Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The politics of language is not an abstract academic endeavor. In India, it has been at the forefront of many linguistic-based movements such as the demand for statehood, autonomous council/district, tribal recognition, and scheduled tribe status. Ethnic identities are constructed and are never unified and stable. It is increasingly fragmented, although the powerful actors think of identity articulated using common origin/ancestry, culture, and language, as enduring through time. The politics of language has been at the forefront of many linguistic-based movements. It calls attention to analyze the way pan-tribal identity is articulated and the same is contested by the other who does not subscribe to it. This article examines how religion, particularly Christianity, became one of the instruments along with others in articulating pan-tribal identity and contestation in Nagaland.

Keywords

Politics of language identity conflict Tikhir tribe Christianity ethnic identities Pan tribal identity

Introduction

Language played a key role in the formation of a Telugu-majority state of Andhra Pradesh (1953); the bifurcation of the then Bombay into the Gujarati-speaking area of Gujarat and Marathi-majority Maharashtra (1960), the separation of Hindi-speaking Haryana (1966) from the rest of the Gurmukhi dominant areas of Punjab, and the bifurcation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand (2000). In Northeast India, the formation of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Manipur from erstwhile Assam was based on ethnic-linguistic lines (Sengupta, 2018: vii–viii). In Nagaland, language has figured prominently in the carving out of districts (Wokha for Lothas, Mokokchung for Aos, Zunheboto for Sumi/Sema, Mon for Konyak, and so on). Recently, the Noklak district declared on 10 July 2020, has been carved out for the Khiamnungan tribe. The reservation policy in Nagaland is based on linguistic/tribal lines. For instance, the backward tribe reservation/quota for Government jobs is reserved for certain linguistic–tribal groups such as Chakhesang, Sangtam, Yimchunger/Yimkhiung,¹ Konyak, Phom, Zeliang Chang, Khiamnungan. At the same time the construction of identities is ongoing. Ethnic identities, as Stuart Hall writes, “are subject to a radical historicization, and are constantly in the process of change and transformation” (1996: 4)

The approach

This article employs Stuart Hall's concept of “articulation” to discern the narrative of identity articulation. Stuart Hall explains articulation thus:

An articulation is thus the form of the connection that can make a unity of two different elements, under certain conditions. It is a linkage which is not necessary, determined, absolute and essential for all time. You have to ask, under what circumstances can a connection be forged or made? So the so-called “unity” of a discourse is really the articulation of different, distinct elements which can be rearticulated in different ways because they have no necessary “belongingness.” The “unity” which matters is a linkage between that articulated discourse and the social forces with which it can, under certain historical conditions, but need not necessarily, be connected. Thus, a theory of articulation is both a way of understanding how ideological elements come, under certain conditions, to cohere together within a discourse, and a way of asking how they do or do not become articulated, at specific conjunctures, to certain political subjects. (Morley and Chen, 1996: 141–142)

Hall explains further that “The theory of articulation asks how an ideology discovers its subject rather than how the subject thinks the necessary and inevitable thoughts which belong to it; it enables us to think how an ideology empowers people, enabling them to begin to make some sense or intelligibility of their historical situation, without reducing those forms of intelligibility to their socio-economic or class location or social position” (142).

Hall's concept of articulation is useful in enunciating tribal identities and identification: it is a process of theorizing a collective identity (identities) and conjoining that position with a political subject (identification) which is not absolute and have no belongingness. Hall's work is used in the context of Yimchunger–Tikhir identity articulation and imbroglio as it offers a framework for understanding pan-tribal discourse and contestation.

The origin of pan-Yimchunger Tribal Identity

According to the Yimchunger Tribal Council (YTC), the first attempt toward asserting a pan-Yimchunger identity was made on 18 January 1948, with the formation of the YTC. The YTC claimed that on this day the six-dialect groups, namely, Yimchunger, Makury, Chirr, Tikhir, Phelungri (Phunungyou), and Longphur reached a consensus to form one tribe called Yimchunger.² The YTC also asserts that on this day the gathered individuals resolved to live under a tribe named Yimchunger and the resolutions also included the use of Langa language as the link language (common language) with a strong resolve that “Any individual or group disrupting the unity of the Yimchunger Tribe shall be dealt with severely including the imposition of a fine or any other penalty as may be deemed fit and proper” (Yimchunger Tribal Council, 2016: 3).

