Showing posts with label EV Zomi History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EV Zomi History. Show all posts


ခ်င္းဝိေသသတိုင္း စည္းမ်ဥ္း ဥပေဒ ၁၈၉၆
Posted By Salai Aung Ling

Introduction : The Chin Hills Regulation (Regulation IV) passed on August 13, 1896, had authorized the Superintendent or Deputy Commissioner (of the Lushai Hills) to order an undesirable outsider to leave the area and to tax the residents, permanent or temporary, clans and villages. On October 9, 1911, the Regulation was extended to the North Cachar Hills, the Garo Hills, the Khasi and Jaintya Hills (excluding the Shillong municipal and cantonement area where only the provision for taxation would apply), the Naga Hills and Mikir Hills

(1) This Regulation may be called the Chin Hills Regulation, 1896.
(2)It shall come into force on such date as the Local Government may, by notification in the Burma Gazette appoint.
(3) The Section and Section 3 shall extend to the whole of the Chin Hills. The rest of this Regulation shall extend only to such tracts in the Chin Hills as the Local Government, with the previous sanction of the Governor General in Council, may by notification in the Burma Gazette, direct.
(1) In this Regulation, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context the expression – “Superintendent” includes any officer whom the Local Government may invest with the powers of a Superintendent under this Regulation.
(2) “Assistant Superintendent” includes any officer whom the Local Government may invest with the powers of an Assistant Superintendent under this Regulation.
(3)“Chins” includes (a) Lushais, (b) Kukis, (c) Burman domiciled in the Chin Hills; and (d) any person who had adopted the customs and language of the Chins and are habitually resident in the Chin Hills;
(4) “Clan” means any sub-division or section of Chins, and includes a group of clans.
(5)“Villages” includes –
(a) a village – community.
(b) village lands,
(c) rivers passing through or by village land; and
(d) a group of villages; and
(6) “Headman” means the chief or head of any clan or village inhabited by Chins, and includes a council of chiefs or elders.
(1) This Regulation and the enactment in the schedule, to the extent and with the modifications there in set forth, shall be deemed to be the only enactment which apply to any tract in the Chin Hills to which Section 2 and Section 4 to 41 (both inclusive) may be extended by a notification under Section 1, sub-section (3).
(2) No other enactment shall be deemed to apply to Chins in the Chin Hills:
Provided that the Local Government, (subject to the control) of the Governor General in Council, may by notification in the Burma Gazette, declare any other enactment to be applicable wholly or to the extent or with the modification which may be set forth in the notification.
(1) so far as regards persons other than Chins, the law in force in the Chin Hills shall subject to the provision of sub-section (4) and (5), be the law for the time being in force in Upper Burma exclusive of the town of Mandalay :
(2)For the purposes of any enactment in force in the Chin Hills in persuance of the provisions of sub-section (1), the Superintendent shall be deemed to be the Deputy Commissioner or the District Magistrate and Collector, and an Assistant Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner in charge of a sub-division or an Assistant Collector of the first class, as the case may be.
(3)The Local Government shall exercise the powers of the Financial Commissioner and of a commissioner under any such enactment as aforesaid.
(4) This section and section 9, 16, 22, 23, 33 and 34 shall apply to person within the Chin Hills.
(5)Section 12 shall apply to all parties to a suit or other proceeding of a civil nature in which any of the parties in a Chin.
(1) Subject to any general or special orders of the Local Government the Superintendent may appoint and remove any headman, and may define the local limits of his jurisdiction and declare what clan, or village, or both shall be subject to him.
(2) Where a headman is appointed for a group of villages or clans, the Superintendent may declare the extent to, and the manner in, which the headman of the villages or clans composing such group shall be subordinate to the headman of the group.
(3) In making a declaration under this section the Superintendent shall be guided as far as practicable by local custom.
(1) Every headman shall within the local limits of his jurisdiction have general control, according to local custom, over the clan, or village, or both , declared subject to him.
2) He may levy from such clan or village any customary dues and may impose on them such punishments as are authorised by local custom:
Provided that no barbarous, excessive or unusual punishment shall be imposed.
(3) He shall be bound to keep the peace within the tract under his general control; to comply with all lawful orders, received from the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent; and to furnish on the requisition of the Superintendent or an Assistant Superintendent, on receipt of payment at rates to be fixed by the Superintendent, supplies of food or labour required by any public servant.
(1) A headman may try, according to local custom, any person subject to his general control who may be charged with any offence other than and offence punishable under section 121 to 130, section 302 to 308, section 341 to 348, section 363 to 440 (all inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code or with abetment of, or attempt to commit, any of these offences, and may punish with fine in money or goods any person found guilty by him of any such offence as aforesaid.
(2) Nothing in the Indian Penal Code or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, shall apply to any proceedings of a headman acting in exercise of the powers conferred by this section.
A headman may try and decide according to local custom any dispute of a civil nature between persons subject to his general control, and may enforce his decision in accordance with such custom.
(1) The Chin Hills shall constitute a sessions division and a district for criminal, civil, revenue and general purposes, and the Superintendent shall be the Sessions Judge.
(2) As Sessions Judge the Superintendent may take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction without the accused being committed to him by a magistrate for trial, and, when so taking cognizance shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate.
For the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, the Local Government shall exercise the powers of a High Court.
The Local Government may, by notification in the Burma Gazette, invest any Assistant Superintendent with all or any of the powers of a Superintendent under this Regulation, and define the local limits of his jurisdiction.

