The Indigenous Zomi

Considering the historical course of migration and their present settlement in what is today pocket of India, Burma and Bangladesh as a minority community, everywhere, it is pertinent to examine the issue whether the Zomi are migrants (foreigners) or indigenous people in the context of the convention of the United Nations.

Unique Existence

Until the onset of British Colonial rule, the Zomi were independent and were never ever under the control of Manipuri Rajas or Burmese Kings. The area inhabited by them was ‘unknown land’ until the British explore the country as DR Lyall, Commissioner, Chittagong Division pointed out thus:

“To the south of Surma valley, the Chin-Lushai Hills, ‘a tract of most intricate hill ranges and impenetrable cane-brakes’ was terra incognita before 1839.”

Inspite of considerable attempts at acculturation the Zomi successfully resisted integration with its more powerful neighbours. As was true then and is true today, the physical factors, linguistic affiliation culture and religion set them clearly apart from any of the South Asian polities, like the mainland Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist population.

Zomi have been divided, like the Nagas, of this region and the Kurds of the Middle East. The international boundaries and state boundaries were drawn across their traditional homelands. Their independent existence as a distinct people and the fragmentation of their land by the drawing of boundary lines is aptly pointed out by the British themselves.

It may be noted here that, in the 1834 Treaty Captain Pemberton as the British Officer representing Manipur, fixed Namsailung stream (locally called “Tuisa River”) and an imaginary line drawn from its source west of the Manipur River as the southern boundary of Manipur. Subsequently, the Chin-Hills-Manipur Boundary Commission, 1894 demarcated the boundary on the basis of the imaginary line drawn by Captain Pemberton in 1834. In this regard, Alexander Mackenzie, makes this remark:

“The Burmese government do not appear ever to have exercised any control over the Sooties (Zomi)…the whole tribes seems to be practically independent and not to have been affected at all by the Treaty of 1834… no Burmese officers appear to have ever taken charge of this tract (Chin-Lushai Hills tract) of territory under the Fifth Article of the Treaty, and the Burmese and the Manipuris alike appear to have treated the Sooties (Zomi) as wild and hostile tribes not amenable to their authority…”

In a memorandum written in 1861, Major Mc Culloch, the Political Agent of Manipur, wrote:

“South of the Namsailung are some powerful tribes (Zomi), amongst whom Manipur is nothing; in fact to that part no Manipuri has ever penetrated and even as far as the Namsailung no one but myself has ever attempted to proceed…”

In the Administration Report for 1873-74, Dr. Brown says that:

“In the event of any realized or threatened disturbance by the Kamhaus (Zomi) the Burmese invariably make the matter one of complaint against the Manipur state, assuming that State to be responsible for their good behaviour”

He adds that:

“For all practical purposes, these tribes (Zomi) should be considered as independent and liable to punishment from either power of raids upon”.

From the above it may be concluded that the Zomi and their lands were, in reality, just outside and beyond the power and interest of the dominant polities, being left alone to manage for themselves. The Zomi were, however, to be punished if they dare to interfere with the dominant polities. In other words, the dominant polities were not concerned at all about the Zomi whom they wished would stay out of sight and mind because the Zomi were difficult to control as they wanted to be as free and independent as they had always been.

J.W. Ecar, Civil Officer of the Cachar Column of the Lushai Expedition Force (1872-73), in his Report to the Commissioner of Circuit, Dacca Division No. 548 dated Cachar, the 3rd April, 1872, also says thus,

“These tribes (Zomi) seem to have been practically independent as long as they were able to maintain their position in the higher hills… Neither the Cachar nor the Manipur Chief had the slightest authority in the hills… nor is it evident from all the early Cachar traditions that they did not claim any…”

Carey and Tuck again pointed out in their book, “The Chin Hills”, that –

“By the delimitation of the Manipur boundary How Chin Khup (Zomi Chief) lost several villages which his forefathers had conquered and which up to that time had paid him a nominal tribute…, The border line between the Chin Hills and Manipur has carved the Thado tribe (Zomi tribe) into two…”

Initially, the precise delimitation and demarcation of the Indo-Burma boundary effecting Zomi inhabited areas, was considered not necessary by the British because both the British-India and British-Burma came under the same Governor-General. The later demarcation of the boundary was base on the ‘spheres of influence’ of the Government of Assam (India) and Burma, and is purely for ‘administrative convenience’ that the boundary was demarcated. S.K. Chaube in his book, ‘Hill Politics of North East India’, remarks:

“…a clear demarcation of the Indo-Burma border south of Manipur could never be made because of British uncertainty about the Administrative policy in the whole Kuki-Chin area (Zogam). This 900 Miles long border is being demarcated since 1969 in a friendly spirit”.