However, the historicity of the event has been contested by the Tikhir community. They object that, first, during those years (1948/1950s), the practice of head-hunting between villages and amongst the tribes was still prevalent and that there was hardly any concept of community as a tribe beyond one's village jurisdiction. Hence, risking life to attend the meeting is implausible. Secondly, many villages refute their participation in the said meeting. Thirdly, even if such a meeting took place, it may not have proper representations from the six tribes. Debojyoti Das states, “Having seen the typescript of the meeting document myself, I can confirm that the document shows that not all Yimchunger village heads/Gbs participated in the historic gathering…it was not clear reading the document whether such memorandums were truly representative” (Das, 2014: 52). Fourthly, those names that appear under Tikhir villages are fictitious, which means that the document could have been concocted (Yimchunger Tribal Council, 2016: 11).

The second attempt toward a pan-Yimchunger identity was initiated in the 1960s with the proposal to form YIMATICHIR (Tikhir Tribal Council, 2016); it is an acronym formed from the names of four tribes, where Yi stands for Yimchunger, Ma stands for Makury, Ti stands for Tikhir, and Chir stands for Chirr. However, this proposal was strongly rejected by the Tikhir and hence, it did not materialize. Another reasons for the failure of the YIMATICHIR was the exclusion of the Longpfürr tribe (who were later included) in the nomenclature, YIMATICHIR.

The third attempt at pan-Yimchunger identity was carried out in the name of Christianity, in particular, through the formation (1959) and working of a pan-Yimchunger Baptist Church Association, Yimchunger Baptist Borübo Amukhungdo (YBBA). M. Khalenmew Yim has rightly asserted, “Though Yimchunger Tribal Council is said to have formed in [1948], there had been no sense of tribe in any aspect. But when the churches were established and Association formed, the spirit of oneness and unity as a tribe was realized” (2010: 48). In the forgoing discussion, I will analyse the politics of language from the perspective of the history of Christianization of the Tikhirs, because, it is only through the Christianization of the Tikhirs that the process of pan-Yimchunger took a tangible form: Christianization of the Tikhirs, imposition of the use of Yimchunger language, and assimilation of Tikhirs identity.

Domination through Christianity

The encounter of Christianity by the pioneer Tikhir converts

The early encounter of the Tikhirs with Christianity came through the work of Rev. Imtiluen Ao, who was sent by the Council of Baptist Churches in Assam (CBCA) to be the in-charge of mission work among the six tribes of the then Naga Hills Tuensang Area (NHTA) (Aier Alongla, 1997: 89). The first convert among the Tikhirs was Tsangmong of Shamator village, who came in contact with Christianity while as a student at Shamator town in the year 1955–56. It is not known through whom he became Christian, yet, among the Tikhir villages, Shamator village became the first Christian village through his preaching (Shiuto, 2003: 17). Another Tikhir, K. Yongpan from Chilliso village became Christian when he was studying at Shamator town in 1956 (Yongpan, 2003, Interview). Another early convert among the Tikhirs was Pongkhumong of Thunoknyu village. These native converts began to evangelize their own villages and neighboring villages. Their works prepared the ground work for full Christianization of the Tikhir villages.

Christianity under Yimchunger Baptist Borübo Amukhungdo

The momentum of Tikhir conversion movement to Christianity increases starting from the 1960s. During these years, due to proximity to Tikhir villages, both the Yimchunger and the Sangtam tribes evangelized the Tikhirs and these converts were recorded under the Yimchunger and Sangtam church associations (Mission Record Register: 54). The numerical spread of Christianity among the Tikhirs further widened with the coming of Sumi/Sema and Ao missionaries to the area, who worked under the auspices of the YBBA. Both G. Kihoto Sema (1960), the first Evangelist to the YBBA and Rev. J. Onenlepten Ao (1960–1964), the first Field Supervisor of YBBA (33–34), worked among the Tikhir villages. Kihoto visited two Tikhir villages namely Thonoknyu and Thoktsur. Onenlepten, who came to the area on May 1, 1960 (34) visited several Tikhir villages and baptized many people, The names of these Tikhir converts were recorded under the YBBA. With this, churches in the Tikhir area came under the direct administration of the YBBA.

