Bombiel Media

Letjavum leh Jampineng Hinkho Thusim

2010-04-25T07:48:00.000-07:00

OJAPU LET JA VUM LE OJAPI JAM PI NENG HINKHO THUSIM

“Phatna Kipanathupa seiphong leho keng iti hoi tam!”

(Rome 10: 15)

By: Rev. Yampau, Ph.D.

Thumakai

Mapgam kiti tua Layshi gamkaisunga cheng eimiteho lah a Pakai Jesu Christa huhhingna thupha lhangsamdinga Manipur North West Association akon hungkisol Ojapu Tongkam Singsit (1909-1958) jouva hungkisolkitchu Ojapu Letjavum Sitlhou leh aloinu Ojapi Jampineng Sitlhou hilhon ie. “Mimasa teho khonung (The footprints of the faithful Missionaries)” (Jer. 6:16; Heb. 13:7) hetdoh akon tukhangmiten Pathen tahsanna lamdol a pilhin naleh panlahna aneidiu deinan hiche Pakai lhachateni thusimhi aphatdungjui in ahung kijih doh in ahi. Pathen in asimdoh Ho jouse chunga athah in phatthei bohjom tahen.

Hinkho masalam thu

Pu Letjavum Sitlhou hi Manipur state, Tamainglon District a Malungdai kiti khoa kum 1900 a peng ahin, apa chu Pu Luntong ahi. Khosung mitechun apachu ngailut sahtah in “Tuhbeng” tin anakou un ahi. A jiehchu amahin a onsehleh Atuh chachu a behbeh ji hileh akilom ie. Pu Letjavum hin penpi sopi pasal khat aneiyin amachu amin Pu Ngultong ahi.

Pi Jampineng Sitlhou hi Pu Lhunjamang Sithou le Pi Phelchong Sitlhou chate lah a alhumpen ahin, kum 1907 a Ukrul District, Bijang kho a anapeng ahi. Apenpi asopiho chu ahileh tah le don dungjui a jihlhahding chun: Pu Jamkithang, Pu Jamchungnung, Pi Lhingpineng, Pi Thangkhoneng, leh ama Pi Jampineng ahivie. Pi Jampineng hi asapohdan aneuvangin mi melhoi khat jong ahi. Hitia asapoh aneu jieh jong hintin, insungmi le khosungmiten ngailut sahtah in “Pisi” tin anakou un ahi.

Lekhasim Hinkho
Kangpokpi Mission School kiphudoh hi Manipur thinglhangmi adeh a Manipur eimiho dinga phachomtahanahin ahi. Mission school phatchompi holah a Pu Letjavum leh Pi Jampineng jonghi anapang lhonin ahi. Pu Letjavum hin Mission school a class VI gei anasim in ahi. Pi Jampineng hi kum 1921 in Kangpokpi Middle English School (ME School) a school anakai pen in, class III achaiphat in kum 1924 in Nawgong (Assam)a class IV – VIII gei agasim kit in ahi. Assam a Class VIII asimlai chun Assam Governor pun lekhathep hetpina medal khat(Outstanding Student Medal) anapen ahi.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1 Hiche thusim a asungthu ho kilahdohna hochu Reference (phengmai -9) a list akibole

Christa a hinkho kikhel
Pu Letjavum hin Pakai Jesu Christa Huhhingna thupha chu Mission School akaina akonin ahintahsan in chute chun kum 1924 in Missionary sappa Rev. Dr. Crozer khut a Baptize (Twiphum) a nachangin ahi. Pu Letjavum hi Pathen natohding thanomtah mikhat ahin, aman ahinkhoa atuppen chu Missionary khat hiding tihi ahi. Hijeh chun Pathen thu jildin, Jorhat Bible School (Assam State) a G.Th kum thum agasim in Kangpokpi Mission School a Pathen na ahintongpanin ahi. Pathen natohding thanopjeh chun Kum 1931 in Kohima (Nagaland) anajonin, kum 3 jouvin Manipur ahinjon kit in ahi. Chutichun phatsot louvin Pi Jampineng toh kum 1934 in Pastor Khupsei in Tamainglon H.Q ah Pathen min in gopna ananeilhontan ahi. Pi Jampineng vangchu Missionary sappa Rev. William Pettigrew (William Shaw) Pathen thuseina akonin Pakai Jesu chu a huhhingpu le a Pakai in ahinkisan in ama khut mama chun kum 1912 in Baptize anachangin ahi. Hichenia Baptize achan khompichu Pu Helkhup (khonunga Pastor Helkhup) chu ahi.Mitheng Paul in “Koi hileh Christa a umchu akisemthah ahi” (II Cor. 5:17) atibangchun Pathen lhagao lamhilna hinkhothah sunga Pathen lhacha na tongdingin Pathen kouna anangah lhonin ahi. Hichelai tah chun Pathen in Isaiah themgao akoubangin Mapgam a gachea Pathen na gatongdingin kouna anachang lhonin ahi (Isaiah 6:8).

Myanmar (Burma) a akisollhon Mapgam Kuki Mission field hi Pu Tongkam Singsit akon abul kiphutdohsa ahinatoh kilhonin, Manipur Kuki Houbung kiloikhom honjong banjom a mission na tohjom theina dinghi anakhohsah un ahi. Chutichun Pu Tongkam Singsit natoh banjopdingin Pu Letjavum leh aloinu Pi Jampineng chu kum 1935 in Manipur North West Association in Mapgam a anasol kit uvin ahi.

Pu Letjavum te nupan jong amasapen in agam umdan kholtohdin Manipur gam Tongkoi2 khoa um Pu Tongkam Singsit kom a agachelhonin ojapi navahgei chun agaum lhonin ahi. Tongkoi khoa chun achanu masapen lhon Nengkholhing chu apengin ahi.

Ojapu Letjavum leh Ojapi Jampineng in Mapgam ahinjot lhonhi Pu Adoniram Judson tenupan 1813 kum a Burma Mission field ahinjot lhontobang ahi. Pu Judson tenupan akichenjoulhon sotloulai a kipana thupha jal’a apu apa chenna, gamnomtah America gam ahindalhah lhon’a gam hahsatah Burma gam ahinjotlhon a, thichan geiya Pakai na ahung tohlhon bang in Pu Letjavum tenupan jong akichenjou lhon sotloulai a Christa kipana thupha jal leh Burma gamcheng Kuki chate khohsah najal a gamnom tah Manipur phaicham leh thinglhanggam chu ahindalhah lhon ahi.

_________________________________________________________________________________
2 Tongkoi kho hi emite lah a Houbung masaloi tah in akihen, Pathen tahsan nalam a hattah ahivie. Khat vei chu Pakai Jesu Christa anivei chan a ahungding nichu anaitai tin, natong louvin ana ngah’uve tin akihei.