In the sphere of justice and administration, the Manipur State Darbar of the Maharaja did not have a say in the Hill Areas Administration as noted by Sir Robert Reid, the Governor of Assam, thus,

“Cases where hill men (Zomi & Naga) are concerned and cases arising in the British reserve are excluded from the Darbar’s civil and criminal jurisdiction… separate rules govern the administration of the hills, and they are detailed in the Chapter dealing with the subjects…”

For the first time in the history of the Zomi they were brought under control by the British. However, the annexation of the land of the Zomi Chiefs by the British Crown did not deprive them of the rights of ownership or title to the land, nor did it interfere in the administration of their subjects. The Zomi Chiefs ruled as an independent and absolute King as noted by C. Shakespeare, thus –

“The Rajah (Chiefs) is the sole and supreme authority in the village or villages under him, no one else being competent to give orders or inflict punishment except through him… to assist him in carrying on the affairs of government the Rajah has a minister…”

With the expansion of British control over Zo country, and their interaction with the Zomi, they came to realize that they had to deal with a people who differed markedly from those living in the plains. They soon took up a policy of segregating the hill tribes (including Zomi) from the plain peoples by introducing Special Regulations and Acts for their administration (for details go to British Colonial Administration). These regulations went far beyond merely putting the hill tracts of the region under a different administrative system. The Inner Line Regulation, passed in 1873, established a virtual boundary along the foothills and provided that, “any British subject or other person so prohibited who goes beyond ‘the inner line’… without a Pass shall be liable, on conviction before the Magistrate, to a fine…” Trade and possession of land by outsiders within the excluded areas were severely restricted. Furthermore, the British had a policy of minimal interference in the hill areas beyond the Inner Line. The Inner Line Regulation 1873 has its parallel regulation in Zo country of Chin Hills in the form of Chin Hills Regulation, 1896.

In both the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935, the Zomi inhabited Areas of British India are clearly given separate status. On the recommendation of the Simon Commission of 1930, the Lushai Hills were classified as “Excluded Areas”, to be solely administered by the Provincial Government appointed by the British.

In the process of handling over of power on the eve of Independence, the Constituent Assembly set up a Committee chaired by Bordoloi, to make recommendations for the administrative development of the tribal areas of India. Like with the Simon Commission before, the indigenous leaders submitted memoranda and petitions to the Committee expressing their desire for autonomy and integration with their brethren across the boundaries, (Zomi), Independence (Naga) and redrawing of the existing boundaries, etc… While visiting the Zomi inhabited areas of India, the Committee noticed that –

“unlike other parts of India where tribal had assimilated to a great extent with the life and culture of the plainsman, the process of assimilation was minimal in the interior of the Assam Hills, particularly in the Naga and Lushai Hills; that the tribesmen in the north-east were very sensitive about their land, forests, systems of judiciary and that they should be left free from any fear of exploitation or domination by the advanced section of the people”.

The Committee recommended that Autonomous Districts and Regional Councils be established to provide for the protection of land rights, the preservation of language and culture and a certain degree of self-rule for the tribal people of the North East. In essence, it can be said that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule are a continuation of the British policy towards the indigenous peoples.

Indigenous People Definition

Having dealt with the distinct existence of Zomi as a nation, special status given to them, and their fragmented land, it will be necessary to look at the definition of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ as per UN Convention, and the Rights of the Zomi as an Indigenous People-

The Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission, Jose Martinez Cobo, formulated a “working definition” in his Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, which states that:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, considered themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of the society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural pattern, social institutions and legal systems”.

ILO Convention No. 169 Article 1.1 (b) describes indigenous peoples as follows:

“peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.”

Prof. B. K. Roy Burman (1995:9-15) an internationally renowned Anthropologist and Social Scientist frankly analyses the global issue on the definition of indigenous and tribal peoples. He pointed out that ILO convention 169 uniformly described the tribes as people and indigenous were just population before colonization or conquest or invasion and they became people only after the conquest and colonization. Under this circumstance the population can only negotiate their needed rights but not power rights with their respective governments as people. The ILO Convention 187 did not include establishments of present boundaries as a contingent fact for locating the indigenous people. The state boundary is an important criterion determining the people residing within the boundary as indigenous people. A working definition of indigenous developed earlier in 1972 by a special reporter, Martinez Cob appointed by the Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was being used by the Sub Commission on Human Rights when Working Group on indigenous population was set up in 1982. According to this definition,

‘indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them to a non-dominant or colonial situation, who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of a country of which they form a party under the state structure which incorporates mainly the national, social and cultural characteristics of their segments of the population which is predominant (UN 1973).