Imposition of Yimchunger language and assertion of Pan-Yimchunger identity through Christianity

Having brought the Tikhir churches and their villages under the administration of the YBBA, the Yimchunger started propagating pan-Yimchunger ideology by imposing Yimchunger language as the common language to be used in the churches and other organizations. The YBBA appointed pastors and supplied Yimchunger hymn books and other translated materials to the Tikhir churches (Thiyushak Atsü YBBA Golden Jubilee Yukhian, ___: 6–7; Tiakhaba, 2005, Interview). Furthermore, in an unfortunate act of aggression, in 1969, 1000 copies of Tikhir hymn books containing 200 hymns and some parts of the New Testament were burned by the Yimchungers (Tosu Thunoknyu, 2015, Interview). They also circulated ordinances prohibiting the use of language other than Yimchunger. For instance, resolution No. 10 of the Yimchungrü Akherü Arihako (YAA) held in the year 1976, writes: “From the year 1977 no program should be made in self-dialect. It should be made only in Yimchunger common language. The conference has passed to take action to the violators going beyond it” (Ghosh, 1982; 263). All these activities were carried out by the Yimchungers in the name of Christian unity: one in Christ.

In the early days, Tikhir Christians cooperated and attended the religious gatherings for the sake of the common faith they share. Thus from 1959 to 1980 the Tikhir churches cooperated and remained under the YBBA, although with dislike and squabbling. However, it is worth nothing that during these short years under YBBA (1959–1980), the Tikhir churches did not make any agreement that they would be amalgamated to the Yimchunger tribe nor agreed to be part of the so-called pan-Yimchunger identity that was propagated.

Articulation of tribe and sub-sribe binary

With a view to cohere together the distinct tribes into pan-tribal identity, the Yimchunger politicians, intellectuals, and church leaders began to develop a theory of common identity founded on the binaries such as tribe/sub-tribe, and common language/dialect categories. In doing so, they misrepresented and degraded the identity of the Tikhir (and others) as one of the dialect group or sub-tribe of Yimchunger. B.B. Ghosh in the preface of a book, Nagaland District Gazetteer reports of the concerted effort made by a certain K. Zungkum, a Yimchunger politician, to promote the tribe–sub-tribe binary,

Shri K. Zunkum [sic] the honorable Minister of Nagaland expressed the view that Chirr, Makory and Tikhir are only dialect groups of Yimchunger Tribe, and not separate tribes. His views were placed in the Board meeting of 23^th September 1980 and the Board decided to avoid controversial matters. Later in a meeting of the Board on 20^th April 1981, the member discussed the matter thoroughly and decided to use the words “break up of language wise population” instead of “Tribe-wise break up of population.” (Ghosh, 1981: iii–iv)

This shows the effort of the dominant tribe to ensure that the distinct identity of the minority is not documented in order to exercise hegemony over them. Any attempts to document them were dismissed using the power of their political presence in the state. It unveils the production of tribe/sub-tribe binary as the deliberate construct of the dominant tribe. It is a way of making a narrative to forge a unity of articulated discourse of the distinct identities. Thus, Zungkum's categorization of the common identity of the Yimchunger by making Yimchunger the tribe and the Tikhir tribe and others as the sub-tribes or dialect group ablated the identity of Tikhir into lower stratum, thereby privileging the dominant tribe in the so-called pan-Yimchunger identity. This is the way the dominant tribe constructs the concocted history and homogenizing ideology of Yimchunger as the common identity: Yimchunger as center and Tikhir as periphery. This internalizing of Tikhir as a dialect of Yimchunger holds their (Yimchunger) mind captives, even resorting to violence and abuse of the Tikhirs in the name of asserting a pan-Yimchunger identity. The inferiorised identity of Tikhir as a sub-tribe of Yimchunger impels the Tikhir to be defensive as well as made to live an imploded and undignified life under this homogenizing ideology.

The beginning of the articulation of linguistic identity of Tikhir

The origin of Tikhir tribal movements

The Tikhirs began to articulate a distinct identity of their own with the formation of Tikhir Public Movement (TPM) at Chikiupong village in 1965. It was the first Tikhir organisation. The TPM later changed its name to Tikhir Tribal Movement (TTM) in 1970 (Tikhir Students Union Silver Jubilee, 2006: 6–7). In the meantime, another Tikhir organization, Thonok and Pungro Area Movement (TPAM), was formed in 1973 at Chikuponger village with the aim of bringing unity among Tikhirs of the Pungro and Thonoknyu area. In the aftermath of the formation of TPAM, the Makury/Makori, Chirr, and Longpfürr tribes also realized the importance of maintaining their identities and started discussions with the Tikhir leaders for the formation of a common entity representing the four tribes (Tikhir, Makury, Chirr, Longpfürr), so as to live united, socially and politically. Consequently, in a meeting held at Zaonger village on 20^th December 1974, a decision was made to form Timacher, where Ti stands for Tikhir, Ma stands for Makury, and Cher stands for Chirr (Tikhir Students Union Silver Jubilee, 2006: 8). However, Timacher was never fully materialized and implemented.

