anything in common with the Meiteis of Manipur Valley, except the fact that they all happen to be grouped under the same State administration. In fact, the present Manipur is a mere British colonial construct which is the result of the forcible grouping together purely for administrative convenience the erstwhile southern Naga Hills, eastern North Cachar Hills, northern Chin Hills, north-eastern Lushai/Mizo Hills and the Manipur/Imphal valley.
In fact, it is the inclusion of the Northern Zo territories which is in the present Manipur under the princely state of Manipur by the British that marked the beginning of the marginalization and subjugation of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in present Manipur. With the extension of the boundary of Manipur in 1890 which included the Northern Zo territories (as it exists today) the Manipur/Meitei forces were given a free hand by the British to subdue the hill tribes. Mackenzie had clearly stated how the Manipur forces were encouraged to subdue the hill tribes:
“Shortly afterwards [after Gambhir Singh was put up on the throne of Manipur], the British Government discontinued the payment of the Manipur Levy [of 2000 strong], but still furnished ammunition for the reduction of refractory hill tribes; and further supplied 3,000 muskets and sets of accoutrements, on the condition that the Rajah should raise the Manipur Levy to the same number.”
Mackenzie 1884, 150
Even after the Northern Zo territories and the rest of the hill areas of present Manipur were included as a part of Manipur State, it continued to be indirectly ruled by the British Political Agent of Manipur through some hill lambus, with the Meitei King having no authority over it. The brutal manner in which the Manipur forces have chosen to subdue and suppress the hill peoples led to the Zo Gal or Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919, after which the State’s administration was extended to the hills with the creation of four sub-divisions administered by British ICS Officers; this arrangement continued till India gained its independence in 1947.
Moreover, the Meitei King never considered the indigenous Zo territories as a part of Manipur State. When the question of federating Manipur State with the British Crown came in 1939, the Meitei King “agreed in a letter” dated July 21, 1939 “to federate on terms which covered the exclusion of the Hills from his direct control.” In other words, the Meitei King wanted to federate only those areas he actually controlled and ruled, i.e., the present Manipur’s valley area, and the term Manipur was used to refer to the same valley region only.
“According to the British plan, all the three columns were to meet at Manipur (i.e. Imphal) on 27th April, 1891… Immediately after taking Manipur (now called Imphal)…”
R.K. Jhalajit Singh, The War of 1891 – Manipur’s Last War of Independence,
Manipur Today Special Issue, April 23, 1994, Vol. XV No.2
An old map of Manipur with the boundaries defined by Sir James Johnstone, the British Political Agent of Manipur from 1877-1886 clearly showed that the entire present Churachandpur District was under the ‘Lushai Tribes’ (of the Lushai/Mizo Hills and Chin Hills) and not a part of the then Manipur (Appendix I).
It may be noted here that the merger agreement signed by the Manipur/Meitei King with the Indian Union on September 21, 1949 covered only his territory measuring a mere 700 square miles (26,500 hectares) and did not cover the ancestral territories of the Zo chiefs and their subjects, because the Manipur King was not a representative of the Zo people who had authority to act on their behalf, and the Zo tribes were not his subjects.
“The chiefs are the lords of the soil within their boundaries, and, if any alien wishes to enter a chief’s territory and work his land, they must pay him the customary tithes.”
Betram S. Carey & H.N. Tuck, The Chin Hills Volume I
The Zo chiefs, and not the Meitei King, were the true lords of the soil within the territories they occupied, ruled and governed, collecting taxes and levies from their subjects independently. As such, with the Zo territories never falling under the suzerainty of the Meitei King, he has no moral right or authority to act on behalf of the Zo people.
II. MARGINALIZATION OF the Zo PEOPLE (CHIN-KUKI-MIZO/ZOMI) THEN AND NOW
Colonial Manipur has done practically nothing for the development and progress of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi)  in Manipur in spite of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) contributing large amounts of revenue in the form of hill house tax into the State Treasury and similar amounts in the form of mandatory labour services. For instance, J.E. Webster, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam wrote in 1919 to the Government of India that “the revenue derived directly from the hill tribes as house tax consists of about Rs.70,000 a year, while the expenditure on the hills has hitherto ranged between Rs.17,000 and Rs.19,000.” He also reported that the hill areas were practically without roads, schools, garrisons and so on. He categorically stated that such State apathy was the main cause of the Zo Gal or Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919.
The political, social and economic marginalization of the hill tribes in general and the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in particular continue unabated under Manipur State even after India’s independence.
The apartheid system of segregation and discrimination on ethnic and geographical lines that centred on the hill-valley divide is profound and intrinsic to the official policy of Manipur Government. All the important infrastructure and institutions of higher learning are concentrated in the Valley area while most Government-owned and managed educational facilities and infrastructures in the hills are languishing in a state of neglect. The Manipur University (MU), the Central Agricultural University (CAU), the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences (JNIMS), the National Institute of Technology (NIT), the Manipur Institute of Technology (MIT), the Government College of Technology (GCT), the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELT), the College of Agriculture (COA), all are located within the 2,238 sq. kms. Valley area in and around Imphal. This has contributed to a substantial increase in the Meitei literacy rate and placed the educational status of the community decades ahead of their tribal counterparts, thereby consolidating the Meitei community’s capacity to dominate the political, educational, employment, trade and commercial arena in present Manipur.
III. The NEED for Zo self-determination in present Manipur
The indigenous Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi)  in present Manipur are a threatened community who are being assaulted with wave after wave of the dominant Meitei community’s plan of using the Manipur Government to accomplish their intrinsic policy of cultural and social subjugation, political marginalization and developmental exclusion of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi)  in their very own ancestral lands. The three anti-tribal bills passed by the Manipur State Assembly on August 31, 2015 are manifestations of this divisive policy:
i. The Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015: Questions the identity of the indigenous Zo people and attempts to brand them as foreigners in their own ancestral lands.
ii. The Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015: Attempts to annex Zo territories by placing the absolute authority over Zo land rights to the Manipur Government.
iii. The Manipur Shops & Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015: Tries to transfer absolute power and authority over Zo tribal economy to the Meitei-dominated and controlled Manipur Government.
The true intent of the three anti-tribal bills are to undermine the authority of the ‘autonomous’ tribal district councils and render them totally toothless, transfer all power and authority to the communal Manipur Government, and are nothing short of a cunning and divisive ploy to grab tribal lands, and a shrewd tactic to take over the meagre constitutional rights and entitlements of the hill tribes.
The communal mindset of the Manipur Government further exposed itself through their repeated attempts to pass a fresh bill that is deviously similar to the withdrawn Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 while outrightly refusing and ignoring the cries of the Zo descendants in present Manipur as well as the other tribes for a dialogue with the State Government to bring about a sustainable solution acceptable to the tribal people in present Manipur. The last time the Joint Action Committee Against Anti-Tribal Bills (JAC) team, the committee that was endorsed by various tribal apex bodies to spearhead all issues pertaining to the three anti-tribal bills including separate administration (Appendix II), was invited for talks with the State Government was on December 29, 2015 wherein the JAC team was told that the dialogue will be resumed in the coming new year (2016) once a document detailing the anti-tribal nature of the three bills was submitted to the Government; the same was submitted on January 11, 2016 by the JAC and has been waiting for invitation for talks from the Manipur Government ever since. 
In addition to the anti-tribal bills, the age-old yearning of the dominant Meitei community to annex Zo tribal territories and grab the meagre rights and privileges of the tribal people became all the more evident in the Meitei community’s demand for inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes list. This is purely an attempt by the dominant community to grab the remaining 31% reservation enjoyed by the tribal peoples while at the same time pave the way for the communal State Government’s complete annexation of all tribal territories as well as the long-cherished dream of the dominant Meitei community to usurp all possible Constitutional rights and privileges entitled to the indigenous tribal peoples.
The new wave of marginalization and subjugation of the indigenous tribal peoples in present Manipur by the Manipur Government that began with the passing of three anti-tribal bills have now revealed itself in the form of undermining the rights of the tribal students regarding admissions to the State’s lone university – Manipur University.
CONCLUSION
The plethora of issues, problems, concerns and apprehensions that has engulfed the indigenous Zo descendants in present Manipur are not stray incidents or issues but are the result of carefully conceptualized plans and shrewd policies of the Meitei-controlled communal Manipur Government and vehemently backed by the Meitei civil society to grab the paltry constitutional privileges bestowed on the Zo people, including their ancestral territories in present Manipur.
The inseparable social, linguistic and cultural ties of the Nagas and the Zo kindred tribes of present Manipur with the Nagas of present Nagaland and the Mizos of present Mizoram respectively cannot be discounted, nor can we afford to overlook the unrelenting aspiration of the indigenous tribal peoples in present Manipur to integrate with their respective brethren in the north (Nagaland) and the south (Mizoram).
And with the Indo-Naga Framework Agreement anticipated to be reaching its final concluding stage sooner than later, the apprehension and anxiety of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in present Manipur. An intense feeling of insecurity has engulfed the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) with growing fears that they will be left behind to fend for themselves at the hands of the dominant Meitei community.
The Mizo Accord signed between the Government of India, the Government of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front on June 30, 1986 stated that in regard to the question of unification of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi)  “inhabiting areas of other States to form one administrative unit ” raised by the Mizo National Front delegation, the Accord stated that, “Article 3 of the Constitution of India describes the procedure in this regard but that the Government cannot make any commitment in this respect.” (Appendix III)
Given the above, we truly believe that until and unless proper Constitutional Protections by way of Separate Administration of the Zo ancestral territories specifically and exclusively for the indigenous Zo tribes of present Manipur are put in place and implemented without any interference from Manipur Government, the already disoriented, highly volatile and destructive state of relationship and existence between the Zo people and the Meiteis is set to get worse by the day.
Therefore, we strongly recommend the following:
1. That, for a sustainable solution to the strife-torn corner of North East India, a political solution in the form of separate administration for the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in the present Manipur at the same status as that of the Nagas be made outside the ambit of the Manipur Government, and a process be initiated for fulfilment of the enduring desire of the Zo people (Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi) in the present Manipur to be integrated under the same administration with their Zo brothers of present Mizoram which is apparently being done in the case of Nagas.
2. That, the Government of India must ensure that no ancestral Zo territory be left behind under the Manipur Government to be further subjugated and marginalized by the Valley-dwelling and dominant Meitei community.
We see the above as the only truly sustainable solution to solve the ever-worsening imbroglio that overwhelms our Zo brethrens in present Manipur, and pray that you will not remain a mute spectator to the marginalization, suppression and annihilation of our people, our ancestral lands and our way of life, and earnestly seek your immediate intervention in this regard.
Yours sincerely,
(LALBIAKZUALA) (RK THANGA)
President President
Central Young Mizo Association Mizoram Upa Pawl
(SAIPUII) (LALSANGZUALA NGENTE)
President President
Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl Mizo Zirlai Pawl
(RB LALMALSAWMA) (R SANGKAWIA)
President President
Mizo Students’ Union Zo Re-Unification Organization
(Prof. JV HLUNA) (LAL THANHAWLA)
President President
Bharatiya Janata Party – Mizoram Indian National Congress
Mizoram Pradesh Congress Committee
(ZORAMTHANGA) (LALHMANGAIHA SAILO)
President President
Mizo National Front Mizoram People’s Conference
(LALDUHOMA)
President
Zoram Nationalist Party
Copy to:
1. Shri Narendra Modiji, The Honourable Prime Minister,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Shri Rajnath Singh, The Honourable Home Minister,
Government of India, New Delhi
3. Shri Lal Thanhawla, The Honourable Chief Minister,
Government of Mizoram, Aizawl
4. Thuingaleng Muivah, The General Secretary,
National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah)

