ZOU GAL (Kuki Rising) 1917-1919 ~ David Vumlallian Zou

 A COMMEMORATIVE SPEECH ON

ZOU GAL (Kuki Rising) 1917 – 1919

by

Dr. David Vumlallian Zou

Delhi University

on the 1st Zou Gaal Day (17 March 2011)

MP’s Club, South Avenue, New Delhi

“The most serious incident in the history of Manipur and its relations with its Hill

subjects was the Kuki rebellion … it cost 28 lakhs of rupees to quell, and in the course of

it many lives were lost.”1

- Sir Robert Reid, Governor of Assam

Shakespear’s Map (1929) & ZLS Sketch2 (2002)

Colonel L.W. Shakespear prepared a sketch map of the “Area of Operations during the

Kuki Rebellion 1917-19 in which Columns of Assam Rifles and Burma Military Police

Battalions were employed.” In this sketch published in 1919, Shakespear included

familiar places inhabited by the Zou such as Hengtham (Hiangtam), Chibu (Tonjang) and

Shuganoo (Sugnu).

The scenes of fighting shown in the ZLS Sketch such as Singngat, Muollum, Munpi,

Saipheh, Behiang are missing in the map of Shakespeare. Mombi and Longya are the two

villages in southern Manipur that stands out in the official map; but I have not been able

to identify them with the present map of Manipur.

Event Sequence

1.3 million combatants and non-combatants from India went to Mesopotamia (i.e., the

three Ottoman vilavets of Basra, Mosul and Bagdad) during World War I. Of this, 293,

152 non-combatants served as Porter Corps and Labour Corps3 under the Indian Army

Act of 1911, and this included 1,602 prisoners. The British has a strong commercial and

strategic interest in the Persian Gulf with the formation of Anglo-Persian Oil Company4.

The forces from India (Indian Expeditionary Force D) occupied Basra to protect oil

works at Abadan in southern Persia (Iran).

First Labour Corps for Mesopotamia

Spring 1916

The British recruited labour corps for the war efforts in Mesopotamia from tribals of the

Santhal Pargana, Chota Nagpur and by tapping Indian jails. In the words of Lt. Col. W.B.

1 Robert Reid (1942) History of the Frontier Areas bordering on Assam from 1883-1941, Shillong:

Assam Government Press, p. 79.

2 Zou Literature Society (2002) “Zou Gaal” pp. 19 – 27 in Chinthu Zaila – Zou Literature Reader X,

Churachandpur: Published by T. Lamkhothawng on behalf of ZLS.

3 Radhika Singha (2007) “Finding Labor from India for the War in Iraq: The Jail Porter and Labour

Corps, 1916-1920” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 49 (2): 412 – 445.

4 Lt. Col. A. T. Wilson (1930) Loyalties in Mesopotamia, 1914-1917, London.

2

Lane of the Indian Medical Services, “The honour of India was upheld first by aborigines

and then by convicts.”5 But the Santhals of Mayurbhanj (a chiefdom in Bihar and Orissa)

rose in rebellion against attempts to force them into the Labour Corps6.

Spring 1917

The Government of India asked Maharaja of Manipur, Churachand Singh, to supply

labourers for the war in Mesopotamia.

March 1917

Colonel Cole managed to enroll about 736 labourer from Manipur, good response from

the Tangkhul area. In total, about 4,000 men proceeded towards Mesopotamia.

Second Labour Corps for France

August 1917

The Government of India set a target of finding another 50,000 men for Labour Corps for

France. To satisfy this hunger for human resource, the Government sent a request for a

Second Labour Corps to which the Maharaja of Manipur wrote to the Viceroy: “In view

of the size and frequency of the drafts required for the first Corps of hillmen, I regret that

I shall be unable to raise a second Corps of hillmen. But I hope to raise a second Corps,

when required, from any valley Manipuri subjects, and it is my desire to accompany it on

active service.”7 The Maharaja’s offer was refused as the Chief Commissioner of Assam

feared the disapproval of conservative Hindu Meiteis.

September 1917

The chiefs of Mombi (Ngulkhup) and of Longya (Ngulbul) were the first to dissent. With

an escort of 100 riflemen, the Political Agent and Captain Coote set out for Mombi

village (six days out from Imphal) to arrest Ngulkhup, who was the first chief to revolt

against the British authorities. As Ngulkhup refused to meet the Political Agent, Mombi

was burnt down. They were en route for Longya when orders were received to return and

to take no further action with the Kukis8.

December 1917

For about two months, both side did nothing. But suddenly Chiefs of Hinglep and Ukhul

raided the Manipur State Forest Toll Station at Ithai9. Mrs. Cole, the wife of the Political

Agent of Manipur, knew Ngulkhup of Mombi personally, and attempted to mediate by

meeting Ngulkhup near Sugnu. But negotiations broke down.

Military Suppression, Phase I

January 1918

5 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political, B, Feb. 1917, nos. 353-96. Cited in Singha (2007)

“Finding Labor from India for the War in Iraq” p. 412.

6 NAI, New Delhi, Foreign & Political Department, Internal, Sept. 1918, nos. 84 – 100.

7 National Archives of India (hereafter NAI), New Delhi, Foreign Department, Political File No. 54,

1917.

8 Colonel L.W. Shakespear (1929) History of the Assam Rifles, p. 216.

9 Office of the Political Agent, Special File n. 388, 1919, SLRB, Imphal.

3

On 22 January 1918, two columns from Manipur and Burma were ready to strike.

(a) First Column – Imphal & Teddim

Captain Steadman to proceed from Teddim to Mombi to converge with Captain Coote

and Mr. Higgins (Assistant Political Officer?) moving through Mombi and Longya

area10. Steadman was badly wounded at three places11. Using Haika as a military base, it

was apparently Captain Coote who crossed the Imphal River (Guun) to attack

Gawtengkot stockade that became famous in Zou folklore. It was on record that Higgins

received a severe bruise “on his shoulder from a spent bullet”12 while he was in action in

the Mombi area.

(b) Second Column – Imphal

The Political Agent of Manipur and Captain Hebbert to proceed from Imphal towards

Tamu to reopen the Burma road13.

Escorted by the Assam Rifles, the Political Agent of Manipur, Cosgrave, proceeded to

Tammu, burning hostile villages on his way.

February 1918

Hutton conducted operations in the western hills of Manipur with a column of Naga Hills

Rifles. Laipi, chief of Senting, surrendered before Hutton. Meanwhile, Colonel Cloete led

a force from Silchar to Imphal. And Cosgrave marched to south-west Manipur.

May 1918

Home Department accepted the need to provide better equipment to the Assam Rifles.

Military operations would halt during the monsoon, and resumed in the next winter.

Beatson-Bell, the Chief Commission of Assam, came to Imphal to consult the local

authorities.

July 1918

Beatson-Bell visited Shimla to seek advice from the Viceroy and the Commander-in-

Chief14. The Political Agent of Manipur and the Deputy Commissioner of the Naga Hills

were summoned to Shillong to discuss the renewal of operations in the next winter. This

would be under the unified command of General Keary15.

August 1918

General Keary arrived in Shillong to plan the military campaign involving the combined

forces of Assam and Burma. He would assume complete military as well as political

control of all the areas under operation16.

10 Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 214.

11 Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 219.

12 Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 220.

13 Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 214.

14 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File no. 31, 1918.

15 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File no. 185, 1918.

16 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Police Files no. 47, 1919.

4

Military Suppression, Phase II

January 1919

Operations resumed, and the General Officer commanding Manipur reported 44 persons

killed, 48 villages burnt, 40 mithuns killed, large quantities of food grain destroyed, and

44 rebels made to surrender.

February 1919

The British occupied Chief Ngulbul’s Longya village, killed his son, and arrested his

brother along with another 55 persons. They also captured the chief of Ukha, Ngulkhup

(chief of Mombi), Tinton (chief of Longya) with his henchman Enjakap17.

