Clan, Dialect and Tribe Identity Emergence of Crosscutting Identity Among the Zo People in Manipur

8/12/2019 Clan, Dialect and Tribe Identity Emergence of Crosscutting Identity Among the Zo People in Manipur

1/19

Indian nthropological ssociation

Clan, Dialect and Tribe Identity: Emergence of Crosscutting Identity among the Zo People inManipurAuthor(s): L. Lam Kan PiangSource: Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jan-June 2008), pp. 43-60Published by: Indian Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41920056.

Accessed: 19/03/2014 12:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indian Anthropological Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Indian Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:08:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=indanthassochttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41920056?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41920056?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=indanthassoc


2/19

Clan, Dialect and Tribe Identity: Emergence of Crosscutting Identityamong the Zo People in Manipur

L. Lam Kan PiangAbstract

This aperdealswith he ormationf lan ndthe istoricalrocess f he mergencefvariousdialectsmongsthe opeople.t rgueshat ven houghhe olonialthnographersntroducednalien onceptf dentityike ribe,rimordialdentityike lan nd ineageould ot esupersededand ompletelyrased.dentityuch s clan srathertrangelynd enaciouslyurvived,s it s thetraditionalroupingystem,hich asculturallyunctionalmportance.t delineateshe ubtleculturalffectsf tate nterventionthe olonial tate s well s thendian ation-stateon thedynamicrocess fZo identityormation.t also argues hat he tatewas rathergnorantrindifferento theactual ocial impactsfits interventions.hispaper criticallynalyseshesegmentationftheZo people nManipur,ytheConstitutionSTs)Order, 950, Cs/STs ist(Modification)rder,956 and ts ubsequentmendments,nto ariousribes, hichonsequentlyled o hemergencef rosscuttingdentity.KeyWords: ribe, ialect,dentity,lan, olonialthnographyIntroductionThe confrontation f the people, who are being labeled as tribal,with theethnographers, colonial administrators, military officers, travelers andanthropologistsuring he colonial period,was, no doubt, hebeginning fwritingsabout them.The ethnographicccounts recorded are based mainlyon observationand informationrom ocal informantshrough nterpreters.hese have become themain sourcesofhistory, esides oral traditional istory, or hepeople who have nowritten istory f their own. So, one cannot avoid the colonial ethnographies ounderstandhehistory f thetribal, heir xperiencesduring he colonial periodhadchanged,transformednd shapedthem ntowhatthey re now.This paperdeals withtheZo people inManipur,which form portion f the wholepopulation of the Zo people, who inhabited the Indo-Myanmar-Bangladeshborderland.Manipur is a small State in the NorthEasternRegion of India. It issituated n between 93.2 East and 94.47 West Longitudeand 23.50 South and25.41 North Latitude. Anthropologists ivided the populationof Manipur intothreemain ethnicgroupssuch as theMeitei,theNaga, and the Zo (Kuki-Chin).Geographically,Manipur is divided into the valley and the hill areas. The Meiteiinhabited hevalley,whereas the Zo people and theNagas inhabited he Hill areascovering around 90 % of the total geographical area of Manipur.L.LAM KHAN PIANG, Lecturer, epartmentf Planning nd Evaluation,NationalInstitutef Health ndFamilyWelfare, ew Delhi. E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/19

44 CLAN,IALECT ND RIBEDENTITY

In thispaper the name Zo is employedfortheentireKuki-Chinpeople, as the useof thishyphenatedname to identifyhem is challenged on the groundthat thesenames are colonial constructs.twas imposed upon themas N.K. Das (1989:198)argued, The self-name of the tribalgroupshave been neglectedand the namegiven by theirneighbourshave been imposed . The names Kuki and Chin areacquired in the process of their encounterwith colonial ethnographers romdifferent irections. hose ethnographershrough engal picked upthe nameKuki,with which the Bengalis used to identifyhem,whereasthosewho came throughBurmapicked up thename Chin from he Burmese.However, writers, thnographersnd anthropologistshave often clubbed themtogether s an entity nd write s Kuki-Chingroup.1 thnographersmentioned hatZo is the name by which the Kuki/Chincalled themselves. Wherever carefulethnographerssed the name Kuki orChin,theyusuallymentioned longwiththewords- 'the people did notrecognised his Chin/Kuki)name'. It is worthnotingthat,writers ike F.M. Rundall and G.A. Grierson 1967) made it clear thatZo isthe namewithwhich thepeople identifyhemselves.2It is believed that he name Kuki and Chin weregiventotheZo people on thebasisof thedescriptions f theirbehavioralcharacter ytheirneighbours theBengalisand Burmanrespectively. or instance, hemeaningof the name Kuki,withwhichtheBengalese recognisedthem, s believedto be a 'wild hill tribe'.Perhaps, tmaybe because theyoften raided theirneighbours. n the same way, some scholarsbelieved that the name Chin means 'basket', as the Burmese often seen themcarrying basket.Whatever tmaybe, these names were constructed n thebasisof some kind of description bout thembytheothers,which is completely lien tothem and nothingto do with their culture.They are survived as the colonialgovernment mployedofficiallyo identifyhe Zo people.As discussed above thesenames are more or less descriptivenamesgivento themby theirneighboursand lateremployed by the colonial ethnographers. o, thegroupidentity,which is constructed n the basis of thedescriptions f behavioralcharactersprovidedby theneighboursof thegroup,and arbitrarilymployedbythe ethnographers,nthropologists,dministrators, ilitary fficers, nd even bythe state nstitution o as to identify humangroupbyencapsulating hemwithinthe frameof a name can be termed as identikit-identity.3ven thoughvariousnames such as Kuki, Chin, Shendu, etc., were imposed on them,ethnographerstreated hem as a single entity.t is because they ould discern theuniqueculturalas well as linguistic ffinityhat xistedamongst heZo people.The social intercoursemongthegroups s within heframe r format f a culturethough ach grouphas slight ocal differentiationf cultural lements.So, there s