(2. Tongkoi Houbunghi Manipur Kuki Houbung holah a amasaloi ahin, tahsan nalam a hattah ahivie; khatve chu Christa hungnading anaitai tin natonglou’vin angah’uve tin akihei)

Hiche laitah a Mapgam cheding kitihi achehodinga kingaitomna lentah ahi. Ajieh chu mapgam hi gam hahsatah, tichu duchat khat choh a nehthei louna, deichat khatjong mujou louna, chenom na khat a jong gachenavah vah theilouna, gamlah thingnoi leh juham vaham kidang tahtah noiya, thinglhang vot kaoseu sou lah a kengjenga lamjotna, chihna lekhavah umlouna gamthip ahi. Ahin Pakai Jesu Christan “Koi hileh kanung eijui noma chun, ama kingaitom henlang, athingpel kaput henlang kanung hinjui hen” (Mk.8:34) atibangtah chun Pu Letjavum tenupan jong hahsat genthei thohding ginglouvin tahsan masateho khonung chu hangsentah in ahinjui lhonin kum 1935 chun Mapgam ahinjon lhontan ahi.

Mapgam ahunglhun lhon
Chutichun Joseph in naosen Jesu leh anu genthei tah a Igupta gamlam ajotpi bangchun, Pu Letjavum in jong kumkhat jong lhing loulai naosen Nengkholhing leh anu chu mol le lhang lah a kenglam in genthei tah in Mapgam ajotpi tan ahi. Hiche laichun Pu Thangkhojam chu Tuikol (Joujang) kho a apansan Pathen na onthotah in atongin ahi. Pu Letjavum te nupa alhunkum chun mapgam a Pathen hou mi 70 val aumtauvin ahi. Pu Letjavum tenupa vangchu Thingphaijang kho a apansalhon in natoh ahungkipan lhontai.Ojapu leh Ojapin jong khangthah hochu Thadou lekha Bul ahilpan lhonin chukalval in football, volleyball ichepdanhojong ahil lhonin, chule phat onseh leh gospel team in khovel dunga khangdong hotoh agache jiuvin hitichun thanom tahleh chimtih neilouvin Pathen nachu agammite hotoh kithokhomin ahintong lhonin ahileh phatsotlouvin houbung jong akibebe jengin ahi.

Adeh in Ojapu leh Ojapi hi school oja, lekhathem miching ahilhonjieh in government lamkai thanei hotoh jong lenkhomje, kivopje athem lhonin, Layshi sap honjong jabol nale ngailutna, khohsah na lentah anapejing jiuvin ahi.

Methodist Mission hunglut leh Houbung chehchao
Hichelai chun Myanmar (Burma) gampumpia lhumlam akon Missionary chomchom tampin na ahintongpan tan ahi. Kum 1813 kum a Baptist Mission ahung lhungbang chun kum 1887 in British

Methodist Missionary Society in Rev. G.H. Bateson chu kolgam a ahinsol un Methodist mission natoh ahinpan un ahi. Hitichun upper Burma a eimite kho, Maingdaungphai a Mission Head Quarter ahinsem un, Mission in nomtahtah, Mission school hole, hospital chule Preacher Pilhing Bible School, Mission manchah motor boats
ho geiyin pilhingtah in ahinsemun, lhacha natongho jong loman hoitahtah ahinpeuvin ahi. Methodist Missionary sappa Rev F. Kinchin chu kum 1938 in Pu Letjavum leh Pi Jampineng umna Thingphaijang ahunglhung in Baptist houbung mite lah’a na ahintongpan tauvin ahileh houbung mi tampichun Baptist Mission dalhan Methodist Mission ajop gamtau vin ahi. Methodist Mission Sapten Baptist houbung mite henga:

“Nangho Baptist te Pathen leh keiho Methodist te Pathen chu thakhat ahibou vie hijeh chun keihotoh tongkhom uhite” atiuleh Baptist houbung tamtah in jong lhagao a jong sochatna ahia, tahsa lamdol a jong phatchomna ahileh tin, Methodist Mission thahchu ajop tauvin ahi. Methodist Missionary sappa Pu Rev. F.Kinchin chun Ojapu tenupa agamudoh nichun kidang asalheh ie;ajieh chu hitobang tah a English paotho themtah mini hiche gamthipnoiya anaumding chun anagingcha pon ahi. Sappan jong Pu Letjavum tenupa chu Pathen na tohkhompi din anatemin ahi.Hichelai chun Pu Letjavum tenupan Methodist Mission chu anajop lhonleh sapten jong amaho bantah in koimai thei inte; chukal valin inchen khosah chule hinkho mandan jong nop samaithei lhonin te. Ahinla hiche phatchom ngaina hochu adalhalhonin Baptist missionary hina a thigei a tongdingin pan alajolhon tanahi. Amani chutia Baptist houbung (Mission) chunga thutah a adinlhon vangchun a houbungmite atamjo anading joupovin ahi.
Hiche houbung chehchao hi Mapgam Baptist Mission dinga nilhum kon bangchu ahin, Methodist Mission vangchu anei agouleh aloupinatoh, ahaonatoh ninou emsel hungsoh bang chu anahi. Kum 2 sunga a houbung miten mission thah ajop phat un, gol le pai chule kivoppi dingjong aumtah loujieh in Pu Letjavum leh Ojapin jong Thingphaijang chu adalha lhonin Golhangbung khochu ajonkit lhontan ahi. Golhangbung a kum 2 bang aumjou lhonin Layshi3 jonding in achekit lhontan ahi.

Mapgam a hesoh nale gentheina
Mapgam a Baptist Mission natoh nasunga Ojapu leh Ojapi dinga lhaset umtah leh gentheina sangpen chu angailut ahoubung miten ajamsen’uva, gol le pai kivoppi bei a gamthipnoi a hinkho anaman lhon, Ojapi gentheitah a ahinkhobei, chule Ojapu adammo laiya ajending leh a hinkho beinia avuiding eimi anaumlou tihohi ahi. Hitia ginchat loupettah a khopihuibanga hunglhung houbung chehchao nanikho, hichea kon’a hungpengdoh kimukhelna hohi Ojapi chun anadou lallheh ie tichu ama labol lathah bu No. 155 ah anoiya bangin akimudoh thei ie.

1. Letset chung a hin aw, chunglengva banga kalen laihin,
    Eisulung jingding lhepna ahat, nung le ma chem le thal,
    Ahem ie kadingin nitin in,
    lungmong moleh lhamong theilou kahitai.
Pakai lungset twikhanglen gin tobang,
    Hoija tham a lunglengvai le kahim?
    Chung Pathen in set leichunga hin aw
A natong dinga eilhamon hi naimo?

2. Nitin in lhepna meipijing in eijin khumjeng jongle,
    Pakai hatnan eikhu jing tahen;
    U le nao chamdel in Christan eipeh u na tong’u te,
    Pah banga I hinkhou amol kahsen.

3. Kipah in kalung penge, chungnungpen Christa kom achun;

__________________________________________________________________________________
3 Layshi hi Naga ho tamchen na khokhat ahin, solkar office umna chule molchung a um kholenthim khat ahi.