June 1919

Active operations were over, and rebels were tried by a Special Tribunal under Regulation 111 of 1818.

Personalities: Leadership

Ngulkhup, chief of Mombi; Mombi stands about 5000 feet high up and commands a most

extensive view to south and west, the eye ranging over a sea of tangled hills and valleys

from the Manipur valley to the far distant Chin Hills.

Ngulbul, chief of Longya

Tintong, chief of Layang who raided the Kabui Nagas

Pachei, an old chief of Chassad, was the last to surrender; Chassad was in the

unadministered area of Somra Tract.

Chengjapao, head of the Thados

Khotinthang, chief of Jampi, head of the Thado clan; allegedly claimed to be the

Maharaja and collected revenues and guns from weaker villages.

The piece complied by ZLS gave a list of Zou leaders who surrendered at Hiangtam in

1919; as –

Pu Goulun, Pu Langzagin, Pu Lagou, Pu Tonghau, Pu Henkham, Pu Vungdam, Pu

Suohgou, Pu Helthang, Pu Lampum, Pu Suohkham, and Pu Salet.

We also have another list of 48 names who participated in the Zou Gaal, and another list

of 10 names who were imprisoned by a Special Tribunal. We need to find more

information about our war heroes, and perhaps compiled them as a collection of short

biographies.

Kumbi against Kangla

17 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Police Files no. 8, 1919.

5

Chingakhamba Sanachouba Singh, Manipuri pretender to the throne ; he lived with his

disciples at Kumbi near Moirang. According to colonial reports, Chingakham told the

Kukis that “he was destined to be a raja and that if they would follow him and help him

he would make things pleasant for him in every way possible when he came to power and

that their house tax should only be Rs. one per year … the Manipuri had told them that

the sahibs had gone to fight the Germans and that there were very few troops left in

Imphal.”18

Chinga Khamba claimed to be the elder brother of the incumbent Mahajara of Manipur,

Churachand Singh. At Moirang, he was instrumental in the establishment of some

unauthorized courts19.

John Paratt20 (2005) saw Changakham’s role as a “testimony to patriotism of the Kukis,

and a strong tie between the two people of hill and valley in any emergency” (p. 42).

Interpretations

Official Version

Shakespeare recalled that Major John Butler (the elder) in the early 1850s wrote that

procrastination and forbearance of the British would be seen by “savages” as a sign of

fear and weakness. He further claimed, “Had they [Political Agent and Capt. Coote] been

allowed to punish Longya as well, it is probably the clans would have thought better than

to rebel; as it was, the speedy retirement of the detachment heartened both Chiefs, who

sent in messages to the effect that they closed their country to us … [pp. 210-11] The

start of this rebellion was largely due to our procrastination in not dealing at once and

fully with it when the trouble first showed itself” (p. 212).

Subaltern Perspective

According to Bhadra, the “Kuki uprising was the outcome of three distinct forces – anti-

British, intra-tribal, and intra-dynastic.”21 (p. 35). The Kukis resented forced labour that

consisted of two types: first, Pothang Bekari – the obligation to carry goods and baggage

for touring officers, or construction works without payment (locally called “pawt pua”;

and second, Pothang Senkhai – household contribution in cash or kind such as chicken,

egg, or meat to feed touring officers free of cost22. Because of a strong movement against

pothang, it was abolished in the valley of Manipur in 1913. But it was retained in the hill

areas. In 1915-16, there were individual petitions by hillmen asking for exemptions from

pothang. Gautam Bhadra observed that “a clear transition took place from making

petition, to excuse, to direct refusal”23 (p. 18).

18 Manipur State Archives, Imphal, Webster’s letter No. 81, dated 3 Jan. 1918.

19 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File no. 29, 1918.

20 Paratt, John (2005) Wounded Land: Politics and Identity in Modern Manipur, New Delhi.

21 Gautam Bhadra (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917 – 1919: Its Causes and Naure” in Man in

India, March, pp. 10 – 56.

22 Lal Dena (1991) “Some Anomalies of Colonial Rule, 1891 – 1919” pp. 70-88, in Lal Dena, History

of Modern Manipur 1826-1949, New Delhi: Orbit Publishers & Distributors, p. 81.

23 Gautam Bhadra (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917-1919: Its Causes and Nature” Man in India, 55

(1): 11 – 56.

6

Outcomes

At the end of Kuki Rising in 1919, “the hill people were for the first time brought under

intensified political and administrative control of an imperial power” (Lal Dena, 1991:

134)24. “Rules for Management of the State of Manipur”25 was discussed seriously and

implemented by the Government of India.

(a) British paternalism: Sir Nocholas Dodd Beatson Bell, the Chief Commissioner of

Assam (19 April 1919) proposed that the colonial Sub-Divisional Officers would be

permanently posted in the hill areas of Manipur and “generally act as fathers to the

hillmen and restore their confidence in the British raj.”26

J.E. Webster, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam (1 Jan. 1918) wrote,

“The insolence of the Kuki and his lack of regard for authority is due to the fact that he

has never been taught the lesson of disobedience, either by the Manipur Raj or the

imperial Government. These hill tribes do not become tractable citizens until they have

experienced the heavy hand of the paramount.”27

(b) Three hill subdivisions (Churachandpur under B.C. Gasper, Tamenglong under W.

Shaw, Ukhrul under L.L. Peter) were created after this, briefly discontinued and revived

in 1932 with four subdivisions. Senapati (the Mao-Maram area) was initially excluded in

the hill subdivision, and was directly administered directly the Durbar President from

Imphal. In the new administrative arrangement, the Political Agent would closely

supervise the hill administration through the British SDOs instead of the native agents

called lambus.

(c) Creation of seven Assam Rifles outposts now known as “the sentinels of the hills”.

(d) The British state proposed to “open up roads, administer simple, set up schools and

hospitals”.

(e) The Raj had a chance to recast itself as the paternalist protector of the weaker (read

loyal) villages and the propagator of peace among their hill subjects during the course of

the Kuki Rising. Ningmuanching (2010) “Communities that had coexisted as a hill

people [sic.] now emerged as hostile who had apparently inherited a history of

antagonism. British intervention … transformed inter-village feuds into ethnic conflict

between hill people who were now grouped as the Nagas and the Kukis”28 (p. 107).

24 Lal Dena (1991) (ed.) History of Modern Manipur 1826 – 1949, New Delhi: Orbit Publishers &

Distributors.

25 NAI, New Delhi, Foreign Department, Political Files no.1011 (1923).

26 Cited in Lal Dena (1991) “Kuki Rebellion 1917-1920” (pp. 126-134) in Lal Dena, ed. History of

Modern Manipur, p. 133.

27 National Archives of India, New Delhi, Foreign and Political Department, Webster’s letter dated 1

Jan. 1918, “Rebellion of the Kuki Tribes”, Webster’s letter 1 Jan. 1918.

28 Ningmuanching (2010) Reading Colonial Representations: Kukis and Nagas of Manipur,

Unpublished M.Phil dissertation, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New

Delhi, 2010.

7

J.E. Webster, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam (June 1918) reported

that over 1000 persons (“friendlies”) from villages loyal to the British camp at Imphal

due to “the terror of the Kukis”29.

Dawn of Political Consciousness

How did the experience and memory of the war returnees who met at Suangpi shape the

subsequence “hill politics” or political consciousness” of southern Manipur?

Radhika Singha said, “The imperial quest for labor yields new perspectives on the

political transformations underway in the course of the Great War … Flight and episodes

of full-scale resistance on the part of those targeted for noncombatant recruitment

influenced this reevaluation, as did their marked preference for fixed and limited terms …

The Kuki-Chin uprising of 1917-1918, and other smaller convulsions in the northeastern

hill districts brought on by labor recruitment for the war, alerted the Army authorities in

France to the need to maintain contractual faith with ‘hill-men’ who had gone there in

Labor Corps … Limited terms and rising wages could make ‘noncombatant’ service

attractive enough to cut into combatant recruitment” (p. 442).