Zomi Revolutionary Organisation ‘Officially’ Demands Separate ‘Hill State’ Within Manipur

Demands an autonomous hill state by extending the provision of Article 244 A

The Zomi Revolutionary Organisation has “officially” demanded a separate “hill state” within the territory of Manipur.

The demand was raised by the outfit during a recently held political dialogue with the Central representatives in New Delhi, a media report said in Imphal today.

The outfit  had signed Suspension of Operation (SoO) with both the Central and Manipur governments in August 2008.

The Manipur government then set up five designated camps in Churachandpur, Chandel and Senapati districts to lodge the cadres of the ceasefire militant groups.

According to the media report, the charter of demands of ZRO was submitted through a document to the Government of India through Satyendra Garg, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, who chaired the tripartite talks held in the national capital on June 17.

ZRO demanded creation of a separate “hill state” within the current existing territory of the state of Manipur. It demanded an autonomous hill state by extending the provision of Article 244 A of the Constitution, the media report said.

The report said that ZRO also demanded rehabilitation of the outfit’s cadres by establishing a separate Army Regiment that shall be deployed for local and national defence only.

The group further demanded the Centre to provide a handsome relief package, ex-gratia for next of kin of all deceased cadres and withdrawal of all cases pending against the group and its members.

Zomi Khangthu (History)

(Speech delivered by Lun Valte on Bangalore Zomi Nam Ni Celebration 2013)

Bang hang a hun paisa(History) sut ding ? - History hong ki repeat lou diing cih kuama’n gen theilou – Hong kipanthak(repeat) taleh hihkhelhsa bang a hihkhelh nawnlouhna diing a khangthakte’n i hihkhelhte i theih uh poimoh hi. Tua i theih ciang in maban ah lamdik (right direction) i tawnthei diing a, thupukna(decision) dik i la theita diing hi.

