The Sukte Paramountcy in Northern Chin Hills
The Sukte Paramountcy in Northern Chin Hills
The State as an institution emerged at a certain stage of historical development in various parts of the world. In the history of the evolution of human society, the stages of development began with the Band-a group formed for hunting and similar primitive activities. There were no kinship ties. The next stage was that of the tribe. Here kinship ties were more important. An important development of tribe was marked by a stage of tribal chiefdom. Finally we have a state based on class based society. In ancient period the system of a tribe living under a chief sometimes aided by a council of elders was widely prevalent. The chief owed position either to personal abilities or descent from a senior lineage. At a later stage, chiefship became hereditary when gifts to chiefs became hereditary and return from the chiefs infrequent, and when the share of the chiefs booty increased and that of the kinsman reduced considerably, conditions were created for the rise of a big and dominant chiefs. This development in power and structure is called chiefdom. The great chief came to be surrounded by retainers (slaves voluntary or captured/debt bonded men and women) maintained at the cost of tribal pastoralists and peasantry. The sense of territoriality linked with cultivation and sedentary habits became stronger. Rituals became far more elaborate and tended to be monopolized by a class of specialists. The egalitarian ethos typified by the purely tribal phase, suffered erosion and property differentiation became visible. This stage of social development can therefore be called the protostate stage or proto class. The emergence of a state points to a different kind of society.[i] It is from this perspective that this paper analyses the origin and development of the Sukte chiefs in the Pre-Colonial period and the changes in their position during the Colonial period.
The paper comprises four parts besides the introduction. The first part gives a brief outline of the ethnic composition of the Chin Hills. The second part discusses the impact of Sukte paramountcy on the frontier politics. An analysis of the Colonial intervention in the relationship between the Sukte/Kamhau and Manipur is given in the part three of the paper and the fourth is in the form of the final evaluation of the entire process. In the entire paper the role of the colonial power has always been analysed. The paper is prepared on the basis of primary and secondary sources on the Chin Hills and the neighbouring areas.
I
The paramountcy of tribes of Indo-Burma border has always been impacted by the waves of migration of people and other socio-political formations. It was often such drift of migrations which greatly affected the societal set-up of the Chin Hills prior to colonial annexation. What really impelled such waves of movement was not precisely known and little attempt has neither been made to it until relatively recently. Colonial reports and official correspondences, from the early decades of the nineteenth century, gave only a sketchy account of this problem, citing that migrants often came from the south. The historical importance of “the south” has too often been overlooked. This paper seeks to venture beyond the present political demarcation in order to get a better understanding of the nineteenth century history of the ethnic group who are today found on both sides of the international border.
The Chin Hills, now Chin State of Burma, is located between 24o 10’ north to about 20o 30’ north and between longitude 92o 50’ east and 94o 10’ east. It was bounded on the east by Sagaing and Magwe divisions of Upper Burma, on the north by Manipur, on the west by the Lushai Hills, now the state of Mizoram, and on the south by Arakan. The Sukte, Sihzang and Kamhaus[ii] who are known today as Zomi inhabited the northern hill tract, the Pawi or the Lai occupied the central hill tract and in the southern hills the Chinme, Welaung, Chinbok, Yindu, Chinbon, Khyang, Khami and the like are scattered. Apart from Chin hills they are also spread over in the Hkamti, Somra Tract and Kale-Kabaw-Myittha plains in Upper Burma; several districts in Mizoram, Tripura, Assam, Cachar, Manipur and Nagaland in India; and, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. This overlay of the so-called Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic groups over such a vast tract of country occurred largely in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. On the basis of linguistic affinity G. A. Grierson placed the “Chins” in the Kuki-Chin group of Tibeto-Burman family. He, however, correctly states that the people do not themselves recognise the name “Chin”,[iii] but call themselves Zo, after the name of the progenitor.[iv] Zo has thus many variations such as Zo, Zhou, Sho, Asho, Hiou, Cho, Dzo, Yo, Jo, Yaw and the like. The ethnological commonality of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo groups has undoubtedly been shown by the fact that they belonged to a common ancestor which is called Zo. In this paper I use the generic term Zo inclusively for the people of Chin Hills referred to as Chin by colonial writers. I would, however, continue to employ colonial terms such as Sukte, Kamhau, Sihzang, etc. to refer to the Northern Zos for convenience sake.
According to tradition the Northern Zos had for some period of time lived together in a village called Ciimnuai,[v] probably from the early sixteenth century[vi] where the Guite clan was believed to have served as the village priest or Tulpi (Siampi) for four generations.[vii] In fact, early Zo society was chiefly dominated by various rites which required the service of the clan/village priest. For instance, the founding of a new settlement had to take into consideration various aspects such as the choice of the place, setting up of the communal altar and pillar, water source etc. all of which demanded the performance of some kind of ceremonies.[viii] The priests, therefore, played a leading role when a group of families, usually of the same clan, had dispersed from Ciimnuai, probably because of population explosion or economic pressure, and founded clan-based villages in the adjoining spaces.