Memory & Memorials

(a) Zogal Jr. High School was established at Tuining in 1972, but later relocated at

Behiang village where it received Grant-in-Aid on 1 October 1980.

Zou Gaal Memorial Shield was introduced on 19 October 1976. Zou Gaal Hall was built

in 1978 with financial assistance from the Government, and it is being redeveloped

currently at the same construction site.

(b) A statue of Chengjapao Dougel, “King of the Kukis and the leader of the Kuki Rising,

1917-1919” in the heart of Moreh town).

(c) In 1958, the Kuki Political Sufferers’ Association of Manipur (KPSAM) demanded a

“War Memorial in the heart of Imphal town to commemorate Kuki Martyrs and

Sufferers”30. Accordingly, a plot was given at Imphal where the Kuki Inn came up in

1963. Recently the central government sanctioned funds for a war memorial complex

which includes a museum, a library and a committee hall in the same premises.

A Note on Primary Sources

(a) National Archives of India, New Delhi

Foreign Department, Political Files

Home Department , Police Files

(b) Manipur State Archives, Keishampat Junction, Imphal

29 NAI, New Delhi, Foreign and Political Department, Rebellion of the Kuki Tribes, Webster’s letter 5

June 1918.

30 Guite, Jangkhomang (2011) “Monuments, Memory and Forgetting in postcolonial North-East

India” Economic and Political Weekly, February 19, 2011, Vol. XLVI, No. 8, pp. 56 – 64.

8

Administrative Reports of the Manipur State (annual) 1916 - 1919

Tour Diaries of the Manipur Political Agency, 1916 – 1919

Kuki Rebellion Paper, 1917 – 1919

(c) D.C.’s Court, Imphal

Boundary Register that lists Kuki villages and their specific role during the rebellion;

Petitions and Orders passed, divided into civil, criminal and miscellaneous; it presents

vignettes on the inner life and politics of the Kuki villages.

Bibliography

Bhadra, Gautam (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917-1919: Its Causes and Nature” Man in

India, 55 (1): 11 – 56.

Chishti, S M A W (2004) Kuki Uprising In Manipur 1919-1920, Guwahati: Spectrum

Publication (82 pp; Rs. 295).

Chishti, S M A W , Political Development in Manipur 1919-1949, Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.

Guite, Jangkhomang (2011) “Monuments, Memory and Forgetting in postcolonial North-East

India” Economic and Political Weekly, February 19, 2011, Vol. XLVI, No. 8, pp. 56 – 64.

Lal Dena (1991) “Some Anomalies of Colonial Rule, 1891 – 1919” pp. 70-88, in Lal Dena,

History of Modern Manipur 1826-1949, New Delhi: Orbit Publishers & Distributors, p. 81.

Ningmuanching (2010) Reading Colonial Representations: Kukis and Nagas of Manipur,

Unpublished M.Phil dissertation, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University,

New Delhi, 2010.

Reid, Robert (1942) History of the Frontier Areas bordering on Assam from 1883-1941,

Shillong: Assam Government Press, p. 79.

Shakespear, Colonel L.W. (1929) History of the Assam Rifles, p. 216.

Singha, Radhika (2007) “Finding Labor from India for the War in Iraq: The Jail Porter

and Labour Corps, 1916-1920” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 49 (2): 412 –

445.

Zou Literature Society (2002) “Zou Gaal” pp. 19 – 27 in Chinthu Zaila – Zou Literature Reader

X, Churachandpur: Published by T. Lamkhothawng on behalf of ZLS.

[accessed on 22-03-2011]

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Invitation to Zou Gal Day Observation at Delhi and Lamka khopi

Posted on March 10, 2011 by ZSPDelhi

The Zou Tribe Anti-colonial Resistance known as Zou Gal (1917-19) in local parlance memorial day was observed every year by the Zou tribe in India. This year Zou Gal Day observation will be held in Manipur at Zou Gal Hall, Zoveng, Lamka, Churachandpur and Delhi at MP’s Club Hall, South Avenue, New Delhi respectively on March 17, 2011. The observation at Lamka will start at 11AM till 11PM at night and Delhites’ will be from 1PM to 6PM. The organising secretaries extend a warm greetings to all Zou tribes and invite them to attend the program without fail.

CHURACHANDPUR PROGRAM

Venue : Zou Gal Hall, Zoveng, Lamka
Date : 17th March, 2011 [Thursday]
11:00AM – 11:00PM

• Chief Guest: Pu LB Sona, Chairman, Zomi Council
• Guest of Honour: President MPC, President Hmar Inpui, President Meitei Society CCPur
• Functional President: Pu Tongzathang, Prez Kuki Inpi, CCpur
• Host: Pu Ginsuanhau, Prez UZO

1. Hunpat Thumna: Rt. Rev. Dr. T. Ginkhanmung Zou, Bishop MELC
2. Welcome Address: Pu T. Manglianthang, Vice President UZO
3. Cultural Extravaganza: ZYO Sugnu Block
4. Zou Gal Tangthu: Pu Chinlunthang, Gen. Secy. UZO GHQ
5. Zogal HanLa Sahna: Pu Vumchinkhup, Chairman HEC/UZO GHQ
6. Thugenna: Guest of Honour, Functional President, Host, Chief Guest
7. Nuomthu genna: Pu S. Lianzakap, Adviser, UZO
8. Closing Prayer: Rev. Tualzachin, Exe. Secy. ZPCS

JAN HUN VAIGUON

• Chief Guest: Pu Langkhanpau Guite, Chairman ADC CCpur
• Guests of Honour: Pu Demmang Haokip Vice Chairman ADC CCPur, Pu G. Suanchinpauo, Member ADC CCpur, Pu Tongkai Baite, Member ADC CCpur
• Functional President: Pu P. Siandong, Chairman Finance Committee, ADC CCPur
• Host: Pi Grace Zamnu, Member ADC CCpur
• Official Invities: Pi Jacintha Lazarus, DC CCpur, Pu Brig. Surender Neta, Commander 27 Sect ARs, Pu GB Sharma IPS, SP CCpur
• Special Invitee: Presidents & Gen. Secretaries of ZYA, KKL, HYA and YMA.

1. Hunpatna: Upa Nengkhenthang
2. Vaidawn thugenna: Pu Suankhanmang, Adviser UZO
3. Cultural items:
4. Speech: Invited officials – Guests of Honour, Functional President, Host, Chief Guest
5. Choreography: Hip Hop band
6. Thanks: P. Chinzakhup Adviser
7. Close: Upa Kamlianthang, Member HEC

Invited Artists: Pu Haumang, Pi Lhingbawi, Pu Lawrence, Nh. Hatboi, Pu KS Thang, Pu TT Lal, Pu Khaiminlun,
Guest Artiest: Pu Jangkholam Haokip, Miss Jony

DELHI PROGRAM DETAIL

Venue : MP’s Club, South Avenue, New Delhi
Date : 17th March, 2011 [Thursday]
14:00 Hrs -to-18:00 Hrs

• Host : General Secretary, ZSPDB
• Zougal Highlight : Co-Ordinator ZSP Study Forum
• Moments of Silence & Prayer : Pu Khamchinpau Zou
• Welcome Speech : Vice President ZSPDB
• Special No. : kathang e e e..ka Zougal sat by Artiste
• ZOU GAAL thu sutna : Pu Dr.. David Vumlallian Zou, Asst. Professor. Dept. of History, Delhi University,
• Special No. : Thanghou-liandou by Artiste
• Short Speech : UZO Delhi
• Special No : Artiste
• Words of thanks : Pu Zamlianmang
• Closing Prayer : Pastor T. Liankholal

 Legacy of Anti-colonial Resistance: Zou Gal (1917-19)

The Zo tribe joined the so-called ‘Kuki Rising’ in Manipur against the British from 1917 to 1919. Hiangtam and Gotengkot Forts were two main centres of resistance among the Zomis. Pu Do Ngul Taithul was the chief of Gotengkot, which was a fairly big and fortified Zo village. Captain Steadman was the man responsible for suppressing Gotengkot with considerable casualties on both sides. The Zo tribe was a non-Thado tribe to have participated in this abortive, yet bold attempt to oust the white imperialist from Manipur, even as a local folk song composed on the occasion of the revolt runs in the Zou dialect as follows:

Tuizum Mangkang kiil bang hing khang/ Zota kual zil bang liing e/ Pianna ka gamlei hi e! phal si’ng e!/ Ka naamtem hiam a, i Zogamlei laal kanaw/ Sansii’n zeel e!/ Ngalliam vontawi ka laulou lai e.
Free translation:

The seafaring White Imperialist coils like the ‘kill’ plant,Tremors of earthquake do quiver the Zo world,’Tis the land of my birth: I shall not part with it!Stain’d with blood is my SwordThat has routed the adversaries of Zoland,I shall yet fight with the wild Boar, injured [4].

