Identifying Similitudes of the Zo People with Respect to their Traditional Dresses and Weapons
By ~ Dr. Jangkhongam Doungel
Associate Professor & Head
Department of Political Science
Mizoram University
Aizawl, Mizoram
1. Introduction
The term, ‘Zo people’ accommodates all tribes of the Zo ethnic groups. If so, a crucial question as to who the Zo ethnic groups are can be asked out of it.
To begin with, it is widely accepted that the Zo ethnic groups originated from Chhinlung which is also known as Sinlung, Khul (Khur), Khurpui, Khurtu-bi-jur, Khor,1 Puk (cave) and Lungkua.2 The exact location of Chhinlung, however, has not yet been empirically identified but historians have alleged that it is located somewhere in South China. The Zo ethnic groups are comprised of Chin, Kuki, Mizo, Zomi and Dzo. The Zo ethnic groups can also be broadly divided into two linguistic groups: ‘R’ groups and ‘non-R’ or ‘G’ groups. Here, to refer to ‘land’, all groups belonging to the former call it ram whereas all the groups belonging to the latter call it gam. Moreover, the G groups find it difficult to pronounce “R”. Tribes belonging to the R groups are Lusei, Hmar, Ralte, Lai, Mara, Rangkhol, Darlong, Khawl, Biete, Bawm, Pang, Maring, Aimol, Kom, Chiru, Lamkang, Moyon and Monsang whereas tribes belonging to the non-R or G groups are Thadou-Kuki, Paihte, Tiddim-Chin, Gangte, Zou, Simte and Vaiphei.3
The main dispute of the Zo people who have common language and historical origin is over nomenclature. When the Zo Reunification Organization (ZORO) was founded in May 18-19, 1988 at Champhai in Mizoram, it proposed a common name called “Zo” to accommodate all the Zo ethnic groups under one umbrella.4
One might be aware that the term “Zo” is not new. For “Zo” accommodates people of all the Zo ethnic groups, it is a name which refers not only to any particular tribe or sub-tribe but refers to all Zo ethnic tribes equally. The Zo people who originated from Chhinlung have a number of similitudes in terms of culture, tradition, language, dress, religious custom, traditional occupation, lifestyle, weapons and so on. All these similitudes are indications of their common origin and kinsfolk. However, international borders, not choice, have separated the Zo people into India, Myanmar and Bangladesh but this does not mean that their kinsfolk has become redundant; rather it becomes a challenge for them to recognize their common ancestry and sustain unity.
This paper is an attempt to identify the similitudes in the traditional dress and weapons of different Zo ethnic groups.
2. The Movements of the Zo People and Their Habitats
Early writers claimed that the Zo people are of the Mongoloid stock belonging to the Tibeto-Burmans and this claim becomes widely accepted. It is believed that the ancestors of the Zo people who were called as “Chiang” by the Chinese were shepherds while the Chinese themselves were herdsmen. Since sheep and cattle cannot share the same pasture, shepherds and herdsmen could never coexist and often resulted in conflicts and wars in history. Similarly, such conflicts also occur between the ancestors of the Zo people and the Chinese and their separation from the Chinese became inevitable. The ancestors of these tribes were believed to have reached the tributaries of Mekong and Tangtse rivers during 100 B.C. Then they were believed to have passed the Chindwin river from its tributary and from around 700 A.D. settle in the Chindwin plains from around 700 A.D. They were believed to have reached the Kabaw Valley (Kawlphai) during 800-850 A.D.5 A prominent historian, K. Zawla, however, asserted that these people reached Kabaw Valley only by 996 A.D. and settled there for 300 years. It is also claimed that the Zo people were employed by Sao Saw, the King of Kale in the construction of Kale Palace. The Zo people are believed to have migrated from there to the Chin Hills during the 14th Century and from there they migrated to their present habitats in Mizoram, Chittagong, Manipur, Assam and Tripura. Some of them even reached as far as Nagaland and Meghalaya.6
The Zo people were free-people who administered their own affairs. But when the British Raj annexed the tribal areas, they become subjects of the Queen’s Government and were no longer free as they used to be. Moreover, when the British Raj was about to leave India, the areas inhabited by the Zo people was divided into three sovereign states (India, Myanmar and Bangladesh). As a result, they could not keep in touch with one another and their sense of unity suffered a setback. Despite these, their similitudes in language, lifestyle, dress, customs and traditions, folktales, weapons etc. confirms their kinsfolk. Therefore, it is important for them to note that the areas inhabited by them originally belong to them.