    Lal loupi bon noi leiset a leng,
    Christa dinga kahinkho hi genthei thohdia kaphal ie,
    I lou va kei lung kisih ding kahim?
4. Letset chunga kagolte leh kajat chanpite ho chu,
    I themmo nau kingaidam’u hite,
    Christa lalmun loupi Salem gamnom ichan nadingun,
    Khat le khat kingaidam to cheh’u hite.

Lhangpi kholui a ka le maona
Hitia Layshi jon a achate mithum (Nengkholhing, Thangkholen, Chongneikim) toh acheuva Lhangpi kholui ahinphah laitah un ojapi chu anavah phat ahunglhung in lampi a anavahden tan ahi. Ahin alunggim genthei laitah le phat hoimolai ahitoh kilhon in atha jong a lhomin hitiho jieh chun anavah namun a angailut asenji leh achate dalhan Pakai kom’a chondodin Paheng ajontai.

Ginchat louva ojapi hitia ahinkho abeiphat in Pu Letjavum jong pasal khat kisahtah hinkho mang ahivang chun thil ijakai agelleh alungsungin adoujou tapon ahi. Angailut houbung ten adalhah keu’u hilouvin, nop nale dana a golphatah a anei, angailut a senji in jong adalhah kitphat chun athoh jou himhim tapon gamthip noi achun aw thongjenjun in apengjah in, achate le aji akoi in abonun hakapin akaptauvin ahi. Hitia achate toh akagin’u chu Lhangpi hon ahingal jah un agadel

lut’u leh Ojapu leh achateni Nengkholing le Thangkholen akap pumin agamutau vin ahi. Amahon jong Ojapu chu alhamon un chule Ojapi longjongchu phaten avuitauvinahi. Hitichun, Ojapu leh chapangho chu a lhem un, ojapu vanchu abithei tapon ahi. Teijang Baptist Houbung upa Pu Mangkholal chun Ojapi chu anoiya bang in pupa lakai in la anabol in ahi (1970):

1. A. Golkhai nungteng selung hemin.
    B. Chung Pathen thangvah jeila a Oiding najil Pi Jampineng.
2. A. Mano munthong lhunglou lai a.
B. Venngal nigelle seen-angkoi pa lam thongnu nasemo.
3. A. Samang jal na Lhangpi khomun.
    B. Khangnoute selung lai nemhen sihtwi bangin longgom jinghen.

Pu Adoniram Judson in Chaikkhami a Pathen na atohlai tah in acha leh ajinu ahinkho abei in lunggenthei athoh lai tah in “ Christa a ding hihih poupou leh” tia tha akilah a akitlung mon bangin Ojapin jong “Chrsita a dinga kapheldohsa kahinkho idinga kakisih ding ham” tin akilungmon e tichu alabol in aphonge.

____________________________________________________________________________________
( Hetding: Ojapi thidan hi hetdan kibanglou aum ie. A chanu chun anuhi naosonat a thi hilouvin, Malaria net a adammo laitah a apahi Maingdaung a um Doctor pu kou’va achekah thi in asei ie; Ahin KCBA Golden Jubilee thusim bu phengmai 8 a chun Layshi a kijendinga achelaitah Lhangpi kholui agei’uva thi in asei ie.)

Pi Jampineng chunga mudanphondoh
“Ojapi Jampineng hi ginnei loumi, thutah a dingjing mi, numei hangsentah, numei kikhal tah ahi”—Pu Palal, Kangpokpi (Lathah bu ana khomtup pa).

“Rev. William Pettigrew Missionary sappa chun athikon geiyin Pisi (Jampineng)hi ageldoh jingin, adeh in Burma akon chapangho(Pisi chate) chu agapuidoh ding phat un, amakom a ahinpui diuvin thu a lhah in ahivangin ahinpui lutpeh jou tapu vin ahi. Pisi jeh chun sapten keiho insungmite eingailu lheh jeng ui”—Pi Thangkhoneng (A’u nu), Old Lambulane, Imphal. (From Rev Yampau Interview note – 1991)

Pu Letjavum in self-support a Mission na atohjom
Pu Letjavum in jong banjom a Pathen na atohjom theinading lampi ngaitonan achate thum toh Laysi ajonpai in, Layshi ah government service (Clark) na atongin, mitheng Paul in ponbuh asem a gospel kipana thupha alhangsap bangin, amanjong sorkar natoh pumpum in on seh leh sakhol khat in khoveldung a agachen Pathen thuchu a lhangsap jom jingin ahi. Pathen natong ahijieh in agammi Para Naga honjong analungset lheh un, angailu lheh uvie.

Kitepna khon Thi geija Christa a ding
Thichangeiya Pakai lhachana atoh Kum 1941 in TB chopnat nan ojapu chu ahin sugenthei pantan ahi. Hitichun phatsot louvin angailut Kuki Baptist mission field leh achate thum dalhan aji umnamun Pakai kom a choldodin achetan ahi. Pu Letjavum, Christa sepai galhangtah long chu Naga hon phatea avuikeu’u hilouvin, adalhah achate mi 3 jong lhasam louvin anasin un ahi. Apa hinkho bei chungchanga achapa Thangkholen thusei doh:

“Keiman kapa athi in kanagel poi, Pathen thusei a gamchom a chen kanagelgel ie; mihon napa athitai atiu chun katahsan theipon ahi”. ati.
(from Rev. Yampau interview note, 1991).

Teijang Baptist Houbung upa Pu Mangkholal chun kum 1997 in pupa lakai in anoiya bangin Pu Letjavum analachoi in ahi:
1. A. Selunglenge kolkim vella.
B. Venngai nigeltoh lonlhi puma Layshi ma nano Pu Letjavum.
2. A. Limkhom piding golle heova.
   B. Nitin sanggat lenpuldou-a thimang najin Layshi gamlei.
3. A. Nalong damsa lhenem huiding.
    B. Laijon cheng la gamvang lata veigam Hammolten pemang jil.
4. A. Lhaulha kidding khojang tonan.
    B. Veigam lei a hinkhal sunga Genthei a nahung bol em.
5. A. Nungteng neugol lunglai gil a.
    B. Lhaulha lengthei khojang tona kumsot Kaitwi chan longhen.
Sangget kile joulou chapangho
Pu Letjavum ahikho abeitai tithu Manipur State, Malungdai khoa cheng aupa Pu Ngultong in ajahdoh phat in kum 1947 in Mapgam (Burma) ah agachen chapang chaga thum chu agakipui tan ahi. Malungdai alhunjou’u phat sotlou vin a nao’u aneupen Chongneikim ahinkho abeikit in ahi.

Hitia kumthum bang achenjou un achennau inchu mei in ahinkan ahileh chengenthei ahungkipantan ahi. Hitia a’u nutoh achen genthei laitah lhon thusim chu Pu Thangkholen chun hitin avel seidoh in ahi:

“Ka u Nengkholhing in ponve khatbou anei ahin, janteng Sanget kilelou hiche ponve chu keima eisil peh jin ama anihtoh ithingdetdet in alum jin ahi. Neh ding aumjongleh kihom deldel in kanekhom ji lhon in, hitichun lhi le nap pumin hinkho kanamang lhon ie; ka u Nengkholhing hi gentheina sangbeh seh hih leh baitah in jinei ponte” ati.
(From Rev Dr. YamPau interview note – 1991).