Nevertheless, the Tikhir movement continued under TTM. In 1980 the nomenclature of the TTM was changed to All Tikhir Tribal Movement (ATTM). The same year, the ATTM, in a move to initiate formal separation of the Tikhir churches from YBBA, invited the YBBA to hold its Annual session at Anatongre (Tikhir village). During the Annual session, the ATTM submitted a memorandum of separation stating that the Tikhir churches would no longer remain under Yimchunger's association but form a separate association of Tikhir churches (ATTM, Memorandum to The Executive Secretary, YBBA, November 2, 1980). Thus, in 1981 Tikhir Baptist Biti Athükhianti (TBBA) was formed. Again, on 11 January 1981, at Sukiur village, a formal letter was submitted to the Yimchunger Akherü Arihako (YAA), announcing the formation of the Tikhir Students Union (TSU), and henceforth, banning holding any type of conference and meetings by the Yimchunger organisation in Tikhir jurisdiction. The first General Conference of TSU was held at Mutonger village in January 1982 (Tikhir Students Union Silver Jubilee, 2006: 8–9).

In 1982, in a mass public meeting of Tikhir, Makury, Chirr, and Longpfürr tribes at Pungro town, 42 leaders of these tribes signed in red, a Charter of Agreement resolving to stand united to throw away the yoke of suppression of the Yimchungers. Consequently, to bring unity among the four tribes, the ATTM was altered to the All Timacher Tribal Movement (ATmcTM). On 31st March 1984, a Conference of ATmcTM was held at Regional Council Hall, Pungro town under the theme: “To preserve the united identity of Timacher and to promote the society and to solve all by peaceful means.” The same year the TSU was changed to Timacher Students Union (TmcSU) in the interest of unity of the four tribes (Tikhir Students Union Silver Jubilee, 2006: 10).

However, the momentum toward Timacher unity did not last long. In 1984, there was a dispute regarding the Church building at Thonoknyu, which was to be dedicated as Tikhir Baptist Church. The issue was brought to the Deputy Commissioner Tuensang in case No.JDU-25/84–85 between Tikhir and Yimchunger. Regarding this, since the four tribes have combined together to form a single united tribe called Timacher (1982 and 1984), the ATmcTC requested the Deputy Commissioner, Tuensang to change the appellant's name from “Tikhir versus Yimchunger” to “Timacher versus Yimchunger.” However, the court refused that “since the matter is under decision of the court hence no change should be made with the present status quo position of the dispute between Yimchunger and Tikhir.” This failure is considered to be one of the reasons why the Timacher could not progress. Slowly the ATmcTC was defunct. In 1990, the ATmcTC made an attempt to revive Timacher in a meeting at Anatongre village. However, the Makury, Chirr and Longpfürr did not attend the meeting. By then they have completely dropped the idea of Timacher. As a successor of ATmcTC, the Tikhir Tribal Council (TTC) was formed at Sangkhumti village on September 3, 1993. With this the idea of a conglomeration, Timacher, was dropped and the Tikhirs continue their search for a separate identity.

The separation of the Tikhir churches from the YBBA and attempt to re-establish ecclesiastical control

As discussed above, although the identity movement of the Tikhir started as early as 1965, the tangible separation of the Tikhir tribe from the Yimchunger began from the Church through the initiative of the ATTM. The ATTM completely disassociated their churches from YBBA in 1980. One of the reasons stated in the memorandum for the separation and self-determination was the linguistic problem (Torepkiu Sangnuliu Thunoknyu, 2015, Interview). So from 1981 onwards the Tikhirs’ association known as TBBA started functioning and the Tikhir churches stopped contributing financially (budget) to the YBBA. This sparked a heated controversy between the Tikhirs and the Yimchungers and beyond.