This folk song of the Zou dialect, reflecting the collective mind of the natives, indicated that the anti-imperial fervour was very high in 1918; and interestingly the Britishers were compared by the native mind with the wild Boar, or with a native wild creeper-plant called ‘kill’. Independent India justifiably took pride in its legacy of colonial resistance. In Manipur, the Palace uprising and Rani Gaidinlieu’s movement are relatively well-known. However, the “Kuki Rising” and the participation of the Zou tribe was less well-known. There stands a dilapidated, tin-roofed hall called “Zogal Memorial Hall” at Zoveng, Churachandpur (Manipur) built in honour of the Zomis who fought against British colonizers. The anti-colonial legacy of the Zou is a tribute to the multi-etnnic people of Manipur itself. However, the dilapidated condition of Zogal Memorial Hall reflects the lack of official patronage for its shared history and collective memory.

http://zspdelhi.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/invitation-to-zou-gal-day-observation-at-delhi-and-lamka-khopi/

[accessed on 22-03-2011]

UZO

UNITED ZOMI ORGANISATION KHANGTHU (1954-2004)

Amasa in UZO Executive Committee in UZO Golden Jubilee toh kisai a Taangthu sut diing a ang angsie jieh in member zousie leh Zou mipi kung ah kipahthu i gen masa hi. UZO taangthu i sûtna dîng ah kimsitset a sut theilou dîng i hijieh in dahuoi i sa uhi. Vangsiet huoitah a Pu Thangkhanlal in Ang kâh in i record bu uleh i neitâh uh tampi a kâhtumjieh ahi. I kingaisiem uh ka hing ngen masa hi

ZOU NATIONAL COUNCIL (JNC) 1954-55

Kum 1953-54 hunlai in Phaipi (Imphal) khosung ah Laisim in Pu Semkhopau, Pu T. Thonghang, Pu Kaizakham adg. ana um uhi. Tua hunlai in India kumpi in Tribe Recognition hun a honlai ahi.
Midangdangte’n achi-anam uh huitupna ding in India kumpi kung ah Recognition a ngen uhi. Tuamabang in i lamkaite un zong lunggel khat na nei uhi. Date 23rd May, 1954 ni in Zou pumpi kikhaikhawmna min diing in Jou National Council (JNC) na phutkhie uhi. Office Bearers diing in anuoi a bang in na teel uhi.

1. Pu S. Semkhopau, President
2. Pu P. Kaizakham, Vice President
3. Pu T. Khup Grace, Chief Secretary
4. Pu T. Thonghang, Joint Secretary
5. Pu T. Gougin, Treasurer
6. Pu Khamzadou, Office Assistant

JNC Office mun diing in Pu T. Khup Grace umna inn, Gimson Road, Imphal na nei uhi.

ZOU

The Zou as a Minority Community

 

 Another speculation was that the Zo came from Yunnan province of China (cf. “Yao” people of Yunnan) [13] before they were harassed and driven south by the Mongol invasion into Upper Burma along the Chindwin River. They reached Yaw valley-upper Chindwin extending up to Kabaw valley sometime in the eight century AD. In this Yaw valley, they practiced wet-rice cultivation and gave up their nomadic life. When they approached from south west China up to Kabaw valley, they faced no warlords, except some skirmishes with the expeditions of the Shan States, who then begin their infiltration in the Upper Burma following the Irrawaddy river towards the end of the 13th century [14].

 

Economic & Ecological Survival Skills

Like their Chin-Kuki cousins, the Zous had taken to shifting cultivation (jhum) ever since the beginning of their recorded history in the 19th century. They traversed several hill tracts between North-East India and Upper Burma in search of suitable jhum land. They used iron tools (eg. iron axe, hoe and dao) to cultivate a variety of sturdy Asian rice through a rather primitive method – sometimes described as “slash and burn” technique. They procured their iron tools through barter trade from Manipur and Burma. In the absence of cash economy, mithun or gayal (bos frontalis) and rice grain served as the chief forms of wealth.

The jhum method was ecologically sustainable as long as population increase was minimal and cultivable land was plentiful. But even favourable population-land ratio did not guarantee against periodic famines called mautam. Such famines are associated with the flowering of bamboos whose seeds led to the multiplication of rats and other pests. In this sense, bamboo was both a curse and a blessing. In the traditional Zou economy, bamboo was a source of food (bamboo shoots), building material, household utensils, fencing and handicrafts. In fact, bamboo was the backbone and the backbreaker of their subsistence economy.

The Zou community in Manipur was exposed to independent India’s developmental state. Since the 1950s, they began to participate in the democratic process, especially electoral politics. Political pioneers like T.Gougin and M.Thangkhanlal emerged out of this new political climate in the early decades of postcolonial India. Such developments impacted on the outlook and livelihood of many Zous who enjoyed upward mobility in the social ladder. The expansion of the so-called Licence Raj partly helped the growth of an administrative town, Churachandpur, in southern Manipur. More enterprising Zous saw new opportunnites in this urban centre and set up their own “colonies” (eg. Zomi Colony, Zoveng, Kamdou Veng, Hiangzou, and New Zoveng) to settle in and around Churachandpur town. Better access to education enables these urban settlers to enter the Government service sector that grew fat in the 1970s and 80s. Within the Zou community, the Church (eg. Zou Synod and Lutheran MELC) and other NGOs are also significant employers of theological graduates.

In remote Zou villages, the dead habit of jhuming continues despite its abysmal productivity. According to the 2001 Census of India, around 60% of the Zou population were engaged in agricultural labour. Wet rice cultivation came into vogue around the time of India’s independence. Shifting cultivators typically dwell within interior ridgetop hamlets. But permanent plow peasants among the Zous prefer settlement sites near river banks like the Tuitha and the Tuivai. Availability of cultivable land for paddy is severely limited in Manipur hill areas. Increased food production through paddy fields supported a growing population in many Zou villages. Yet food production lags behind population increase. The challenge is to escape this “Malthusian trap” where population prevents prosperity. As an absolute figure the Zou population is not big, but its rapid rate of growth resulted in deforestation and desertification during the post-Independence era. It only intensify the rural crisis. Unlike the fertile Imphal valley, the “carrying capacity” of land in the hills is very limited. The social spill over effect of this ecological degradation was demonstrated by the ethnic conflict of 1997-98. The conflict reduced many educated and semi-skilled Zous into economic migrants to other parts of booming urban India. Today socially mobile pockets of Zou communities live across big and small Indian cities like Imphal, Aizawl, Shillong, Guwahati, Calcutta, Delhi and Bangalore. The Indian army and paramilitary services also employ a good number of Zous generally with low level of skills set. But the new economy could not absorb unskilled and illiterate Zou villagers.