(1) The Superintendent and every Assistant Superintendents exercising jurisdiction within the Chin Hills may try any suit or other proceeding of a civil nature between parties, any one of whom is a Chin, according to such procedure as the Local Government may, by notification in the Burma Gazette prescribed; and
(2) In the trial of any such suit or proceeding, may exercise all or any of the powers which he might exercise in a suit or proceeding in which none of the parties is a Chin, and
(3) In deciding any such suit or proceeding shall have regard to local custom and to justice, equity and good conscience.
The Superintendent may withdraw any civil or criminal case pending before a headman or an Assistant Superintendent and may other try if himself or refer it for trial to an Assistant Superintendent.
(1) Subject to the control of the Local Government, the Superintendent may take hostages from, or impose fines in money or goods on any clan or village or any part thereof, if after enquiry he find that any of the persons belonging to such clan or village have –
(a) colluded with, or harbored, or failed to take reasonable means to prevent the escape of, any person accused of, or under sentence of imprisonment for, an offence;
(b) suppressed or combine to suppressed evidence in any criminal case;
(c) failed or neglected to restore stolen property tracked to their village or to take on the track beyond the limits of their village;
(d) done any act hostile or unfriendly to the Government;
(e) disobeyed the lawful orders of the Superintendent or an Assistant Superintendent;
(f) taken patria or abetted an attack on traders or other travelers, or the levy of, or attempt to levy unauthorized dues or tolls; or
(g) engaged in fighting with any other clan or village.
(2) The Superintendent may order the whole or any part of fine imposed under this section to be given as compensation to any person to whom damage or injury has been caused, directly or indirectly, by the act in respect of which the fine is imposed.
(3) When in pursuance of an order passed under this section a person has received compensation for injury out of the proceeds of a fine, all right of such person to compensation based on the same injury shall be barred.
When within the area occupied by any clan or village a person is dangerously or fatally wounded by unlawful attack, or the body of a person reasonably believed to have been unlawfully killed is found, the members of such clan or village shall be deemed to have committed an offence under the last foregoing section unless they can show that –
(a) had not any opportunity of preventing the offence or arresting the offence; or
(b) had used all reasonable means to bring the offender to justice.
In the event of any clan or village acting in a manner hostile or unfriendly to the Government, the Superintendent may subject to the control of the Local Government, detain all or any members of such clan or village, deport them from the Chin Hills for life or for any shorted term, detain or confiscate their property, debar them from access into territory outside the Chin Hills and prohibit all or any other persons from entering the area occupied by such clan or village.
Every Headman who abused any of the power conferred upon him by this Regulation, or neglect to obey any reasonable order of the Superintendent, shall be liable by order of the Superintendent to pay a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or to be suspended or dismissed from office.
When the Superintendent is satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a feud, breach of the peace or any offence affecting the human body or against property exists, he may enquire into the dispute and pass such order as he may thick fit, having regard to local custom and to justice, equity and good conscience.
No new village shall be formed without the consent of the Superintendent, who may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit the formation thereof.
Whenever it seems to the Superintendent to be expedient on military or other grounds, he may, by order in writing, direct the removal of any village to any other site, and with the sanction of the Local Government, may award to the inhabitants thereof such compensation for any loss which may have been occasioned to them by such removal as in his opinion, shall be just.
(1) When any person is known or believed to have a feud, or has occasioned any cause of quarrel likely to lead to bloodshed, dacoity or robbery, the Superintendent may require such person to reside beyond the limits of the Chin Hills or within those limits at such place as the Superintendent may deem desirable.
(2) No order requiring a person to reside beyond the limits of the Chin Hills shall be made without the previous sanction of the Local Government.
When the Superintendent is satisfied that the presence of any person (not being a public servant or a Chin) is injurious to the peace or god administration of the Chin Hills, he may, for reason to be recorded in writing, order such person to leave the Chin Hills within a given time.
Whenever contravenes the provisions of section 19, or disobeys an order under section 20 or a requisition under section 21, or an order under section 22, may, on conviction by a Magistrate, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
When the Superintendent is of opinion that it is necessary for the purpose of the preventing culpable homicide (whether a mounting to murder or not), grievous hurt, dacoity or robbery to require any person to execute a bond, for his good behaviour, he may order such person to execute a bond with or without sureties, for his good behaviour during such period not exceeding three years as the Superintendent may fix.
When a feud or other cause of quarrel likely to lead bloodshed or violence exists, or is, in the opinion of the Superintendent likely to arise between two clans, villages or families of Chins, the Superintendent may order all or any of the persons belonging to such clans, villages or families, or of either of such clans, villages or families, to execute a bound, with or without sureties, for their good behaviour during such period not exceeding three years as he may fix.
When an Assistant Superintendent duly authorised under Section 11 passes an order section 24 or section 25, he shall at once submit a report of his proceedings to the Superintendent.
(1) The commission or attempted commission, or the abetment by a person who has executed a bond for his good behaviour under section 24, of any offence affecting the human body or against property shall be deemed to be a breach of such bond.
(2) If, while a bond executed under section 25 is in force, the life of any person belonging to any clan, village or family concerned is unlawfully taken or attempted to be taken, or the property of any such person is unlawfully taken or attempted to be taken, by or with the abetment of any person or persons belonging to the other clan, village or family, and of their sureties (if any) to be forfeited.
(1) If any person ordered to execute a bond for his good behaviour under section 24 or section 25 does not give the security required on or before the date on which the period for which the security to be given begins, he shall be committed to prison, or, if he is already in prison, be detained there until such period expires, or until within such period he gives the security to the officer who made the order requiring it, or to the officer in charge of the jail in which he is detained, in which case he shall be forthwith discharged from prison.
Imprisonment for failure to give security under section 24, or section 25 may be rigorous or simple as the officer requiring the security directs in each case.
When any person has suffered imprisonment for three years for failure to give security for his good behaviour under section 24 or section 25 he shall be released and shall not again be required to give security unless a fresh order is passed in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.
(1) Any person who has, under the provisions of section 24 or section 25, given security, or been imprisoned for failure to give security, may be brought before the Superintendent if, on the expiry of the period for which security was required to be given, the Superintendent so directs.
(2)When the Superintendent thinks if necessary, for the purpose of preventing the commission of any offence affecting the human body or against property, to require security for a further period form any person so brought before him, he shall record a proceeding to that effect.
(3)The proceeding may be founded on the facts on which the original order to give security was founded, and it shall not be necessary to prove any fresh facts to justify an order to give security for a further period; under this section and such subsequent order, if passed, shall have the same effect be enforced in the same manner as an order to give security under section 24 or section 25.
(4) Not withstanding anything in this section, no person shall suffer for failure to give security under this chapter, imprisonment for more than six years or without the sanction of the Local Government, for more than three years.
(1) The Superintendent may fix the number of firearms and the quantity and description of ammunition which may be possessed by any clan or village, and may issue licenses, either to such clan or village collectively, or to any of the persons belonging there to individually to possess the firearms and ammunitions specified in the licenses.
(2) All firearms for which licenses have been issued shall be stamped and entered in a register.
(3) The Superintendent may grant a license to any clan or village for the manufacture of gun powder.
(4) Any person who, not being licensed or not belonging to any clan or village licensed in that behalf, possessed any firearms or ammunition, or who manufactures gun powder, shall be punished, on conviction by a Magistrate, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(5) With the previous sanction of the Local Government, the Superintendent may direct that the foregoing sub-section shall not apply to any tract or part of the Chin Hills, and may with the like sanction cancel any direction so made.
(6) The Superintendent may, by order in writing, prohibit all or any of the persons belonging to any clan or village from carrying das, spears, and bows and arrows, or any of those weapons, in any tract, to be defined in the order, if he is of opinion that such prohibition is necessary to the peace of such tract. Such order shall specify the length of time during which it shall remain in force.
(7) Whoever disobeys a prohibition under sub-section (6) shall, on conviction by a Magistrate, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
No prosecution under the Upper Burma Forest Regulation, 1887, or any rule there under, under be instituted against any Chin except with the sanction in writing of the Superintendent.
Whoever imports, cultivates, manufactures, possesses, sells or exports opium, ganja, bhang, or charas in the Chin Hills shall be punished, on conviction by a Magistrate, with imprisonment which may extend to one y ear, or with fine, or with both.
Whoever sells foreign fermented liquor or spirit to any Chin shall be punished on conviction by a Magistrate, with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or fine, or with both.