In the early days a village had no definite territorial boundary and the “area of a new settlement was ritually defined”.[ix] “A village”, wrote Vumson, “was an independent unit, claiming land about seven miles or eleven kilometers in radius for its cultivation.”[x] Later on village territory was defined on the basis of natural boundaries. Each village was independently administered by the village headman or chief locally known as Hausa. It is not clear when and how did Hausa evolved in the Northern Zo society. One popular view was that after the establishment of clan-based villages following the dispersal of population from Ciimnuai, they had been occasionally at feuds with each other for greater possession of land, procurement of slaves and for other political and economic reasons. In such a situation villagers felt the need to have a strong and intelligent leader who would administer them, protect them from any aggression and lead them in war against enemies. The strong urge for military leadership, perhaps, led to the emergence of local leaders as village chiefs or Hausa. W.W.Hunter thus wrote: “He shall direct in war, he is the last in the advance and rear-most in the retreat.”[xi] This does not mean that the chief remained only a military commander. He also had social, economic, political and even religious authority within his jurisdiction. Winifred Creamer and Jonathan Haas have given thus:
chiefs or leaders emerged as ‘information processors” in the face of population growth and increased social complexity. They are the managers of internal interaction between components of the social unit, adjudicators of internal conflict, and managers of foreign affairs. With continued growth in the system, a decision-making bureaucracy coalesces around the chief…At the top of this hierarchy, the chief exercises a form of managerial power based primarily on controlling information coming in from different parts of the system.[xii]
The Hausa is, therefore, the head of the village. He owned the land and collect taxes such as paddy tax, salt tax, meat tax, bee tax etc. and other dues from the people within his jurisdiction. The institution was usually hereditary. The primary occupation of the people was shifting cultivation. However, there were also records of occasional trading activities, especially with the plain of Upper Burma. The chief was assisted by members of the village council called Upa. Besides, the Siksek (Blacksmith), Tangko (village crier), Tulpi/Siampi (village priest) were also closely associated with the chief.[xiii] The earliest Sukte Hausa was Cin Thang at Lunmual village.[xiv]
During this period the more powerful chiefs of a village were able to exert influence on weaker ones and collect taxes[xv] from them from beyond their jurisdiction and succeeded to create a realm of dominance. Such chiefs referred to themselves as Mang, a noble term given to distinguish them from a mere village chief.[xvi] They are actually what F.K.Lehman calls the “supralocal chieftaincies”.[xvii] The status of a Mang mainly stems from “tribute relations”[xviii] where the vanquished would give tax or tribute to the conqueror for a stipulated period of time, if not permanently. Thus, by the end of the eighteenth century a number of Mangs such as Sukte Mang, Guite Mang, Thawmte Mang etc. had already emerged from the status of a mere clan chief or village headman. They were occasionally fighting with each other for greater political dominance and economic interest.
In fact, physical strength, boldness and fitness apart from one’s mental excellence had always been an important impediment to become a powerful chief. The earliest Sukte Mang was Kaih Mang of Mualbem. In the late eighteenth century Khan Thuam, the son of Mang Kim, emerged as a potential contender to the reigning Sukte Mang. His rise also posed serious threat to the position of other Mangs of Tedim region. Khan Thuam’s initial success, therefore, provoked a combination of Mang-kua (nine Mangs of different clans)[xix] against him, and he was soon obliged to flee to Falam country and took shelter under the protection of Rallang Chief Khuang Ceu by giving tribute to him. With the help of Khuang Ceu Khan Thuam and his eldest son Kam Hau were able to overcome all opposition. After his position became relatively secure he returned to Mualbem, the capital of the Sukte clan, where he assumed all the trappings of a Chief. After he consolidated his position at Mualbem he avenged all those who had conspired upon his life, and also embarked upon territorial expansion in the now well known Tedim and Tonzang regions, pushing in the process several tribes towards the northern fringes. Bertram Carey and Henry Newman Tuck, two officers who obtained a firsthand knowledge of the region after the British annexation in 1896, best described the impact of the Sukte expansion:
The Thados offered a good resistance to Kantum and most of their villages were committed to the flames before they submitted; the Yos either migrated north out of the Soktes’ reach or quietly submitted, and the Nwites did not offer any resistance whatever.[xx]
Being able to extend his sway over a large tract Khan Thuam thus became Sukte Ukpi (paramount ruler) at Mualbem.[xxi] He levied all forms of customary dues and tributes from villages under his control which stretch from Manipur in the north to Falam tract in the south. According to tradition during this period the Poi-gal, as it was often referred to for the Falam invasion, was so feared in the north that villages not legally recognised by the Sukte were liable to be invaded by the Falams. Here is a song composed by Khan Thuam which succinctly described the extent of his dominance:
Siahtaang kaihna sak ciang Teimei, ka hialna Lamtui hi e.
Sak ciang Teimei sang ciang Lamtui, a lai ah kamkei hi’ng e.
(What I rule extends to Manipur in the north, and ends at Falam in the south;
Manipur to the north and Falam to the south, I am the tiger in the middle.)[xxii]
In 1801, Kam Hau, the eldest son of Khan Thuam, became the chief of Lamzang village with his father’s permission. Five years later he established the village of Tedim after defeating the Guite families who had settled there. Initially he encountered some resistance from the Thados and Zous, however, inspite of all these reverses, Kam Hau regained Tedim in 1810.[xxiii] The village soon attracted a large number of tribes from neighbouring areas and in a short span of time it was turned into a very large and powerful village and became the seat of Kam Hau’s power. So Kam Hau had already become Ukpi at Tedim when his youngest brother Za Pau succeeded his father Khan Thuam at Mualbem, according to the Sukte tradition of ultimogeniture, in 1848.