The benefits of India’s economic reform are yet to reach rural Manipur. At present, militants pose a challenging law and order problem. But the spread of modern technologies like satellite TV and mobile phones to the villages gradually expose them to changes in other parts of India since the economic reforms of 1991. Such exposure might not alter their immediate circumstances, but it provides new aspirational values needed to create an “enabling environment” in a democratic setup. Therefore, there are good reasons for guarded optimism about the future of Zou people in modern India.

Journals in Zou language

# Zopatong – A monthly news magazine published at Zomi Colony, Churachandpur, Manipur (India)
# Khristian Tangkou – A Christian journal published by the Zou Presbyterian Synod, Churachandpur, Manipur.
# Gospel Tangkou – A Christian journal published by the Manipur Evangelical Lutheran Church
# Khantanhoi Tangkou – A Christian journal published by the Thangkhal Baptish Church
# Zokuomthawn – A monthly news bulletin and online news journal of the Zou Sangnaupang Pawlpi, Delhi Branch
# Zoheisa – A monthly news bulletin and journal published by the Zou Sangnaupang Pawlpi, Shillong Branch.
# Pu Zo – a monthly news letter in Zou from Myanmar.

Zou settlements in India and Myanmar

IN INDIA NORTH EAST

01. Tuitha river area:

1. Muollum, 2. T. Khajang, 3. Buhsau, 4. Belpuon, 5. Sunchinvum, 6. Teikot, 7. Suongkuong, 8. Zoukhonuom, 9. Hiangtam(K), 10. Belbing, 11. S. Geltui, 12. S. Munhoi, 13. Panglien, 14. M. Tanglien, 15. Hiengdung, 16. Lunmuol, 17. Kullien, 18. Phaibem, 19. Zomun, 20. Khienglam, 21. Bohlui, 22. Daijang, 23. Tuibul, 24. Tuaitengphai, 25. Benazou, 26. Buongmun, 27. Suongnal, 18. Zahong, 29. Sielnah, 30. Khuongmun.

02. Tuivai area:-

1. Singngat, 2. Tangpizawl, 3. Sehngalzang, 4. Likhai, 5. Buolkot, 6. Hiangtam(V), 7. Zangnuom, 8. L. Kanan, 9. Behiang(V), 10. Behiang(H), 11. Suongphu, 12. Lunzang, 13. Tonzang, 14. Sielsi

03. Tuivel pang kuol a teengte:-

1. Mawngken, 2. Maukot, 3. Tuimangzang, 4. Muolzin

04. Tuila pang kuol a teengte:-

1. Hiengmuol 2. Munpi, 3. Zabellei, 4. Allusingtam, 5. Sabuol, 6. T. Hangnuom

05. Mawngkai pang kuol kimvel a teeng te:-

1. Aina, 2. Leitan, 3. Lungshai

06. Tuipi pang kimvel a teeng te:-

1. Milongmun, 2. Saite

07. Tuining dung kimvel a teeng te:-

1. Tuinuphai, 2. N. Khuovung, 3. Tuining, 4. Zomi Zion, 5. T. Vajang 6. Khaimunnuom, 7. Sangaikot, 8. Kuvan, 9. Saiboh, 10. Zobethel, 11. Gangpimuol, 12. Khuongkhaizang

08. Gunpang kuol kimvel a teeng te:-

1. M. Khaukuol 2. Khuoinuoi 3. Telsalzang 4. Singheu 5. Phaisan 6. Khuongkhai 7. Old Kha kuol 8. Sugnu Zoveng 9. Singtom

09. Kana luipang kimvel a teng te:-

1. Gelngai 2. Salem 3. Paldai 4. Sachih 5. Khuolien 6. Muolnuom 7. Kathuong 8. Phuoikon 9. Zangdung

10. Lamka khuopi sung a ZO tate tenna veng te:-
1. Lamka Zoveng 2. Zomi Colony 3. Manniang khuo 4. Hiangzou 5. New Zoveng 6. P. Kamdou veng 7. Tuibuong 8. Zomunnuom 9. Biulalane, 10. Simveng

Tuoleh adang dang:-

*Imphal (Phaipi) * Shillong Happy Valley *Dimapur *Guhawati *New Delhi.

BURMA OR MYANMAR

01.Tamu myo kuol sung a teeng te:-

1. Tamu Zoveng 2. Tamu Namasongh 3. Tungkyaw 4. Phailien, 5. Yuotha 6. Lalliem 7. Kanan 8. Khampat no1. 9. Khampat no3. 10. Nang ka theih 11. Buongkung (Nankhaukhau) 12. Tuikhal (Chawdawzyichen)

02. Kaleymyo kuol sung a teeng te:-

1. Kaleymyo (Penglong Kuat-tit Veng) 2. Kaleymyo (Tantada veng) 3. Tazyi 4. KanOo 5. 55-mile 6. Muntha (Showphyuzyichen) 7. Kuonglien (Phayazyichen).

03.Tonzang zo khuopi kuol sung a teengte:-

1. Tonzang 2. Phaitu 3. Lungtah 4. Khamzang 5. Sehshi 6. Thauthe 7. Phaidim 8. Maulawn 9. Likhan 10. Madam 11. Ponpi 12. Khiangkan 13. Sekang 14. Buolkuong 15. Vanglai 16. Khuoivum 17. Chikha myo 18. Aisi 19. Phaisat 20. Bizang 21. Haipi 22. Gampum 23. Buongmuol 24. Sielmei 25. Nahzang 26. Denlhakot 27. Thuombul 28. Senam 29. Langphun 30. Talzang 31. Anlun (Phultuon) 32. Gelmuol 33. Khienglam 34. Sielthaw 35. Singtum 36. Tuigiel 37. Zopem 38. Tanzang 39. Sielthawzang 40. Lamthang 41. Tahla 42. Phailien.04.

04. Tedim myo sung a teengte:-

1. Teddim 2. Salzang 3. Tahzang 4. Lomzang 5. Gelzang 6. Gamngai 7. Tuolmu 8. Mawngken 9. Bumzang 10. Khuodai 11. Kakgen 12. Zozang 13. Gielchien 14. Muizang 15. Thangdawn

05.Tuoleh a dang dang teeng:-
1*Kalewa 2*Maymyo 3*Mandalay 4*Tachileik 5*Lyawkaw 6*Yangon(Rangoon).

—————————————-

In due course of time, they settled around Khampat, and established their kingdom which survived from the 13th to the 15th century AD. At the beginning of the 15th century AD, they confronted a threat from the Shans who aimed at expanding their suzerainty. The Zomis were the second people to face the onslaught of the Thai imperialist who moved upward with their mighty Tai (Thai) force marauding the Burmese and Zomis on their way to Assam.

Then, they moved about further south up to the present Chin Hills and started settling in the hill regions, which was then No Man’s Land. After leaving Khampat kingdom, it appears that there was none to trumpet their conscience. From there they scattered all along the hill ranges in different directions, divided into clan-based leadership. Some Zomis settled in the Chin Hills and made Tonzang as their headquarters under the leadership of Pu Khanthuam.

Legacy of Anti-colonial Resistance: Zou Gal (1917-19)

The Zou tribe joined the so-called ‘Kuki Rising’ in Manipur against the British from 1917 to 1919. Hiengtam and Gotengkot Forts were two main centres of resistance among the Zous. Pu Do Ngul Taithul was the chief of Gotengkot, which was a fairly big and fortified Zou village. Captain Steadman was the man responsible for suppressing Gotengkot with considerable casualties on both sides. The Zou tribe was a non-Thado tribe to have participated in this abortive, yet bold attempt to oust the white imperialist from Manipur, even as a local folk song composed on the occasion of the revolt runs in the Zou dialect as follows:

Tuizum Mangkang kîl bang hing khang Zota kuolsung zil bang lîng e Pienna ka gamlei hie! phal si’ng e! Ka nâmtem hiem a, i Zogam lei lâl ka naw Sansi’n zîl e! Ngalliem vontawi ka lâulou lâi e.