Tuni in Hun paisa thu toh kisai THUTANNA(judgement) gen diing a kisa i hikei a, THUPUKNA (decision) lak sawm leng i hikei a, Makai masate’ ideology/philosophy leh approach record a omte i theihdandan hon report/reproduce diing ka hi a, Journalist hikei mahleng tuni a gensawntu(reporter) bang a hong pang zual dingdan ka hi.
Heutute’n amau hunlai a hoihpen diing a agintakdan ua hon pi ahi ua, amau hon pina ciangciang tu a ei khangthakte’ dinmun ahi. Hoih i sakkeileh ei’ hun a bawllem diing a Pathian in hunlem (OPPORTUNITY) hon pia ahi. Tua kipan kum 50 leh abaan a i tu-le-tate’ dinmun diing tua ei khut a kinga ahi chih theih poimoh i sa hi. 
Dotna: Zomi in History i nei a hia ? Zomi i cih zanzek a kipan hilou amaw ?
Dawnna: Kum zathum(300) vaal paita a Zomi ana kichi khinta i hi a, mite’ hon theihdan leng Zomi mah ana hi. Pong Chronicle kichi Meiteipau a R.B Pemberton in 1830 a aletna(translate) ah Chin/Kuki chi’n kigelh lou a, Zomi mah in hong kiciamteh hi.
Zomi’ History sut diing kichiantak (record) i neitham uh hi. Tuate tuni’n i sutvek sengkei diing. Etsakna di’n -

18th CENTURY

a). FIRST ANGLO BURMESE WAR : “Treaty of Yandabo” – 1824-26. 
Zomi history a diing a poimoh pente’ lak a khat ahi. Hiai toh kisai tuni’n i sut mankei diing.

19th CENTURY

b). ZO GAL 1917 – 1919 : Kuki Rising cipawl zong om. Zomi history a diing a poimoh pente’ lak a khat ahi. Class la a kihilh(teaching) diing i hihlouhman in hiaipen leng i nawlkhin phot diing hi.

c). 1947- PANGLONG CONFERENCE: PANGLONG AGREEMENT

- February 1947 at Panglong, Shan territory, A mass meeting was held on the 20th February ,1947. The meeting was attended by Zo representative from Tedim, Falam, Haka, Matupi, Mindat and Paletwa Districts. In the meeting it was decided to unite these six districts as the Chin Special Division and the date February 20 was adopted as Zo National Day.
- Panglong Agreement was signed on 12 February, 1947
Hiai leng Zomi history a diing a poimoh pente’ lak a khat ahi. Hiai leng tuni a diing in maih phot leng i chi ahi.

Tuni a i sut utpen ahihleh Re-Unification movement toh kisai a panlakna deuhte ahi. Aziak ahihleh tulel a i dinmun uh leh hihna uh hiaite’ movement ah tampi ana kinga a, a hoihlam leh hoihloulam sut detdet uthuai i sa. Himahleh sinlai i deihman in tutung in ahoihlouhnate(negativity) uh leh kiakniamna ziakte uh sut tam zoding hihang.1950-1980 kikal in kigawmna (Re-unification), Zalenna (Independence) - India leh Burma ukna nuai a zogam kikhensa kigawmna ding toh kisai a panla atampen hun ahihman in tuate sut deuh leng i ut hi.

1950-1990 -KIGAWMNA (RE-UNIFICATION) GALVAN TOH SUAL DIING A PANLAKNATE:

a).BURMA-Anti-Communist Freedom League(ACFL): 1957 kum a phuh ahi.
- Heutu tallang deuhte - Pu Soncinlian(MP Tedim), General Thualzen, Damkhohau,
Hrangnawl (MP Haka).
- Dampi gam ah Camp sat ua huai pen Tuisan Camp kici hi.
- 1964 in volunteer te group thum(Falam-Haka-Tedim) a khen in Burma Police luh diing in kisa uh hi. Haka ah Hrangnawl maikaih in mi 20 pai ua, Rih khua a Burma Army Platoon khat omna Camp luh ua, lohchingtak in luhzou uh hi. Haka bel luh zoulou uh hi. Aziak ahihleh a tupdan uh a thuguk saipawl in ana theih ziak un Army te ana kigingman uh hi.
- General Thualzen makaih in volunteer 700 val Tedim a Police station luh ding in kuan uh hi. Burma Army North West Command Colonel Colonel Vankulh leh Chin Special Division(Tedim, Falam, Haka, Matupi, Mindat/kanpetlet, Paletwa) a Commissioner Thawngcinthang te’n Zo suante’ a ding a haksatna tun zoding ci’n ana khou uh hi. Tuaban ah akipiakkhiat(surrendered) uh leh ngaihdam (amnesty) diing uh ahihdan ana genpih uh hi. Hiaimun ah avek phial un kipekhia uh hi. A kipekhia teng ngaihdam naak sang in Anti-Nationalist ci in Monywa Jail ah khum vek uh hi. A makaite ahihleh kipekhe lou ua gamnuai mah ah kibu uh hi.
- A nung in Burma Army te’n tuisan camp valuhkhia uh hi.

b). BURMA -Chin National Liberation Front(CNLF): 1964 a kiphut ahi. President Soncinlian, Secretary Pachungnung Parte, leh External Affairs Minister Damkhohau ahi uh.
Amau pawl mi 40, Pachungnung Parte makaihna in India gam a pawlpi, Tunkhopum a te pawl Chin Re-unification-Chin Liberation Army(CR-CLA) te toh training khawm diing in kuan uh hi. Jampi khonawl a Guest House (Bangla) a akingakna uah Burma Police te’n va um ua, mankhe vek ua Mungjua(Monywa Jail?) ah khum vek uh hi.
Hiai mun ah Pachunun Parte lel suakta hi. Amah pen khosung a mehding leh antang lei a kuan toh Burma Army te amau pawl luh ding a kuante toh khosung ah kituak uh hi. Amah Parte toh ka houlimna uah “keipen hon theitumlou uh ahihman in ka kipeel ua, ka nung etleh ka lawmte sepaihte’n a a-um uh ka gaalmuh” chi hi.

c). BURMA-Chinland Independence Organization(CIO): 1962 kum a kiphut ahi. Heutu tallang deuhte ahihleh - Thangkhansuan, Thangzapau, Haukhankhup, Salai Aunghte, Salai Myoaye leh Lianmang Lianmang ahi uh.

- 1966 kum in hiai CIO pen Zomi National Front(ZNF) ci’n khek uh hi.
- Amau pawl Kachin Independence Organization(KIO) te’ lak a training ahi uh. Himahleh Tedim area a a-om sung un bangchichi hiam in Government in bengdai hi.

d). INDIA- Chin Re-unification – Chin Liberation Army (CR-CLA): December 23, 1962 in kiphut a, President Tunkhopum Baite, Chief of Army – Lt.Col. Sonkhopau Suantak (ama zoh in K.Vungzalian), Lt. Col.Ngullet Baite -Home secretary, Paukhohau Khuptong – P.A. to President. Nengzathang Valte Southern Command, Northern Command ah Mr. Guite ahi uh.
- Amau sugnu Police station leh Singngat police station luhman ua, huaizoh East Pakistan ah training nihvei kuan man uh.

Note: A chiangzaw sem Laibu a hong kibawl diing ahihman in, ngak ni.

e). INDIA – Mizo National Front (MNF): 1961 a kiphut ahi. Heutulian tegel ahihleh Laldenga(President), Vanlawma(secretary). 1986 in Mizoram state mu ua, himahleh Manipur South District a te ana ki-utlou.

f). INDIA – Kuki National Army – UK (Demkhosiek Party) – Hiai toh kisai document ki base na ding ka muh nailouh ziak in a detail kon taklang theikei a, na hon ngaihsiam uh ka hon ngen hi.

Hiai a tung a pawlpite’ tup kibang vek hi. Zo suante India kumpi leh Burma Kumpi vaihawmna nuai a i gam sehnih kisuah pen gawmkhawm nawn diing chih ahi.