Taxes shall be levied on all clans and villages at such rates and in such manner as the Local Government may prescribe.
An order for the payment of any fine or tax or for the delivery of any property, or for the performance of any act may be enforced –
(1) by the seizure of any movable property or of any standing crops of the person against whom such order is made, or, when the order is made against a clan or village or family of Chins, of any person belonging there to, or
(2) with the sanction of the Superintendent or of an Assistant Superintendent, by the simple imprisonment, for a tern not exceeding one year, of the person against whom such order is made.

No appeal shall lie against any order passed by a headman or by an officer acting under this Regulation.
(1) All Headmen and all officers in the Chin Hills shall be sub-ordinate to the Superintendent, who may revise any order passed by any such headman or officers, including an Assistant Superintendent specially empowered under section 11.
The Local Government may revise any order passed under this Regulation.
Subject to the control of the Governor General in Council, the Local Government may make rules consistent with this Regulation –
(a) to regulate the procedure to be observed by the officers acting under this Regulation;
(b) to prescribe the use of such forms, the submission of such reports and statements and the maintenance of such records and registers as it may think necessary; and
(c) generally, to carry into effect the purpose of this Regulations.
Except as provided in this Regulation, a decision passed act done or order made under this Regulation shall not be called in question in any Civil or Criminal Court.
(1) The Local Government may, by notification in the Burma Gazette, delegate to the Commissioner of any Division in Upper Burma all or any of the power conferred upon the Local Government by this Regulation, except the powers conferred by this section and by sections 1, 3, 5.11, 12, 31, 35 and 39, and may, from time to time by a like notification, rescind or vary any such notification.
(2)When all or any of the powers of the Local Government have been delegated to the Commissioner of the division, the Local Government may revise any order passed by such Commissioner except an order passed under Section 10.

The Story Behind Songpi, Churachandpur and Lamka

Lamka and Churachandpur are two different locations altogether and have different stories of origin. However due to the political manipulation of the Meitei people of the valley, the two have been amalgamated into one. It might sound confusing but if you know the histories and origins of both these places, the two are not the same and should not be confused with. The real Churachandpur is a hillock 15 kms west of Lamka, which was previously known as Songpi. Songpi was later changed to Churachandpur to honored the Maharaja Churachand. Lamka, the current District headquarter, on the other hand existed separately and had no connection with Songpi. Songpi was the old sub divisional headquarter which was abandoned in 1930. After 10 years of this abandonment, the new Sub-Divisional headquarter was moved to the present Lamka town, which was incorrectly put in the paper as Churachandpur by the people from the valley.
Background history of Songpi as SDO office:
After the Zou gal (the Kuki Rebellion) in 1919, the administration of the Hill Tribes was in the hand of the British Officers, Political Agents, Vice-Presidents and Presidents of the Manipur State Darbar (Manipur Raja). However the British Government refused to hand over the hill administrations to the Raja of Manipur citing that they would be too dangerous. (Notes written by Col. Maxwell, Col. Woods and Col. Shakespear. 29 July 1937, File No. G.S. 2753 of 1940, Dillip K. Lahiri & Binal J Dev: Manipur Culture and Pollitics 1987, pp 111-112)
From Songpi to Churachandpur:
In the year 1919, Manipur Hill areas was reorganized and the whole of Manipur Hill Areas was divided into three administrative units. Songpi was made the South-west Sub-Divisional Headquarters, the others headquarters being at Ukhrul and Tamenglong. In 1921 Mr B.C. Gasper, the SDO of Songpi threw a feast in honour of the France returnees and the Maharaja of Manipur, Churachand Singh also took part in the feast. On that occasion Songpi was renamed to Churachandpur after the name of Maharaja Churachand.
How Churachandpur (Songpi) was abolished:
On 1st January 1930 the South-west Sub-Division was abolished and the headquarter abandoned. The whole area was placed under the President of Manipur State Darbar with two Sub-Divisions - Western Sub-division with its headquarter at Tamenglong and the eastern part annexed to Sadar Hills Sub Division with its headquarter in Imphal. This was how the Churachandpur Sub-division abolished.
From Songpi to Mission Compound:
After the abandonment of the Songpi Sub-Division Headquarter, the Darbar Resolution No 2A of 29th January 1930 approved to leased all Sub-Divisional properties to the North East India General Mission (NEIGM) with a yearly fee of Rs 600. Later on 26th September 1930, after the verbal agreement of Semthong Haokip, the chief of Songpi and Mr Coleman who represent NEIGM, the chief agreed to transferred the land and all the rights he had to the mission. Accordingly the NEIGM made payment to the village chief for the land and called Mission Compound and not Churchandpur. However some people still refer to it as Old Churachandpur.
Origin of Lamka:
In 1930 around the same time two Paite gentlemen established the present Lamka. Pu Phungkhothang Guite established the present Hiangtam Lamka and Pu Zenhang Valte established the present Zenhang Lamka. This two villages were together called Lamka. At that time when they established this twin villages there were no other villages nearby and the whole area was under thick forests, abound in wild animals, teemed with mosquitoes and devoid of people. Malaria was too common and people from the hills were reluctant to live in the valley. But slowly Lamka began to flourished from village to town and the population increased rapidly.
How Lamka became District Headquarter:
Ten years after the abolition of Churachandpur, there was need to re-established the Sub-divisional office. So Mr. Pearson and Pu Thangkhopao Kipgen came for site selection for the SDO's Office. They went to see the old site at Churachandpur (Songpi), but found abandoned structures left behind by the American troops after the World War II. Considering the poor condition of the old site Churachandpur, Lamka seems to be a better location for the SDO headquarter. Therefore, the Circle Office was housed at the present residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Lamka. However with the political manipulation of the Meitei, the new SDO headquarter at Lamka was still imposed with the old name of Churachandpur, which was already given to Songpi.
On 14 November 1969, Manipur was re-organized into 6 administrative units and Lamka/Churachandpur was the headquarter of Manipur South District. Later in 25 May 1983, Manipur was re-organized again into Districts and Churachandpur District was one of the hill district.
Chief of Hill Town Pu Dongzakai Gangte who was the Municipal Chairman in the year 1986 declared that Lamka was the correct name for Churachandpur District via 44th Municipal Board Meeting Misc Agenda No. 4 Dated 18.12.86 and the Municipality Board forwarded the request to the government for approval.
On 27 October 1982 the following 7 chiefs gave their consent for the correct name Lamka, and agreed to the memorandum that was submitted to the Deputy Commisioner by APSU to change the name from Churachandpur to Lamka : (1) Hiangtam Lamka, (2) Bijang Loubuk, (3) Bungmual, (4) Tuibuang, (5) Chiengkonpang, (6) D. Phailien and (7) Headquarter
Let me also add what Pu H.K. Neitham, Executive Officer (Town), Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur, 1982 have to say about it:
"In my opinion the present Churachandpur Town will be more appopriate and correct if it is called 'Lamka' in view of the fact that during the British Rule in Manipur State, this place was called as 'Hiangtam Lamka'. The so called Churachandpur which was after the name of late Sir Churachand Singh, Maharaja, was at a place of the present Mission Compound or Old Churachandpur or Songpi, a distance of about 15 kms from the District Hq, Churachandpur"
Songpi is history now, which was an abandoned sub-division headquarter and it should not be confused with Lamka - the current District Headquarter. Although the name Churachandpur applied to Songpi, the meitei manipulated the government record and incorrectly called Lamka as Churachandpur. The aspiration to change the name of Churachandpur District is to correct the imposed name of Lamka which is the current District Headquarter and not the Churachandpur that was associated with Songpi.
Book reference:
1. This is Lamka by Dr. Tualchin Neihsial
2. Account of the valley of Munnipore and of the Hill Tribes by Major W. McCulloch 1859 
3. Foreign Deparment Report on Chin-Lushai Hills, Sep 1892
4. Dr. H. Kamkhenthang "Lamka Town vis-a-vis Churachandpur, 1995