Free translation:[15]

The seafaring White Imperialist springs up like the fast growing cactus plant,The Zo land shakes like the earthquake,’Tis the land of my birth: I shall not part with it!My sharp sword is stained with blood, I faced enemies,Being brave son of my father i shall not fear.

This folk song of the Zou dialect, reflecting the collective mind of the natives, indicated that the anti-imperial fervour was very high in 1918. Interestingly the Britishers were compared by the native mind with the wild Boar, or with a native wild creeper-plant called ‘kill’. Independent India justifiably took pride in its legacy of colonial resistance. In Manipur, the Palace uprising and Rani Gaidinlieu’s movement are relatively well-known. However, the “Kuki Rising” and the participation of the Zou tribe was less well-known. There stands a dilapidated, tin-roofed hall called “Zogal Memorial Hall” at Zoveng, Churachandpur (Manipur) built in honour of the Zomis who fought against British colonizers. The anti-colonial legacy of the Zou is a tribute to the multi-ethnnic people of Manipur itself. However, the dilapidated condition of Zogal Memorial Hall reflects the lack of official patronage for its shared history and collective memory.

Zous in Manipur: A Tribe in Transition

Crisis of pagan Sakhua religion

The Zou people resisted the British Raj and its colonial culture, including Christian conversion. The Maharajah of Manipur too did not permit Christian missionaries to work in the Imphal valley. However, a missionary called Watkin Roberts arrived at Senvawn village in the southern hills of Manipur in 1910. The Zou community did not come directly in contact with any Western missionary. While their neighbouring communities converted to Christianity, the Zous clung on to their traditional religion called Sakhua. (In the Chin hills of Burma, the Sakhua was also called Lawki religion). This indigenous form of worship is broadly and not so accurately labelled as “animism” in the ethnographic literature. The old Sakhua used to be self-sufficient; but the Zou colonial encounter resulted in cracks in the old system. The experience of many young Zomis as a labour corps in World War I made them more open to Western education. The NEIG Mission Compound at Old Churachand (Suangpi) became the centre of literate culture in southern Manipur since 1930. By the time of India’s independence, many neo-literates among the Zous were convinced about the power of Western education and medicine: the native mind somehow perceived such objects as synonymous with Christianity itself.

Local Church Movement under JCA

Things Fall Apart: Social Crisis

The pagan Sakhua religion was under direct assault in Southern Manipur with the establishment of NEIG Mission at Old Churachand (Mission Compound) in 1930. The Paite, Hmar and Thadou tribes were among the earliest advocates of the Christian conversion. Along with the Simte, the Zou tribe was slow in responding to new ideas ushered in by the Christian mission. Perhaps due to their anti-colonial legacy, the Zous became the last bastion of pagan “Sakhua” in the area. Though cultural rootness has it own merits, it was a setback from modernization point of view. By the 1950s, there were a handful of Christian converts among the Zous too. But the Zou converts were disorganised and scattered. The new Zou Christian converts joined different dialectal groups, especially the Paite and Thado Christian groups. Among the intelligent sections of the Zou, there was a strong desire to stem the tide of this social crisis. Their solution was to embrace the church movement by preserving the unity of the Zou community ironically through mass conversion.

Winds of Change: Social Renewal

A migrant from Mawngawn village, Pu Kam Za Khup became a resident of Daizang village since 1951. His arrival in Daizang made that village a hub of Christian activities in the 1950s. Despite his humble occupation as a peasant, Kam Za Khup appeared to be a born reformer. He was consumed with zeal to initiate a local church movement among his tribes-people – the Zou dialect community. When he moved into Daizang in 1951, there were reportedly just four Christian villages out of the total sixty-six Zou villages. Enthused with the challenge of initiating a new movement, this layman shared his social vision with his confidant named Thawng Za Khup. Both jointly managed to bring the village elders for a public discussion at Tuaitengphai in 1952. But nothing concrete came out of the meeting. Still undaunted, Pu Kamzakhup continued his campaign for a cause close to his heart. The reformist duo (Kamzakhup and Thawng Za Khup) would excitedly talk about their future project even while working in the wet rice field.

The preliminary Tuaitengphai Meet 1953

There seemed to be a lot of spade work before the historic JCA Conference could be convened on 20 February 1954. A preliminary meeting was held at Tuaitengphai village on the occasion of ‘Haitha’ (First Fruit) festival in which the villages of Daizang, Boh Lui and Khiang Lam were scheduled to participate; but the last two did not turned up. The outcome of all those untiring discussions and persuasions was the staging of a partially successful joint meeting between Daizang and Tuaitengphai in 1953. That, in turn, provided a solid foundation for a more spectacular success. It actually became a prelude to the historic JCA meeting at Daizang on 20 February 1954 (see JCA Minute Book [16].

The historic Daizang JCA Conference 1954

Some intelligent Zou youngsters organised on 20 Feb. 1954 the first Zou Conference at Daizang village. The JCA (Jou Christian Association) conference deliberated on issues related to the social and religious life of the community. The JCA agenda was not exclusively religious. Besides Pu Kamzakhup, the pillars of the JCA in its initial days were the three educated figures of Pu Thawng Hang, Pu Sem Kho Pau, and Pu Kai Za Kham. The triple leaders were still students at Imphal at that point of time, and they were entrusted with the task of drafting a ‘Constitution’ for JCA, which was finally adopted at the Daizang assembly. This historic conference accelerated mass conversion to Christian faith into an irreversible social movement within the Zou community. Ironically, such collective conversion did not necessarily led to de-tribilization. This strategy rather ensured the viability of “tribal identity” under changing conditions.
Finally, one may wonder: where did Pu Kam Za Khup catch his Gospel fire? The clue lies in his early residence at Mawngawn village. The social environment of Mawngawn in the 1940s – swept by waves of Christian conversion – must have contributed significantly to the making of this Zou social reformer.

Social Impact of Christian Conversion

Contrary to the charges of de-tribilasation by some scholars, the Zous today preserve the best part of their traditional culture through their indigenous local church. Their customary laws related to marriage practices have been institutionalized by the church. Their tribal musical instrument (khuang made of wood and animal skin) is an integral part of church music. The Bible translations and hymnals preserved the best part of their traditional vacabulary harnessed to a different purpose.

Recent scholarship, however, pointed out that Bible translations among the tribes of North-East India have become a victim of dilectal chauvinism (see Go 1996)[17]. Multiplying Bible translations in closely related but slightly different dialects have “canonize” and harden ethnic divisions within the tribal groups of Manipur. For instance, the Zou language itself constitutes dialectal variants like Haidawi, Khuangnung, Thangkhal, Khodai and Tungkua. All these dialects contribute to Zou language in a process of give and take. Nevertheless, Haidawi is usually promoted as the standard literary language in the vernacular Bible and hymnals. Meanwhile, Khuangnung is popular among urban Zou speakers and Thangkhal heavily influences traditional Zou folk songs. Tungkua and Khodai still remains confined to remote villages. The inclusion of Zou as a Major Indian Language (till Standard XII) by the Govt. of Manipur also contributed to the evolution of Zou as a standard literary language.

The Zous (also spelt as “Zo”) in Burma constitute a distinct Zou dialect influenced primarily by Tedim Chin. Though the Zous in India and Burma had been using a common Bible for decades, the Zous in Burma recently came up with their own Bible translation. At present, it is difficult to assess the social impact of such translation projects.