             Chapangho gentheina asanbehseh jiehchu apu Pu Jamkithang, Tamainglon C.O chun chenkhom pidingin agakipui in ahi. Chen genthei jeh-in kum 1955 in Ng. Nengkholhing hi Burma gam Tamu a um apu Mangkolthang Sitlhou kom ah kumkhat agacheng in ahi. Akhove in a amajong a jinei paipai tai.
Thangkholen vang chu government chaga school (Adimjati Sikhsa Asharam), Imphal a kum 1956 in lekha anasim penin ahi. Niseh leh a u nu ngai jing a kapkap jin ahi. March 17, 1957 kumin Churachanpur a um Imphal branch (Asharai) a class V gei asim kitin, kum 1965-66 chun class VII-VIII gei N.G High school a asimin ahi. Kum 1968 in class IX CCpur High School akai jouvin Sgunu High school a class X akaijom in ahin analolhing jou tapoi.
             Pu Thangkholen in education lamdol a aseidoh khatchu: “Kapa leh kanu hi lekhathem anahilhon in keiho achaten amani dinmun cha jong phajou loudinga kaum diuhi nasa kasalheh in ahi” ati. (From Rev Yampau interview note 1991). Anu le apan gospel kipana thupha jal’a adalhah lhon chapang genthei hohi Mapgam a cheng Kuki Houbung miteleh Missionary dinga ahinsoldoh Manipur North West Association in avetsui joulou vangin Pathen milungset khoto themtah chun hiche chapangho hi avejingin adalhapoi. Pi Nengkholhing jong Sgunu ah phaten ajinei in, Pu Thangkholen jong Class ten asim jouvin Churachanpur College a na atong panin, hiche lekhajihpa toh akimuto laichun College a Laboratory Assistant in apangin ahi. Pi Nengkholhing hi tulai tah in akum 65 bang ahitai.

KCBA in Ojapu Letjavum leh Ojapi Jampineng dinga lhan asem
KCBA in jong aphatdung juiyin Ojapu leh Ojapi chunga tohding kintampi leh khankho aphatchan anatho jouhih’u jongle khonungin abanban in tohdinga lom kinho anatongchai un ahi. Kum 1997 in Ojapu le Ojapi lhansemna akibol in geldohna molsong chu Lhangpi Kholui, Thingnel lamka a anakiphut in ahi. Chukal val’in kum 1996 in Ojapu phatea anavui a achate anasin, Layshi a um Para Naga hokom a jong kipathu agasei un ahi. 4 Tomponho jong Rev. C. Yam Kho Ngam lamkainan achapa Pu Thangkholen kom a agathahlut un ahi. Pu Letjavum chunga thivui kin hihen chapangte ho chunga kinlah na hijongleh kin hinla Layshi a um sopi Naga ho kom’a kipathuseina jong anabol un ahi. Lhansem nia Pu Chongkholet Manli in alachoina:

Pi Jampineng lhansem nia lachoi na:
A. Navui saichung Jampineng.

B. Neogol chengto namin thei thijang kalouvie.

A. Lhaulha sehin O chinnigel.

B. Nalel thimthu Zouchang pha bang gamkom lot.

A. Setlei gamkom lodenta.

B. Chung Pathen selung lhaina Limsolang hinkhun.

A. Jampineng le Letjavum.

B. Mangthei louding nakhankho KCBA lunglai a.

( Labol: Ngamkholun, Manli )

__________________________________________________________________________________

4 KCBA Golden Jubilee thusim bu (2008), p.5
   A. Nigel khangjing hungthou vo.
   B. KCBA lumsong tun naselung lhai nam?
   A. Pupa selung moljong le.
   B. Jeila’n navang kalhem ie, naselung lhainam?
   A. Umi lhaolha sehih o.
   B. Natoi sahlhong kaphongnai KCBA ten.

Thuchai na

Pu Tongkam Singsit, Pu Letjavum Sitlhou le aloinu Pi Jampineng (Pisi) hinkho leh anatohnau thusim lahgom vangchu akijih chaitan ahi. Ahin amahon a hinjih pat’u hiche Kuki Baptist houbung thusimhi banjom a akhangmiten ajihjom diubou kin anei un ahi. Pathen in adinga gospel galsat phatah mithum ho genthei na,lhilonna, kana hohi sumil pontin, chule gospel kipana thupha jal’a tahsa jengjong muchitu a hintulut teho jal’ in Burma Kuki Baptist mission hi nikho khat leh Pathen in a sen sangget ahinkiledoh sahding ahitichu kinepumtah ahi. Tunia “Kuki Chin Baptist Association (KCBA)” vanghi Pu Letjavum chatebanga sanget kileloulai ahinalai ie. KCBA President pu Pu Rev. Daniel Paokholet chun hiti hin Houbung chaget la anabol in ahi.

1. A. Hinve temmo Chung Pathen.
    B. KCBA sen sangget mel munan nate.
2. A. Sen sangget mel a namu leh.
B. Hamjang phat na silpon lhenem chan hinhui yin.
3. A. Silpon lhenem chan hinhui yin.
    B. KCBA sangget mel kile nadin.
4. A. Sen sangget mel kile hen.
    B. Namtin lai a Jing ninouchan emsil sel hen.
5. A. Jangphol meibang ka an ie.
    B. Pengthah golnou cheng vang sonnan Ka an ie.

“Mitlhi pumpuma muchi tuten, kipah thanomin aga kilo’u hen! Akap pumpum a muchitu ding poa vaikon chu, a changpal kipoh-in kipah thanomin inlam hinjon hen! (Psalms 126: 5,6).
Ojapu leh Ojapi thusim akon kihilnathei tampijong akimudoh thei ie. Kolgam Kuki Baptist Houbung lhahsap hungkipat nahi gamsung houbung miten houbung leh Pakai lhacha natongte chunga thutah a dinjoulou na; Pathen houleh phatchom ngaikop na; khankho thoding tampi suhmil na; hitiho jeh-ahiti akimudoh thei ie.

Hitiho akon kikangsedoh theinadin “Mimasa teho khonung” jui angai ie. Pathen in a lhachateni kinepna bangin Myanmar Kuki Baptist Mission hi jing ninoubangin emsel in a loupinadin dongsang jing tahen.

Reference:
1. KCBA Silver Jubilee Thusim (1983)
2. Interview sources by Rev. Dr Yam Kho Pau (1991) &
3. Evan. Haopao Haokip (2009)
4. KCBA Men Department, Pupa Lakai a kiso Labu
5. KCBA Golden Jubilee Thusim Bu (2008)
6. Christian Lathah Bu

The Struggles of Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi

2010-04-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

By Nehginpao Kipgen

The politics of a nation is strengthened by the participation of the people who run the government and the opposition who checks the balance of power. A government earns credibility when it can tolerate the varied views of its citizens.