Zo suan i hi cinapi in Nomenclature(sakmin) Chin/kuki/Mizo/Zomi thu ah kithulual theilou ua, kihazatuah ua, tungnun kituh in aguktak leh a langtang in kinawk uh hi.

KIGAWMNA(Re-Unification) ATHU TOH PANLAKNATE:

- 1960 PNC memorandum to Pandit “Re-Unification of the Chin People”
- 1961 Haukholal Thangjom,Tunkhopum Baite, Kaihau Vaiphei telawi in Lal Bahadur Shastri kiang ah memorandum vapia uh.(Imphal ah).
- 1983 kum in ZNC in Re-Unification policy paipih kawm in back up plan in ki base na diing deihna kawm in India Prime Minister Indira Gandhi kiangah Zomi te’ kivaihawmna diing “Union Territory” nuai a provision bang a bawlsak diing in memorandam ana pia uh hi.
- ZNC General Assemply Kangkap - 22nd-25th January 1985 sent to Prime Minister, Governor of Manipur.

1970-90 –KIGAWMNA(RE-UNIFICATION) ZOMI MIN TAKTAK A PANLAKNA:

a). INDIA – Zomi National Congress (ZNC)- January 21, 1971 a kiphut ahi. President Upa. T. Gougin MA, Semkhokam Samte(secretary) – amah thakheng – Thangkhangin Ngaihte Mphil, Lalneihthang Hatlang(V.President), Women wing secretary - Kimneichong ahi.
ZNC - Armed wing Zomi Revolutionary Volunteer(ZRV). ZRV commander Khamkhogin Thangjom

- Hiai pawlpi in ahihleh policy nih nei uh hi. Kigawmna(Re-unification) leh India a Zomi te Union territory provision nuai a kivaihawm ding ngen uh hi.
- Den a i gensa bang in - 1983 kum in India Prime Minister Indira Gandhi kiangah Zomi te’ kivaihawmna diing “Union Territory” nuai a provision bang a bawlsak diing in memorandam ana pia uh hi.
- Luang le vaisuah(Tipaimuh) a kipan Tuibuang a DC’ office tan slogan sam in khe a pai ngatngat ua –ZNC manifesto leh slogan tuamtuamte sam kawm uh hi. – Eg. We Demand Union Territory Provision”. If ZNC dies who lives; If ZNC lives who dies” Zomi in ka piang a, Zomi in ka nungta a, Zomi in ka si diing”.
- ZRV te’n Singngat sub-division, Thanlon Sub-division leh Henglep sub-division ah lamlian ana sial uh. Khau-le-khua kizopna(communication) ah pan nasatak in ana la uh hi.
- ZNC General Assemply Kangkap - 22nd-25th January 1985 sent to Prime Minister, Governor of Manipur.

ZNC/ZRV puksiatna ziak tampi om ding. Tu khang a mite athei tampi om diing i hihman in kei a theiloupen in ka gen poimoh hi’n ka ngaihsunkei hi. ZNC/ZRV ziak in Mipite’n sinlai tampi muh uh ka gingta hi.

Siamsin te’n i subject ah ki sin ngeilou a, khangthu i sin ciang in Vaite leh Sapte’ history kia kisut ahihman in i KHANGTHU(History) sin ngeilou na nana khangthu nei ngellou bang a kingaisuna om thei ding mah hi. Hiailam a lunglutte’n sui zek lehang laibu sim diing zong tapi mahmah ana omdan ahi.

Ahi a, kei mimal’ muhdan in tu khang a ZOMI I hihlam kiphawkna diing a VAAK hon kawkmuh, asuk-atou, azu-aham thuak a TANGKOU Pu T. Gougin leh ZNC a akaihzatamte ahi uh. Tua hang in “Zomi Nampa” cih a om hial Pu T. Gougin ahi. Amau tuk a tha le zung seng a, doudalna nasatak nuai a pang ngam heutu tamlou cileng kigenkhial lawmlawm lou diing hi. Tuni’n Zomi Nam Ni i zat toh kiton in ZNC aphamta leh damlaite i pahtawi ahi.

ZO SUANTE’ KIKHENDAN - 1970 leh ama lam:
1. GAM LEH LEITANG A GAMGI (GEOGRAPHYCAL BOUNDARY)

a). FIRST ANGLO BURMESE WAR : Kum 2 sung khawng akidou nung uh February 24, 1826 in kilemna suai hon kaaithei khongkhong uh hi. Tua kilemna “Treaty of Yandabo” kici hi. Hiai a kipan vaihawm(administration) anop zawkna diing in gelhlouh gamgi (imaginary line/Demarcation line) hon khung uh hi. British government in India leh Burma khut a zalenna (Indpendence status) a piakkhiat dektak un hiai demarcation line zangsuak uh hi. Zomite’ a di’n poi petmah !

2. LUNGSIM GAMGI (EMOTIONALLY BOUNDARY): Nomenclature

A SAKMIN AH BANG OM HIAM ? IDENTITY/NOMENCLATURE CRISIS
(Know the symptom in order to give treatment)

a) KUKI: I theihsa ban un nidang a Manipur singtangmite Kuki a chiamteh vek i hi uh hi. Bang hang a taikhe pawl om hiam chih i sut zek diing.

1946 kum in Heutupa Zavum Misao makaihna in Imphal a Old Lambulane ah KUKI COMPANY phut ding ci’n kikhopna thupitak ana sam uhi. Tua hun ah nam tuamtuam Non-Nagate Kuki, Thadou, Paite, Hmar, Gangte, Gangte, Vaiphei, simte, Zou, Mayon, Lamkang, Maring, Anal, Chiru, etc.. chihte telkim phial uh hi. Himahleh hiai kikhopna ah Haokip te’n Haokip pau official language diing ci uh hi. Official language thu a kithukim theilou ahihman un kimkhat in meeting pailai pawtsan uh hi.

Tua hang in Khul Union leh Kuki National Assembly hon piang vilvel hi.

Eipawl Khul Union ah ki-om a kum tamlou nung in Khul Union zong active taktak lou in huchikawmkal ah Tribe recognition mu tribe tampi hong om a, huai nung kigawmkhawmna pawlpi taktak omlou in eimah paipai in i pai uh hi.

Khul Union apan Hmar te’n Mizo Union zom uh hi. Tua nunglam in Mizo Union in Lushai Hills Autonomous District Council hon ngahtak un Hmar bial(tipaimukh) huamkhalou maimah a, thangpai lua in Mizo Union nusia ua, atuam a ding diing ci’n December 5, 1960 in Hmar National Union phut uh hi.

1991 KUKI-NAGA clash hong kipattak chiang in alang tuak ah pressure om hi. Tua kawmkal ah Mayon, Lamkang, Maring, Anal, Chiru, etc a diak in Chandel District lam a tribe om deuhte’n Offciial tak in Naga ana zom uh hi.