3. Similitudes in Traditional Dresses
One of the factors that confirm the kinsfolk of the different Zo ethnic groups is their resemblances in respect to their traditional dresses. However, it may not be possible to note down all the similitudes but an attempt is here made to point out some of them.
3.1 Men: The traditional men of the Zo ethnic group used to sport long hair. However, the styles in which they roll their hairs were different. Lai (Pawi) men rolled their hair to form a bun on the front of their head.7 The Fanai, the Mara (Lakher) and the Maring men rolled it the same way. The Fanai and the Maring clans are even included in the Lai tribe, There were those who rolled their hairs to form a bun on the back of their heads such as the Lusei, the Paite, the Hmar, the Thadou-Kuki, the Simte, the Zo and the Vaiphei tribes (Picture nos. 22&23 of Part I and No. 1 of Part II of Chin Hills Vol. I).8
In terms of clothing, the men wore long shawls and wore puan around their waist. There were three ways of wearing puan – mawngtam lang puan ven, hren kaih and ui-rawh puan ven. Mawngtam lang puan ven was the style of wearing puan showing the buttocks and was usually done by elders who did not feel ashamed anymore. The youths generally practised hren kaih. Ui rawh puan ven, however, was an easy and reckless way of wearing puan by youths when they go out. The manner of wearing shawl and puan was usually similar for the different Zo ethnic groups. Men wore shirts only when they go to jhum and hunt. Towards 1890, men started wearing kawrchei for leisure. It was decorated with kikiau in three lines at the wrist, arm and shoulder. This was worn by the boys on social purposes while courting girls.9 Some of the men of the Zo ethnic groups settling outside Lushai Hills, however, had not started wearing kawrchei during the 1890s. The men usually wore iptepui (a sling bag) when they go to jhum or to the forest. Iptepui as it is called in Duhlian language is known by the Thadou-Kuki and the non-R or G groups as sakhaopi. Besides, the different Zo ethnic groups made their men’s dress according to their particular traditional cloth which has been used till today.10
3.2 Women: Women did not do much to their long hair but would rather just comb it and roll it. They were more attentive to beautifying their ears and would ornament it a lot. They usually pierced their ears at the beginning of their adolescence while there were some who even pierced their ears during their infancy. At the beginning they tightly wore a straw of some kind of grass and when that becomes loose, they replaced it with a long-round clay earring called beng dawi. When the hole becomes big enough, they replaced it with ivory earrings made of elephant’s tusks. The necklaces worn by the Zo women were thi-hna, thi-fen, thi-sir, thi-val and green chawite. Thi-val had either two, three or more strings while the rest are single-stringed. After they converted to Christianity, the popularity of necklaces and earring declined considerably. The girls also wore bangles, bracelets, rings and thibun on their wrists. The style of wearing necklaces and earrings were also usually similar for all the Zo ethnic groups even though they were named differently.11 While the R groups call necklace as thi, the non-R or G groups call it khi. Among the latter groups, khiba was also very popular. Some of the dresses of women were saiip misuap, fenngo, hmaram, kawrchei, puanngo, ngotekherh, puandum, thimkual, hair clip, comb, ivory earrings, thibeh, straw earring, tankathi, darkawngchhilh, darzai and rangkha.12
3.3 Other Similitudes in Dresses: All the Zo ethnic groups have puanpui/pawnpui. Though some clans call it ponpi or puanpi, its made and usage were the same for all groups. It was a kind of blanket and all the family members would share it.