It is fortunate that there has been no major global conflict since the end of World War II in 1945. However, it is disheartening to see that there are nations who still would not tolerate the dissenting views of its own people, especially individuals who are admired by the international community.

The struggles of Dalai Lama of Tibet (now under China) and Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma are an inspiration to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Yet, the very same individuals are treated as if they are threats to peace and security by governments in their respective native lands.

Tenzin Gyatso, popularly known as the 14th Dalai Lama, has been in exile since the failed Tibetan uprising in 1959. Born on 6 July 1935, the 74-year-old Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader and head of the Tibetan government-in-exile based in Dharamshala, India.

Aung San Suu Kyi, born on 19 June 1945, is the only daughter of Aung San, who negotiated the independence of Burma from the British rule. The 64-year-old Suu Kyi, after having lived years abroad, returned to her native country in 1988.

There are a number of similarities the two individuals share in common that have earned them international respect.

First, both are recipients of the much coveted Nobel Peace Prize. Dalai Lama was awarded the prize in 1989, and Suu Kyi in 1991. Second, both are recipients of Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award in the United States of America. Dalai Lama received the award in 2007, while Suu Kyi was bestowed in absentia in 2008.

Third, both individuals are denied the chance of political leadership in their own countries. The two enjoy significant support internationally, mostly from the Western world. Despite their popularity at home and abroad, one has spent his life in exile for over 40 years, while the other has spent 14 years of her life under house arrest.

Though Dalai Lama openly claims that his movement is for a genuine autonomy and not complete independence, the Chinese government accuses him as a dangerous separatist. His recent visit to the White House on February 18 was strongly protested by Beijing.

In his Cable News Network (CNN) interview aired on the evening of 22 February 2010, the Dalai Lama was asked what he wants from president Barack Obama and America. The Dalai Lama stated his three commitments, including the “promotion of human value in order to create a better world, a more compassionate world, a peaceful world.”

Washington’s welcoming of the Tibetan leader heightened the strained Sino-U.S. ties, which happened in the face of tensions over U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, China's currency practices and internet censorship.

With China’s rising economic power and its critical role in international politics as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Washington needs Beijing’s partnership, especially on issues such as imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, preventing nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula, and forging a new global accord on climate change.

The United States also wants to prove to the free world that it is a champion of human rights. The 70-minute meeting between president Obama and Dalai Lama perhaps pacified many who say that Obama has focused on global issues with Beijing at the expense of human rights.

On the other hand, Aung San Suu Kyi is serving her latest 18 months of house arrest. In its ruling on February 26, the country’s Supreme Court rejected her appeal for freedom. A reason was not given for the decision.

Suu Kyi is one individual probably feared most by the military junta. For many Burma observers, the court’s ruling was not surprising. Even if the junta considers releasing her before the proposed general election this year, it is likely to come with conditions. The more likely scenario is that she will be freed after election.

One reason of Suu Kyi’s unlikely release before election is that the military learnt a lesson from the 1990 general election, in which the military-backed National Unity Party secured only 10 seats, while the National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi’s party, won 392 seats in the 492-member assembly.

The military would not want history to repeat itself. Aung San Suu Kyi apparently enjoys a strong support from the peoples of Burma’s diverse ethnic nationalities. Despite the reservation of 25 percent of parliament seats for the military, the opposition still has a greater chance of winning more seats provided that there is a free and fair election.

Despite the troubles the two Nobel Peace Laureates have faced, their spirits for the freedom of their own people are unrelenting. Similarly, the support from the international community does not seem to dwindle either.

It is still, however, precarious if and when they will be given a chance to head the governments in their respective countries. Recent developments pertaining to the two democratic icons have once again caught the attention of the international community.

Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma (1947-2004) and general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com). He has written numerous analytical articles on the politics of Burma and Asia that have been widely published in five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America).

Thailand is searching for acceptable government

2010-04-23T17:56:00.000-07:00

Nehginpao Kipgen
Thailand is a country whose economy significantly depends on its tourism industry, generating an estimated 547,782 million Thai baht in 2007. It contributed to approximately 6.7 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). The World Tourism rankings put it at the world’s 18th most visited country with 14.5 million visitors that same year.

This tourism-thriving nation has been plagued by waves of a faltering democracy because of its political instability, which at times has interrupted the basic functioning of the government machinery, and therefore entailing military interventions.
The military has staged 18 successful coups since 1932, when a group of civilians and military officers overthrew the last absolute monarchy.

The ongoing political unrest started when former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was removed from office. Thaksin was attending the United Nations meeting in New York when the military staged a coup in September 2006 on charges of corruption and abuse of power. His supporters, mostly from the poor rural areas and working class electorates, accused the country’s urban elites of orchestrating the coup.

Thaksin’s policies such as cheap healthcare and village loans were popular in the rural areas. He was, however, accused by his political rivals of disrespecting the country’s monarch, who is highly revered in the country.
The latest round of clashes between protesters and government soldiers, which according to an Associated Press report on April 11, resulted in 21 deaths (4 soldiers and 17 civilians) and about 874 people injured.
This violence is the worst since 1992 when four dozen people were killed in antimilitary protest. The protesters, who are popularly known as Red Shirts, are sympathizers and supporters of the deposed Thaksin.

Though he has been forced to live in exile, attempts to reconnect with his supporters have never ceased. In 2007, Thaksin’s allies won the parliament elections, but the court intervened to disqualify two subsequent governments on charges of conflict of interest and vote buying.

The fundamental demand of the protesters is to dissolve the Parliament within 15 days and hold new elections. Instead, prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva offered to do so by the end of the year.

With the escalation of tensions, the protesters have demanded that the prime minister resign and leave the country. To the protesters, the current government is illegitimate as it does not reflect the result of the last election held in 2007.
Abhisit took office in December 2008 after garnering a majority of votes in Parliament to form a government. The present conflict is a result of simmering tensions between the Red Shirts of Thaksin’s supporters and the Yellow Shirts who vehemently oppose the premiership of Thaksin and his allies.

In one of its most effective non-violent movements, the Yellow Shirts’ protesters in 2008 forced the shutdown of Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi and Don Muang airports and brought the country’s tourism industry to a virtual standstill.
It successfully forced out prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, who the protesters accused of acting as the puppet for Thaksin.
Political instability in Thailand is not only crippling its national economy, but is embarrassing for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional bloc. The 14th ASEAN summit held in Thailand was disrupted by pro-Thaksin protesters last year.