Kam Hau immediate task was to avenge those tribes who had resisted him and then to extend his sway towards the Manipur border. He successfully subjugated the Thados, Zous, Guites and other smaller tribes and sub-tribes of the northern hills and became ruler of the tract east of the Manipur river, which comprised over 135 villages.[xxiv] He consolidated his father’s territorial conquests and also, for the first time, united the entire tribes of the northern hills, except the Sihzangs. A recent scholar thus aptly remarked:
What is remarkable is that the Kamhaus took the lead of the Sukte tribes to war and peace. It was Kam Hau who led his tribesmen to victories over those alien tribes and made himself known to his victims as a dreadful name. He was the real figure which made the Tedims (Sukte, Sihzang, Guite and Kamhau) reknown to the Chin Hills frontier as Kamhaus.[xxv]
Although Kam Hau was by right of custom subordinate to his brother Za Pau, whose dominance soon pale into insignificance, he ruled his villages so absolutely that the Sukte tribe became known, if erroneously, as two separate communities. Colonial writers, therefore, distinguished the villages which belonged to Kam Hau from the existing Sukte tract as the Kamhau tract and the people were often referred to Kamhau people. Since then the name “Kamhau” itself became a “terror” to Manipur, Lushai Hills and Burma. Thenceforth the term Kamhau and Sukte began to appear interchangeably in official records. The rulers were, however, belonged to the Sukte clan. Sir Alexander Mackenzie rightly observed the impact of the Kamhau-Sukte in 1883:
The Manipuris consider this tribe to be a much more formidable one than the Lushai. They are a constant source of trouble to them, and have at times rendered the southern portion of Manipur uninhabitable….[xxvi]
The impact of Kam Hau’s power was immense. It was felt heavily in the neighbouring territories, especially in southern Manipur, because of the largescale movement of tribes toward that border and the constant threat of raids and depredations. One of the earliest records of this was found in Captain Robert Boileau Pemberton’s “Reports on the Eastern Frontier of India” in 1835.[xxvii] In the 1840s Colonel William McCulloch, Political Agent of Manipur, who studied those tribes migrated to Manipur’s southern frontier, found what he called the “Khongjais” were scattered around the valley of Manipur. These people were believed to have come from the south.[xxviii] No doubt many other colonial records also referred to similar events occurring on that frontier.[xxix]
During this period as Kam Hau was consolidating his position around Tedim, the Lushais under Vanhnuailiana was establishing his hold at Champhai, on the western border of the Sukte country driving out the Thados from there. In the ensuing Sukte and Lushai belligerencies on different occasions several villages of the latter such as Champhai, Lenkam and Thathlangkhua had been destroyed.[xxx]
There were reports of Kam Hau raids into the villages in Kabaw-Kale valley, some of which had been often directed towards Yazagyo, the main market for the Kamhau people. This state of affairs had considerably strained the relations between the Kamhaus and the Shans of the valley.
II
For some years the Kamhaus and the Sukte kept Manipur’s southern frontier in a state of alarm. This had led to the scattering mainly of the Thado Kuki clans who occupied the fringes, which like the depredation of the Suktes, equally threatened the peace of the valley. In 1844 McCulloch, with the help of Raja Nur Singh of Manipur, carried out the settlement of what he called the “Khongjais”.[xxxi] Large tracts were made available to them for cultivation. Some of them were used as irregulars; arms were freely supplied to them and these settlements often came to be called “sepoy village”.[xxxii]
The settlement of the Khongsais, however, did not check Kam Hau menace on Manipur’s southern frontier. Disturbances continued. In the 1850s even more serious outrages occurred. An exasperated Chandrakirti Singh who had in the meanwhile succeeded to the Manipur Raja decided upon strong military action. In January 1857, he led 1500 strong expedition, supported by the Khongsais, against Kam Hau of Tedim.[xxxiii] The Manipuri contingent suffered heavy defeat in the hands of the combined force of the Kamhau, Sukte, and Sihzang. They lost many of its soldiers and altogether 287 guns on that occasion.[xxxiv] The victory over the Manipuris clearly revealed that the northern tribes could stand together shoulder to shoulder in times of any external aggression.
I am greatly indebted to Dr. A. K. Thakur, Department of History, NEHU, Shillong for his insightful suggestions and some unpublished material which have helped me in the preparation of this paper.
[i] For details, see L. Kader, Formation of the State, OUP, 1968; Romila Thapar, From Lineage to State: Social Formation in the mid-First Millennium BC in the Ganga Valley, OUP, Delhi, 1984; R. S. Sharma, “Material Background of the Genesis of the State and Complex Society in middle Gangetic Plains”, Social Science Probings, Vol. X, Nos. 1-4, March to December, 1993; and A. K. Thakur, “State Formation in Arunachal Pradesh”, NEHU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol.1, No. 1, 1998.
[ii] They are further divided into various tribes and sub-tribes such as Dim, Khuano, Hualngo, Sihzang, Tedim, Thado, Teizang, Vangteh, Guite, Vaiphei, Zou and the like. They had noticeable variations in their spoken dialects.