In an attempt to re-establish ecclesiastical control, the YBBA under the leadership of Rev. P. Akum, the then Executive Secretary of YBBA, instigated the Ao Baptist Arogo Mongdang (ABAM) to withdraw all the Ao pastors from the Tikhir Jurisdiction (Akum, 1990). On February 2, 1985, he sent a warning to three Tikhir villages namely the Anatongre, Wapher, and Shamator villages deacon boards stating that the Yimchunger association had notified the three Ao pastors, that is, K. Tiakaba Ao (Anatongre), Kimatsungba Ao (Wapher) and Yanger Ao (Shamator) to quit their pastoral job and go back to their own respective villages. Accussing the TTM of creating tribalism, the letter threatened that if the mentioned villages do not send back their pastors, “They should give budget, and to abide by the resolution adopted by the YBBA, to cooperate in all the activities under the Yimchiunger Association, and all the programs of the three villages be printed only in “common literature” (Yimchunger language)” (Akum, 1985a, 1985b). This implies that the Tikhir has to make an either-or choice, either to send the pastors back and remain without a shepherd or to retain them and forfeit their identity by assimilating into Yimchunger identity, which would mean deracination of the self (Tikhir identity). Besides, the so-called national worker (underground/insurgent) belonging to Yimchunger also warned and threatened the Ao pastors serving in the land of Tikhirs to either leave the place or face the consequences for disobedience. For instance, one of the threatening letters, dated 4^th November 1994, states: “If you fail to move out till January 1995 you shall be sent by (packing) in the BOX (sic) and will make it reached your home villages” (Yimchunger, 1994). The primary motive of the warning and harassment meted out to the Tikhir villages/churches and their pastors was to disable identity movement and to re-establish ecclesiastical control over the Tikhir or push them to spiritual backwardness if the Tikhir do not retreat to YBBA.

It is natural that in the initial stage with or without consent, the recipient tribe would come under the direct ecclesial administration of the missional tribe. However, this should not be the basis for claiming the sameness of identity. It is neither necessary to re-establish her ecclesiastical control over the Tikhir nor appropriate either, to threaten the pastors to quit their pastoral jobs just because they could not re-establish their ecclesiastical power or the Tikhirs do not subscribe to pan-Yimchunger ideology. Rather, they could have helped the Tikhir to build up their church, being the produce of their mission. Instead, their tribal parochialism blinded their conscience to the extent of becoming persecutors of the church as evidenced by the burning down of church building (1989) (Tikhir Tribal Council, 2004: 8), the locking up of church (2001), and other such acts of vandalism (Tsinthong, 2014). Besides, in an attempt to exercise ecclesiastical control over the Tikhir, the Yimchunger also prohibited neighboring tribes from preaching the Gospel among the Tikhir (Sangtam, 1989).

Articulating homogenous identity and contestation: Historical differences and identity construction

The Tikhir–Yimchunger identity imbroglio is fashioned by routine newsflash and rejoinders, pamphlets, memoranda, court petitions, and violent physical confrontations expressed through assault and revenge killings. Firstly, in asserting pan-Yimchunger identity, Yimchunger deploys the colonial and post-colonial apparatus of the state to assert their identity such as maps, census, court and other documents. For instance, in the writ petition to the High Court of Guwahati, Kohima bench in W.P (P) No 122 (K) of 2002, the YTC used census data to validate their claim of Tikhir minority status, that is, their non-eligibility to accord a distinct tribe (Yimchunger Tribal Council, 2016: 7). On the other hand, the same census data is used by the Tikhir to contest against the claim of pan-Yimchunger identity and to justify their existence as a distinct minority tribe. Second, the YTC constructs oral narratives to cohere the identity discourse of distinct identities despite the multiple theories of migration and origin. In an attempt to assert common origin and ancestry, the YTC constructs the narrative covering some important Tikhir villages in the route of migration. They claimed that the Yimchunger migrated from Thailand thus:

The route of migration of the Yimchungers from Thailand lay through Burma (Myanmar), then from Burma to Moru (in India), from Moru to Chiru, from Chiru to Longyang, from Longyang to Thunyim Kiulong (Thunyim literally means 50 and Kiulong means village, thus a village of 50 inhabitants, within the present territory of eastern Nagaland). Thereafter, from Thunyim Kiulong to Tuphuong Kiulong (near Pokhur Village), from Tuphuong Kiulong to Thsunkiuso (presently Thonoknyu), then from Thsunkiuso to Kemiphu (On the banks of Thrak Kie, now popularly known as the Zungki River now). Thereafter from Keimiphu to Tukheakhup village below the present Waphur village on the banks of Zungki river (Yimchunger Tribal Council, 2016:1).