Because of the continued protest, prime minister Abhisit had to declare a national state of emergency and cancelled his plan to participate in the 16th ASEAN annual summit, held in Vietnam, last week.
It is uncertain as to how long Abhisit’s government will survive and if the military will stage another coup, but one thing is unambiguous - the confrontation between the country’s urban elite and the rural poor community will continue to linger.
Even if Abhisit is forced to relinquish power and the Parliament is dissolved, it is likely that the Yellow Shirts movement may again emerge at some point down the road, unless the opposing groups come up with a mutually acceptable political solution.
The escalation of violence in Thailand has also temporarily shifted the international community’s attention on the conflicts in neighboring Burma, which stemmed from the recent announcement of the military junta’s imbalanced electoral laws.
The conflict in Thailand is somewhat peculiar in nature. It is not a fight to restore a civilian rule or democracy. It is rather a struggle in search of an acceptable government that can bridge the gap between the urban elites and the rural working class, by catering to the needs of both populations.

Instability in Thailand

2010-04-23T17:48:00.000-07:00

By Nehginpao Kipgen
Thailand, a tourist-thriving nation in Southeast Asia, has a history of political unrest.
Starting with the bloodless Siamese coup d'etat of 1932 that transformed the country from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy, Thailand's political system has been intermittently disrupted.
The lingering uncertainty in November 2008 ended with a court dissolving Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's government, which paved the way for incumbent Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Because of protests, the 14th summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was postponed from December 2008 to the end of February 2009. While the 2008 summit was cancelled before it actually took place, the most recent protest on April 11 erupted after the ASEAN leaders arrived at the summit venue, Pattaya. This latest development may be seen as a success by the protesters as they managed to force the summit cancelled. Conversely, it is an embarrassment for Abhisit who assumed office barely four months ago with the goal of restoring normalcy and political stability.

The current string of political turmoil started back in September 2006 when former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted in a military coup.

The protesters' demands include the resignations of Prime Minister Abhisit and three advisers to King Bhumibol, who the protesters accuse of helping to oust Thaksin, and the holding of fresh elections.

If the protesters, who vowed to continue their agitation in Bangkok until Abhisit resigns, go forward with their plan, this could bring a more precarious situation to the country.

It could lead to further violence and confrontation between red-shirted protesters and blue-shirted royalists, or the regrouping of yellow-shirted protesters.

To prevent the country from a deeper split, the two opposing sides should come together and find common ground.

The besieged attending leaders were airlifted, while the plane carrying Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had to be diverted.

This whole development is a credibility challenge for the regional bloc. This has happened at a time when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is working to promote its leverage in international politics.

During its summit held at the end of February, the association made a historic headway by forming the ASEAN Human Rights Organization.

By removing trade barriers and integrating economically among member countries, the regional bloc envisions becoming a European Union-style single market by 2015.

The abrupt cancellation of the Pattaya Summit was a missed opportunity for the ASEAN community. The gathering planned to discuss the widening of free trade in the region, mobilizing a coordinated response to the global financial crisis, and how to respond to North Korea's April 5 rocket launch.

The summit was anticipated to be a significant one, with six other nations joining the regional leaders. The meeting was scheduled to include the non-ASEAN members China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.

Meetings of ASEAN + 3 (China, Japan and South Korea) did not happen, but the latter three nations managed to meet and agreed for a ``strong message to be issued unanimously at an early date'' on the North Korean rocket launch.

Other leaders who were scheduled to attend the weekend summit were: Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary-general; Robert B. Zoellick, president of the World Bank; and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Had the summit proceeded smoothly as planned, members of the regional bloc could have received financial assistance from the World Bank and the IMF. During its April 2 summit in London, the G20 nations pledged to help developing nations to revive their ailing economies.

Thailand has become the first nation on record to have cancelled two ASEAN summits within four months.

Nehginpao Kipgen is political analyst and general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com). He has written numerous analytical articles on the politics of Asia published in different leading international newspapers. He can be reached at nehginpao@yahoo.com.

~ The Writter is the secretary of KIF

The Kuki People of Meghalaya

2010-04-23T14:52:00.000-07:00

The Kukis are ethnic group that spread throughout the Northeastern region of India, Northwest Burma and Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh. In Northeast India they are present in all the states except Arunachal Pradesh. This dispersal across international borders is mainly attributed to the British colonial policy. The term ‘Kuki’ is a Bengali word meaning ‘hill people’ or ‘highlander’. According to Lt. Colonel Shakespeare (The Lushai Kuki Clans, Part I, London, 1912) the term ‘Kuki’ has a definite meaning and include Aimol, Chothe, Chiru, Koireng, Kom, Purum, Anal, Lamkang, Moyon, Monsang, Gangte, Vaiphei, Simte, Paite, Thadou, Hmar, Zou etc. G.A. Grierson in Linguistic Survey of India, 1967 stated that the tribes connoted by Kuki are able to understand another’s dialect. Recognising the common ethnicity and identity of the Kukis, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 of the Government of India placed all the Kukis under ‘Any Kuki Tribes’ in the states of Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, and Meghalaya.

Due to the various movements for separate administrative units based on ethnicity, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram were carved out of Assam. The creation of new administrative units deprived the Kukis much of their political interests. Nevertheless they have been living cordially with the majority communities. Such is the case of the Kuki tribes in Meghalaya. When Meghalaya was carved out from Assam by the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act 1969, the various Kukis living in the then United Khasi-Jaintia Hills district became indigenous tribes of Meghalaya. Even though a minority, the Kukis in Meghalaya are not negligible in terms of their population. In this essay a brief history of Meghalaya, its social composition and the various governmental policies affecting the minority Kukis are analysed.

Brief history of Meghalaya

Meghalaya, which literally means ‘Abode of Clouds’ in Sanskrit, consist of the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo Hills. The British rulers annexed the Khasi Hills in 1833, Jaintia Hills in 1835 and Garo Hills in 1872-73. The state is the product of movement for the formation of the Eastern Hill State consisting of all the hill areas and the contiguous areas inhabited by people of the same racial stock in Assam. Due to the the assimilative and discriminatory policies pursued by the government of Assam in relation to the minority groups, a section of Khasi and Garo elites started a movement for separate administrative unit. They emphasised their differences from the plains people and blamed Assamese for trying to impose their culture and language and their attempts to dominate the legislature and services.

In 1969, the Indira Gandhi government intended to fulfill the long standing demands of the hill tribals by providing them an autonomous state within the state of Assam covering all the autonomous districts of Assam, i.e., the Garo Hills, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Mikir Hills, North Cachar Hills and Mizo Hills district. However, the tribes in North Cachar Hills and Mikir Hills were not enthusiastic about the movement and preferred to remain within Assam. The Mizos wanted to have a separate state and launched their own movement. The Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act of 1969 provided Meghalaya, which comprises of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills district and Garo Hills district, a semi-autonomous state which came into effect on 2^nd April 1970. Subsequently it became a full-fledged state of India on 21^st January 1972 with the passing of North Eastern Areas (Re-Organisation) Act, 1971.