MNF(Laldenga) leh KNA(Demkhosiek Party) kithuah ua, Chin LA leh NNC(Phizo) a te kithuah uh hi. Tuabang in MNF(Laldenga)-KNA(Demkhosiek Party) kithuah in Chin Army (Tunkhopum Baite) tepawl aguktak in ana dou uh hi. Incident gentheihte bel – Maite incident, Teikhang(Baklui Camp) incident.
Conflict of Interest - Chin & Kuki & MIZO

b). MIZO: Laldenga in Tunkhopum Baite Mizo a fight khawm diing in ana kun hi. A convince louhtak in koihkhia hi. Amah kia lou Sialkal tangdung a CLA supporte (1966 – 1968 kikal sung in thah in om uh hi. Chin Army(Tunkhopum) leh MiZo Army(Laldenge) te Sialkaltang kituh uh hi. Confilct of interest –Mizo & Chin.

c). LAIMAL (LITERATURE):  Pau kibang nangawn laimal zatdan akibatlouh ciang in pawl khatte’n simhak sa uh a, pawlkhatte’ laigelhte sim peihlou se uh hi. Tua in tancin kitheihtuahlouhna piangsak hiaihiai a, atawp in kingaihnatna zong kiamsak a, ki-lainatna dausak hi.

Dotna : Bang ziak a ZOMI hingal a CHIN/KUKI ana zang uh hiam ?
Dawnna: Burma Government hon theihdan CHIN, India government hon theihdan KUKI ahihziak ahi.

Mimal ngaihda kupna1: Vaigam ah na om a, vaite’n na min Eg – THANG pen a lamsiamlouh ziak uh TANG hon ci ua, NGAIHTE pen NIGAITE hon ci uh hi. Ahihleh nang na min TANG hia-hilou. Na behmin NIGAITE hia?. Amau sim siamlouh ziak a na min leh behmin khek ding mo ? Ahihleh bangziak a Burma leh India hon theihdan meilet mawk diing ?

Ka min TANG ahikei a, THANG ahi na cih diing hilou diing hia ? A simsiam keileh “mawl e laisiam di’n le” cigeih lecin.

Ka hihna KUKI/CHIN ahikei a ZOMI ahi ci a government record kheksak diing hizolou ding hia ? Bangalore – Bangaluru, Orissa – Odisha, Culcutta – Kolkata etc etc. Min govt recognised min dikloute mindik a akheektheihleh en bang diing a kheek theilou tuanse diing i hia ?

Mimal ngaihdan kupna2: Sacrifice

Lohchinna diing a apoimoh leh i taan(sacrifice) ding khenkhat om maithei, tuate i theihsiam a i kimanna poimoh hi.

1969 a Laldenga in Kawnpui khawmpi ah Manipur South Distirct a heutute muh theihtheih hong mu chi uh hi. MIZO nomenclature diing a hon compaign lai in ana pom utlou uh hi. Mizo a merge diing kimanlou cihna.

KNA-UK(Demkhosiek Party) leh MNF kizuiden ahi ua, Lushai Hills a MNF Camp khawng a omkhawm ahi uh. A tawp a Kuki sacrifice a MIZO a merge diing a Laldenga in a gen tak in utlou ua MNF pawtsan hiau uh. Mizo a merge diing kimanlou cihna.

Lusei/Lushai te’n amau Tribe taan (sacrifice) ngam khop in ana pang ua, Young Lushai Association kichi 1947 kum in Young Mizo Association (YMA) in kheek uh.

Tulai a in Tribe base a philanthropic organization te ZYA a khek diing kichi – hoihsa leh hoihsalou ki-om – Lets look for the next 50 yrs and beyond. Hileh a hoihpen diing hong piang diing hi.

Mimal ngaihdan kumpna3. Geographycal Re-Unification – tangtung di’n na gingta taktak hia ?

Kei mimaltak in Re-Unification(geographically) a taktak a tangtung thei diing in mengmuhna(vision) ka neibankei hi. India policy leh Burma policy i et ciang in baihlam hetlou diing ahi cih ka mu a, impossible bangphial in ka mu hi.

Himahleh Pathian nei namte’ ai hi a, Pathian a diing in thil hitheilou omlou. Amah ngen ni.

1960s: Chin Re-unification movement hunlai a Chin Army a ana pang ngeita mi bangzahhiam ka dong hi. Atawmza a kipan dawnna ka muh ahihleh –

- Back up Plan: “Tupna a saan leh kiatna sang” ci uh hi. Sialkal tang, Churachandpur, Chandel teng beek a lou theilou a UT/state a koih ding back up plan ahi ci uh hi.

“Ahihleh bang in hon daal pen hi’n na thei ua “ ci’n ka dong hi. “India a Zomite’n democracy nuamsa lua, political autonomy/status neihna diing a ataktak a sual(fight) peih omlou” ci uh hi. “Burma pen Military nuai ahihman in khauh mahmah a, i geographical location in a citlouh ziak in Karen/Kachin te bang in sawt kipang theilou” ci uh hi.

MNF movement lohchinna leh hatna bel Mizoram a 1959 – Mautam(famine) ziak ahi. Assam leh India government in ngaihsak lolou a, tuahang in tampi’n kialsih ua, mipi thangpai tinten uh hi. Mizoram National Famine Front (MNFF) pen 1961 kum in Mizo National Front ci’n khek ua “India solkal dou diing, independenc diing a sual ding” a cih ciang un mipi kithalawp mahmah uh hi. India solkal tunga thangpaihna tinten ziak ua mipite kithalawp uh ahi. 1971 in Union territory provision mu ua, 1986 in Mizoram full fledge statehood mu uh. Independent bel mu hiallou uh hi.

Tupna asaan leh kiatna saang !!

CONCLUSION:

Ei Heutute’ theihtuak:
a) Bang pawlpi hitaleh – a pawl neulua omlou in - Khotang vai ah, Sahkhua vai ah, Politics vai ah – Heutu na lenkhate’ i theih diing ua deihhuai bel mipite’n hon phunsansan/gensiasia kawmkawm a hon zui thou uh ahi. Heutute’ dinmun a dingte’n i mohpuakna lian mahmah ahi cih mangngilh louh diing ahi. Heutu khat in YES/NO i cih un khangthu khekzou ahihman in angma sial lou leh mimal’ hamphatna diing kia en lou a, i mipite’ khualna a pan i lak taktak uh ngaita ahi. Thupukna i lak peuhmah ding chiang un tuak kipan kum 50 leh abaan ah mipite’ a diing in a phatuam diam, cih en masa gige lehang paikhial lawmlawm diing in i kigingtakei hi.
Ei Mipite’ theihtuak:
Christian kici ngen, Laisiangthou sinsak a kibulphuh(base) te i hi a Laisiangthou sinsakte salam kia a diing a kigen hilou a leitung i hihsung a i hihpih diing a sinsakna ahi cih phawk leng deihhuai i sa.

a) Kingaihdamna(reconciliation), ki-ittuahna:

Nunglam a omte mangngilh diing – Philippi 4:13-15 Nunglam a omte mangngilh in malam a om pen ka delh hi. Khrist Jesu a kipahman sang phakchiam ka delh hi. I lak ua a pil deuhdeuh bek in huchibang lungsim i nei diing uh.

Hun paisa a Heutute mohsaksak phatuam nawnlou. Hun paisa a tribe khat-le-khat kitheihsiam louhnate ki mangngilhsak tani. Sensitive lokeini. Mimal khat-le-nih toh kitheihsiam louh(Personal enmity) a amau nam (tribe) teng dembawl ekmawk keini. A diak in Facebook, internet media, leh TV leh media tuamtuamte ah communal thilte post leh comment nawn kholkei leng cidamhuai zaw diing hi.