The above narrative of the origin and migration presented by the YTC is contested by the Tikhir. The Tikhir claim that they migrated from Mongolia/China (Tikhir Tribal Council, 2016) through Burma, and after crossing Chindwin River (Burma) came to the present place (Jamir and Lanunungsang, 2005: 19). Besides, the Chirr and Makury speaking groups also contest the tale of the origin “to a place across the Saramati mountain in Burma, rather than Thailand” (Das, 2014: 41) contrary to the Yimchunger's account. Thirdly, the Yimchunger refer to Langa as the central historic site from where they expanded and settled in their present villages (Das, 2014: 41), whereas the Tikhir referred to Taimiphu and Tongkhin as the two known historic settlement sites from where they scattered to their present villages. Fourthly, the Yimchunger claimed Langa, the historical site as a dialect of Yimchunger which is imposed as the common language for the pan-Yimchunger, whereas the Tikhir used Tikhir as the distinct language in asserting their distinct identity. Fifthly, in spite of the substantial differences in language, identity, migration, and settlement, the Yimchunger uses the formation of YTC (1948) as the main basis for asserting pan-Yimchunger identity. Based on this meeting the Yimchungers belittle the Tikhir tribe as a sub-tribe of Yimchunger, while the Tikhir use this belittling narrative to identify themselves as a distinct tribal community. Sixthly, the Yimchunger, in order to cohere together the discrete identities, blatantly claims the entire Tikhir villages as established by the Yimchunger of Langa origin (Yimchunger Tribal Council, 2016: 8). It reflects the politics of narration of the powerful actor to assimilate the powerless. However, the Tikhir continued to preserve their ancestral history to unite the entire Tikhir villages and to counter the pan-Yimchunger narrative.

For a good numbers of years, the political presence of Yimchunger in the State Legislative Assembly and the call to maintain status quo by the Government of Nagaland gave them moral victory to maintain pan-Yimchunger identity despite the realization of identity differences. The Tikhirs point to their political absence as a major setback in their legitimate demand for identity recognition that would give them political representation and benefits from the state. Thus, the pan-tribal articulation and the contestation presented above underscores the Yimchunger and Tikhir strategies to maintain their homogenious and or distinct identities and to access the rights and privileges provided by the state, which in the absence of their articulation of distinct identity will deprive them. They engaged with the state “in a discourse consistent with their knowledge of themselves, their needs and aspiration, and their understanding of what it is… are possible to demand and expect in this relationship” (Li, nd: 14).

The Tikhir and the state

In 1984, the objection of the Yimchungers to the dedication of the church building at Thonoknyu as the Tikhir Baptist Church Thonoknyu resulted in a court case. This case was sub-judiced by the court. Another major case involves the issuance of the Indigenous Certificate and Scheduled Tribe Certificate to Tikhirs. The state government withheld these certificates from the Tikhir tribe from the early part of 2001. This issue was taken up by the TTC to the government for immediate redress, but there was no desired result. Therefore, a case was registered³ and the court gave the ruling thus:

It is hereby directed that the respondents shall ensure that the Tikhirs, as being Scheduled tribe of Nagaland, are issued, in the State of Nagaland, necessary certificates by the authorities concerned and if a member of the Tikhir tribe satisfies the conditions precedent for issuance of an Indigenous Inhabitant certificate as prescribed in the Office Memorandum, dated 18-04-1983, aforementioned, he or she shall be granted Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate.⁴

In spite of this ruling, the state refused to mention Tikhir as the tribe name in the indigenous certificate. Overriding the Court of Justice, on 11 June 2012, the Government of Nagaland issued an order stating that “…for those who claim to be ‘Tikhir tribe’, the backward/indigenous certificate should mention only ‘Yimchunger’ as the tribe name” (“Notice”, 2012: 1).⁵ This manifests an indifferent attitude of the state arbitrarily denying the rights of the Tikhir. Thus, they were forced to live an “inauthentic identity” or “in-between identity,” neither as Tikhir nor as Yimchunger. Such a stance of the state condones oppression and legitimizes the oppressor to monopolize powers and privileges wielded through political might. For instance, the government of Nagaland issued a standing order thus: “…Tikhir has not been officially recognized as a separate Backward Tribe. Hence, the reservation of all post under the State Government for the Tikhir candidates will be considered from the Yimchunger Tribe quota.”⁶ In practice, this standing order disadvantaged the Tikhirs. For instance, on August 3–4, 2015, the Tikhir candidates who went for the police recruitment were arbitrarily rejected by the Yimchunger inside the Nagaland Armed Police Training Center on the basis of bearing Tikhir as the tribe in the cumulative record. Therefore, reacting against the derision of the Tikhir by the standing order of the state government and manipulation by the Yimchunger, in a press released, the Tikhir Students’ Union (TSU) President Longkamse S. and General Secretary Temong Y. (2015) state, the “Government standing order made a complete mockery of the birth right of Tikhirs…that indigenous, scheduled tribe and backward tribe certificates issued by the government authority were ‘ignored and rejected’ by Yimchunger Akherü Arehako (YAA) at the rally with the intent of classifying ‘duplicate and original Yimchungers’…‘pointing out the name of Tikhir villages’.” Thus, observing this issue from identity and economic perspectives, one discerns that the construction of the pan-Yimchunger identity is ambiguous. The attempt by the Yimchunger to sift the original Yimchunger identity in the situation of scarcity of job opportunities in the government sector explicitly manifest the politics of original and duplicate Yimchunger.