Origin of Khunchai (Kuki) Tribes of Kangleipak

General Articles

By : P Uttam Mangang

Origin of Khunchai (Kuki) Tribes of Kangleipak

Khongjai or Khunchai is a generic name applied to tribes whose home is in the mountain tracts lying between Mynmar, Kangleipak, CacharandArakan Yoma range. They are pro-mongolid people. The new term Kuki instead of Khunchai appear to find its origin in the Chittagong hill tracts. The word Kuki is an Assamese or Bengali term, which used to apply to all the various hill tribes. Later on, the word Kuki was pickup by the Britishers and used it to denote the Khunchai tribes. Meetei’s used to call these tribes as Khunchai or Khongjai, because they used to settle everywhere in Kangleipak in the form of scattered settlement. Once upon a time, the Geographical boundary of Kangleipak was so vast.
According to 1971 Census, some of the Khunchai tribes of Kangleipak consists such as Aimol (836), Gangte (6,307), Hmar(23,312): Lamgang (2,622), Lushai/Mizo (7483), Paite (24,755), Ralte (154), Simte (4,177), Salhte (3), Vaiphei (12,347), Zou (10,060), Thadou (59,955) etc.
Moreover, in the census report of 1971, the other unspecified like Chongthu, Khasi etc. was 1,227 and no data for Purum, Haokip, Baite, Zeme, Mate, Jomi etc.
According to Zale’n-gam, the Kuki of Chittagong are the Susai, Toungtha (Mm) and the Khyoungtha. It is again divided into seven sub-tribes such as Tipperahs or Mroongs, the Kumi, the Mroos (Masho), the Banjogees, the Pankhoons, the Shingdoos or Lakheyr and Howlog and the other tribes of Kuki are Chongloi and Hangsing, Doungel, Guite, Gangte, Haokip, Hmar, Kipgen, Lhungdim, Lamkang, Lunkim, Changan, Lenthang (Telein), Thangeo, Kolhen, Lhangum and Lhanghal, Milhem, Mate, Pdte, Sitlhou. Lhouvum and Singsit, Simte, Touthang, Vaiphei, Zou etc.
Again, in the Tedim-chin groups such as Paite, Jomi, Hmar etc. are having their own traditions and culture. The three important groups of Khunchai are Thadou, Hmar and Paite-Jomi.
The origin of Khunchai tribes :
According to Sir James Johnstone, Kuki settlement in Manipur was started from 1830 (Manipur and Naga Hills, 1896, p.25). It may be the Tidim-chins and Mizo-Kuki-chin groups of people of Kangleipak (Manipur). It is reported that Gangte tribes comes from Burma, their population is about 20,000 people and settled at 54 villages in Kangleipak (Manipur). The Paite believed that they were originated from “Chinnuai” (Chinwe) somewhere from Southern part of China or Chin hills. The word ‘Paite’ signify ‘pai’ means ‘fly’ and ‘te’ means ‘in group’ or flying out in group or coming out in group. A new religion of Paite i.e., ‘Laipian’ which was founded by Pau-chin-hau was gaining more followers. It believed in one creator or Almighty supreme God and taught no blood sacrifice and no use of wine or beer.
Likewise, Hmar people believed that they were also originated from ‘Suilung’ somewhere in china. Although Hmar scattered in different parts of North-East India and Burma, most of them live in Churachandpur district and concentrate in and around Tipaimukh, Vangai ranges and Jiribam areas. They called Tipaimukh as Ruonglevaisuo, which means the meeting point of Tuirung (Ruong) and Vai (Tuivai) rivers. They regarded it as a holy river. According to Khunchai people, paite or Zomi as a tribe or clan has been created in the recent past, like paite, the Simte means sim is East and te is group or people or ffbk i.e. people of the East.
After the adoption of Christianity, it has affected to some extent to their culture, customs and traditions of Khunchai people as a whole. It was done at Chassad areas over the central and Southern parts of Ukhrul district and slowly and steadily, it has reached all over the hill areas of Kangleipak. Here, one point should be noted that the first evangelist mission was started in the year 1894 at Ukhrul by Sir William Pettigrew and Angom Purum Singh of Pheiyeng Village of Kangleipak.
Again, according to the original history of Aimol, they aiso migrated from the bank of river Chindwin/ Irawaddy river of Burma, then settled at Moreh and after that they have shifted at Khudengthabi as Nongpok Aimol. Afterward they settled at valley e.g. Aimol Khulen Kanglabung then they settled at 14 villages at Kangleipak. They are : Khulen Aimol, Chandonpokpi Aimol, Ngairong Aimol, Khomdamphai Aimol, Tampak Aimol, Chingnunghut Aimol, Khunjai Aimol, Satu Aimol, Kumbirei Aimol, Unapal Aimol, Khundengthabi Aimol, Kha-Aimol, Luchulbung Aimol, Tuikhang Aimol respectively.
The Khunchai people are also having clan system. It is said that Khunchai permanently settled in the Kabaw valley before the reign of King U-Aungzaya of Burma. In 1752 A.D. Khunchai (Kuki) army had helped King U-Aungzaya when he fought the Assame and Kangleipak’s (Manipur) kings. They called Tamenglong as Laijing, Churachandpur as Lamka and Ukhrul as Chassad respectively.
As we all know, the Manipuri language (Meetielon) is in the Tibeto-Burman linguistic group. It is also closely related to those Kuki-chin group of languages spoken by different tribes of Khunchai people. G.A. Grierson and even modern linguistic scholars have proved that Meeteilon and other tribal dialects of the state have a common roots and structure. Some of the new Kuki like Singson tribes were also assimilated into Meeteis society e.g. Sougaijam family of Meetei’s and the most prominent example of the transformed Tarao Meeteis are the Waikhongs.
Conclusion :
As we all know, due to various socio-economic, socio-culture and socio-political factors, ethnic* fusion and ethnic fission take place in the land of Kangleipak. This process of ethnic fusion and fission has been taking place since the time immemorable.
Thus, we have experience two type of ethnic fusion and fission in Kangleipak. One type of ethnic fusion is that of ethnic amalgamation or ethnic assimilation in the form of Meetei culture out of the long interactions of various ethnic groups and anotheHype of ethnic fission is that of the ethnic atomization which has resulted more than 36 present different ethnic group in Kangleipak.
Not only this, some of easterners (Nongpokharam) and westerners (Nongchupharam) were also influxed into both valley and hilly regions.
Out of ethnic amalgamation and cultural assimilation in Kangleipak, a unique Meetei identity was formed and the emergence of Meetei civilization in Kangleipak.
On the other hand, the phenomenon of detribalization appeared everywhere, men become like fish out of water, unable to identify themselves with either the western people whose culture they apted or their forefathers whose culture they had foolishly thrown away. We are pursuing a mirage identity while slowly and deliberately strangulating our real identities. It is high time werknow ourselves and stand together to save the common heritage that was the gift of our ancestors and uphold the cultural, territorial and emotional integrity of Kangleipak.
The writer is Secretary General, People’s Action For New Development Step.

Chin land historical summary

Chin land historical summary
Pre-Colony Period, Anglo - Chin War 1800 - 1870 - Chinland was peaceful and quiet, thus practicing feudal chief ruling system even though cruel slavery was avoided by their conscience. In these years, new villages were established by the descendents of chiefs. 1871 - British established tea plantations in the Chin territory on Indian border. The Chin people on the western side therefore raided the British tea planters accusing them intruding into the Chin territory. The Chin captures a little young girl the age of five by the name Mary Wincherster who was left behind by adult tea planters as they all ran away from the raid. 1871-72 - The British invaded the western Chinland, rescued the little girl and returned to India. 1885 - The British administrators in India who also ruled Burma since 1885 declared war to invade the whole Chin country in synchronization on both sides from Burma and India. 1888 - The British from Burma tried to negotiate with the Chin rulers to let them construct land route from British Burma to British India through the Chin country. The Chin native rulers refused the proposal. 

The British negotiators then fired guns behind the Chin negotiators to show threat to them when they left. The Chin negotiators took it as an insult and were preparing war against the British to drive them out from the Chinland vicinity. The British knew that the Chins were preparing for war. On February 20 1888, a British force entered into Chin territory from Bengladesh but they were attacked and annihilated by the Chins who were patrolling the bordering areas. It was a remarkable patriotic action against the invasion of other nation. May 1888 - Before they were fully ready for the war, the British invaded the Chin territory in The Chin resistant battle against the invading British forces were so fierce that a British Surgeon Major Lequesne was awarded Victoria Cross (VC) after the war as he treated dead and wounded soldiers though he was himself wounded in a battle with the Chin resistant force. Thus the north eastern tip of the Chin territory was occupied by the British force. 1889 - The British used the Nepalese Battalions, the best fighting force of the whole British India, and started invasion of the Chinland from three fronts Assam, Bengal and Burma since October, 1889. The Capital towns such as Falam, Tedim and Hakha were occupied in 1890. 1892- Madras Military Commander In chief, Two Secretaries to Government of British India Foreign and military Departments and Quarter Master General in India held a conference known as 'Chin-Lushai Conference' at Fort William/Calcutta on January 29, 1892 on the future of the occupied Chin territories. British Colony Period (1896 - 1948) 1896 - Chin Hills Regulations 1896 was regulated and The Chinland was declared to be a part of the British Empire when the Chin Hills Regulations 1896 was adopted by the Governor General of India in Council on August 13, 1896. 1898 - The pioneer protestant missionary couple from American Baptist Mission arrived to Chin Hills and spread introduced the protestant Christianity and a new civilization to the Chin people. 1900 - 1942 Many Chin men joined the British army and thus became one of the strongest Battalion in British Burma Arm Force named Chin Hills Battalion. 1927 - The British then kept on occupying the rest of the territories till the whole territory was totally under British control in 1927. The Chinland was thus ruled in the British Empire as Naga Hills District and Lushai Hills District under the governor of Assam, India, the Chin Hills District under the Governor of Burma and the remaining part under the Governor of Bengal in Chittagaung Hills District India previously and now in Bangladesh with the Chin Hills Regulation from 1896 till 1947. 

This Chinland territory, ruled under the Chin Hills Regulation 1896 in four separate districts under three governors, was planned to be carved out to make it as a province under a British governor under the Crown Colony Scheme even after WWII in 1945-1946. Chins' struggle for Liberation period (1928 - 1947) 1928 - Chin Hills Union Organization was born on 20 February 1928 at Hlingzung (Mahtungnu village) in Mindat Township. The founding father of the organization were U Law Ha Hing Thang(Chairman). 1932 - The first general meeting of Chin Hills Union Organization was held successfully at Ware village on 29 September 1932. 1933 - The Chin National Union (CNU) was formed by the Chin patriots and demanded Independent Chinland from British-Burma government in Rangoon. In 1933 the Chin Union led by U Wanthu Maung and Thakhin Aung Min demanded the autonomy of Chinland to the British Governor of Burma. 1938 - The British Government gave its consent to discuss the 9 proposals on 20 February 1938 under its letter of 17 December 1937. About 300 members of Chin Hills Union Organization attended the general meeting. The organization submitted nine petitions to the British Government for the improvement of Chin Hills in various fields. 

Chin Hills under World War II 1942 - Japanese started invading the Chin Hills and the people under cruel fascism. One and half thousands of Japan-fascist soldiers were ambushed and killed by the Chin Hills Battalion and British force in Tiddim area. ( Sakhong : p. 196) 1942 - 1946 - The foreign missionaries left the Chin Hills because of the war and many the Chins refuge in the jungle. The war had destroyed hundreds of villages especially in the Eastern part of Chin Hills in the struggle. In positive impact, the number of conversion into Christianity became 4000 - 9000 alone in Hakha area. ( Sakhong : p. 196) 1944-1945 - The Chin Hills Battalion which retreated together with British Army to Imphal, India fought the Japanese back. 1947 - The representatives of Chin participated in Panglong Conference along with the Kachin, Shan, and Burman representatives, singed historic Panglong Agreement on February 12, 1947 to form a federal union with equal rights, privileges, and status including secession right. 1947 - The Chin representatives participated in Drafting Process of the Future Constitution of the Union of Burma under the leadership of General Aung San. The draft Constitution was drawn up by a 111-member committee of the AFPFL Convention which met on May 20, 1947, and approved on May 23 when the Convention was dissolved. 1947 - Pu Vum Tu Maung became Chin Minister and was in charge of Chin Special Division till 1954. During this period, the Chin Rifle Battalion took important role as the State army to defend the Union of Burma against many different insurgencies. 1948 -The Union of Burma gained independence from Britain on January 4, 1948; and the Constitution of Burma (1947) was enforced. 