Patriarchy and tribal Christianity

Access to modern education since the 1950s and 60s empowered some Zou women in the “secular” sphere and the job market. But ironically women are still discriminated in the “secred” sphere of the church on gender basis. The Zou society, despite Christian conversion, still staunchly maintains its old patriarchal structure. The first generation of educated Zomi women like Ms. Khan Niang and Ms. Geneve Vung Za Mawi championed the cause of female education as late as the 1970s [18]. A handful of Zou women (eg. Ms. Dim Kho Chin, Ms. Ning Hoih Kim, Ms. Ngai Vung, etc) graduated in theology in the 1980s. There is limited space for women theologians within the formal church structure which is jealously guarded as a privileged male enclave. The church hierarchy still excludes women from any position of authority and “ordained” offices like that of ministers or elders. Despite the advances made by women in the secular world, a recent study suggests that the status of women has been degraded (not upgraded) within the patriarchal world of the tribal church (cf. Downs 1996: 80-81)[19]. For instance, the tribal church never condemn and always condone domestic violence (including wife beating & child abuse) despite all the pious talks about building “Christian family”. Women’s right to use the pulpit is grudgingly granted, or sometimes denied . Female employment within the salaried jobs of the two main Zou churches (Presbyterian & Lutheran) is a pathetic 3 per cent or thereabouts.

However, women are encouraged in fundraising projects where they have made excellent contributions through innovative strategies like antang pham (handful of rice collection), thabituh (annual labour targets), veipung (profitable micro-investment), etc. Antang pham remains the main source of fund raising by ladies. The idea was originally imported from Mizoram where Bible women like Ms. Chhingtei of Durtlang and Ms. Siniboni (a Khasi lady) were instrumental in introducing the practice sometime in 1913 [20]. The money collected by ladies are seldom invested in projects that benefit women as a specific group. Given the inequality of opportunities for men and women, this way of resource allocation is questionable. Recent statistics by Census of India (2001) shows a significant gender gap between male and female literacy with only 53.0% for female Zou and 70.2% for male Zou. Likewise, the sex ratio of the Zous in Manipur at 944 is lower than the state average of 978 (according to 2001 census). This compares poorly, for instance, with the sex ratio for Simte at 1030 and for Vaiphei at 1001 during the same period.

Traditional Territory / Population Size / Religious Affiliations

• Chin Hills (Burma), About 61,000 (Burma) Catholics, Protestants (Baptist majority)
• Manipur (India) About 22,000(India) Presbyterians, Lutherans, Zo Christian Bible Church, etc & Catholic, Assembly of God (minority)

The Zou Zo tribe is a less well-known indigenous community living along Indo-Burma frontier. In India, Zous Zos are officially recognized as one of the 29 “Scheduled Tribes” within the state of Manipur (See List of Scheduled Tribes of India, Modification 1956)[1]. According to the Census of India, the Zou population in Manipur (30,567 persons) is the tenth largest Scheduled Tribe population in Manipur. The unofficial estimate for the Zou Zo population in India is around 20,000 to 25,000 (2001 Census). The community is concentrated in Churachandpur and Chandel districts of Manipur in North-East India. The Zou Zo language is one of the prescribed MIL (Major Indian Languages) in the high schools [2] and higher secondary schools of Manipur state. The Zou Zo community has a script of its own known as “Zolai”. Zou youngsters learn their script as a piece of curiosity; but the Roman script is the official script used by the Zous of Burma and India. Bible translations in the Zou language too adopted the Roman script and it served their purpose very well. In Manipur, the literacy rate of the Zous Zos stand at 61.6% (Census of India 2001). Unfortunately this is below the Manipur state average of 68.8% literacy rate in 2001. The bulk of Zou(Zo) people lived in the Chin Hills and Sagaing division of Upper Burma. With a slight variation in spelling convention, the Burmese Zous called themselves “Zo”. The Indian Zou and Burmese Zo belong to the same dialectal community. The Zou Zo dialectal group is only a branch of the larger Chin-Kuki-Lushai ethnic group.More over, bulk of Zo people in Burma live together with other tribes such as the Tedim-Chin, Sihzang, Thados, etc. and got assimilated with them in dialects, cultures and traditions. The same process is visible among the Zous in India too. Like their ethnic Mizo cousins, the Zous are a tribal Christian community undergoing profound social change and modernization since mid-20th century.

Historical Background

The early history of the Zou people is lost in myths and legends. Linguistic and racial evidence suggest the Indo-Chinese origin of the people. Linguists classified the Zou language as “Tibeto-Burman”. Perhaps one of the earliest recorded references to Zou (Zo) as a people is found in the travel account of an Italian missionary called Father Vencentius Sangermano who resided at Ava and Rangoon from 1783 to 1806. In his widely circulated memoir, Sangermano recorded his observation of the Zomis at the beginning of the nineteenth century A.D., writing: “To the east of the Chin mountains, … is a petty nation called Jo [Yaw]. They are supposed to have been Chien … These Jò generally pass for necromancers and sorcerers, and are for this reason feared by the Burmese, who dare not ill-treat them for fear of their revenging themselves by some enchantment” [3] (Sangermano 1833: 43).

Since it was recognisable to the Italian observer that the Zou (Zo) ‘are supposed to have been Chien [Chin]’, the context suggests that Sangermano was referring to the same group of people later known as Chin-Kuki-Lushais, of whom the Zou tribe is a historical component today.

In South-east Asia, there had been dynasties (with no king), places and people that bear the label, Zou – with spelling variations. However, no definite connection can be established between such terms.

The American Baptist missionary, J.H. Cope, made an attempt to trace the pre-colonial history of the Chin Hills in a church journal, Tedim Thu Kizakna Lai. [4] The journal (edited by Cope) provides a glimpse of the Zomis in Chin Hills before the arrival of British imperialism. Under the Manlun chiefs[5], the Zous had a bitter struggle with the Kamhau-Suktes over the control of the hill tracts between Manipur (India) and Chin hills (Burma). Inter-village raids were frequent; but they never resulted in decisive victory. The fortification of Tedim village by Kamhau finally gave him the upper hand over his Zou rivals. British records about the Zou tribe became available towards the end of the nineteenth century.

Upper Burma (including the Chin hills) was officially annexed by the British at the end of the Third Anglo-Burmese War (1885-1887). On 28 September 1892, the Political Officer of Chin Hills submitted ‘a scheme in detail for the future administration of the Chin Hills’ [6]. The Yoe (Zo) – this being the colonial spelling for the Zou tribe – was enumerated as one of the five tribes inhabiting the Northern Chin Hills. The others were Nwite (Guite), Thado and Kamhow (Kamhau), and Siyin (Sihzang). The Zou tribe was placed under the jurisdiction of the Tedim post; but the new scheme of boundary demarcation proposed to ‘award’ majority of the Zou population to Manipur in India. British interest in revenue collection in the Chin Hills produced statistical information for Zou villages. Official statistics for the year 1893 showed that the Zou tribe consisted of nineteen villages and 630 households, inhabiting a tract lying between 60 and 90 miles north and north-west of Fort White. The tribe had the second largest number of villages in Northern Chin Hills, next only to the Thado tribe [7].

The Etymology of Zou

Oral tradition maintains that the Zomis hailed from the first three Zomi brothers – Songthu alias Chongthu, Songza and Zahong. Zomi origin myth accounts their first home in a Cave variously known as “Khul” or “Chhinlung”, “Sinlung” or Khur. This site is near a village called Saizang in the Chin State in North Western part of Burma, where the descendants of Songthu became Thawmte tribe. This site can be verified by evidence to support such a claim. In fact, Thawmte Tribe has a story of how their ancestors from Songthu lived there for at least nine generations until one of his offsprings Mang Sum.

Vum Kho Hau says that all the Zomi clans of this particular Tibeto-Burman group descended from a common ancestor. The same opinion was held by Capt. Pu Khupzathang, a Zomi genealogist who authored Zo Khang Suutna Laibu (Genealogy of the Zomis). He constructs an elaborate genealogical tree to substantiate his case. Current ethnonationalist sentiments too in favour of such geanological interpretation.

At another level, Zo (literally meaning “highland”) has a geographical as well as genealogical connotations. In fact, local poets get inspiration from the hilly landscape of the Zo habitat; they are never tired of praising the beauty of their vales, dales and hills. Even after centuries of shifting cultivation devastated the land of the Zomis, the romantic tradition of praising their “beautiful” hills still continues.