The TTC continued to appeal to the government for recognition/notification of the Tikhir tribe, issuance of indigenous Certificates, and for job reservation; as such, the state Government set up Study Committee for the in-depth study of the Tikhir tribe on 28 March 2005⁷; the terms and reference of the Study Committee are stated below:

The Committee shall examine the long-drawn Yimchunger–Tikhir problem.

The Committee shall go into the socio-cultural history and distinctiveness of the Tikhirs, their roots and growth as a group of people distinct and different from others, the distinctive geographical area of land occupied by them traditionally, the size and population of this group of people, and give its considered views and recommendations as to whether or not the Tikhir is a distinctive tribe and may be treated as such, with detailed justification.

The Committee may specifically find out the distinctiveness of the Tikhirs from the Yimchungers as an entirely separate and different tribe.

The order states that the Committee shall submit its report within 6 (six) months from the date of issue of the Notification. However, the Committee could not submit its report within the stipulated time. Thus, the state government of Nagaland reconstituted the Committee again on 6 March 2007⁸ and 23 March 2016⁹ with the same terms and conditions.¹⁰ However, a final verdict of the study committee required to finish within 6 months period delayed for quite some years. Hence, Khekiye K. Sema, an IAS officer retired, rightly pointed out Government's failure to solve the identity issue between the Yimchunger and Tikhir thus:

There is a less publicized annual “festival” which is way older than the hornbill Festival describable as “Yimchunger/Tikhir Slug-fest.” It is an unending saga of a relentless struggle by the Tikhirs for their separate identity from the [Yimchunger] Tribe which has caused bloody skirmishes and loss of lives over the years along the way. It is a complex high tension emotionally charged confrontation that has been recurring every year for the past couple of decades and has consistently caused law and order situation in Tuensang and Kiphire Districts…the Government has been caught with its pants down. Considering the fact that this is an un-healing sore, one would have also expected that the Government by now would have given serious cognizance and taken some concrete steps to give its verdict as to whether Tikhir should be recognized as a separate Tribal entity or not for better or for worse…rather than allow this festering hatred to grow amongst brothers unattended to for so long…This is a problem the Government of Nagaland has allowed to fester for too long a time. It's about time for a final settlement (2016: 6).

After a long tussle, the Tikhir was finally recognized as a separate Naga Tribe on 20^th January 2022 by the government of Nagaland. With the recognition of the tribe, Indigenous Certificate and Scheduled Tribe Certificate are been issued to the Tikhirs by the government. Although the identity of the tribe have been restored, the demand for separate constuency and separate reservation quota for various job opportunities are yet to be fulfilled. The positive impact of the recognition of the tribe is the affiliation and integration of the then excluded frontal organizations of the Tikhir tribe to the state level NGOs:the Tikhir Students’ Union have been affiliated on 4^th March 2022 to the Eastern Nagaland Students Federation; the TTC have been affiliated on 26^th March 2022 to the Eastern Nagaland Public Organization; the Tikhir Women Aassociation (TWA) have been affiliated on 2^nd May 2022 to the Eastern Nagaland Women Organization; awaiting the affiliation of the TBBA to the Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC).