Social composition

Meghalaya is predominantly a tribal state. There are seventeen recognised tribes in the state. The Khasis, Jaintias and the Garos are the dominant and generally recognised indigenous tribes of the state. Apart from the three major tribes there are several tribal populations settling in the state since its inception. They are the Bodos-Kacharis, Hajongs, Rabhas, Hmars, Syntengs, Mikirs, Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes, Any Naga Tribes and the Any Kuki Tribes including (i) Biate, Biete, (ii) Changsan, (iii) Chongloi, (iv) Doungel, (v) Gamalhou, (vi) Gangte, (vii) Guite, (viii) Hanneng, (ix) Haokip, Haupit, (x) Haolai, (xi) Hengna, (xii) Hongsungh, (xiii) Hrangkhwal, Rangkhol, (xiv) Jongbe, (xv) Khawchung, (xvi) Khawathilang, Khothalong, (xviii) Kholhou, (xix) Kipgen, (xvii) Khelma, (xx) Kuki, (xxi) Lengthang, (xxii) Lhangum, (xxiii) Lhoujen, (xxiv) Lhouvun, (xxv) Lupheng, (xxvi) Mangjel, (xxvii) Misao, (xxviii) Riang, (xxix) Sairhem, (xxx) Selnam, (xxxi) Singson, (xxxii) Sitlhou, (xxxiii) Sukte, (xxxiv) Thado, (xxxv) Thangngeu, (xxxvi) Uibuh, (xxxvii) Vaiphei. The non-tribal communities comprises of Bengalis, Marwaris, Nepalis and small sections of communities from different parts of India.

According to the census of 2001, the population of Meghalaya is 23,18,822. The tribes, which number 1,992,862 persons, consist of 85.9 percent of the state’s population. The remaining 14.1 percent of the population is non-tribal. The Khasis constitute 49.54 percent, followed by the Garos with 30.86 percent. The Kukis in the state constitute 0.5 percent of the total tribal population with 10,085 persons. The composition of the major Scheduled Tribes of Meghalaya as per 2001 census is given below.

Name of the Tribe	Total Population	Proportion to Total ST Population
All Scheduled Tribes	1,992,862	100%
Khasi	1,123,490	56.4
Garo	689,639	34.6
Hajong	31,381	1.6
Rabha	28,153	1.4
Koch	21,381	1.1
Synteng	18,342	0.9
Mikir	11,399	0.6
Any Kuki tribes	10,085	0.5
Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes	3,526	0.2
Any Naga Tribes	3,138	0.2
Bodo Kachari	2,932	0.1
Hmar	1,146	0.1

Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, 2001.

NGOs and Governmental policies

Due to the perceived land alienation and threat to demographic changes in the state the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) in 2000 launched Ksan rngiew movement. This movement is not a public agitation but an instrument to rejuvenate and awake the Khasi people to strive ahead with hope and expectation of a brighter future. One of the demands of this movement placed before the government was to amend the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, 1971 in order to prevent tribals from other states to acquire lands in Meghalaya. The government under pressure from students’ organisations and other NGOs amended clause (A) Section II of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, 1971 on 5^th April 2001 that enable only the indigenous tribes of the state to buy and sell land. As per the reports of Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Bulletin, some minor tribal communities like the Rabha, Koches, Boro, Hajongs, Karbis and Lalungs are recognised as normal residents of Meghalaya and are allowed to sell and purchase land among them. The indigenous Kukis living in the state were deprived of such rights along with certain communities like the Nagas and Mizos.

The amendment of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, 1971 in 1991 provide some relaxation where land is required for a place of worship by a community, burial or cremation grounds and in cases where land is required to promote the interest of the tribals in the field of education.

Apart from depriving such rights, the government of Meghalaya proposed to delete certain Scheduled Tribes, including the Any Kuki Tribes, from the existing list of Scheduled Tribes in the state of Meghalaya. This agitated the minds of the indigenous minorities living in the state of Meghalaya. In this connection the Any Kuki tribes of Meghalaya under the aegis of Kuki Welfare Committee, Shillong submitted a memorandum to the then Chef Minister Donkupor Roy in 2008 and appealed for protection and retention of ‘Any Kuki Tribes’ in the list of the Scheduled Tribes of Meghalaya. They argued that the Kukis have been living even before the formation of the then United Khasi and Jaintia Hills in 1951 and at present there are more than twenty Kuki (Biate and Vaiphei) villages in Jaintia Hills alone. They also fervently put forward that many of them have been living in Shillong and other parts of the state as indigenous and permanent residents ever since the creation of Meghalaya, although their existence has not been widely recognised.

In the first week of December 2009, tension erupted at Kmaranga Khasi village near Jiribam in Manipur on the proposed eviction of land for setting up Manipur police subsidiary training centre. The KSU (Barak Valley Circle) requested Chief Minister D.D. Lapang for his personal intervention against the eviction notice and claimed that Kamranga Khasi village falls under the jurisdiction of Tousem subdivision in Tamenglong district where the indigenous Khasi people have been settled permanently since 1940s. Whereas the Manipur government maintained that the land occupied by Khasi villagers are ‘khash land’ which no one own but remain as government land. The Kuki Students’ Organisation, Jiribam and Zeliangrong Students’ Union Manipur (ZSUM) supported the claims of the KSU (Barak Valley Circle) and opposed such move of the Manipur government.

Concerned with the loopholes in Meghalaya Land Transfer Act 1971 and its amendment in 2001, the ruling Congress-led Meghalaya United Alliance set up a committee in August 2009 under the chairmanship of Deputy Chief Minister Bindo Lanong to assess the pros and cons of the Land Transfer Act and suggest ways to regulate any further alienation of indigenous land. Eight NGOs from the state, including the KSU and the Federation of Khasi Jaintia Garo People (FKJGP) are part of the committee.

Conclusion

Meghalaya is a relatively peaceful state compared to some other Northeastern states like Manipur, Nagaland and Assam. Since the new millennium various NGOs of the state intensified their movement to secure employment opportunities and check influx of people from Bangladesh and other parts of India, and increasing land alienation. Of late, the spurt of land purchase by tribals from other states in Shillong has been their main concern. The amendment of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, 1971 in 2001 prevented the tribals from other states to acquire lands in Meghalaya

The amendment of this act by the Meghalaya government may be justified on the ground of land insecurity. There are vast amount of Scheduled Tribes residing in Shillong and other parts of the state that are not indigenous but their tribe listed among the seventeen recognised tribes of Meghalaya. The government and NGOs need to clearly demarcate and identify the indigenous people of the state and non-indigenous people from other parts of the region even though they may belong to the same tribe. Such action will prevent the abuse of the amended Land Transfer Act.

There is also a concern expressed by KHNAM, the political wing of KSU, of the increasing presence of Scheduled Tribes from other states in Shillong. With the Naga peace talks in the right track and possible solution in 2010, the signing of Suspension of Operations with the various Kuki insurgent groups under KNO and UPF, and the centre’s offer of olive branch to all the armed groups in Northeast India, there is a ray of hope for peace in the troubled states like Manipur and Nagaland. When normalcy is restored in these states, students will have a second thought in leaving the well equipped colleges in their state and when thousands of them remain within the sate it will prevent drain of wealth. This will be one positive step toward economic development.