The term Zo is an indigenous usage that dates back to antiquity, or (at least) pre-modern history. Before the Zomi society evolved from clan-based lineages to tribe-based identity, historical records referred them as Yaw, Jo, Chou, and Zhou. Such references are found in the Shan (Pong) Chronicles from AD 80 —1604.

Today the term Zo is used in a rather confusing way in Manipur (India) and the Chin Hills of Burma. While colonial records referred to the Zo tribe variously as ‘Yo’ or ‘Yaw’, the Zomi community living in Manipur inscribed their name rather stylishly as ‘Jou’. The first Christian church established by the Zomi tribe in Manipur was called Jou Christian Association (JCA) on 20 February 1954 . But the Government of India officially recognised the name of this tribe as ‘Zou’ in 1956. Sometimes, the term Zomi is also used interchangeably with the word Zou so that the apex political organisation of the Zo is called United Zomi Organisation (UZO). To add to this confusion of terms, the Zous in Burma called themselves ‘Zo’ , which is actually a generic term used to replace the hyphenated term, Chin-Kuki-Lushai in current academic and political discourse. The term ‘Zomi’ is a collective name by which the Tedims of Burma, the Paite and Vaiphei of Manipur generally identified themselves. Noting at the very outset, the variations in spelling and usage of the terms Zo, Zou, and Zomi to mean the same people in certain geographical contexts on the one hand, and also as a generic term to refer to the larger Chin-Kuki-Lushai ethnic group on the other, will save us unnecessary confusion later. This conflicting usage of the same term (signifier) for different meanings (significance) has been highlighted by a Zo scholar, Sing Khaw Khai:

“While all clans and families belonging to the tribe who call their chief Topa designated themselves with ‘Yo’ or ‘Zo’, they in turn apply their common name to a particular clan. The Yos [Zous] are most unique in the sense of the name they bear and the culture they practice in reflection of the ancient Zo tradition … No proper study has yet been made as to why the generic Yo as spelt in former literature was applied to them” [8](Khai 1995: 22).

Speculations on Zou Origin

According to a Burmese scholar Thantun, Tibeto-Burmans probably once inhabited the T’ao valley of Kansu province in north-west China. Because of frequent Chinese incursions, the Zomis might have moved to the north east of Tibet around 200 BC. In order to avoid them, the Zomis traveled across ridges and forests and move further south. The journey probably took hundreds of years and eventually landed in Upper Burma. But it is difficult to substantiate such claims with hard evidence.

In the year 862 AD, a Chinese historian, Fan Ch’o Hao in his book already used the word Zo to call a peculiar ethnic group of people. Another scholar, a Catholic Father Vincent, in his book published in 1783 mentioned a group of people known as Zo. Sir Henry Yule’s narrative of the Mission to the court of Ava in 1885 showed the Chindwin plains and the area west of Chindwin River as Zo district. FK Lehman, a renowned Social Anthropologist in this book ‘Structure of the Chin Society’ reiterated the fact that the so called Kuki-Chin linguistic groups have a special term for themselves variously spelt as Zo, Yo etc.

Dr. Vumkhohau, a Zo scholar and diplomat from Burma, in his profile of the ‘Burmese Frontier Man’ has affirmed that “we called ourselves Zomi from time immemorial”. There are different theories regarding the etymology of the root word Zo. The Zomi ethnic community is known by others as Kuki in Manipur, Nagaland and Assam; Chin in Burma and Lushai in Mizoram, Tripura and other Zomi occupied areas. B.S. Carey and Tuck [9] says that there can be no doubt that the Chins and the Kukis, are one and the same race; for their appearance, manners, customs and languages point to this conclusion.

The words Kuki, Chin and Lushai have neither any bearing on the culture of these peoples. In the absence of a centralized state formation, the Zo people or Zomis were vulnerable to their formidable neighbours, the Shan, the Burmese, and finally British imperialism subjugated them during the late 19th century.

The South-East Asian Connection

Metternich says that ‘The man who made history have no time to write it’. Indeed, the story and legacy of the Zo is less well-known even today. Though Zo history is still sketchy and static, they clearly belong to Tibeto-Burman lingistic group which is of Mongolian stock. The possible link between the Indo-Burma Zomis and the Zhou dynasty (c.1050-771 BC) in Western China [10] has been an intriguing question for some time. The Zhou in ancient China are thought to have originated from the areas west to the Shang strongholds, possibly Shangxi and Gansu provinces [11]. However, there is not enough evidence at present to establish the link between the Zhou dynasty [12] and the Indo-Burmese Zou.

References

1. Alphabetical List of India’s Scheduled Tribes
2. Official List of First Languages approved by Board of Secondary Education Manipur (BSEM)
3. Sangermano, Father (1833) A Description of the Burmese Empire: Compiled chiefly from Burmese Documents, (Translated by William Tandy and reprinted by Susil Gupta, London, 1966.
4. Tedim Thu Kizakna Lai (Tedim Journal), July 1937, p.4.
5. Fowler, E.O. (1924) Letter to Howchinkhup, General Department, No. 3432 7M-11, office of the Commissioner, North West Border Division, 25 march 1924, in Acts and Achievements of Hau Chin Khup, KMS, Chief of the Kamhau clan, Chin Hills, Tiddim (Ratnadipan Pitika Press, Mandalay, 1927) p. 17.
6. National Archives of India (NAI) New Delhi (hereafter NAI), Foreign Department, Extl. A, October 1893, Nos. 33 – 34, dated Camp Falam, 28 September 1892
7. National Archives of India (NAI) New Delhi, Foreign Dept. Sept 1893, Nos. 80 –88
8. Khai, Sing Khaw (1995) Zo People and their Culture; A historical, cultural study and critical analysis of Zo and its ethnic tribes (Published by Khampu Hatzaw, Churachandpur, Manipur.
9. Carey, Bertram S. and Tuck, H.N. (1896) The Chin Hills: A History of the people, our dealings with them, their customs and manners, and a Gazetteer of their country (Reprinted by Delhi, Cultural Publishing House, 1983)
10. Braghin, Cecilia (1998) “The Archaeological Investigation into Ancient Chinese Beads”
11. Braghin, Cecilia (1998) “An Archaeological Investigation into Ancient Chinese Beads” pp. 273-293, Lidia D. Sciama & Joanne B. Eicher, (eds.) Beads and Bead Makers, Oxford & New York: Berg.
12. Hsu Cho-yun & Linduff, K.M. (1988) Western Zhou Civilization, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
13. “Yao people of Yunnan (China)”.; also Yao – Chinese Ethnic Groups (1998)
14. Aung-Thwin, Michael (1996) “The Myth of the ‘Three Shan brothers’ and the Ava period in Burmese history”, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.55, No.4, pp.881-901.
15. Zou, David Vumlallian (2005). “Raiding the dread past: Representations of headhunting and human sacrifice in north-east India”, Contributions to Indian Sociology (n.s.) Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 75-105 [This article refers to Kuki Uprising & Zou folk song, See pp. 88-89].
16. MELC Archives, Zomi Colony (Churachandpur), JCA Minute Book (20 February 1954 – 24 January 1958)
17. Go, Khup Za (1996) A Critical Historical Study of Bible Translations among the Zo people in Northeast India, Churachandpur: Chin Baptist Literature Board
18. Lalnunmawi, E (1996) Impact of Christianity on the Zou women (Unpublished Dissertation) Banglalore: South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies (SAIACS)
19. Downs, Frederick S. (1996) The Christian Impact on the Status of Women in North East India, Shillong: NEHU Publications
20. Ralte, Lalrinawmi (2004) Bible Women-te Nghilhlohnan (In Memory of Bible Women), Bangalore: Shalom Publications

Courtesy:
For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/Zou_people_(India)
http://zspdelhi.wordpress.com/zou/

------------

Share: