The villagers are at liberty to leave the village and migrate elsewhere in case the ‘Haosa’ is found failing in his duty to protect interest of the villagers.
Notwithstanding the inherent defects associated with the ‘Haosa’ system which the Mizos cannot do away with the ‘Haosa’ system has come to stay as a perennial source of custom and tradition, in that, in spite of the onslaught of modernism and advancement in all walks of life, they are able to inherit a rich cultural and traditional heritage.
The Haosa system has its bases on the proper interpretation of the customary law and tradition, and it is binding upon the people.
Unlike the Naga tribes of Manipur, who have no permanent and strongly established secular head of a village, the office of which is usually held by an elected man called ‘Gaonbura’ for a specified term, similar to the Nuer tribes of Africa, who do not have a permanent Chief of the village other than the Leopard-skin clad Chief (E.E. Evans-Prit-chard: NUER: 1940:p. 172), who, though wields a great deal of influence and acts as a ‘go-between’ to settle disputes (Ibid, P. 6), the Mizos have a very solidly established institution of Chieftainship who, being the ‘Upa’ of a particular clan or lineage or sub-lineage, is considered to be the fountain-head of all customs and retainer of tradition, yet like the African Nuer, the Mizo political structure is segmented into lineages which are diverging branches of descent from a common ancestor.
Observations of Carey and Tuck (Bertram S. Carey and H.M. Tuck : The Chin Hills : 1932, p. 201) on the Mizo chief is interestingly worth taken note of.
They said that Thadou chief might be wanting in qualifications and that there might be many of other families his superior in ability, but, unless he was physically quite unfit to his position, there was no danger of his being supplanted, and the usual course was for the elders and advisors to assist him in his rule.
This was basic consideration of chieftainship which had a strong grip for efficient administration. The British knew it well and gave cognizance to it as part of their administrative machinery till 1947.
Today in India chieftainship has become a misnomer since this institution was abolished by an act of law. There exist two sets of
people among the Thadou and Lushai Chiefs wherein the traditional leadership is provided by the chiefs and their clansmen. Sometimes they could not adjust to this new situation of abolished chieftainships.
On the other hand, commoners saw a new ray of hope to move in their social hierarchy and asserted themselves through organized ethnic activities which came in direct confrontation with the Institution of chieftainship.
This gave birth to the nomenclature, Mizo, in place of Lushai and controversy over the ‘Kuki’ terminology, mainly because of politicisation of tribal society by the proletariats, resulting in emergence of new ethnic appellation and division of homogeneous cohesive village communities under the leadership of the chief into heterogeneous ethnic groups right from the village level to the highest social elites, aspiring for separate and multifarious identities. ( Andre Betteille : Caste, Old and New : 1969 : p 139, New Delhi ).
One of the most serious social discordant notes that took place for reason mentioned above was between the Singson chiefs and the Hmar commoners which took place from mid 59 lasting till mid 60 that rocked the age-old social harmony and tranquility, resulting in the burning down of many Singson villages where Hmar commoners lived in peace under their Thadou Chiefs who dared not return to their villages till date.
The damage done to the good relationship between the Thadous and the Hmars was due to non-conformity with the customary laws and was a direct manifestation of adverse influence brought about by modernism in the name of development.
Related Articles:
to be continued ..
* Dr. (Mrs.) Priyadarshni M Gangte wrote this article for The Sangai Express .
This article was webcasted on March 23 , 2008 .
|