4/19

IndianAnthropologist2008) 38:1,43-59 45

no hurdle n any social intercourse s thecounterpartan respond any action fromone group in an expected manner. Such culture I would like to term as'reciprocative ulture',as it convinced theethnographers, ho understood he Zopeople,to club togethern spiteof theirvariousimposednames. By 'reciprocativeculture',I mean, sharingof certaincultural raits hatbridgecertaingroupseventhough they appear to have distinctculture. The shared cultural attributes hatexists across the various groups within the Zo society made them a culturalcollectivityhatprominentlytood out.Problematising the concept of TribeSociologists as well as Anthropologists ave takentheir wn varying tandpointoemphasizedifferentriteria r features nd, thus,have failedto agree on a generaldefinition f what constitutes tribe.Many social scientistswho work on tribalsocieties usuallywould like to define tribe ccordingto the empiricaldata,whichhe/sheacquired from his/her ield studies. To really understand nd define theconceptoftribe, ne needs toconsider hegroup organisation f thesocietyas wellas the kinship and marriagesystemto locate the individual as a member ofparticular roup.A society entails both kinshipand polity,both status and contracts. What isdistinctives theirrelative laboration nd differentiation,heirrelativeweight ndscope in different ector of social life (Fortes, 1969: 220). Though each tribalsociety appears to have severalways of social organisationwithin hesociety, necan discover some elements,which is fundamental nd general.RadcliffeBrown(1950:2) emphasised that social structures eed to be compared so that theirdifferencesmay be defined and beneath their differencesmore fundamental ndgeneralresemblancemaybe discovered.To have a properunderstandingf the social organisation f a community,ne hasto observe carefully nd identifywhich social identity oes the individualgivesprioritynd loyalty.Social grouping ystemor social organisation s a ubiquitousculturalelement of any sopiety, s it is the mechanismmaintaining s well asgeneratingocial order.In his studyof the Nuer society,Evans Pritchard1940) suggestedan analyticalmodel known as the segmentary ineage system.According to this, a tribe issegmented nto sub-sectionat different tructuralevel down to that of the localcommunity nd its sub-sectionhas a dominantdescentgroup. Descent group, nturn egmentsfrom he level of the clan dominant n a given tribe to that of theminimal lineage, but it is not necessarythat the members of the descentgroupwould reside in the territoryf the section where it is dominant.Evans Pritchard



5/19


thereforearefully istinguishedhe descentframeworkrom hepolitico-territorialstructure f the tribe and their section. This model proposes that a tribe issegmented long lineage lines,where ineageis a genealogical segment f the clan.Among the Nuer, 'political and lineage groups are not identical but theyhavecertaincorrespondenceand often bear the same name, for a tribal area and itsdivisions are often called after he clans and lineageswhich are suppose to havefirst ccupied them' (Pritchard, 940:194). In short, tribe mongsttheNuer canbe defined s the argest erritorial nitwithinwhichthe member f the tribewouldunite gainstexternal ggression nd settle heir nternal ifferences yarbitration.Meyer Fortes (1940:153), who studied the kinshipand marriagesystemof theAshanti, says that, The political history nd structure f the state decisivelyinfluences he whole social order of Ashanti'.Among theAshanti there are eightclans and every ineage belongsto one or the other f these clans and everyclan isusually represented n everydomain of their chief.Thus, tribeamong the Akantribaisorparticularly,he Ashanti s a number f clans who occupied a certain reaor territory, here the clan chiefsacknowledge one chiefamong themselvesas aking.Anothertribal society that gives emphasis to clan is the Zulu of Natal. MaxGluckman (1950: 166) wrote that in the Zulu system corporate lineage and itssegmentsendure n timeirrespectivef changes in personnel, nd form he nucleiof villages and local groupings.A tribe, mongthem s divided into a number fexogamous clans, each of which is an association of dispersed agnatic lineages,which are corporategroupof kingroupswho trace common descent. The lineageswithin clan are usuallyresidential nit.Theirsegments re cores ofvillagesand anumber f segments iving n one neighbourhood rom recognised group againstother imilargroups ntheir wn and other lans.Radcliffe Brown (1913; 1918), who worked among the tribes of Australia,Andaman Islands, etc., mentioned hat a tribe is a linguisticgroup,divided intolocal groupswho were primarily andowningand landholding groups. For him,tribe is a body of persons having certainhomogeneity f language and customsufficient o permit hem to be as a group,and demarcate them as distinctfromother nd neighbouring roups. Regarding he Andamantribes,he says that tribeconsistedof a number f local groups ll speakingwhatthepeople regarded s onelanguage.From the above discussion it could, perhaps be concluded that the veryintroductionf the conceptof tribetendsto be problematic s scholars articulatetheirown definitions uited to theirempiricalsituations. The termtribe, n thecontextof the Zo people, is confusingand controversial, s in the case of theAfrican tribais. CharlotteSeymour-Smith1986:281) wrote, In the contextof



