Evolution of the Mizo Chieftainship: (through customary laws).
Chieftainship is a very powerful secular institution based on kinship structure for the purpose of village administration which is the highest and independent political unit.( T.S. Gangte : The Kukis of Manipur : 1993; pp. 125-126).
According to Customary Law, the office of Chieftainship is hereditary, passing from father to eldest son among the Thadous and to the youngest among the Lushais (Ibid). In the case of Lushai, however, it has been changed from youngest to eldest in recent times. (Col. J. Shakespear : Lushai Kuki Clans : 1912; p. 42).
It was very salutary as the process of fragmentation continued to erode not only the material possessions of the Chief but also the viability of his position as a chief (Mrs. (Dr.) N. Chatterjee : The Mizo Chief and His Administration : 1975, p. 2).
It is associated with the concept of ‘UPA’ or man on the direct line of the senior descent (Ibid). The epithet ‘UPA’ is, therefore, conferred on a person by way of reverence, and a great deal of veneration is attached to it. ‘UPA’ is the only person who can become chief.
Thus, ‘chief’ is synonymous with ‘UPA’. Similarly, corresponding to ‘UPA’ the term ‘NAOPA’ stands for the junior man who cannot in the normal course of the customary law become the chief.
He can become so only with the full consent of the chief, as also with the concurrence of Council of ‘Ministers’, or ‘Elders’ of the village, which is known as ‘Semang-Upa’, ‘Pachong’, or ‘UPA’ in Lushai collectively. Before a ‘NAOPA’ can become the chief, certain formalities and obligations are to be gone through as per Customary Law.
It must be said that under the circumstance there is no scope for growth of political leadership among the ‘NAOPA’ to become the ‘Chief’, unless specifically desired by the ‘UPA’ to develop and groom his ‘NAOPA’,( T.S. Gangte : The Kukis of Manipur : 1993; p. 125, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi.) literally meaning younger brother, for leadership, or chief whatsoever.
Chieftainship manifests, therefore, in the rights and privileges handed down to the ‘UPA’ and these prerogatives are institutionalized in village organisation and the Customary Laws, through the system of Chieftainship called ‘HAOSA’ in Thadou and ‘LAL’ in Lushai to mean chief of the village and its Council of Elders (Ministers).
Thus chieftainship has come to stay as an institution which is the perennial source of customary laws, and the mechanism by which such laws are interpreted in the social system that makes them a living force enabling to maintain their identity inheriting a rich cultural heritage (Ibid : p.127)
Administrative Structure and Functions (wherefrom customary laws flow):
As per the customary laws a village is an independent political unit among the Mizos and the Chief called HAOSA of the village and his Council of Ministers are the political leaders (Ibid : p.126).
Administrations of justice, enforcement of executive function, maintenance of social practices and customary law, including religious performances are the areas of village administration under the Chieftain-ship and his Council of Minister. Thus a Mizo village is an important administrative unit.
The village administrative organisation is normally structured as given in the box above, which normally leads to the exercise of power as vested with the customary law (Figure 1).
‘Haosa’ (Chief): ‘Haosa’ or ‘Lal’ is the office of the Village Chief. It is hereditary, passing from father to the son (T.S. Gangte : Op. cit.; p. 126). Among the Mizos, and unlike the Nagas, ‘Haosa’ has the absolute right of ownership over the entire land of the village (Ibid).
The villagers have no right over the land whatsoever. Even if a villager, who is generally a ‘Naopa’ wishes to establish a new village, he can do so only with the permission of the ‘Haosa’.
The ‘Haosa’, howsoever absolute his right over the land might be, normally allows, in consultation with his Council of Minister, (Thangtindal : Ancient Polity of the Gangtes : 1988, p.2), the villagers to cultivate and utilise as per their requirements.
But the villagers have to pay to the ‘Haosa’ in return for such privileges in the shape of tributes called ‘Changseo’, even part of hunted games called ‘Saleng’.( Goulienthang : A short Chronological Account of Mizos : 2001: p.30).
‘Changseo’ is payable annually after harvest. The ‘Haosa’ is also entitled to free labour called ‘Khuo-Tha’ (Ibid) of each villager once in a year. Together with such rights, the ‘Haosa’ has certain obligations over the villagers.
In return to the services rendered by the villagers, free of cost, and the tributes paid as token of loyalty, recognition, obedience and solidarity, the ‘Haosa’ has to protect their interests by providing security socially, politically and economically.
It is also the bounden duty of the ‘Haosa’ to see that every villager is protected from external aggression and danger. Ideologically investigated it reminds us of Rousseau’s social contract theory.
The ‘Haosa’ system is indeed very similar to the Social Contract Theory of Rousseau (Jean Jacqueu Rousseau : The Social Contract : 1712-1778) who enunciates that rights imply duties. By this system both the villagers on the one hand and the ‘Haosa’ as the chief on the other, are in duty bound to fulfil their rights and obligations towards each other.
Many writers having a superficial knowledge about the men and affairs try to draw a similarity between the ‘Haosa’ and the ‘Zamindar’ and often jump to a conclusion that the system of a ‘Haosa’ is despotic.
Of course, there is sufficient room for a ‘Haosa’ to become a despot and tyrannical, but such things are rare. Despite such possibility of being so dreaded by the villagers, there are thousand and one ways by which such a situation can be averted due to interaction of forces within the system.
Related Articles:
to be continued ..
* Dr. (Mrs.) Priyadarshni M Gangte wrote this article for The Sangai Express .
This article was webcasted on March 10 , 2008 .
|