[iii] G.A.Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India Vol. III, Part III, Calcutta, Government Printing Press 1904, p.1
[iv] For a better understanding of the Zo genealogy, see K.A.Khup Za Thang, Zo Suanh Khang Simna Laibu, Rangoon, 1974.
[v] Ciimnuai was believed to be the first settlement of the Northern Zos. It lies nine miles from Tedim on the eastern bank of the Manipur river. It is said that a bunch of Ciim trees was found in the north overlooking the village. Nuai implies below or south. People who dwell below the Ciim trees are thus naturally called Ciimnuai people after the name of the village. Carey and Tuck misspell the term as “Chin Nwe”. Any misinterpretation based on this will only be a misnomer.
[vi] Sing Khaw Khai, Zo People and their Culture, Churachandpur, 1995, p.73. For detail information, see, Carey and Tuck, p. 118, 127 “The History of the Sokte Tribe’ and “The History of the Siyin Tribe”.
[vii] Sing Khaw Khai, p.16.
[viii] Sing Khaw Khai, p.141.
[ix] Sing Khaw Khai, p.143.
[x] Vumson, Zo History, Aizawl, 1986, p.8.
[xi] W.W.Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol.VI, Delhi, 1973, p.30.
[xii] Winnifred Creamer and Jonathan Haas, “Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central America,” American Antiquity, Vol.50, No.4, 1985, p.740.
[xiii] See Chinkholian Guite, Politico-Economic Development of the Tribals of Manipur: A study of the Zomis, Anmol Publications, New Delhi, 1999.
[xiv] Sukte Laibu Bawl Committee, Sukte Beh leh Tedim Gam Tangthu, Chin State 1996, p.13.
[xv] Taxes collected by such chiefs mainly comprised: Mim siah/tang siah, sial lampi sap, tuikuang tui siah, in saliang, gam saliang, tuk tha khal tha, inn zangsial lamsa, tuk an khal an.
[xvi] According to Sing Khaw Khai, “The word Mang is a Northern Zo title conferred on tribal chiefs, probably equivalent to king, or ruler.” See, Sing Khaw Khai, p.26.
[xvii] F.K.Lehman, The Structure of Chin Society, University of Illinois, USA, 1963, Reprint by Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, 1980, p.26.
[xviii] For further discussion, see Abraham I. Pershits, “Tribute Relations”, in S. Lee Seaton and HJM Claessen (eds.) Political Anthropology, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, 1979.
[xix] Sukte Beh leh Tedim Gam Tangthu, p.30.
[xx] Carey & Tuck, p.119.
[xxi] Administrative titles of rulers of the northern hill tract may be mainly categorised into three: Hausa or Tulpi is a clan chief or village chief or priest; Mang refers to supra-local chief or chief who exerted influence over more than one village by dint of his power to collect taxes; Ukpi/Ukpipa/Innpipa is one who is paramount and whose sway extends to a large tract comprising numerous village chiefs and tributary-tribes. He is an autocratic ruler who enjoys formidable power and control over a large tract. Each village headman or chief within his jurisdiction owed allegiance to him and paid all perquisite dues. The term per se is believed to be equivalent to the Indian title Raja.
[xxii] Sing Khaw Khai, p.26.
[xxiii] Kham Khaw Mang, “Khamtung Gam Tangthu leh Ki-ukna thu”, Sukte Chronicles, Vol. III,No.3, March 2004, p.19.
[xxiv] Sukte Beh leh Tedim Gam Tangthu, p.44
[xxv] Sing Khaw Khai, p.30.
[xxvi] Alexander Mackenzie, History of the Relations of the Government with the Hill Tribes of the North East Frontier of Bengal, Calcutta 1884, Reprint as The North East Frontier of India, New Delhi 2001, p.163.
[xxvii] Robert Boileau Pemberton, Reports on the Eastern Frontier of India, Calcutta 1835, Reprint as the Eastern Frontier of India, New Delhi 2000, p.16. “…the Kookies have been gradually advancing for years in a northerly direction, and have hitherto established themselves on the ranges which were originally occupied by more northern tribes.”
[xxviii] William McCulloch, Account of the Valley of Munnipore and the Hill Tribes, Calcutta 1859, p.55.
[xxix] See, Lt. Col. J. Shakeapear, The Lushei Kuki Clans; William Shaw, Notes on the Thadou Kukis (Government of Assm, 1929) Reprint Spectrum, Guwahati, 1997; Mackenzie, The Northeast Frontier of India,
[xxx] Vumson, p.94; also see Rev. Liangkhaia, Mizo Chanchin, Aizawl, Reprint 2002, p.113.
[xxxi] James Johnstone in his My Experience in Manipur and the Naga Hills, London, 1896, Reprint New Delhi 2002, p.45 writes: “Colonel McCulloch’s policy of planting Kuki settlements on exposed frontiers, induced the Government of Bengal to try a similar experiment, and a large colony of Kukis were settled in 1855 in the neighbourhood of Langting, to act as a barrier for North Cachar against the raids of the Angami Nagas.”
[xxxii] Mackenzie, pp.157-164; For further discussion, see Pum Khan Pau, The Chins and the British, 1835-1935, unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of History, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 2006.
[xxxiii] Mackenzie, pp.157-164. Also refer to William Shaw, Notes on the Thadou Kukis, pp.48-49.