6/19


colonial and postcolonial Africa, ribehas been subjectof considerable debate anddisagreement s ithas shownthattheconceptof tribe... tribaldivisionand tribalconsciousness were largelya creation of the efforts f colonial ruler to imposeorder nd supralocal unity pon previously argely utonomous ocal communitiesand wherethere was previously loose and contextually elative sense of ethnicidentity. he realization of the artificialnatureof theconcept of tribegeneratedrejection among anthropologists nd among Africanpoliticiansand intellectuals,who began more and more to question the relevance of the concept for theinterpretationf contemporaryAfrican social and political organisation.Thusmodern nthropologists referoemploythe notion thnicity.In employingthe conceptof 'tribe' for a groupof people thus,one may have tofirst ackle questions like what is the basis of their ocial organization nd socialsolidarity.How far s thesystemfunctional nd continue o function s the base ofsocial solidarity n the society? It is imperative o clarify hese questions beforedealingwiththeconstruction f theconceptof tribe hat nmesheswiththesystemon which the social solidaritys based.So far as the Zo people of Manipur are concerned, it is difficultor ratherimpossibleto define a tribe ccurately.Unlikemanyother ribal societies that redivided into tribes nd furtherntoclans,the Zo people on the whole were dividedinto clans and dispersed randomly occupying a contiguous geographical areas,which they regardedas their homeland. In some areas, of course, a clan maydominate numerical over other and together hey speak the same dialect. But,members f that ame clan speakingdifferent ialect could be found n some areas,as differencendialects is engendered y lackof communications a result fpoorinfrastructure.Thus, it is not possible to studythe existingtribesin isolation. Evans Pritchard(1940) maintained that there is a close relation between territorialegmentandlineage segment.However, ntheZo society he members fa lineage, segments fa clan, move together n search of new settlements. hey may settlealong with alineage of another lan and marry ach otherforming relationship hrough heirkinship system.Theirobligationnotonly lies in the clan but also in theirkinshipidiom.Delving deep into the Zo social structure,t can be seen that he base of the socialsolidaritys on whatthey alled Beh (Clan). Dun (1992: 32) wrotethat, The word'clan' is undoubtedly he best to applyto the Kuki (Zo) sub-division . This showsthe mportance f clan as the base of the Zo social structure. owever,members feach clan were randomlydispersedwithinthe Zo territory;s a result,various



7/19


groupshave differentocialization due to infrequentocial intercoursehat hapedthe ndividuals ocio-cultural ehavior.This facilitates and engenderedthe formation f dialectal identity, esides theexistingclan identitynd it has become more of a regional identity.When triberecognitionwas done on the basis of dialect,without onsidering he Zo traditionalgroup organisationbased on clan, it createdproblemswithin he Zo society.As aresult, it led to the emergence of a crosscutting f tribe, clan and dialectalidentities.Consequently,many people are marginalized s theirdialectal identityand their lan identity verlapwith ach other.Clan IdentityIn the Zo society,an individual s born as a memberof his/her ather's lan. Thisreflectsthe patrilinealnature of the Zo society. For an individual to claimmembershipof the Zo community, e/she should be able to identify nd tracegenealogical links withone of theZo clans. A clan is a systemof lineages and alineage is a genealogical segmentof a clan. The Zo clan is divided intomanybranches of lineages or sub-clans. They refer o lineages as Phung and clan iscalled as Beh (Chi in Duhlian/Mizo).The social solidarity n the Zo society isbased on Beh (clan). The Beh is an agnatic groupbased on consanguinerelationthat claim common ancestor, it is unbreakable bond of relationshipfor themembers.The formation f clan is relatedto their hieftainship ystem, s it is usuallydonebya powerful hief. He initiates new clan withhis name as thenameof the clan.So, in dealing with the formation f clan it is necessaryto studythe systemofchieftainship.Ray (1990: 8) divided the chiefamong theThado-Kukis, intothreetypes,viz., the clan chief,the traditional hiefand territorialhief. The originalclan chief is the direct lineal descent of the original progenitor, he traditionalvillage chief are theyoungerbranches f theoriginalclan and theterritorialhief,in mostcases, are from common stock.He saysthat, oththetraditional hief ndterritorial hiefusually initiated new genealogical line starting romhis own andsomehowconnecting t with hemythologicalncestor.The formation f new clan always goes alongwithfoundingnew settlement, hichis regarded s a noble deed (Khai, 1995: 141). So, it is clear thatformation fclanand chieftainshipystem s related, s claimingor tracing ts link to theoriginalprogenitor outinised nd legitimised f the newlyfounded clan. It is due to theformation f new clans, besides theoriginal ine,emergeda numerousnumber fclans within the Zo society. The existingclans are the name of progenitors r



8/19


personswho were once popularas a chieforparamount hief. When a man becamepopularas a chief,people from thervillage recognisedhis subjects byhis name.For example, Khanthuam of Sukte clan had six sons and out of them Kamhaubecame very popular, as he was a greatwarrior nd influential.He frequentlyraided the subjects of the Manipur Raja in between 1834-50. Therefore,peoplewho lived withinhis chiefdomwere recognised by others s Kamhau people withthepassage of time his descendantsbeganto use his name as a clan name,thoughthey belong to Sukte clan. There are a numberof personswhose names appearedwhile tracingback theirgenealogy,but it has no importance xcept to link thegenealogicalmap of some popular personality. hus, this s how theexisting lanswithin he Zo societyare formed. nitially tmighthave been merely name of aperson,nevertheless,volved as a clan name with hepassage of time.In the Zo traditional ocietythere are two main priests village priestand clanpriest. Villages are generally populated by members of various clans whichresulted in the existence two types priest. However, in the case of a villagepopulated by only one clan members, he clan priestcan be the village priest swell. The clan priest s a uniqueascriptive tatus,which is handedfromgenerationto generationn a particularineagewithin clan. To perform itual nd sacrificesto the clan god, the clan priesthas to go fromvillage to village as onlythe clanpriest raditionally erforms he ritual n the ancestorworship.The clan god wascalled Pusa (spiritof ancestor)and SumtawngBiakna, which means worshipofhouseholdbenefactor.The solidarity mong the clan members s manifested n the practiceof ancestorworship,clansmen's social obligationsto each other, nd the relationshipn theinstitution f Indongta4 (household council). The relationshipand solidarityamongst he clansmenis not confined nlywithin village rather arbeyond.The'we-feeling' amongthemembers f a clan is regulatedbytheir raditional eligiouspractice,as a result, t is stronger nd has structuralmportance han the 'we-feeling existingwithin hevillage community mongdifferentlans. So, all thesecontributed, esides descent from common ancestor,for the existence of 'we-feeling among clan members. The significanceof clan as a social identity smanifested n many ways in the Zo societymore particularlyn the aspects ofsocial relationship. hus,thesolidarity ased on clan is the most mportantondofrelationshipn theZo social structure.Emergence of Dialect based GroupsThe topographyof their settlement s one of the factors responsible for theemergenceof variousdialectsamongst he Zo people. Except for some part n the



9/19


presentBurma and Manipur India) mostoftheZo inhabited reas is covered withthickforest nd hillyterrain hatmade communication ifficult. nce they nteredthehill areas, the steepmountains nd deep gorgestransformedhe Zo people inmany ways. It was hard to findflat and large enoughto hold largesettlement;s aresult, hey plit up into mallergroupsmostlywith he same family f clan settlingin the same village. Thus, they ost their ense of national dentityor nationhood](Kipgen, 1997: 42).They practiceshifting ultivationfor their ivelihood,as there s no flat and forsettled wet-cultivation. or hum cultivation,which is also called slash and burncultivation, heyneed a largetract f land attached o theirvillages, so as to shifttheirhum field fromtime to time to conserve the fertilityf the soil. In humcultivation, he longerthe hum cycle the better t is for the used jhum field torecover tsfertility.his is one of thereasonswhy theyhave infrequentnteractionwith the people livingin othervillages as theirvillages were establishedquite along distanceapartfrom ach other.Thus, difficultiesf communication etweenthe scatteredvillages made each locality developed its own way of speaking,dressing,manners nd customs ibid. 42)Some are of theopinionthatvarious dialectsemergedbecause of the tribalfeuds.As theywereoccasionally engaged in tribalfeud due to contention ver hum land,village boundary, he rise of paramount hief and the like. Theywanted to have adistinctway of speaking so as to confuse theirenemy in the war. In fact, t isdifficult o ascertainthevalidityof thistheoryhowever, t is certainthat variousdialects emerged in the course of theirhistory.Whatever it may be the reason,whetherdue to tribalfeud or hum cultivation,t is certain that various dialectsemergeddue to infrequentnteractionhat ed themto speak in a slightly istinctway, a littledrifted way from heoriginal anguage. This, in turnhad became adistinctdialect with the passage of time. In spite of splittingup into variousdialects,the inguistic ffinitys discernable ven today.The most interesting art s that hey ould converseamongstthe variousdialectalgroups withoutdifficulty y each using their own dialect. Basing on dialect,variousdialectalgroups emergedconsistof differentlans,which became more ofa regional identity.As a result,members of a same clan are found in differentdialectalgroups.Withtheemergence fparamount hief over a cluster fvillages,the dialect spoken bythechief became the lingua franca within hepolitico-jyraldomain of the chief. From his domain emerged a dialect based group thatconstituted arious clans which was often reated y ethnographers,nthropologistsand some colonial administratorss a distinct ribe.



10/19


Earlier n the Zo society,when theway of speakingof a certainvillage or area hada slightlocal variation fromotherareas, a name was given or attached to thisunique way of speaking.This namemaybe named after ne of thefollowing ikelocationof the area, village name,clan name, dynasticname and even dependingon the mark of its uniqueness labeled to them by the others. When theethnographers ecognisedthis name as a tribename, the group speaking in thatunique way became a tribe. It is not necessarilythat such group identitieswill,survive.However, its survivaldepends upon whether t is being selected by thepostcolonialstate o be enlisted n the ConstitutionScheduled Tribes) List.Dialect based Group into Tribe: Legalizing Tribe-IdentityThe construction f tribe-identitys a legal-identity, esides the dialect basedgroup dentitys well as the dentityased on theprimordial ocial identityuch asclan,withthe interventionf the state created morecomplication n theprocessofidentity ormation mongstthe Zo people. The legal-identitys constitutedbyintroducinghe concept of 'tribe' and then constitutionalised y enlisting n 'theConstitutionScheduled Tribes) Order, 1950', based predominantly n the 1931census of India. Consequently, contestationemerged between the traditionalgrouping ystem nd thealien concept, .e.,Tribe. Before the advent of theBritish,thecontact of the Zo people with thepeople outside their erritory as mainly nthe form fraid or traderelations.Few had written boutthem ndetail,whereas,some writersmentioned hemonlyas a passingreference.However,from heChin Lushai Expedition1889, theyweresubjected to suppression,division and oppression. They were classified intovarious groups by ethnographers y employingthe term tribe' for each group,thoughsome authors like J. Shakespear (1912) used the term clan. The veryintroductionf theconceptof tribe s problematic, s it is difficult o have proper,consistent, oherent, nd clear criteria o definethe term ribe nd applyto variousgroupswithin he Zo society.The President s authorizedbyArticle 342 of theConstitution f India issued theConstitutionScheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 that recognised the Zo people inManipur as Kuki or any Kuki tribes in Manipur. To give suggestion for anychanges thatmightbe necessaryin the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribeslists, the Presidentas authorizedby Article 340 of the Constitution, ppointedBackward Classes Commission (BCC) on 29thJanuary 953 with Shri KakasahebKalekar as the Chairman. This Commission was formally naugurated n the 18thMarch 1953.