This definition was made in the context of International Publicity about the threats to isolated tribes. It was only applicable to the indigenous populations or peoples of America, Australia, and New Zealand. But there are some population which did not suffer the actions of conquest and colonization by sovereign peoples from other parts of the world. For such population this definition of indigenous was applicable. An additional clause was added to the working definition the next year as follows: ‘Although they have not suffered conquest or colonization, isolated or marginal groups existing in the country should also be regarded as covered by the notion of indigenous population for the reasons:

  1. They are the descendants of groups which were in the territory of the country at the times when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there,
  2. Precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country’s populations they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterized as indigenous.
  3. They are even, if only formally, placed under a state structure.’

Rights Of Zomi as an Indigenous People

Rights Of Self-determination

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, recognizes the principle of the equal rights and self-determination of all peoples and provides that every state has the duty to promote this principle. The Declaration provides that, inter alia:

“The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right to self-determination by that peoples… Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”

A Non-Self-Governing Territory, listed under Chapter XI of the UN Charter, can exercise the right of self-determination through the creation of an independent state, or through the establishment of an association with an independent state, or integration with an independent state. Furthermore, the right of self-determination must also be regarded as establishing the right to separate from the existing state of which the group concerned is a part, and to set up a new independent state, if the state concerned gravely violates its obligations towards a distinct people.

A State that gravely violates its obligations towards a distinct people or community within its boundaries loses the legitimacy to rule over that people. Thus, if the State and its successive governments have repeatedly oppressed a people over a long period, violated their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and if other means of achieving a sufficient degree of self-government have been tried and have failed, then the question of secession can arise as a means for the restoration of fundamental rights and freedoms and the promotion of the well-being of the people.

The internal aspects of the right of self-determination include the right of the people to freely pursue its economic, social and cultural development. It is often taken to mean participatory democracy. It can also mean the right to exercise cultural linguistic, religious, territorial or political autonomy within the boundaries of the existing state.

Economic/Natural Resources dimension

The economic or resource dimension of self-determination, the right to freely dispose of its own natural wealth and resources, is of crucial importance to indigenous peoples. The issue of land and resource rights is the most important question for the minority of the world’s indigenous peoples. They regard their land and resources rights as being an integral part of their right to self-determination.

The economic or resource dimension of the right of self-determination is emphasized in common paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Covenants:

“All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefits, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”

Cultural dimensions

The cultural dimensions of the people’s right to self-determination can be seen as its right to determine and establish the cultural regime or system under which it is to live. This implies recognition of its right to regain, enjoy and enrich its cultural heritage, and affirm the right of all its members to education and culture. The Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO, recognizes that every people has the right and duty to develop its culture, and mentions in its preamble the most important United Nations resolution relating to recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination.

The deeply spiritual and special relationship between indigenous peoples and their lands is fundamental to their existence as such and to all their beliefs, customs, traditions and culture. These concerns are taken into account in Article 25 of the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard”.

Social Resources dimension

Article 21 of the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples addresses the social and economic aspects of their right of self-determination:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities. Indigenous peoples who have been deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair compensation.”

The World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen in 1995, expressed the view, recognizes and supports indigenous people in their pursuit of economic and social development, with full respect for their identity, tradition, forms of social organization and cultural values.

Human Security dimension

The aim of exercising the right to self-determination can also be formulated in terms of human needs and security. Peoples and communities strive to gain control over the means to satisfy their human needs. From this perspective, security includes cultural integrity and respect for human rights and freedom. The need for security is often the prime objective in the struggle for self-determination, when peoples have been facing oppression, deportations, forced assimilation, religious persecutions, etc.

Since 1984, the United Nations has been formulating a draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The draft declaration was adopted by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1994 and endorsed by its parent body, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities the same year. Since 1995, a special Working Groups of the Commission on Human Rights has been working on the draft declaration. Article 3 of the draft declaration reads as follows:

“Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of their right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

It is clear that the principle and fundamental right of self-determination for the Zomi is firmly established in international law, including human rights law, and that it must therefore be applied equally and universally. Indigenous Zo peoples can thus not be denied this fundamental right.

Although autonomy and self-government may be the principal means through which the right of self-determination will be exercised by indigenous Zo peoples, their right or self-determination cannot be qualified as something less than that of other peoples’ right of self-determination. This would be tantamount to saying that there are different classes of “peoples”.

The Zomi’s right of self-determination can be implemented through various mechanisms and arrangements within the framework of a nation state. However, in cases where the right of self-determination of indigenous Zo peoples is exercised through autonomy and self-government arrangements, it is crucial that adequate mechanisms are developed at national as well as international level, in order to ensure that the Zomi stays together as one under a single administrative unit and govern themselves in the way of their own choosing.

It was not the people who derived their name ZO from the high altitude of their abode, but on the contrary it was the high lands and especially the farm lands there, called ‘Zo Lo’ which derived their name from the Zo people who cultivated the farms’
Mizoram : New Magazine, Winter ISsue, No. 2 (1982), p.18, as quoted in Mangkhosat Kipgen, Christianity and Mizo Culture, MTC (1996), p.20