Kingaihdam tuah diing –
Matthai 6:14-15 - 14Mi a tatleknate uh na ngaihdam uleh, na Pa uh van a om in leng a hon gaidam sam ding. 15Himahleh, mite a tatlekna uh na ngaihdam keingal un, na Pa un na tatleknate uh angaidam sam kei ding.

Ephesate 4:32 - 32Huan, kihehpih chiata lainatna nei in om unla, Pathian in Kris a ahon ngaihdam bang in, noumau leng kingaidam tuah chiat un.

Kolosa-te 3:13 - 13Kuapeuh in kua tung ah leng thubuai nei bang hile uchin, kithuakzou chiat in, kingaidam tuah unla, Toupan a hon ngaihdamtak bang in, kingaidam sam un.

Ki-ittuah diing –
Rome-te 13:8 8Kiittuahna loungal, kuamah bangmah ba kei un; amau mihinpih itpan dan a jui kimta ngal a.

Na mi hinpih, na chi na namte na it diing na bat ahi. Na it masiah bat pelou na hi.

Lemna zon diing –
Phatnalate 3:14 – Gilou paisan inla, thilhoih hih in, lemna zong inla delh in delh in.

Mathai 5:24 – Kilem loupi a maitam a thillat sang in kilem masak ding a gen hi.

DREAMS OF OUR FATHERS: SOME NOTES ON THE CHIN ARMY

Golan Naulak

Pre-script: In late 1963, somewhere around the time the world gasped at the news of President John F Kennedy’s assassination, a meeting took place in Pakistan that was to change the fate of the Zo people living in the border areas of India and Burma. One of their leaders Tunkhopum Baite went to Rawalpindi in Pakistan to meet General Ayub Khan who was the President at that time. During the meeting, which was fruitful and promising to both parties, General Ayub Khan referred to Tunkhopum Baite as ‘General’- a prefix he carried thenceforth. Apart from that, Gen. Ayub Khan also gifted him a Rolex watch which has a compass in it and another one of Citizen make. The journey of this Rolex watch presents an interesting insight into the insurgency movement in the then Lushai Hills and the political outcomes thereof.  

The northeastern states of India falls under what Prof. Wilhem van Schendel coins as “Zomia”- the upland massif starting from the highlands of South east Asia and extending till this region. This landmass is what James Scott beautifully captures in his book ‘The Art of Not Being Governed’, where he described it is an area of stateless people. However, this statelessness is, as Scott argues, not a condition of helplessness or lack of something. It is rather a political choice, of these hill peoples, to avoid the institutions and practices of valley or plain state-making. That, is now history. The story of how these people who seemed to tactfully avoid state-making for a long period embraced state formations in the twentieth century is a fascinating one. It produced contested histories, overlapping maps and politics of nomenclature among other developments.

In this part of the world, politics of identity has dominated the public discourse. Questions of who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we headed to? has been raised time and again. It led to the eruptions of several political movements and mobilisation along ethnic lines. In this, the region turned out to be a welcoming stage for the theatre of conflict, dilemma and violence.

The search for identity came with the demand for statehood or nationhood for most movements. The micro-history of the Zo people, clamouring for unity under different nomenclatures and as many political and insurgency movements is a testimony to the complexity arising out the arrival of modern state formation into their region. It is a reminder of the difficulties experienced by a people during this transition from primordial ways of identification and belonging and the new sense of identity and likewise, belongingness that the modern life under the influence of the state seems to offer.

In this context, the life and work of Tunkhopum Baite allows us to re-read history of post-Independent India. It offers to its readers a fresh and invigorating look into the possibilities of identity formation and political visions among the Zo people. It is a reminder of history being written by the victors; never by its victims. Therefore, it is important to situate Baite and his Chin Army into our common consciousness so as to enable a better understanding of our people and our struggles. This is an extremely crucial aspect keeping in mind the existence of almost similar movements in our society today. Moreover, lack of knowledge about our own history has sometimes relegated leaders like Tunkhopum Baite to a folktale-like figure, almost mythical. While our movements are basically movements for identity consolidation, there are also several dimensions to it not directly asscociated to the primary goal.

On Identity

As much as India still struggles to consolidate her identity, communities on her eastern frontiers continue to scramble for whatever is left to them after the Partition of 1947. Such is the impact of colonial legacy. The Zo people, described as Chin, Kuki, Mizo and Zomi are no exception to the victimization of border-mapping. Divided by the international borders of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh and state borders too, they have seen initiatives of various kinds in an attempt to unite them all together. Yet, their dream is still unrealised even today. Rather, such movements seem to be heading in a different direction under pragmatic economic and political compulsions.

Among the many such movements within the Zo fold, perhaps one of the pioneer and ambitious one was that of the Chin Army founded by Tunkhopum Baite on 23^rd December 1962. It was the first known armed movement in the name of the Zo people independent India. Maybe it was the period that had its sway. Former colonies were gaining independence from their colonial masters and the mood was that it was the right time to fight for independence. The Chin Army was only following the demand put forth by the Paite National Council (PNC) to the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1960 under the title “Re-unification of Chin People’ in which they listed thirty odd tribes.

What is important to note in this politics of nomenclature, that is, the politics of Zomi, Kuki, Mizo or Chin is that these modes of identifications are modern constructs. It will do us good to remember that identities are not static concepts. They undergo change as much as the people who constitute them. Likewise, the markers of our identification should be seen as flexible enough to accommodate the demands and necessities of our times. The unwillingness to accommodate has only divided us and led to several political and armed movements representing the same people, same geographical area and with the same goal. Such is the tragedy of our existence and politics. Shakespeare once said ‘What’s in a name?’ If he were alive to see the history of Zo politics, he would’ve changed his mind. Or rather, we would be telling him ‘The name is everything’. We, Zo people, have been a witness to the importance of naming. We know it so well that today we still swear and fight by it.

Likewise, the Chin Reunification- Chin Liberation Army, commonly known as Chin Army, led by Baite was one such testimony to our politics of nomenclature. But it is more than just that. It was an attempt to form an independent political entity for all the Zo people. Its vision was inclusive of all the Zo people unlike many of its counterparts.

One must remember that this category of identification led us to our narrow ideas of nationalism. What came to be known as Kuki nationalism, Mizo nationalism, Chin nationalism or Zomi nationalism is premised on the belief that we are different and unique from others. It is ethinic-nationalism. The Zo people perhaps today can do better if we can foster the idea of nationalism that is more focused on cultural capital. Cross-border integration both international and intra-national seems an unlikely political possibility.

Realpolitik suggests that the state we are in now, the divided family, the disconnect, the utopia of unification will continue to be the reality of our existence. The Nagas’ attempt for a Greater Nagaland or Nagalim isn’t making much head way. The Meiteis rose up in protest at the very mention of territorial breakaway. Hence, the subsequent demand for an Alternative Agrement (AA) for the Nagas in Manipur.