~ The Writter is Reasearch Scholar of NEHU, Meghalaya

The British Northeast Frontier Policy and the Kukis-1

2010-04-23T14:37:00.000-07:00

The Northeastern region of India, popularly know as the ‘seven sisters’, comprises of the state of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. Recently Sikkim has been added as the eight state of the Northeast region due to its proximity to the area, a similar developmental problems and convenience in implementing developmental projects. The Chinese scholar and pilgrim Hiuen Tsang, who visited the plains of Assam in the first half of the seventh century described the region as covered with beautiful mountains, lush forests and wild life, and depicted a fairly advanced civilization and rich cultural heritage in his narratives.

Contrary to the mainland Indian perception of Northeast India as a culturally homogeneous region of mongoloid races, the region is diverse in almost every aspects; it is inhabited by a mosaic of societies characterised by diversity of ethnicity, language, culture, religion, social organisation, economic pursuits, productive relations and participation in political process. J.B Fuller wrote in 1909 that the province of Assam at the far northeastern corner of India is a ‘museum of nationalities’.
Academically, the Northeastern region is still regarded as part of Southeast Asia from the cultural point of view. Peter Kunstadter in his two volume work entitled Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities and Nations included a chapter on Assam, which denotes the present day Northeast India. Kunstadter explain his inclusion of the region on the basis of the region’s large population of tribal and minority peoples whose languages are more closely related to the languages of Southeast Asia than to those of the Indian subcontinent and their cultures too resembling the cultures of their neighbours in Southeast Asia. Sir Robert Reid, Governor of Assam (1937-1942) also stated that ‘they (tribals of Northeast India) are not Indians in any sense of the word. Neither in origin nor in appearance, nor in habits, nor in outlook and it is by historical accident that they are tagged to Indian province.’ Therefore, the inclusion of the region into Indian Territory can be termed as a ‘series of historical accident’.

Most of the inhabitants consist of peoples who migrated from Southwest China or Southeast Asia via Burma at various point of history; they retain their cultural traditions and values but are beginning to adapt to contemporary lifestyles. One of the late migrants into the Northeastern region were the Kukis who are scattered all over the region in due course of time. The earlier Kuki migrants into the region were termed by the British scholars and administrators of Northeast India as ‘Old Kukis’ who migrated about a hundred years earlier than the later migrants, the ‘New Kukis’.

Even though there exist a great diversity, the people of the Northeastern region can be broadly divided into three distinct groups of people; the hill tribes, the plain tribes and the non-tribal population of the plains. Most of the hill tribes in Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura are Christian while a substantial proportion of those living in the plains of Assam, Manipur and Tripura are Hindus and Muslims. In spite of the modernisation and emergence of present day problems, the people still dearly cherish the essence of century’s old mutual ties and culture. The hill tribes can be grouped into four major groups: the Kuki-Chin-Mizos, Nagas, Khasi-Jintia-Garos and Arunachalis. The British rulers described these hill tribals of Northeast India as faithful and loyal subjects.

The Northeastern region of India has little or no contacts with the mainland India through out the annals of history. The different communities in the region maintain autonomy or independence not only from outside forces but also within themselves even though there was intimate relationship between the warring communities. The region was considered more as a part of Southeast Asia than the India subcontinent as the people interacted more with the people of this region and the culture and racial composition is more close to Southeast Asians. The British military success over Burma in 1826 and the annexation of the Ahom kingdom of Assam to the Presidency of Bengal marked the entry of the British East India Company to the region and the region’s inclusion into the Indian sub-continent. Initially British India was strongly against the absolute possession of the region but due to strategic compulsions they were forced to so. By the right of conquest these territorities were brought directly under the control of the British government and the region was redrawn as the political frontier upon India’s ‘Northeast’, away from its historical positioning at the cultural and ecological crossroads of South and Southeast Asia.

The whole of the present northeastern region was under Bengal province till 1874. Due to the British policy of expanding areas under their control and administrative rearrangements since the Revolt of 1857, the Assam province was created and governed by a Chief Commissioner who was subordinate to Lieutenant Governor of Bengal province. However due to change in subsequent administrative policies, a new arrangement was made where Assam province became a distinct unit directly administered by a Governor-General. Therefore, successive legal and administrative decisions taken between 1874 and 1935 gave Northeast India, a distinct region and identity. The region has been treated separately and distinctly from other parts of the region or province by British India through out their colonial rule. The Northeastern region has been a difficult frontier region ever since the British colonial period.

The initial British policy for the frontiers, as commented by a mainland Indian Scholar- S. K. Chaube, was the policy of ‘segregation’. However, anthropologists like Verrier Elwin and most of the British administrators were for the protection and seclusion of the hill tribes. Since their contact and subjugation the British administration takes steps to give hill people a paternal government which allowed them to exercise their own genius in the management of themselves, with just that amount of control from above. A series of acts and regulations were passed by the British to protect the peoples in the hill areas of the Northeastern region and most of these acts and regulations were followed by the independent Indian government. The legal enactments made for the rest of the country could not be automatically be enforced in these areas, except when they were specifically adopted for them. The administrative system developed for these areas were quite different from that in the rest of the country, and most administration was left by the British to the local tribal chiefs.

The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873 was the first among them which allowed the colonial state to create an Inner Line along the Assam foothill tracts. This Inner Line, under the Government of British India, is defined merely for the purpose of jurisdiction. However, this regulation prohibit any subject living outside the area from living or moving therein on the pretext of protecting tribal minorities in the hill areas of Assam. It allowed the tribes beyond the tracts to manage their own affairs with only such interference on the part of the frontier officers in their political capacity as may be considered advisable with the view to establishing a personal influence for good among the chiefs and the tribes. This regulation was added to by the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874 and the Frontier Tract Regulation Act of 1880 which permitted the exclusion of the territories under their purview from the codes of civil and criminal procedures, the rules on property legislation and transfer and any other laws considered unsuitable for them.

With the same purpose, the Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas) Order of 1935 was passed and declare the Naga Hills District, the Lushai Hills District, the North Cachar Subdivision of the Cachar District and the frontier tracts as excluded. The Garo Hills District, the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District (excluding Shillong) and the Mikir hill tracts of Nowgong and Sibsagar District as partially excluded areas. The Excluded Areas were under the direct jurisdiction of the British through the executive control of the Assam Governor and that no Act of the Federal Legislature or of Assam Legislature was to apply to these areas. The Partially Excluded Areas were under the control of the Assam Governor and subject to ministerial administration, but the Governor had an overriding power when it came to exercising his discretion. No act of Assam or Indian legislatures could apply to these two hill divisions unless the Governor in his discretion so directed. Therefore, the politics of mainstream political parties did not have any effect in these areas. According to Sharma the British rulers kept certain areas of the Northeast as ‘excluded’ from the rest of the country with two fold objectives: (i) to keep the area as a buffer region between India and the neighbouring countries; and (ii) to protect them from exploitation by the plainsmen.

The Writter is a Reasearch Scholar of NEHU in Meghalaya.