When girls got married, it was mandatory to present pawnpui to her husband’s house and such a tradition was followed by most of the Zo ethnic groups13 such as Thadou-Kuki, Paihte, Vaiphei and other sub-clans.14 Most of the Lusei, Hmar and Paihte clans also have ngotekherh and there has even been a controversy over its original ownership. However, it should be noted that ngotekherh does not belong particularly to any of these tribes alone but is an indication of their similitude in dress and common ownership which rather confirms their kinsfolk. Among the Lais and the Maras, the daughters of the chiefs and chief-circle wore thihni. While they had controversy upon its original ownership, this too is an indication of their common kinship. Moreover, the Lais and the Maras are brothers who cannot separate from one another and there are even many common sub-clans who are called by names such as Chinzah-Chozah, Hlawnchhing-Hlychho, etc. Again, naupuak puan, a cloth used by the Zo people to carry their babies was possessed by most of the Zo ethnic groups. Weaving of naupuak puan was known to them only after 1700 A.D. Puan ropui was also owned by most of the Zo ethnic groups except. Lusei, Gangte and Hmar tribes have thangchhuah puan. A half jacket was also worn by all the Zo ethnic groups but named differently. The Luseis call it chakai khawrh kawr; 15 Thadou-Kukis call it boitong sangkhol;16 Hmars call it ai man zakaw,17 Lais call it pa kawr or pa angki;18 Maras call it kaohrai;19 Paites call it tual puanak;20 and Vaipheis call it bawitawng puan ak.21 The traditional clothe (puan) of the Thadou-Kuki known as Khamtang and Saipikhup was also owned by other Zo ethnic groups such as Kom, Aimol, Chiru and Chothe.22 Elders claimed that the string used in these clothes (puans) are extracted from a python. Moreover, Gangte, Paihte, Simte, Vaiphei and Zo traditional puans are more or less identical and this confirms the common ancestry and kinsfolk of the Lai, the Mara and the other Zo ethnic groups in Manipur. What Prof. Gangmumei called “New Naga”, the Maring, the Anal, the Mayon, the Monsang Lamkang and the Khoibu which he tried to include among the Naga ethnic tribe have identical traditional shawls and other dresses with Lai and Mara tribes of the Zo ethnic group. This signifies that the ethnic groups known as Old Kuki belongs to the Lai (Pawi) tribe.23
4. Similitudes in Traditional Weapons
The weapons possessed by the different Zo ethnic groups were: thal (bow), kawlhnam (sword), fei (spear), phaw (shield), dar lukhum (copper helmet) and gun. Bow appears to be the one of the first Zo-made weapons. They were popularly used for hunting and killing animals and also used it against their enemies at battles. Thadou-Kuki, Vaiphei, Gangte, Simte and Paihte called it Thalpi. Kawlhnam (sword) is believed to be adopted from the settlement in Burmese plain (Kawlphai). The term, “hnam” means sword in Lai (Pawi) language and Burmese are known as Kawl by the Zo ethnic tribes. Thus, it literally means Burmese sword. They also adopted few fei (spears) from Burmese plain (Kawlphai). When they had more of these, they left their earlier weapon, namely, bow and replaced it with spear (fei). Some of the Zo ethnic groups called spear as tengcha. However, the manner in its usage was the same for all tribes. Their shield (pha) was made from the dried skin of a mithun. It gave protection for bowand spear. Elders claimed that during their battles, they would form lines keeping their shields above their heads blocking the arrows and spears of their enemies. Most of the Zo ethnic groups commonly call it phaw. Copper helmet was made of wielded copper to protect their heads from arrows and spears. Since copper was scarce to them, they did not possess much of it. Guns became the most important weapon for the Zo people till today. There are records in history where they used guns in their fight for their freedom. The gun was invented during 15th Century. The Burmese chief, Bayin Naung (1551-1581), during his reign of Taungoo, had 400 Portuguese bodyguards armed with guns. N.E. Parry wrote that the Zo people of the Lushai Hills did not possess guns before 1777. Elders claimed the use of guns in the battles that occurred in the North Chin Hills such as the Halkha-Kawlhring battle and the Sunthla-Halkha battle which was believed to have occurred during 1740-1750.24
Gun had many utilities to the Zo people such as in fighting battles, hunting and killing animals. The common people, however, did not afford to own it and it became a property of the chiefs and the well-to-do people.25 Lai and Thadou-Kuki called it meithal while Paihte called it thau. All the Zo-ethnic groups possessed guns and had even used it in resistance against the Queen’s government. The Lais (Pawis) were believed to be the first Zo ethnic group to possess guns and were believed to have owned it as early as 1404.26 Even during the Chin-Lushai Expedition of 1888-1890, the Lai and the Lusei chiefs had resisted the British armies with guns.27 Moreover, during the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919, the Thadou-Kuki tribe led by Aisan chief, Chengjapao Doungel and Laijang chief, Tintong Haokip had resisted the British raj with the use of guns.28 However, these guns were not only used to resist their enemies but also in wretched