11/19

52 CLAN,IALECT ND RIBEDENTITYThe Commission submitted tsreport n the 30thMarch 1955. The proposalsmadeby the Commission were contained in Vol.-II of their reports.Based on therecommendationmade by the Commission the Scheduled Castes & ScheduledTribes Order (Amendment)Bill was introduced y the Ministerof Home Affairsand Heavy IndustriesShri Pandit G.B. Pant in the Lok Sabha in 1956. Themodified SC/ST listbytheparliamentAct in 1956 segmented ach oftheexistingtribal community, particularly in Manipur, into various distinct tribes,unnecessarily, ven thoughthe criteriagiven by the Commission did not evensuggest for such division. Especially in the case of the Zo (Kuki) people thesegmentation ppearedto be based on differencesnspeakingdialects.When the bill was discussed in the Parliament, hri Rishang Keishing M.P. ofOuter Manipur Parliamentary onstituencypointed out the discrepanciesof theBill. He demandedto the Minister oncernedby sayingthat, eitherthey tribes nManipur and Assam] should be classified as a distinct tribe or a sub tribeeverywhere.A uniformpolicy has to be followed everywhere' {Lok SabhaDebates, 1956, col. 6103). He cited some examples to show the inconsistency fcriteria,whichtheBCC had used inAssam,Manipur nd other tates.He pointedout that In Assam the Hmars were treated s a distinct ribe,whereasin Tripurastatetheywere treated s a sub-tribe f Kuki tribe.Again in Manipur,the same Hmar were made an independent ribe, s distinctfromKuki tribe.Healso said that, n Assam Thadous, Guites and Sitlhous and so manyothers havebeen classified as Kuki. But inManipureverytribe s independent f the other. nrelation to the Naga community,he said that the Tangkhul were treated asindependent ribe of the Naga in Manipur. But, in Assam all the sub-tribes ikeTangkhul,Mao, Angami,Lotha, Ao, Kabui, Sema etc. come underthemaintribe,namelyNaga {Lok Sabha Debates op. cit.,col. 6103).Thoughhe made itclearthat here rediscrepancies n the list as amended,nothingwas done to reconsider.Seven MPs {Lok Sabha Debates, Col. 6554 Vol. Ill, Part-Il, 2.7th ugustto 13theptember1956) votedagainst t whentheBill was passed inthe Parliament. Found helpless, theyeven demanded that their names should berecorded, s these M.P.s weremostlyfrom he communities r regions, he bill asamended had affected.The SCs/STs Lists (Modification)Order, 1956 deleted or excluded the generalcommon names - Naga and Kuki - of the tribais nManipur by segmentingheminto29 tribes. It appears that this process has played a divisive role among thetribais n Manipur.These new tribeswereformed n the basis of eitherdialects orclans,which are overlapping ntheZo society.However,these tribeshave becomelegal identity hen theParliamentAct, 1956,constitutionalisedhem.



12/19


Mahmood Mamdani (2003: 663) wrote If the aw recognises you as member f anethnicity,nd the state nstitutionsreatyou as memberofthatparticular thnicity,thenyou become an ethnicbeing legally. By contrast,f the law recognises you asa member of racial groupthenyour legal identitys racial. You understandyourrelationshipto the state and your relationship o other legally defined groupsthrough he mediation of law and of the state,as a consequence of your legallyinscribed dentity. imilarly,you understand our nclusionor exclusionfrom ightor entitlement ased on your egallydefined nd inscribed ace orethnicity. n thesame way if the Law of the State recognised you as a tribal,you will be tribal slongas the state exists. Even ifthe state vanisheddue to certainreasons we cannotsaywithcertaintyhat he tribal dentity ill vanishalong withthe state.The tribalidentityr the tribalness' has become an ascriptive dentityhat annot be shakenoff.In considering he whole of Zo societywe come across certain nconsistenciesnrelationto theirpolitical/legal dentity using Mamdani (2003) term,). n India,before ndependencetheywere recognised s tribais, nd after ndependence heywere subjected to division into various tribesby the Constitution ScheduledTribes) Order,1950 of the Constitution f India and the subsequentModificationList in 1956. In Myanmar Burma) they re notgiven any such legal identitys atribal,so as to be treatedthem as different thnic or more backward than theBurmeseethnicby the Constitution f Burma (1947). They are on equal footingwiththeBurmeseethnic, n the federal tructure f the Union of Burma before heJuntas overnmentoup thegovernment.The segmentation f theZo people into differentribes, specially in ManipurandAssam, is the resultofthenegligenceof theBackward Classes Commission BCC)as evidentin theirreport 1955). Instead of thorough nvestigation,heysimplygave certain criteriafor the inclusion of a group in the Scheduled Tribes List ofIndia.Theydistributeduestionnaire o each state longwiththefollowing riteria:The Scheduled Tribes can be generally scertainedbythe factthat hey ive apartin thehills,and even wherethey ive on theplains, they ead a separateexcludedexistenceand are notfully ssimilated n themain bodyof thepeople. ScheduledTribesmay belongto any religion.Theyare listed as Scheduled Tribes because ofthe kindof life ed bythem.