However, the Burman politicians disregarded the principles of Panglong Agreement so that the independence was stumbled with the civil war. In 1948, Captain Mang Tung Nung formed the Chin People’s Freedom League and started the movement for the Rights of the people. It led the end of hereditary and the birth of Chin National Day in February 20, 1948. 1948 - Over five thousand Chins from all over the Chinland held unprecedented gathering in Falam Town and proclaimed in their unity and determination to be free from traditional feudal administrative system, and adopted a democratic system of governance on February 20, 1948, which later became the Chin National Day. 1954 - Pu Shein Thang became Chin Minister and was in charge of Chin Special Division till 1956. 1956 - Pu Za Hre Lian became Chin Minister and was in charge of Chin State till 1962 the military coup of the power. it had a single Chairman of the Supreme State Council, U San Kho Lian, who remained in office until March 1974 (two months after the 3 January 1974 creation of Chin state) 1957 - The Chin People’s Freedom League and the Chin Union were amalgamated and then stood for the rights of the people under the constitution. 

1961 - In order to amend the Constitution of Burma (1947) into more federate features as agreed in Panglong Conference, the Chins and all non-Burman nationalities gathered in Taunggyi, the Capital of Shan State from June 8 – 16, 1961. In 1961 Pu Laldenga formed the Mizo National Front. The Mizo National Front entered to peace accord with the Government of India in 1986 The Period of Chin's Revolution against Burmese Dictator 1962 -The General Ne Win and his associates staged a coup in the name of Revolutionary Council (RC). Many Chin politicians and scholars presumed to participate in Taunggyi Conference were arrested. 1964-Chin National Organization (CNO) went underground to overthrow the military junta and restore democratic government.1971 Chin Democracy Party (CDP) was formed in liberated area to overthrow the military junta and restore democracy in Burma. In 1964, after the military coup led by General Ne Win, Col. Son Khaw Pau, Pu. Dam Khaw Hau, Pu. Mang Khan Pau, Pu. Hrang Nawl, Pu. Son Cin Lian and Pu. Thual Zen formed the Anti-communist Freedom Organization and then struggled for the Chin people freedom. It however, ended with the arrest of the leaders. But the movement still lingers in the minds of the people. On 30 December 1969 - John Mang Tling and his comrades formed the Parliament Democracy Party and it later came to be known as Chin Democracy Party since 1st January, 1970. In 1969 Pu Tial Khar formed the Chin Liberation Front. The president was Pu. Tial Khar, the Vice-president being Thawmluai and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was Thawng Sai. In February 2, 1970 - Jimmy’s Zomi Chin Liberation Front amalgamates with Chin Democracy Party and then formed the new front called United Zomi Democracy Party. 

1972 - Over 70 Chin intellectuals, who had made suggestion to Revolutionary Council on RC announcement No. 74, Date December 5, 1968, were arrested by the military junta and sent them to jail. 1974- The Revolutionary Council drafted and enforced the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma. The said Constitution has promoted and protected one party dictatorship. In 1976- the Chin Liberation Army, led by Major Sa Lian Zam, was formed. It was organized widely and young men from different parts from the Chin inhabitants joined it. In March 20, 1988 the Chin National Front was formed and then struggling for the self determination of the Chin people and restoration of democracy and federalism in the Union of Burma. 1988 - The Chin National Front became a member of the Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB) on November 18, 1988.1989 The Chin National Front became a member of the National Democratic Front (NDF) on February 1989. 1990 - Many Parties from Chin State participated in National election. ZNC won the most 1992- The Chin National Front, as a member of National Democratic Front (NDF), participated and gave its consent on the Manepalaw Agreement to establish genuine Federal Union. The Manepalaw Agreement was signed by National Democratic Front, Democratic Alliance of Burma, National League for Democracy (Liberated Area), and the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma on July 11, 1992. 1993 The first Chin National Front’s Party Conference was held in the General Headquarters of Chin National Front on June 9 – 16, 1993 and the Government of Chinland was formed. 1997 - The Chin National Front participated and signed the Maetharawhta Agreement. The Agreement was signed by KNPP, PPLO, WNO, UWSP, PSLF, KIO, AASYC, LDF, NMSP, ALP, KNLP, SURA, CNF, SDU, and KNU. 1997 - The second Chin National Front’s Party Conference was held at the Camp Victorian from June 20 – July 8, 1997. 1998 - The First Chin Seminar was held in Ottawa, Canada and attended by 17 Chin compatriots - including former Members of Parliament, Elected Members of Parliament, Religious leaders, Chin scholars, and activists. The attendants formed the Chin Forum to work together by the Chin individuals on Chinland Constitution, Development, Communication, Education, and Historical Research. 2001 - The Chin National Front became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), representing the Chin people. 2004 - A Chin Consensus Building Seminar was held in Camp Victoria, the General Headquarters of the Chin National Front, Chinland and attended by representatives of Chin National League for Democracy (CNLD), Chin National Front (CNF), Mara Peoples Party (MPP), Zomi National Congress (ZNC), as well as 95 representatives from Chin Civic Organizations/Socities based in and outside Chinland. The attendants of the said seminar formed Political Affairs Committee of Chinland (PACC) based on Chin National Political Parties. 2006 - The Political Affairs Committee of Chinland (PACC) conducts the first Chin National Assembly at Mt. Sainai and the Chin National Council was formed. The Chin National Council comprises the Chin National Front, Chin National League for Democracy, Mara Peoples Party, Zomi National Congress and Civic Organizations to promote, protect, safeguard, and working together to implement the Chin national interests and benefits.

Zomi Representatives at UN Women Conference CSW59/Beijing+20 (2015)

For the first time in the history of the Zomi, seven women are taking part in the on-going fifty-ninth session of the Commission on the Status of Women takinmg place at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 9 to 20 March 2015. Representatives of Member States , UN entities, and ECOSOC-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from all regions of the world attend the session.

The seven Zomi women representatives were from the ZIUSA, a Zomi organisation based in USA. They are expected to highlight some of the issues and problems facing the Zomi in Myanmar like the presence of Chin National Front and Manipuri extremists and also the atrocities committed by the Myanmar army in Zomi inhabited areas of Chin State.

The representatives are Siama Ningpi Gualnam, Siama Ciin Vung, Dr. Dim San Nuam, Siama Man Cing Siama Don Ngaih Lian and Siama Ngai Zen Cing.

The main focus of the session is on the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, including current challenges that affect its implementation and the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women. The Commission undertakes a review of progress made in the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, 20 years after its adoption at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. The review (Beijing+20) also includes the outcomes of the 23rd special session of the General Assembly, the first five-year assessment conducted after the adoption of the Platform for Action, which highlighted further actions and initiatives.

The session also addresses opportunities for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women in the post-2015 development agenda.