inter-clan wars among themselves killing their own kinds. The guns commonly used by the Zo people were: mualpuah, olan, tukuli, ulhbun,thihnang, pheichek gun, air gun and miniature. Air guns was used to hunt birds and small animals whereas other guns were used to hunt and kill animals and at battles. The gun most commonly used by the Zo people in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh was the tukuli. It was Turkish-made and was imported in India by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1840. The Thadou-Kukis called it thihnang.29 Since the gun-powder used for firing tukuli 30 can be easily produced by themselves without the need for importing it, the gun became widely used. The Zo ethnic groups in Manipur hills, parts of Burma, Nagaland and Assam had used tukuli against the Queen’s armies during the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919.31
Other weapons used by the Zo people were chem (knife), fungki, hreipui (axe) and sahmim. Chem was of three types: chempui, lulak chem and kingkawt. Chempui is a simple multi-purpose knife which is used till today; lulak chem was used for head-hunting while kingkawt is folded. All the Zo ethnic groups appear to possessed chempui and lulak chem. Fungki was a container of gun-powder and it became an integral part for the use of gun. Hreipui or axe was used not only for cutting wood but also at battles. Sahmim was a bag which they used it to carry their meals and other foods. It was durable and could not be easily torn by chem or spear. Sairawkherh (sling) was also popularly used. It was used mainly for hunting birds but it was also used against enemies at battles.32
5. Conclusion
The theory that the Zo people originated from the the Chhinlung or Khul appears to be the factor that unites the Zo people the most. The separation of the Zo people by the international boundary into three sovereign countries, namely, India, Myanmar and Bangladesh seems to have a negative impact on the understanding and unity among them. However, the resemblances of the Zo people in terms of their traditional dresses and weapons are clear indications of their common ancestry or kinship. Ngotekherh was possessed by the Luseis, the Hmars and the Paites and they often have controversies over its original ownership. Similarly, there has been dispute over the original ownership of thihni, a dress worn by the daughters of the Lai and the Mara chiefs and chief-circles. Gangte, Paihte, Simte, Vaiphei and Zo clans had traditional puan which resembles each other; and Thadou-Kuki, Kom, Aimol, Chiru and Chothe too have traditional puan which resembles each other. It would be useless to fight over the original ownership of these dresses by any particular clan or tribe; rather their resemblances are strong indicators of their common ancestry and ‘oneness’. In weaponry, most of the Zo ethnic groups used sairawkherh (sling), thal (bow), kawlhnam (sword), fei (spear), phaw (shield), dar lukhum (copper helmet), chem (knife), gun, fungki, hreipui (axe) and sahmim.
The struggle for political power and politics of regionalism may have created animosities and differences to some extent. However, their kinship and oneness is confirmed by their similitudes in respect to their traditional dresses and weapons. It is, therefore, a challenge to remove differences among the Zo people who are separated by the international border and accept their common origin and kinship. Besides the Chin State (Chin Hills) and the State of Mizoram, the Zo people are spread across Kawlphai (Kabaw Valley), Sagaing Division and Rakhine State in Myanmar, the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs) in Bangladesh and Manipur Hills, Tripura, Cachar, North Cachar and Karbi-Anglong Districts in Assam, Kohima, Peren and Dimapur districts in Nagaland and some parts of Nagaland in India. It should be noted that separation of these people is a result of the demarcation of territories/boundaries in which they did not have a choice. Therefore, it is important that these groups of people recognize one another and accept their common ancestry and brotherhood and preserve their unity.
In particular, political parties, underground organizations and civil society like the church and voluntary associations such as students associations, ethnic associations, women’s associations etc. have huge responsibilities in integrating and unifying the different Zo ethnic groups. It is also important that the Zo people, inhabiting parts of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh accepts one another and be accepted as inhabiting their own lands and not some foreign lands and to be aware of the need for the preservation of the respective land they inhabited. At the present, it may not be practical to talk of a political unification unless it is preceded by a psychological and an emotional integration which would improve their bond. It, therefore, becomes the responsibility of every Zo people to strive towards that goal.
May the unity of the Zo people prosper!
Notes and References
1. Kamkhenthang, H. et. al. (Eds.), In search of Identity, Kuki Chin Baptist Union, Kuki Baptist Convention Press, Imphal, 1986, p.5
2. Hrangzuala, Rev. C., The Lai People’s Struggle for Political and Ecclesiastical Autonomy, M.Th Thesis, Senate of Serampore, unpublished.,2000, p. 26.
