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.
[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
- Alphabetical List of India’s Scheduled Tribes
- Official List of First Languages approved by Board of
Secondary Education Manipur (BSEM)
- 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.
- Tedim Thu Kizakna Lai (Tedim Journal), July 1937, p.4.
- 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.
- National Archives of India (NAI) New Delhi (hereafter
NAI), Foreign Department, Extl. A, October 1893, Nos. 33 – 34, dated Camp
Falam, 28 September 1892
- National Archives of India (NAI) New Delhi, Foreign
Dept. Sept 1893, Nos. 80 –88
- 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.
- 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)
- Braghin, Cecilia (1998) “The Archaeological
Investigation into Ancient Chinese Beads”
- 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.
- Hsu Cho-yun & Linduff, K.M. (1988) Western Zhou
Civilization, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
- “Yao people of Yunnan (China)”.; also Yao – Chinese
Ethnic Groups (1998)
- 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.
- 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].
- MELC Archives, Zomi Colony (Churachandpur), JCA Minute
Book (20 February 1954 – 24 January 1958)
- Go, Khup Za (1996) A Critical Historical Study of Bible
Translations among the Zo people in Northeast India, Churachandpur: Chin
Baptist Literature Board
- Lalnunmawi, E (1996) Impact of Christianity on the Zou
women (Unpublished Dissertation) Banglalore: South Asia Institute of
Advanced Christian Studies (SAIACS)
- Downs, Frederick S. (1996) The Christian Impact on the Status of Women in North East India, Shillong: NEHU Publications
- Ralte, Lalrinawmi (2004) Bible Women-te Nghilhlohnan (In Memory of Bible
Women), Bangalore: Shalom Publications
For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/Zou_people_(India)
http://zspdelhi.wordpress.com/zou/
------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments not related to the topic will be removed immediately.