Power for the Elite (Among Chins)

Following article was compiled from the “Conversion of the Chin in Burma: The Creation of an Elite” by Bianca Son (Mang Khan Cing) Ph.d, daughter of the late Dr. Vumson Suantak, her thesis paper for Master of Science at International School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Contemporary Asian Studies, Universiteit van Amsterdam (August 2007).
The previous chapter demonstrated a carefully constructed effort of the Hakha to separate themselves first from the Burman and then from other Zomi, resulting in a Hakha elite.  This section examines how this elite has used Christianity to gain political power within Burma, specifically by creating a new Christian community, the Hakha have vied for leadership of the whole of the Chin.  They have further parlayed their Christianity to gain attention and power on the world stage.
 According to Weber (in Gerth and Mills 1947) and his later followers, conversion is simply a means to gain power over and/or within a community, whether it is political or economic.  Weber’s notion of the prophet’s power and the fact that there is potential political gain by using religion is demonstrated in the Chin case as well.  That is, many of the political leaders inside as well as outside the Chin Hills are trained theologians.
 Weber argued some sort of interdenominational conflict must exist for conversion to take place.  Hefner quotes Weber, “[there must exist] a struggle between various competing groups and prophecies for the control of the community” (Weber in Hefner 1993:11).  In this way, Weber argued that competing doctrines are necessary and that individuals and groups’ leadership struggle for control and power must exist within the community.  In this way, then, the attributes necessary for leadership in any given community are redefined.
 Further, Weber believed that there are other influences as well.  He strongly believed that a certain amount of tension and complex interplay of circumstances and ideals must exist in order to come to a rationalized decision regarding conversion.  He argued that rationalization is not simply a cost/benefit issue for the potential convert, but that religious leaders such as priests also have an agenda, to maintain power and status privileges by “their commitment to the abstract truth of religious ideals” (Hefner 1993:11, Gerth and Mills 1947).
 As mentioned previously, Burman Buddhists persecuted converts early in the missions.  Before the Buddhists objected however, many Chin suffered persecution from other, non-converted Chin.  Laura Carson reports about a convert Thang Tsin who converted and was baptised by Rev. Carson in 1906 (Sakhong 2000).  When announcing that he had become a Christian was beaten by the village chief. Thang Tsin did not waiver in his new belief system, henceforth his house, his farm and even his wife were taken from him by the village chief.  Thang Tsin, according to Laura Carson remained a Christian.  She writes, “His case was taken up to the government by the missionaries, and the chief who ordered him beaten was fined and Thang’s property, liberty and wife were restored” (in Sakhong 2000).  Obviously, new leadership orders was evolving, where the chief had lost much of his power and the Christians were not only able to overturn his ruling, but were able to punish the chief.
 A. Prophet’s Power
In a traditional religion, elders are often leaders.  More often than not, men are leaders.  With conversion, however, the earliest converted or the most pious and devout can become leaders.  Further, strangers bringing the new religion, although of different ethnicity, nationality and race may suddenly have the power to lead a community through the new doctrine.  In any event, eventually, the belief system, along with the leadership will be institutionalized religious ideals.
 Another important factor in conversion, according to Weber (in Gerth and Mills 1947), is the one who brings the new religion to a community.  Weber discussed, extensively, the notion of the prophet whose voice is one of anti-traditionalism.  This prophet, who must also be charismatic, convinces the community that he has the ultimate world vision and demands immediate and complete conformity of the community to his set of ideal truths.  He becomes the voice of the redemptive social world, has Heilbesitz [1]or the prophet’s power.  This is certainly true in the case of the Chin who, after more than a century, still herald the first missionaries that came to the Chin Hills.  In fact, the Chin also herald their own indiginized ministers in high esteem.  One such minister was Hau Lian Kham.  Several biographies have been written about his life.[2]  In an article, Legacy of Hau Lian Kham (1944-1995): A Revivalist, Equipper, and Transformer for the Zomi-Chin People of Myanmar published in the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, Chin Khua Khai writes, “Kham arose as a giant of faith” (Khai 2001:100).  Khai continues by giving a brief account of Kham’s life and his Christian work among the Chin.  Khai also writes that Kham was successful because he was able to take lessons from the Bible and put it into the context of the Chin Hills, i.e. Indiginization.  Finally, Khai closes the article by writing, “He could say as Paul did, ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith’ (2 Tim 4:6 NIV)” (Khai 2001:107).  Clearly Hau Lian Kham was such a modern day prophet in the Chin community.  He brought Christian Renewal to the Chin Hills in the 1970s.  Before him, there were the American missionaries.  While in the Chin Hills, the missionaries indiginized local converts to teach and preach the Bible.  In this way, the prophet power moved from western Christians to locals.
 1. The First Convert
Being the first converts for the Hakha is important in that they are able to yield that prophet’s power.  Also, it creates legitimacy in the religious as well as the political realm.  For example, as I explained earlier, Sakhong claims that the Tedim went to Europe instead of defending their homeland, the Chin Hills.  Further, according to Sakhong they were converted when they saw European Christians in Europe whereas the Hakha converted in the Chin Hills and also stayed to defend their homeland.  This strongly implies that the Hakha are not only more pious in that they quickly recognized that Christianity is the one true religion, they are also more loyal demonstrated by the fact that they rejected going abroad and refused to take orders from the British.
 The Hakha claim to be the first converts and thus were the center of Christian activity in the Chin Hills.  In Hakha the Chin Hills Baptist Association was formed and according to Sakhong (2000), they invited the “Zomi tribe of the Tedim area” whom they historically mistrusted.  But because the Hakha had become devout Christians, they were able to share their Christian faith with the Tedim.  To support this change, Sakhong quotes Johnson, “The Hakas were used to calling the Sizang and Kamhau by the appellation ‘Thaute’, a derogatory term, and could not understand how Christians could accept these Thaute as brothers. The superstition that the Teddim are people possessed the power of the evil eye was still strong, and so the Haka tended to shun them” (Sakhong 2000:227).[3]  Truly he paints a picture of the Hakha as being simply “better” people than the Tedim. They are better because they are more pious, have stronger values and are kinder in that they invited the Tedim whom they did not trust to join them in their church.
 2. The Capital of Conversion
Sakhong, a Hakha himself, refers to Hakha dialect as “the Chin language” in Chapter VI although he mentions the differing dialects in Chapter I (Sakhong 2000). In this way it is implied that Hakha is the only “real” Chin language.  He explains that the “the Chin language” was adopted all over the Chin Hills in its missionary schools.  In this way, explains Sakhong, the village chiefs attended school as did their children and, “Thus, the conversion of this new generation of the ruling class spearheaded not only church growth after the war but a change in society as well.”  Sakhong continues, “…the emergence of a Chin elite based on professional soldiers and teacher-cum-preachers also contributed in many way and means for church growth…” (Sakhong 2000:232).  Thus Sakhong tries to argue that Hakha was not only the first Chin to convert, but that they were the elite in the Chin Hills.  After his statements, he continues to suggest that only after the Hakha converted, established schools employing “the Chin language” did the Church expand into Tedim.  In fact, Tedim had been converted first and/or simultaneously.  Tedim was also first to indiginize  locals to teach and preach (Johnson 1988).  Hence, Sakhong grossly misrepresents history by implying and outright stating that the Hakha are superior.  In fact, Johnson recalls, “It was a mistake to have opened the mission station at Haka. Teddim would have been a better site.  This view was expressed gently while Arthur Carson lived, but after his death East[4] became much more blunt in saying that Teddim would have been a better choice and that American Baptist Missionary Union ought to open a second station at Teddim and take advantage of the northern openness to change and conversion” (Johnson 1988:239).  Still, Sakhong continues to argue that Hakha was the center of conversion.  Sakhong contends that it was Laura Carson who did not wish to open a second station in Tedim.  According to Sakhong she said that all missionaries should, “…stay in Hakha, the center of Chinram” (Sakhong 2000:234).
 Claiming that Hakha was the capital of conversion is important to Sakhong, because according to Sakhong (2000), the concept of power and its legitimacy is sacred.  That is, the Chin believed that when one settles in a place that is occupied by benevolent spirits and if those spirits allows a person to take on political power, it is because the spirits mandated it so.  The person taking on political power was usually a patriarch chief who belonged to a specific clan and was thus, “ritually clean.”  Sakhong takes this argument further by contending that there are aristocrat clans that, “…their power was a mandate from the guardian god Khua-hrum” (Sakhong 2000:103).  And almost all of the aristocrats were usually the direct descendents of the founder of a particular clan or a particular settlement.  One specific family, the Za Thang family who originated in Hakha was said to rule all of the central part of the Chin Hills.  Sakhong states, “Haka, where the ruling chief lived, became the principal village…and all its satellite communities became the… community of Haka.” (Sakhong 2000:103)  “According to tradition,” writes Sakhong, “…the Za Thang family of Hakha was blessed with an abundant life.  They increased in numbers and performed many successful rituals.  They ruled the villages and communities, which covers the present Chin State of Burma.  That is, Sakhong once again marginalizes that Tedim and Falam.  Interestingly he uses previous notions of spirits and their blessing a specific family, the Za Thangs and a specific settlement, Hakha.  Although he does not implicitly state is as such, but this is a case of syncretism at its best.  Certain families are accepted by spirits, hence they are special and ought to be appreciated and trusted.  Also, it is suggested, as is in traditional religions that blessings run along kinship lines.  Thus, families are chosen.  He implies this to be true for Christians as well and in his theological dissertation infers that the Chin (or Hakha) were chosen by God.  Furthermore, Sakhong literally, puts Hakha in the center of Chin State, psychologically as well as literally.  Given the map of Chin State, this is again a gross misrepresentation.[5]  Below is a map of Chin State taken from Sakhong’s own text.  It appears that they “dots” indicating the cities were hand-drawn onto the map.  Still,  without doubt, Hakha is not in the center of Northern Chin State.