[xxxiv] For detail analysis see, Pum Khan Pau, The Chins and the British, 1835-1935,
**(For the full paper, contact the author.)
The State as an institution emerged at a certain stage of historical development in various parts of the world. In the history of the evolution of human society, the stages of development began with the Band-a group formed for hunting and similar primitive activities. There were no kinship ties. The next stage was that of the tribe. Here kinship ties were more important. An important development of tribe was marked by a stage of tribal chiefdom. Finally we have a state based on class based society. In ancient period the system of a tribe living under a chief sometimes aided by a council of elders was widely prevalent. The chief owed position either to personal abilities or descent from a senior lineage. At a later stage, chiefship became hereditary when gifts to chiefs became hereditary and return from the chiefs infrequent, and when the share of the chiefs booty increased and that of the kinsman reduced considerably, conditions were created for the rise of a big and dominant chiefs. This development in power and structure is called chiefdom. The great chief came to be surrounded by retainers (slaves voluntary or captured/debt bonded men and women) maintained at the cost of tribal pastoralists and peasantry. The sense of territoriality linked with cultivation and sedentary habits became stronger. Rituals became far more elaborate and tended to be monopolized by a class of specialists. The egalitarian ethos typified by the purely tribal phase, suffered erosion and property differentiation became visible. This stage of social development can therefore be called the protostate stage or proto class. The emergence of a state points to a different kind of society.[i] It is from this perspective that this paper analyses the origin and development of the Sukte chiefs in the Pre-Colonial period and the changes in their position during the Colonial period.
The paper comprises four parts besides the introduction. The first part gives a brief outline of the ethnic composition of the Chin Hills. The second part discusses the impact of Sukte paramountcy on the frontier politics. An analysis of the Colonial intervention in the relationship between the Sukte/Kamhau and Manipur is given in the part three of the paper and the fourth is in the form of the final evaluation of the entire process. In the entire paper the role of the colonial power has always been analysed. The paper is prepared on the basis of primary and secondary sources on the Chin Hills and the neighbouring areas.
I
The paramountcy of tribes of Indo-Burma border has always been impacted by the waves of migration of people and other socio-political formations. It was often such drift of migrations which greatly affected the societal set-up of the Chin Hills prior to colonial annexation. What really impelled such waves of movement was not precisely known and little attempt has neither been made to it until relatively recently. Colonial reports and official correspondences, from the early decades of the nineteenth century, gave only a sketchy account of this problem, citing that migrants often came from the south. The historical importance of “the south” has too often been overlooked. This paper seeks to venture beyond the present political demarcation in order to get a better understanding of the nineteenth century history of the ethnic group who are today found on both sides of the international border.
The Chin Hills, now Chin State of Burma, is located between 24o 10’ north to about 20o 30’ north and between longitude 92o 50’ east and 94o 10’ east. It was bounded on the east by Sagaing and Magwe divisions of Upper Burma, on the north by Manipur, on the west by the Lushai Hills, now the state of Mizoram, and on the south by Arakan. The Sukte, Sihzang and Kamhaus[ii] who are known today as Zomi inhabited the northern hill tract, the Pawi or the Lai occupied the central hill tract and in the southern hills the Chinme, Welaung, Chinbok, Yindu, Chinbon, Khyang, Khami and the like are scattered. Apart from Chin hills they are also spread over in the Hkamti, Somra Tract and Kale-Kabaw-Myittha plains in Upper Burma; several districts in Mizoram, Tripura, Assam, Cachar, Manipur and Nagaland in India; and, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. This overlay of the so-called Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic groups over such a vast tract of country occurred largely in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. On the basis of linguistic affinity G. A. Grierson placed the “Chins” in the Kuki-Chin group of Tibeto-Burman family. He, however, correctly states that the people do not themselves recognise the name “Chin”,[iii] but call themselves Zo, after the name of the progenitor.[iv] Zo has thus many variations such as Zo, Zhou, Sho, Asho, Hiou, Cho, Dzo, Yo, Jo, Yaw and the like. The ethnological commonality of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo groups has undoubtedly been shown by the fact that they belonged to a common ancestor which is called Zo. In this paper I use the generic term Zo inclusively for the people of Chin Hills referred to as Chin by colonial writers. I would, however, continue to employ colonial terms such as Sukte, Kamhau, Sihzang, etc. to refer to the Northern Zos for convenience sake.
According to tradition the Northern Zos had for some period of time lived together in a village called Ciimnuai,[v] probably from the early sixteenth century[vi] where the Guite clan was believed to have served as the village priest or Tulpi (Siampi) for four generations.[vii] In fact, early Zo society was chiefly dominated by various rites which required the service of the clan/village priest. For instance, the founding of a new settlement had to take into consideration various aspects such as the choice of the place, setting up of the communal altar and pillar, water source etc. all of which demanded the performance of some kind of ceremonies.[viii] The priests, therefore, played a leading role when a group of families, usually of the same clan, had dispersed from Ciimnuai, probably because of population explosion or economic pressure, and founded clan-based villages in the adjoining spaces.