Had the criteriabeen followedaccordingly herewould not be any segmentationwithin he Zo people, as nothingwas mentionedforsegmentation f the existingtribes. Even though the criteria given to each state are the same, but theinterpretationsf each of the state are different.hus, in the case of Assam andManipur the STs/STs Lists (modification)Order, 1956 unnecessarily egmentedthe Zo (Kuki) communitynto dialectal based-tribes. n short, he SCs/STs Lists



13/19

54 CLAN, IALECT ND RIBEDENTITY

(modification)Order,1956 some selected local variation' ofways of speaking rerecognised as dialect, and based on these dialects,constructed nd recognisedalocal group-identity,hich s called tribe.While writingGazetteerof Manipurin (1886, 1992), Captain E.W. Dun groupedthe whole Zo people, who are now divided and listed into various tribes in theScheduled Tribes List of the Constitution f India, as Kuki. He wrotethat, theword clan' is undoubtedly he best to applyto the Kuki sub-division. t is evidentfrom hegenealogies oftheir hiefs,which have been preservedfrom arliertimesthat each clan has simplycalled itself fter he name of itschief,and theprocessmay be observed going on at the present day' (Dun, 1992: 32). Thus, withoutproperknowledge of the people, the BCC accepted the recommendation f thestate.For example,Dun has mentionedn the Gazetteer bout the Simmte with Sumkmas the Chief. In thegenealogyof Guiteclan, Sumkm was the chief of the Guite(Wite) afterthe death of his fatherGoukhawthang.So it can be discerned thatGuitewere called PaihteinthethenLushai Hills and Simmte nManipur. n simplelogic, the Paihte mentionedbyJ. Shakespearin his book, The Lushei Kuki Clan(1912) and the Simmte mentionedby Captain E.W. Dun in GazetteerofManipur(1886) are the same. It is because this group inhabitedthe border areas of thepresentManipurandMizoram(Lushai Hills) boundary ine,whichwas demarcatedbytheBritish olonial government. evertheless, he Scheduled Castes/ScheduledTribes (Modification) Order List, 1956, recognisedthemas differentribe withSimte new spellingof Simmte)tribebased on Khuangnung village name) dialectand Paite (Paihte) tribe based on Lamzang (village name) dialect as a result heyare segmented ntotwo distinct ribes.Afterbeingdivided and recognized nto various dialectalbased tribes, ach of thetribepromoted particular ialect,which has ust a slight local variation'5fromheother ocal areas, fortheir ribe anguage. In 1870, T. H. Lewin (1984: 249) wrotethat, The different ribes of Lhoosai also on our frontier peak (with slightdifferences)hesame dialect;and this, oo, in spiteof all these tribesbeing widelyscattered partover thecountry,nd inmany ases havingno intercoursewith achother'.In Manipur, each recognized tribe promotesone dialect amongst others. Forexample,the Paite' (Paihte) promotes he Lamzang' dialect,the Simte' promotesthe Khuangnung' dialect,the Thadou' promotes he Thadou' (a clan) dialect, tc.There are manymore ocal variations,which could be termed s locally recogniseddialects,but notrecognisedby thegovernmento be the base fora distinct ribe.These dialects are not less eligible than the selected one, to be the base of the



14/19


recognisedtribes. t is thusclear thatonlycertain selected few were used as thebase or anchor forthe solidarity f thepeople usingthatdialect,as well as otherswho use anotherdialect nearer o it,but notbeing selected forthepurposeof theconstruction f tribe dentity. his wholeprocessesresult nto hetransformationfdialectalgroup intotribe nd theforging f dialectalgroupto fit nto the frame ftheconceptof tribehasmarginalized ome sectionsofpopulation.The overlappingof their lan identitynd the tribe dentity as been a problemforthismarginalised ection.Thus, it can be discerned hat he ntroductionfthetribeconcept,which s alien to thepeople, engendered contestation etween raditionalgrouping ystembased on clan and the alien concept i.e., tribe. This impliesthatthe state interventionn the tribeidentity ormation as no considerationof theculturalpracticesand the traditional roupingsystemof the people. This wholeprocess of segmentationwas sanctified y the translation f the Bible thatkeptapermanent ifferentiationmongthoserecogniseddialects.In defending heBill, ShriPataskar, he thenMinister f Legal Affairs, arliamentof India, mentioned that the amendment was done according to therecommendations f the BCC report.This BCC reportwas drafted n accordancewith theresponsesof the stategovernmento thequestionnairedistributed ytheBCC to each state. The Government s well as the Commission was not,perhaps,aware of theproblemthatwill arise because of thediscrepancies,whichtheyhavecommitted. t also even appeared thattheywere not aware of the fact thattheywereforming tribe dentity or ertaindialect based groups.No one can deny the fact that the BCC have not done a properresearch as it iswrittenntheir eport hat,As far s Assam andManipurare concerned t was notpossible forus to go intodetails, ust because of lack of communication nd wantof time,and secondly, informationn the possession of governmentwas neitheradequate norup to date' (BCC report,1955:155, Vol. I). Thus, it is very clearlyshown that there s a kind of negligenceon thepartof the BCC from he abovequotation, ndealingwithAssam andManipur.Emergence ofcrosscutting dentityThe existenceof various dialects was not a problemuntil he state ntroduced ribeconcept based on dialect for a group identity.With the introduction f dialectalbased tribe dentity,hree social identities iz., clan, dialect and tribeexist withinthe Zo society.The whole processof listing f tribes n theScheduledTribes Listhas became a 'Tower of Babel' for the Zo people, as furtheregmentationwasdone on the basis of dialectal variation.So, it plays a divisive role rather hanempowering hem, s theoutcomeis againstthe intention f the whole processof