 B. Using Christianity on the World Stage
To date, those in the business of Chin politics tend to stem from the Hakha region.  Thus, they are the elite and most are in exile living all over the world.  These leaders also use Christianity as a means of representing the Chin community both inside and outside of Burma.  Conversion and political gain are very much interdependent in terms of the Chin.  There are dozens of non-governmental organizations campaigning for Chin Human Rights, Chin Refugee Rights, Chin Women’s Rights and so on.  Hakha Chin almost exclusively lead these organizations. Dr. Lian Hmung Sakhong wears  “several hats as he himself acknowledges.”[6]  He is general secretary and leading member in the following organizations.
 Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC), [7] United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD),[8] Chin National League for Democracy (CNLD),[9] Chin National Council (CNC),[10] Federal Constitution Drafting and Coordinating Committee (FCDCC),[11] National Reconciliation Program (NRP)[12] and the Chin Forum whose task is to create draft Constitutions for the future independent Chinland.[13]
 After Sakhong resigned from the Chin Forum which had been drafting versions of the future Chinland Constitution for the past decade, he initiated a new non-governmental organization (NGO), the Federal Constitution Drafting and Coordinating Committee (FCDCC).  I argue that he did so in order to take over the drafting of the Constitution, and thus receive funding, from the National Endowment for Democracy which is currently funding the Chin Forum for their constitution efforts.
 The Hakha have also sought funding from Christian aid organizations, such as the Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW),[14] an international organization headquarted in London and supported by The Baroness Cox of Queensbury in the British House of Lords.  CSWs two primary on-going projects are Burma and Nepal.  The advocate for Burma is Benedict Rogers.  Rogers is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People  and  Carrying the Cross: The military regime’s campaign of restriction, discrimination and persecution against Christians in Burma.  His most recent project is the plight of the Chin.  In fact, CSW is recommending that the Department for International Development in the UK (DFID)[15] budget for Burma increase from 8 – 16 British pounds annually.[16]  CSW, with Benedict Rogers as the advocate for the Chin, took Chin, i.e. mostly Hakha activists[17] around Europe and North America last year to meet members of Parliament in London, members of Parliament in Berlin, to speak at the U.N. in Washington D.C. and Government officials in Canada. Around this time (June 2007), Sakhong, representing the Ethnic National Council managed to get an audience with the United State’s first lady, Laura Bush where he represented the whole of the “Chin.”   Members of the Chin Forum, for example, were unaware of his visit to the White House.[18]
 Christianity has opened the doors for the Hakha to appeal to a world audience on the behalf of their “Christian” rights.  The role of being a persecuted religious group has gained the Chin worldwide attention, such as reports in the following publications: BBC Asia,[19] Religion and Ethics: News Weekly,[20] Christian Today,[21] Christian Freedom International, [22] Global Security,[23] and Christian Persecution Info – Asia.[24]

References : -
[1] Max Weber used Heilbesitz in this way,  “das Anliegen des Galvinismus, den Heilbesitz, die Gottesgemeinschaft durch Christus, durch eine entsprechende Erneuerung des Lebens zu seiner  Auswirkung kommen zu lassen.”  The English translation is as follows, “the concern of galvinism, to effect the heilbesitz, the association with god, by respective reformation of life.”
[2] Most of these biographies are written in differing Chin dialects and were not read by this author. For a brief history of his life see Chin Khua Khai’s article, “Legacy of Hua Lian Kham (1944-1995): A Revivalist, Equipper, and Transformer for the Zomi-Chin people of Myanmar” in Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 4/1, (2001) p. 99-107
[3] The Sizang and Kamhau are part of the Tedim area
[4] Dr. East established a medical mission in Hakha when the Carson’s “failed” to convert.  East did manage to convert through his medical mission.
[5] As mentioned in the introduction, this paper is concerned with Northern Chin State which is comprised of three major subdivisions: Tedim, Falam and Hakha.  The map illustrate the location of these three divisions and clearly Hakha is not in the center of Northern Chin State
[7] See:
[8] See:
[9] See:
[10] See:
[11] See:
[12] See:
[13] See:
[14] for more information see:
[15] for funding schemes see: (visited August 3, 2007)
[17] I was also a member of this delegation and only one of the two non-Hakha Chin
[18] Chin Forum members did not know of this visit.  Based on personal communication with Salai Kipp Kho Lian (July 7, 2007)