In the early days a village had no definite territorial boundary and the “area of a new settlement was ritually defined”.[ix] “A village”, wrote Vumson, “was an independent unit, claiming land about seven miles or eleven kilometers in radius for its cultivation.”[x] Later on village territory was defined on the basis of natural boundaries. Each village was independently administered by the village headman or chief locally known as Hausa. It is not clear when and how did Hausa evolved in the Northern Zo society. One popular view was that after the establishment of clan-based villages following the dispersal of population from Ciimnuai, they had been occasionally at feuds with each other for greater possession of land, procurement of slaves and for other political and economic reasons. In such a situation villagers felt the need to have a strong and intelligent leader who would administer them, protect them from any aggression and lead them in war against enemies. The strong urge for military leadership, perhaps, led to the emergence of local leaders as village chiefs or Hausa. W.W.Hunter thus wrote: “He shall direct in war, he is the last in the advance and rear-most in the retreat.”[xi] This does not mean that the chief remained only a military commander. He also had social, economic, political and even religious authority within his jurisdiction. Winifred Creamer and Jonathan Haas have given thus:
chiefs or leaders emerged as ‘information processors” in the face of population growth and increased social complexity. They are the managers of internal interaction between components of the social unit, adjudicators of internal conflict, and managers of foreign affairs. With continued growth in the system, a decision-making bureaucracy coalesces around the chief…At the top of this hierarchy, the chief exercises a form of managerial power based primarily on controlling information coming in from different parts of the system.[xii]
The Hausa is, therefore, the head of the village. He owned the land and collect taxes such as paddy tax, salt tax, meat tax, bee tax etc. and other dues from the people within his jurisdiction. The institution was usually hereditary. The primary occupation of the people was shifting cultivation. However, there were also records of occasional trading activities, especially with the plain of Upper Burma. The chief was assisted by members of the village council called Upa. Besides, the Siksek (Blacksmith), Tangko (village crier), Tulpi/Siampi (village priest) were also closely associated with the chief.[xiii] The earliest Sukte Hausa was Cin Thang at Lunmual village.[xiv]
During this period the more powerful chiefs of a village were able to exert influence on weaker ones and collect taxes[xv] from them from beyond their jurisdiction and succeeded to create a realm of dominance. Such chiefs referred to themselves as Mang, a noble term given to distinguish them from a mere village chief.[xvi] They are actually what F.K.Lehman calls the “supralocal chieftaincies”.[xvii] The status of a Mang mainly stems from “tribute relations”[xviii] where the vanquished would give tax or tribute to the conqueror for a stipulated period of time, if not permanently. Thus, by the end of the eighteenth century a number of Mangs such as Sukte Mang, Guite Mang, Thawmte Mang etc. had already emerged from the status of a mere clan chief or village headman. They were occasionally fighting with each other for greater political dominance and economic interest.
In fact, physical strength, boldness and fitness apart from one’s mental excellence had always been an important impediment to become a powerful chief. The earliest Sukte Mang was Kaih Mang of Mualbem. In the late eighteenth century Khan Thuam, the son of Mang Kim, emerged as a potential contender to the reigning Sukte Mang. His rise also posed serious threat to the position of other Mangs of Tedim region. Khan Thuam’s initial success, therefore, provoked a combination of Mang-kua (nine Mangs of different clans)[xix] against him, and he was soon obliged to flee to Falam country and took shelter under the protection of Rallang Chief Khuang Ceu by giving tribute to him. With the help of Khuang Ceu Khan Thuam and his eldest son Kam Hau were able to overcome all opposition. After his position became relatively secure he returned to Mualbem, the capital of the Sukte clan, where he assumed all the trappings of a Chief. After he consolidated his position at Mualbem he avenged all those who had conspired upon his life, and also embarked upon territorial expansion in the now well known Tedim and Tonzang regions, pushing in the process several tribes towards the northern fringes. Bertram Carey and Henry Newman Tuck, two officers who obtained a firsthand knowledge of the region after the British annexation in 1896, best described the impact of the Sukte expansion:
The Thados offered a good resistance to Kantum and most of their villages were committed to the flames before they submitted; the Yos either migrated north out of the Soktes’ reach or quietly submitted, and the Nwites did not offer any resistance whatever.[xx]
Being able to extend his sway over a large tract Khan Thuam thus became Sukte Ukpi (paramount ruler) at Mualbem.[xxi] He levied all forms of customary dues and tributes from villages under his control which stretch from Manipur in the north to Falam tract in the south. According to tradition during this period the Poi-gal, as it was often referred to for the Falam invasion, was so feared in the north that villages not legally recognised by the Sukte were liable to be invaded by the Falams. Here is a song composed by Khan Thuam which succinctly described the extent of his dominance:
Siahtaang kaihna sak ciang Teimei, ka hialna Lamtui hi e.
Sak ciang Teimei sang ciang Lamtui, a lai ah kamkei hi’ng e.
(What I rule extends to Manipur in the north, and ends at Falam in the south;
Manipur to the north and Falam to the south, I am the tiger in the middle.)[xxii]
In 1801, Kam Hau, the eldest son of Khan Thuam, became the chief of Lamzang village with his father’s permission. Five years later he established the village of Tedim after defeating the Guite families who had settled there. Initially he encountered some resistance from the Thados and Zous, however, inspite of all these reverses, Kam Hau regained Tedim in 1810.[xxiii] The village soon attracted a large number of tribes from neighbouring areas and in a short span of time it was turned into a very large and powerful village and became the seat of Kam Hau’s power. So Kam Hau had already become Ukpi at Tedim when his youngest brother Za Pau succeeded his father Khan Thuam at Mualbem, according to the Sukte tradition of ultimogeniture, in 1848.