15/19

56 CLAN,IALECT ND RIBE DENTITY.....

enlisting heScheduled Tribes.Thoughtheobjectiveof the Order s to identifyndenlist tribes o be entitled hestatutoryenefit nshrined n theconstitution,t hadan adverseeffect n the Zo society n the form f conflict mongthe dialectalgroupthathas puton a mask oftribe dentity.Members of a clan disperse among various tribes and speak various slightlydifferentialects as a resultof lack of constant ommunication ngenderedbythetopographyof theirterritorynd regionaldifferences. o, legally members of aclan become differentribe.But, somehow,the tie that binds themembersof thesame clan lingered, s it s the mechanism or hefunctioningf thekinship ystemin the Zo society. The role played by the clan in the functioning f socialinstitutions ike the Inndongta household council) and also as a base of socialsolidarity overtly annot be takenup totallybydialect based tribe.As such, t canbe discerned that clan is still functioningcross the boundaries of dialect basedgroupsthat ransformedntotribes.Thus, some clans have theirmembers nmanytribes nd ifmajority f clan membershappenedto be in a certain ribethentheyclaimed theirfellow clan memberswho wereminorityn other ribe, s their wntribemembers.As the criteriafortribemembershipdepended on what dialect the individualisspeaking, t resulted n theexistenceof core group nside theexisting ribe, ormedbythe dominant lan or clans. There arepeople in theperipherywithin tribe,whoare marginalisedas a resultof theircrosscutting-social dentity.Clan identitysimportantor n individual, s it s inevitable n thefunctioningf social institutionlike, kinship, household council etc. Even though the dialect based identityappeared to be moreprominentnd importanthanthe clan based identity,s it isconstitutionalsed, it cannot take over the role played by the clan withinthe Zosocial structure.Recognitionof dialectal groups by the Government f India as distinct ribe srather n aberrationfromthe Zo traditional rouping systemwhich is based onclan. It is evidentthatdialect was beingused as the criterion ortriberecognitionby the SCs/STs Lists (modification)Order, 1956. However, it could not befollowedconsistently s clan identityf more importanthan dialectal identity.thas become problematic s members f a clan do not concentrate n one particulargeographical area or village rather heymixed with other clans and adopt anydialect.This is possiblebecause they re a communityivingtogethernd sharing'reciprocative ulture'with light ocal variations n dialect.They practice inter-marriage,hare common myths,folklores, egend etc. Evenclaim common originfrom a mythological ave thattheycalled 'Khul/KhurorChhinlung/Sinlung'.nterestingly,heyhave linguistic ffinitynd could converse



16/19


one anotherby using their own dialects. This shows that,the Zo people are notmerely conglomeration f various tribes. William Shaw (1983:16.) wrote, TheKoms, Aimols, Khothlangs,Thadou, Lushei, Chins, Pois, Suktes, Paites,Gangtesetc. are undoubtedly ll connected. The language alone has manysimilarities ndthesyntax s not dissimilar'.The Government f Manipur mighthave their wn reason/reasons orsegmentingtheZo (Kuki) into various tribes.However,the criteriagiven in thequestionnaireof the BCC did not mentionfor uch segmentationf theexisting ribes. tmaybearguedthat some leaders submittedmemorandum o the Union Home Minister obe recognisedas a distinct ribe. Butmanyof thegroups recognisedas a tribebythe ST List (Modification) Order, 1956 did not submit any representation rmemorandum or them to be included in the List, forexample, like Sukte, Ralte,Lushai, Angami, etc. There are some groups who submittedmemorandumforinstance, he Paite National Council, demandingthe recognition f the Paite as adistinct ribeof India,dated 18lhNovember1955,to the Minister f Home Affairs,Government f India.6However,even this memorandumwas submitted fter heBCC had submitted heir eport.Therefore,t is clear that the State Government s well as the Backward ClassesCommissiondid not take any effort o preserve he Zo (Kuki) people as a singleentityas the Britishrecognisedthe Zo people as Kuki) instead they segmentedinto varioustribes nd deleted the nameKuki completelyfrom he Schedule TribeList inManipur in 1956. This unnecessary egmentation f the tribalcommunitiesin Manipur created problems by disturbing he ethno-politicalequations. Thesegmentation f the tribalcommunitieshad itsrepercussion n thepoliticalarena,as a result the assertion of the majority communityover the segmentedcommunities.This led to a situation like a covert-militocracyn the state ofManipur, where the undergroundmilitants run the democratically electedgovernment.ConclusionThe introductionf tribeconcept is problematic mongstthe Zo people because itis notpossible to accuratelydemarcate the tribeboundary.Moreover all theclangroupswere mixedup in variousvillages inthe course of history. o, variousclangroups living together n a village speak a language witha slightlocal variationfrom hatof the others.The clan identity, hich is the social primarydentity,ndthe dialectal identitythat ratherhas become a regional identity, annot beconflated.These identities re not co-terminalrather heyare overlapping.So,whentribe dentity n the basis of dialect is introduced t is inconsistentwith theZo traditionalgroupingsystem,which is based on clan. In the process there



17/19

58 CLAN,IALECT ND RIBE DENTITY

emergeda situation n whichmembersfrom particular lan will find hemselvesindifferentribesdependinguponthedialectthey peak.This problemarise as the role and importance f the clan identityn the Zo culturecould notbe takenover by the dialect based identitys well as the tribe dentitywithin he Zo social structure. ome sections are marginalised s majority ftheirclansmen speak different ialect thatdetermined heirtribe identity. o legally,theycould notbe a partof their lansmen tribebutculturally heyhave inductedeach other n their nndongta Household Council) social institution. ence, thesewhole processes led to theemergenceof crosscutting dentitywherean individualhas plural social identities uch as clan, dialect and tribe,and its importance sbased on cultural,regionaland legal respectively.The segmentationhas had farreachingsocio-political repercussions hat shakenthe stable ethnicbalance, as aconsequence variousethnicmobilizationmovements merged nManipur.

AcknowledgmentsI would ike othanknonymousefereesndthe ditors ohelpme revise his aper ndbringt othis orm.