3. Vaiphei, S. Prim, “Who we are/Who are we?’ in Kamkhenthang, H. et. al. (Eds.). In search of Identity, Kuki Chin Baptist Union, Kuki Baptist Convention Press, Imphal, 1986, pp. 32-33.
4. ZORO (Gen H.Q) Aizawl, Champhai Convention, Aizawl, 1988, p. 12.
5. Lalthangliana, B., Mizo Chanchin (A Short Account & Easy Reference of Mizo History), R.T.M. Press, Chhinga Veng, Aizawl, 2009, pp.1-3.
6. Vumson, Zo History, Aizawl, Mizoram, India, pp. 33-39.
7. Ibid, p. 48.
8. Carey, B.S & Tuck, H.N., Chin Hills Volume – I, Tribal Research Institute (T.R.I.), Aizawl, 1976.
9. Lalthangliana, B., Mizo Culture, Gilzom Offset, Electric Veng, Aizawl, First Edition, 2013, p. 44.
10. Lianhmingthanga, Material Culture of the Mizo, T.R.I, Aizawl, 1998, pp. 79-81.
11. Op.cit, p. 45.
12. Op.cit, pp. 70-75.
13. Rosangluaia, R.S., Mizo Thilhlui Thenkhat (Objects of Mizo Antiquity), T.R.I.,
Aizawl, First Published, 1993, p. 19.
14. Telephonic interview with Dr. D. Letkhojam Haokip, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Guhati University, Guwahati, Assam, 22.2. 2014.
15. Lianhmingthanga, op.cit, pp. 71 & 78-85.
16. Interview with Christopher Lun Haokip, Aizawl, 21.2.2014.
17. Telephonic interview with Dr. Paul B. Chonzik, Associate Professor & Head, Department of History, Assam University, Diphu Campus, Diphu, Assam, 21.2.2014.
18. Telephonic interview with C.L Lianzuala, Legislative Secretary, Lai Autonomous District Council, Lawngtlai, Mizoram, 22.2.2014.
19. Interview with Dr. K. Robin, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Mizoram University, Aizawl, 26.2.2014.
20. Sources from Mr Liankhanlal Hauzel, Principal, Eben Ezer Higher Secondary School, New Lamka, Churachandpur on 29.3.2014 through telephonic talk.
21. Sources from Kamminlun Suantak, Ph.D Scholar, Department of History, Manipur University on 25.3.2014.
22. Kamkhenthang, Dr. H. “Groping for Identity” in Kamkhenthang, H. et. al. (Eds). In search of Identity, Kuki Chin Baptist Union, Kuki Baptist Convention Press, Imphal, 1986, p. 6. .
23. Doungel, Jangkhongam, “Status of the term Kuki in the past and present – A critical analysis” in Michael Lunminthang and Ngamkhohao Haokip (eds) Kuki Society Past, Present, Future, Marxford Books, New Delhi, 2011, pp. 281-282.
24. Lalthangliana, B., Mizo Culture, op.cit, pp. 52-55.
25. Zosangpuii, P.C., Mizo Ro, Thil leh Hmanruate, RTM Press, Tribal Research Institute, 2000, p. 61.
26. Lianhmingthanga, op.cit, pp. 43.
27. Thangmawia, R., Zoram pian dan leh kalhmang tlangpui, Cilzom Offset, Electric Veng, Aizawl, 2011, p. 21.
28. Chishti, S.M.A.W, Kuki Uprising in Manipur, Spectrum Publications, Guwahati, 2004, pp. 30-35.
29. Lianhmingthanga, op.cit, pp. 44-46.
30. Laldailova, J.F., English-Lushai Dictionary, Bhargoba Offset, Guwahati, 13th Reprint, 1995, p. 243.
31. Haokip. P.S., Zalengam The Kuki Nation, Kuki National Organisation, 1998, pp. 143-144.
32. (a) Lianhmingthanga, op.cit, pp. 43 & 47-50.
(b) Laldailova, J.F., op.cit, pp. 50 & 475.
Paper presented in Chhinlung Cultural Festival, Halkha, Chin Hills, Myanmar, 5-7 November, 2014.
Laibu Saal / Zomi eLibrary