Kam Hau immediate task was to avenge those tribes who had resisted him and then to extend his sway towards the Manipur border. He successfully subjugated the Thados, Zous, Guites and other smaller tribes and sub-tribes of the northern hills and became ruler of the tract east of the Manipur river, which comprised over 135 villages.[xxiv] He consolidated his father’s territorial conquests and also, for the first time, united the entire tribes of the northern hills, except the Sihzangs. A recent scholar thus aptly remarked:
What is remarkable is that the Kamhaus took the lead of the Sukte tribes to war and peace. It was Kam Hau who led his tribesmen to victories over those alien tribes and made himself known to his victims as a dreadful name. He was the real figure which made the Tedims (Sukte, Sihzang, Guite and Kamhau) reknown to the Chin Hills frontier as Kamhaus.[xxv]
Although Kam Hau was by right of custom subordinate to his brother Za Pau, whose dominance soon pale into insignificance, he ruled his villages so absolutely that the Sukte tribe became known, if erroneously, as two separate communities. Colonial writers, therefore, distinguished the villages which belonged to Kam Hau from the existing Sukte tract as the Kamhau tract and the people were often referred to Kamhau people. Since then the name “Kamhau” itself became a “terror” to Manipur, Lushai Hills and Burma. Thenceforth the term Kamhau and Sukte began to appear interchangeably in official records. The rulers were, however, belonged to the Sukte clan. Sir Alexander Mackenzie rightly observed the impact of the Kamhau-Sukte in 1883:
The Manipuris consider this tribe to be a much more formidable one than the Lushai. They are a constant source of trouble to them, and have at times rendered the southern portion of Manipur uninhabitable….[xxvi]
The impact of Kam Hau’s power was immense. It was felt heavily in the neighbouring territories, especially in southern Manipur, because of the largescale movement of tribes toward that border and the constant threat of raids and depredations. One of the earliest records of this was found in Captain Robert Boileau Pemberton’s “Reports on the Eastern Frontier of India” in 1835.[xxvii] In the 1840s Colonel William McCulloch, Political Agent of Manipur, who studied those tribes migrated to Manipur’s southern frontier, found what he called the “Khongjais” were scattered around the valley of Manipur. These people were believed to have come from the south.[xxviii] No doubt many other colonial records also referred to similar events occurring on that frontier.[xxix]
During this period as Kam Hau was consolidating his position around Tedim, the Lushais under Vanhnuailiana was establishing his hold at Champhai, on the western border of the Sukte country driving out the Thados from there. In the ensuing Sukte and Lushai belligerencies on different occasions several villages of the latter such as Champhai, Lenkam and Thathlangkhua had been destroyed.[xxx]
There were reports of Kam Hau raids into the villages in Kabaw-Kale valley, some of which had been often directed towards Yazagyo, the main market for the Kamhau people. This state of affairs had considerably strained the relations between the Kamhaus and the Shans of the valley.
II
For some years the Kamhaus and the Sukte kept Manipur’s southern frontier in a state of alarm. This had led to the scattering mainly of the Thado Kuki clans who occupied the fringes, which like the depredation of the Suktes, equally threatened the peace of the valley. In 1844 McCulloch, with the help of Raja Nur Singh of Manipur, carried out the settlement of what he called the “Khongjais”.[xxxi] Large tracts were made available to them for cultivation. Some of them were used as irregulars; arms were freely supplied to them and these settlements often came to be called “sepoy village”.[xxxii]
The settlement of the Khongsais, however, did not check Kam Hau menace on Manipur’s southern frontier. Disturbances continued. In the 1850s even more serious outrages occurred. An exasperated Chandrakirti Singh who had in the meanwhile succeeded to the Manipur Raja decided upon strong military action. In January 1857, he led 1500 strong expedition, supported by the Khongsais, against Kam Hau of Tedim.[xxxiii] The Manipuri contingent suffered heavy defeat in the hands of the combined force of the Kamhau, Sukte, and Sihzang. They lost many of its soldiers and altogether 287 guns on that occasion.[xxxiv] The victory over the Manipuris clearly revealed that the northern tribes could stand together shoulder to shoulder in times of any external aggression.
I am greatly indebted to Dr. A. K. Thakur, Department of History, NEHU, Shillong for his insightful suggestions and some unpublished material which have helped me in the preparation of this paper.
[i] For details, see L. Kader, Formation of the State, OUP, 1968; Romila Thapar, From Lineage to State: Social Formation in the mid-First Millennium BC in the Ganga Valley, OUP, Delhi, 1984; R. S. Sharma, “Material Background of the Genesis of the State and Complex Society in middle Gangetic Plains”, Social Science Probings, Vol. X, Nos. 1-4, March to December, 1993; and A. K. Thakur, “State Formation in Arunachal Pradesh”, NEHU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol.1, No. 1, 1998.
[ii] They are further divided into various tribes and sub-tribes such as Dim, Khuano, Hualngo, Sihzang, Tedim, Thado, Teizang, Vangteh, Guite, Vaiphei, Zou and the like. They had noticeable variations in their spoken dialects.
[iii] G.A.Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India Vol. III, Part III, Calcutta, Government Printing Press 1904, p.1
[iv] For a better understanding of the Zo genealogy, see K.A.Khup Za Thang, Zo Suanh Khang Simna Laibu, Rangoon, 1974.