Notes1 See Betram . Carey& H.N.Tuck,1896,TheChinHills Vol. I, Rangoonnwhichtis writtenhat,The Kuki ofManipur,he Lushaihill ofBengalandAssam, nd theChinoriginallyived nwhatwe nowknow s ThibetTibet) ndare oneandthe amestock; heir orm fgovernment,ethods fcultivation,anner ndcustoms,elievesandtraditions,ll point o oneorigin . lso see G.O. Newport,MissionWork mongtheLushai', nRev. Culliforded.), 1894,TheHarvest ield:AMissionary agazineThirdSeries,Vol. V, July1893 to December1894. p. 292, He wrote, It is nowgenerallyecognised ythosewhohavecarefullytudied he ubject,hat heLushais,theChins, heKukis, ndotherribes n ournorth-eastrontierrereally ll branchesof one and the ame tribe.Roughlypeaking,hose fthehilldenizenswho dwelltothe astofthehills re called Chins ,while hose othewest re calledLushais .2 G.A. Grierson,n hisLinguisticurvey f ndiamentioned,The name Chin) is notusedbythetribe hemselves housedtitles uchas Zo or Yo orSho .2Whereas .MRundall lso wrote: I do notknow he rigin f thenameChin; t sBurmese fancy;anyhow he Chinsdo not know the word and call themselves o, Zote beingtheplural .3 The OxfordDictionaryefines Identikit's set ofpicturesfdifferenteatureshatcan be fittedogethero form hefaceof a personwith hehelpofdescriptionsivenby people who have seen him.So by identikit-identitymean the identityf a



18/19

IndianAnthropologist2008)38:1,43-59 59

community,hich s usually he nameof thecommunity,ivenor constructedyethnographersr anthropologistsn the basis of thedescriptionsboutthepeoplecharacteristiceatures resentedy informantsr theirneighbours.t is usually nimposed ame nmost ases, s thepeople hemselveso not allby uchnames.4 Inndongta:he household amilyouncil' hat s formedo take caresthe nternalswell as external ffairs f thehousehold amily.t consists f the clansmen fthehousehold amily,isters,estfriendndsomedistant elativesfromnotherlan)oftheheadofthefamily.5 Local variation xistamongst communitypeaking same language f there sinfrequentocialinteractionue to certain easons ike ack ofproperommunication,administrativenitboundary, eligion, enomination,tc. Here,the phrase4localvariation's used toemphasizehenegligible ifferencesetween hevarious ialects,which sbeingusedbythe tateIndia)tobethebase ofthe ribedentityithinheZosociety articularlyn the tate fManipurndAssam.6 MemorandumubmittedythePaiteNationalCouncildemandingherecognitionfPaite as a distinctribe f ndiato theHon'ble HomeMinister, ovt, f ndia, nthe18th ovember 955,NewChurachandpur.References

Das, N. K. 1989.Ethnic-Identitythnicitynd Social StratificationnNorth ast India.New Delhi: nter-Indiaublications.Dun,E.W. 1992.GazetteerfManipur. elhi:ManasPublicationsFirst ublished: 886).Evans-Pritchard,.E. 1940. The Nuer A Description fthe Modes ofLivelihood ndPolitical nstitutionfNeolithiceople.Oxford: larendon ress.Fortes,Meyer.1969.Kinship nd the ocial Order TheLegacy ofLewisHenryMorgan.London:RoutledgendKeganPaul.

. 1940. Kinship ndMarriagemong heAshanti,'nA.R. Radcliffe-BrownDaryllForde eds.) African ystem fKinship nd Marriage.London/NewYork/ oronto: UP fornternationalfrica nstitute:52-284.Gluckman, ax. 1950. Kinship ndMarriagemong heLozi oftheNorth hodesia ndZulu of Natal, n A.R. Radcliffe rown nd Daryll,Forde eds.) AfricanSystem f Kinship nd Marriage. nternationalfrican nstitute: xfordUniversityress:166-206.Khai,SingKhaw.1995.Zo Peopleand their ulture. hurachandpur:hampuHatzaw.Kipgen, Mangkhosat.1997. Christianitynd Mizo Culture The Encounter etweenChristianitynd Zo Culture in Mizoram.Aizawl: Mizo TheologicalConference.



19/19


Lewin,T.H. 1984. WildRaces oftheEastern rontierf ndi. Delhi: Mittal ublishersDistributorsFirst ublishedn1870).Lok Sabha Debates. 1956.Vol. Ill, Part-II,7th ugust o 13theptember956,ThirteenthSession.New Delhi:Lok SabhaSecretariat.Mamdani,Mahmood. 003. Beyond ettlernd Native s Politicaldentities:vercomingthe PoliticalLegacyofColonialism,In Comparativetudies nSociety ndHistory.October,3 4):651-664.Radcliffe-Brown,.R. 1913. Three Tribesof Western ustralia,' ournal ftheRoyal

Anthropologicalnstitute43:143-194.Radcliffe-Brown,.R. 1918. 'Notes on the Social Organizationf Australian ribes.'Journal f heRoyalAnthropologicalnstitute48:222-53.Ray,Asok Kumar. 1992. The Kuki NationalAssembly:ts Social base andWorkingnManipur,'n L.S. Gassah ed.) Regional oliticalParties nNorth ast ndia.OmsonPublications.

. 1990.AuthorityLegitimacyAStudy f heThadou-KukisnManipurReport ftheBackward lassesCommission. ovt, f ndia. 1955. Vol. II. Shimla:Govt,of IndiaPress.Seymour-Smith,harlotte. 986. Tribe,' In MacmillanDictionary f AnthropologyLondon:Macmillan: 81.Shakespear, . 1912] 1998. TheLusheiKukiClans. Aizawl: TribalResearch nstituteFirstpublishedn1912).Shaw, William. 1997. Notes on theThadou-KukisGuwahati& New Delhi SpecturmPublicationsFirst ublishedn1929).

Clan, Dialect and Tribe Identity Emergence of Crosscutting Identity Among the Zo People in Manipur

Documents

Transcript of Clan, Dialect and Tribe Identity Emergence of Crosscutting Identity Among the Zo People in Manipur