This is where I personally believe that we have much work to do even if we keep aside our dreams of territorial integration. If, and this is an optimist ‘if’, we can reach out to one another, share our experiences of living under different states and political units, visit one another, help and learn from one another, it will pave the way for a consciousness that is shared, a culture that is shared, common history and a common vision. But if we continue to choose to live under the illusion of fragmented ethno-nationalisms as we do today, in no time we will be against one another as we already are. We will be fed to the demands of the benevolence of a state system that survives on dividing people, and also to other exposures such as environmental degradation and corporate loot. And this is a possibility only if we concede our egoistic attachment to names of our own liking, if we understand that identities are fluid, multiple and can be shared. For this, we need to move away from our binary practices of being either Zomi or Kuki, or Zomi or Mizo, Chin or Zomi. I can very well be a Zomi, Chin, Kuki or Mizo at the same time. Today, I share the same joy when Mary Kom wins the Olympic bronze medal as much as when Van Dawt Cin (Moe Moe) won the second place in Burma’s talent hunt show Melody World or when I came to know that James Keivom works for New York Times. Because I belong to them, they belong to me.

Reflections on the Chin Army: Its rise and demise

In our pursuit of a common platform where all the Zo people can stand as one entity, the Chin Army stands out for various reasons. It provides much in terms of what we can learn from the its founder, its leaders and organizational structure, its collaborators and foes too. The history of the Chin Army is a window into the travails of our Zo unification movement. This is a sensitive narrative for our present mainly because it is a challenge to our common perception of how a community or nation should be constituted. Yet it is a story that has to be told and understood in the best interest of our movements today.

One of the most important lessons one might learn from Tunkhopum Baite and the Chin Army is on the question of leadership. Questions related to this includes whether he was an able leader, competent enough to lead and achieve his mission. While most of his colleagues and his contemporaries seem to accuse him of being too single-headed, distrustful even of his closest aides and lacked confidence in others, there are several evidences that suggests otherwise. Also, the reasons why he took much of the decisions alone and without consulting his juniors or aides was the absence of comrades to whom he could confide in. There are lessons we can learn from his successes and mistakes. What makes a movement strong does not depend only on its leader. Baite was an incumbent. He had leadership skills right from his school days. He was forthcoming too. A movement also depends on the followers, its organizational structure, discipline and most importantly, public support.

Many of his aides mentioned the lack of educated fellowmen who could share ideas with Baite. The sense was that the educated one those days were either too scared to devote themselves to the Zo unification movement or only wanted to pursue their dreams of a better life for themselves. This resulted in a lonesome Baite with no one competent enough to guide and advice him. Another point they all seemed to agree on is the utter poverty of our people. This led to the feeling that our low income levels is partly a reason for the public’s inability to support the movement in terms of finance. Also, the Mizos were seen as more prosperous and more in number hence the reason for their success.

The Chin Army included members from different tribes under the Zo fold. Members spoke in different tongues other than Tedim Chin or Paite which were the dominant dialects used by the members. Pi Nemthang recounts the arrival of several members using Thadou and Baite dialects at her home in Teikhang.

Tunkhopum Baite’s death is still shrouded in mystery. It has also come to occupy a bitter component in the relationship between Mizo/Luseis and Zomi-Chin/Paites in later period. For those who are aware, it also raised suspicion between Paites and Kukis due to the role played by Kuki National Army (KNA-UK) under Demkhosiek. In fact, there has been a rivalry between Baite and Thangkhopao Kipgen even during Hill Union days in Imphal when Baite was the President. Furthermore, much later, in a shady attempt to sabotage the movement spearheaded by PNC, Rishang Keishing and Thangkhopao Kipgen filed a court case against PNC leaders accusing them of planning secessionist activities. Such events marked a scar in the fragile relationship between fellow tribals causing much disunity among them.

In many ways, like I mentioned earlier, when we look back at the Chin Army and its objectives, the tactics they employed and vision it claims to pursue, it appears that the movement is not a viable one - that Zo unification is not a possibility. This opinion was voiced by both Indian home minister Lal Bahadur Shastri on his visit to Imphal in 1961 and prime minister Pandit Nehru when the PNC leaders went to submit their memorandum in 1963. While Shastri told a delegation which included Baite that they will not succeed in their mission of Chin unification and extolled them to study hard and get plump jobs within the Indian state, Nehru was more diplomatic when he said, ‘A time will come when all nations will unite together.’

How far have we come about to adopt the point made by Shastri is worth introspecting. Looking at all indices, the possibility of Zo unification might appear bleak. This is to say, if we consider the political viability, economic constraints, etc one would, without any hesitation, agree that this mission is utopian. If we choose to live our lives pursuing plush jobs within our respective states it is entirely our choice. But if we choose to continue our belief that Zo unification is possible, it will be. At the end, it all depends on the Zo people whether they want to live under one single political administrative unit or they are prefer living in their present settings and trying to enhance their livelihoods. It is our calling. It is not for India or Burma to decide.

Even as the death of Baite continues to be shrouded in mystery, the more important message is his deed and not his death. Inspite of acknowledging this fact, it remains to be seen how his demise wil play a role in the Zo unification project. Chances are that his death will be a thorn in this but there are also chances that his death be made a symbol of reconciliation, a realisation of our follies. The political vision of Baite conflicted with that of Laldenga, the leader of the Mizo National Front (MNF). Whereas it remains unclear about the objective of the KNA-UK in their advocacy to eliminate Baite, the enmity with the Mizos and Laldenga was quite evident. At the personal level, perhaps Laldenga saw Baite as a rival. Starting from his inability to get an audience with General Ayub Khan while Baite could, Laldenga could have developed a certain degree of insecurity in relation to the Chin Army. Having to train under the name of Chin Army and shouting ‘Chin Army’ slogans at their training camp in Bangladesh, there is every likeliness of him seeing Baite as an obstacle to achieve his goal of forming an independent Mizoram.

But more convincing is the argument that it was basically the clash of political visions that resulted in their drift. Laldenga was clear of his demand: to be united with Mizo as the name, Aizawl as the capital and the territory to comprise of the then Lushai Hills. On the other hand, Baite had a very different political goal: to unite all Chin people into one single political unit. He was not clear what name they would adopt, what should the capital be. He even went a step further. Perhaps it is possible that it was under the influence of General Ayub Khan who asked Baite to unite the Chin people and even the whole of Northeast India to fight the Indian state. The larger political goal Baite envisioned in this regard was what he called BRACHIN, which is short for Brahmaputra-Chindwin. The idea was that all the several communities living between these two great rivers would unite under one umbrella and demand independence.

This was remarkable of Baite – for someone who grew up in a small, remote village in southern Manipur to be able to imagine in a political idea that encompasses not just his community but other and even unfamiliar communities. It was an idea that was always there, that the people in this region share a certain degree of uniqueness, common culture and traditions that sets them apartfrom both India and Burma. It was this idea that gave inspiration to forums like the Indo-Burma Revolutionary Froce (IBRF) which is a conglomerate of various insurgent groups operating in the northeast. The ideas of Baite, with respect to the integration of all peoples living in this geographical space between the Brahmaputra in India and Chindwin In Burma, is worth revisiting today. It defies narrow and tribal political affiliations. It takes into account the diversity of the region, and hence its complexity.