[v] Ciimnuai was believed to be the first settlement of the Northern Zos. It lies nine miles from Tedim on the eastern bank of the Manipur river. It is said that a bunch of Ciim trees was found in the north overlooking the village. Nuai implies below or south. People who dwell below the Ciim trees are thus naturally called Ciimnuai people after the name of the village. Carey and Tuck misspell the term as “Chin Nwe”. Any misinterpretation based on this will only be a misnomer.
[vi] Sing Khaw Khai, Zo People and their Culture, Churachandpur, 1995, p.73. For detail information, see, Carey and Tuck, p. 118, 127 “The History of the Sokte Tribe’ and “The History of the Siyin Tribe”.
[vii] Sing Khaw Khai, p.16.
[viii] Sing Khaw Khai, p.141.
[ix] Sing Khaw Khai, p.143.
[x] Vumson, Zo History, Aizawl, 1986, p.8.
[xi] W.W.Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol.VI, Delhi, 1973, p.30.
[xii] Winnifred Creamer and Jonathan Haas, “Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central America,” American Antiquity, Vol.50, No.4, 1985, p.740.
[xiii] See Chinkholian Guite, Politico-Economic Development of the Tribals of Manipur: A study of the Zomis, Anmol Publications, New Delhi, 1999.
[xiv] Sukte Laibu Bawl Committee, Sukte Beh leh Tedim Gam Tangthu, Chin State 1996, p.13.
[xv] Taxes collected by such chiefs mainly comprised: Mim siah/tang siah, sial lampi sap, tuikuang tui siah, in saliang, gam saliang, tuk tha khal tha, inn zangsial lamsa, tuk an khal an.
[xvi] According to Sing Khaw Khai, “The word Mang is a Northern Zo title conferred on tribal chiefs, probably equivalent to king, or ruler.” See, Sing Khaw Khai, p.26.
[xvii] F.K.Lehman, The Structure of Chin Society, University of Illinois, USA, 1963, Reprint by Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, 1980, p.26.
[xviii] For further discussion, see Abraham I. Pershits, “Tribute Relations”, in S. Lee Seaton and HJM Claessen (eds.) Political Anthropology, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, 1979.
[xix] Sukte Beh leh Tedim Gam Tangthu, p.30.
[xx] Carey & Tuck, p.119.
[xxi] Administrative titles of rulers of the northern hill tract may be mainly categorised into three: Hausa or Tulpi is a clan chief or village chief or priest; Mang refers to supra-local chief or chief who exerted influence over more than one village by dint of his power to collect taxes; Ukpi/Ukpipa/Innpipa is one who is paramount and whose sway extends to a large tract comprising numerous village chiefs and tributary-tribes. He is an autocratic ruler who enjoys formidable power and control over a large tract. Each village headman or chief within his jurisdiction owed allegiance to him and paid all perquisite dues. The term per se is believed to be equivalent to the Indian title Raja.
[xxii] Sing Khaw Khai, p.26.
[xxiii] Kham Khaw Mang, “Khamtung Gam Tangthu leh Ki-ukna thu”, Sukte Chronicles, Vol. III,No.3, March 2004, p.19.
[xxiv] Sukte Beh leh Tedim Gam Tangthu, p.44
[xxv] Sing Khaw Khai, p.30.
[xxvi] Alexander Mackenzie, History of the Relations of the Government with the Hill Tribes of the North East Frontier of Bengal, Calcutta 1884, Reprint as The North East Frontier of India, New Delhi 2001, p.163.
[xxvii] Robert Boileau Pemberton, Reports on the Eastern Frontier of India, Calcutta 1835, Reprint as the Eastern Frontier of India, New Delhi 2000, p.16. “…the Kookies have been gradually advancing for years in a northerly direction, and have hitherto established themselves on the ranges which were originally occupied by more northern tribes.”
[xxviii] William McCulloch, Account of the Valley of Munnipore and the Hill Tribes, Calcutta 1859, p.55.
[xxix] See, Lt. Col. J. Shakeapear, The Lushei Kuki Clans; William Shaw, Notes on the Thadou Kukis (Government of Assm, 1929) Reprint Spectrum, Guwahati, 1997; Mackenzie, The Northeast Frontier of India,
[xxx] Vumson, p.94; also see Rev. Liangkhaia, Mizo Chanchin, Aizawl, Reprint 2002, p.113.
[xxxi] James Johnstone in his My Experience in Manipur and the Naga Hills, London, 1896, Reprint New Delhi 2002, p.45 writes: “Colonel McCulloch’s policy of planting Kuki settlements on exposed frontiers, induced the Government of Bengal to try a similar experiment, and a large colony of Kukis were settled in 1855 in the neighbourhood of Langting, to act as a barrier for North Cachar against the raids of the Angami Nagas.”
[xxxii] Mackenzie, pp.157-164; For further discussion, see Pum Khan Pau, The Chins and the British, 1835-1935, unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of History, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 2006.
[xxxiii] Mackenzie, pp.157-164. Also refer to William Shaw, Notes on the Thadou Kukis, pp.48-49.
[xxxiv] For detail analysis see, Pum Khan Pau, The Chins and the British, 1835-1935,
**(For the full paper, contact the author.)
Comments