Baite had to face two central problems in the movement he led. First, the relationship with PNC. Without the support of PNC, the public found it difficult to support his activities. Although they guaranteed support in the beginning and shared the idea of Zo unification, PNC later found it increasingly impossible him because Baite adopted an armed struggle. PNC was an overground organization and therefore could not voice its official support to the Chin Army. Yet, the leaders played their part in their capacity as individual advocates of the movement. His untimely death also led to confusion among the public. The PNC leadership is supposed to have sent a note to the Nagas not to entertain a band of young men who went to follow Baite’s footsteps and continue the relationship he started. How far this is true is difficult to be ascertained though.

Second, the relationship with the MNF under Laldenga constitutes the most important one. What began as an alliance to undergo training together under the name of Chin Army in East Pakistan, soon had a fall out due to ideological differences and practical political compulsions. The Saitual Agreement signed between Baite and Laldenga wherein it was agreed that they would cooperate and help one another in times of need; that the Chin Army was to control the Sialkaltang range in north-east Mizoram while the rest of Mizoram was to be under the MNF. It was based on this understanding that Laldenga could visit Lamka and Baite could travel through Mizoram on his visits to East Pakistan. Later, as we have seen in the earlier pages of this book, according to Holkhotong Baite, it was most likely that Tunkhopum Baite was waylaid and taken prisoner on his return from East Pakistan somewhere between Selaam and Zoutaang by cadres of both MNF and KNA-UK.

This act signifies the betrayal of promise and also the design of power politics. On this particular incident, many people opined that Baite was being naïve and unsuspecting. What he wanted was to work with MNF for an independent Chinland and government. Even after he was acutely aware of the plan of MNF, he failed to take into account the vulnerability of his own life and his army. He carried with him the belief that Laldenga would be an ally in their fight for Zo unity. He was a dreamer, a visionary but perhaps not the shrewd and skilled player that our movement desperate required.

The history of Chin Army also allows us to bring to light the long standing political traditions among different communities in the region. We see that relationships with the KNA and MNF had turned sour. Contacts with the Nagas under Naga National Council (NNC) at that time was always a welcome step. In fact, Nagas had agreed to help both C-in-C Sonkhopau Suantak and even PC Parte. It was only the intra-group fighting and differences that could not materialise this proposed alliance. This tells us how histories are produced with certain noticeable practices. Even today, we find it extremely difficult to break the suspicion and sense of betrayal which got produced as a result of this history. It remains, to some extent, at the core of our inability to come anywhere close to Zo unity. It remains for us to choose whether we want to be prisoners of a particular history and continue our helpless, senseless divisons or whether we are serious of making history together that take us one step closer to the dreams of our fathers. It is a choice we must take. And it is our choices alone that determines our future.

Conclusion

Today, we face several dilemmas as a community. Most of us seem to be taking the road of pessimism. Hope is a distant virtue. The majority of us, I believe, are going through a phase where we tell ourselves that nothing good or constructive can come to this land. We are beguiled by the charms of fast money and instant personal gratifications. As a community, we see almost no point in introspection and deliberation. We think they are a waste of time. It is in such times as ours that we need to remind ourselves of the possibilities we have before us. We ought to tell one another that we can carry forward the dreams of nation building alongside our commitment to fulfilling requirements like getting a job or building a house. This can happen only if we re-read our history and imagine the future. By not harping on missed chances and past betrayals, we can let our stories intermingle and create a platform for all of us.

Tunkhopum Baite’s vision deserves a place in the conversation of our politics. Though the Chin Army was a movement cut short of its goal, one must realise that it was a young movement. By the time Baite left on his last trip to East Pakistan, he had already laid down plans for his return, and even delegated work for each member. He had his limitations but he was working on them and was on his way of building an enduring organization.

As we continue in our search for a political answer to our problems, we are increasingly confronted with new ones. We have movements demanding political status from the Indian state and recognition from the international community. At the same time, there is a growing sense among the youth that our political struggles will not take us anywhere. There is a certain degree of disillusionment with our movements. What they are preoccupied with is to how fast they can fit into the world stage. Like everyone else, we want development with the preservation of our traditions and culture. This is a tricky balance we need to navigate.

The recognition of the this fact, which is the importance of our economic survival, hopefully will make us realise that the political solution will always be in the back of our mind – not to be abandoned or sold out. Laldenga compromised his demand for independence to statehood. Muivah, Isak and Khaplang never accepted such watered down proposals from the Indian government. Hence, the Nagas have a much bargaining power than the Mizos today. Moreover, they are in a position to come up with new categories and arrangements outside the existing practices. We need to realise the importance of a sustained political movement. The importance of multiple voices within our movement should be taken more seriously. The voices of women bodies, the churches, elders, and concerned individuals should be given more weightage. Our society should not become an altar of sacrifices in the name of nationalism of one kind.

In recent times, with the news about the construction of mega dams and mining projects coming up in our areas, there is an urgent need to assess our stand and voice. Certainly we can’t be mute spectators to this the unfolding of this. Add to that the entering of the technology and market economy, if we can only risk being engulfed if we don’t take a reasoned stand.

It is in this light that I hope Tunkhopum Baite becomes an exemplary figure. He was hard-working and dedicated. He believed in ideas larger than the pulls and constraints imposed by the reality of his times. He dared to dream big. He created alliances both within our communities and with the outside world. His first love was always his people and their land. However, this love did not result into the hating of any other community. This is an example we ought to carry with us as we march forward in our task. Ultimately, our supposed enemies will be our neighbours tomorrow. We can’t afford to live without them.

Post-script: The Rolex watch of Tunkhopum Baite along with his Citizen watch were the only two items they found on him when was taken a prisoner by the MNF in January 1967. This watch was perhaps one of his most prized possessions and useful one because it had a compass in it. Unsurprisingly, the Rolex was taken by Laldenga on his arrest while the Citizen watch went to Adjutant General R Sangkawia. The story that it had fallen off in one of their encounters with the Indian Army and how the MNF President’s men went searching for it is a telling one. It was not lost forever, as C Vanlalrawna explains. It was to be in the hands of Laldenga from that time. We did not hear about the watch anymore. We are unsure whatever happened to it. The journey of this Rolex is much like the idea of nationalism that came to us from the outside world. That we choose to nationalism as the main marker of our identification was injected by General Ayub Khan who gave the watch to Tunkhopum Biate. As long as it was with him, the Chin Army was the driver of the Zo movement and Baite was its compass. With his arrest and murder, the light or vice of nationalism fell on Laldenga who took the Rolex for himself. From that day, he took the helm of Zo nationalism. It is a tragedy that his idea could not accommodate most of us. But he was the compass. Time was on his side. Today, as much as we are uncertain what happened to the watch, we are in a confused state to our ideas of nationalism. Most of us are unconvinced it is heading anywhere. Bottom line is as the watch was a modern European product, so is our idea of nationalism. The watch came to our hills from the Pakistanis, likewise our nationalistic movements gained momentum from their support and patronage. This calls for a re-imagining of our Zo people and their land. We can delve on identities that are not necessarily exclusive, that are plural, diverse and accommodating. This should be our new goal for which we will require some break with our existing beliefs. We will require to base our movements not only on accounts of colonial historians and ethnographers. There is an urgent need to go beyond such attachments. A serious exploration into our cultural capital, indigenous practices and techniques is inevitable. C Vanlalrema’s Northern Star has fallen. We need a new Northern Star to lead us.