Evaluation

Although the formation of YTC in 1948 is treated as the pillar of pan-Yimchunger identity by the Yimchunger, a tangible form of this ideology happened through the evangelization of the entire Tikhir villages and bringing the churches under the administrative control of YBBA from 1959 to 1980. Indeed, the Tikhirs were greatly blessed by Christianity. However, Christianity has been implicated in the Yimchunger–Tikhir imbroglio not because Christianity itself is bad but due to the fact that it was used as one of the tools to advance pan-tribal ideology by the Yimchunger. The idea of Yimchunger as a common/link language was asserted to cohere together the narrative of pan-Yimchunger identity. Further, the biblical teaching of “one in Christ” has been interpreted to serve the purpose of dominant interest. On the pretext of the universality of Christianity or “one in Christ” the ideology of common language, common hymn book, common Church Association, and common identity (common here refers to Yimchunger as a common language and identity) were imposed upon the Tikhir churches to keep Tikhir under their domination religiously (Yimchunger, 1983). Here, the notion of Christianity's “one in Christ” was domesticated to strengthen and fit into the dominant interest (Yimchunger), and any assertion of the distinct identity was discouraged for it was considered divisive and harmful to the doctrine of one in Christ. And all-embracing homogenizing ideology called “Yimchunger as common identity” (Action Commander Tisary, 1995; Yongsonglo and Akum, 1995; Zungkum, 1995) was advanced and propagated. Here lies the genesis of the captivity, the domination of Tikhir through Christianity. There is no doubt about the oneness of Christians in Jesus Christ and His salvation for humanity, but there ought to be a recognition of the difference between the identities of the missional tribe and the recipient tribe with that of the onenesss of Christ which transcends identities. Yet, without a willing acceptance from the recipient tribe, the claim for common identity at the cost of assimilating and annihilating the recipient tribe on the pretext of the oneness of Jesus Christ is the deracination of the distinct identity. Also, the universal oneness of God does not permit missional tribes to trample the recipient tribe's identity. In fact, the message of Christ becomes a light to the people only when human self-identity is dignified in the light of the knowledge of Christ. Thus, the onus is laid upon the missional tribe for spiritual and moral development without neglecting the essential core of identity. However, they have miserably failed by domesticating Christ and his teaching for their own self-interests which is a theological fallacy. They have centralized their identity or cultured Christianity (Yimchunger's Christianity) as a requirement for salvation and imposed upon the Tikhir—to be a Christian means to forfeit Tikhir's identity and be a part of Yimchunger's identity or cultured Christianity; and imposing the use of Yimchunger song book and language in the church implies that to save their souls Tikhir must think, listen, understand, speak and pray in Yimchungrü language.

The Tikhirs began to contest against the pan-tribal ideology and articulated their distinct identity beginning in 1965 with the formation of TPM. However, the TPM was not stable as it was interrupted by other similar organizations and the change of nomenclature several times to accommodate other smaller tribes. It was only by the turn of 1980 that the ATTM took a clear stance to maintain a tangible separation of the Tikhir from the Yimchunger. Hence, after the submission of the memorandum of separation in 1980 by the ATTM and the subsequent formation of TBBA, the Tikhir churches completely detached themselves from the YBBA (Yimchunger). Just as the Yimchunger use the Yimchunger common language as the tool to articulate homogeneous identity, the Tikhir use language (Tikhir language) as the tool to maintain a distinct identity and separate church association beginning from 1981. However, it was not a peaceful exit but an abrupt one that created distrust between the Tikhir and the Yimchunger. And the consequences upon the Tikhir were the exclusion of all the Tikhir frontal Organizations (TBBA, TTC, TSU, TWA) by the NGOs of Nagaland; deprived of the job reservation policy provided by the state; exclusion from state-sponsored activities and programs for instance, like Hornbill festival which is one of the biggest festivals of all the Nagas and non-Nagas in Nagaland; and the exclusion of Tikhir as mother tongue subject in the school Text books.

Conclusion

In the Tikhir–Yimchuger conflict both the tribes hold to their own narratives, which fashion their identity and struggles for space, territory, history, and cultural identity. Language figured prominently in this conflict as it marks the boundaries uniting or separating them. Language is one of the markers of identity. “A language becomes identity or the variable that identifies people speaking it, and speakers of the same language form a community owing to the commonality of language” (Sengupta, 2018: 5). Language is an identity marker and therefore allegiance and belonging come naturally. Linguistic identity is a self-conscious articulation. The identity struggle between the Yimchunger and Tikhir in which the latter's dissenting voice illustrates this self-conscious articulation. The former substantialises common language (including other historical claims) and attaches it to the collectivities for building pan-tribal identity and the latter substantialises distinct language (including other historical claims) as the flag of allegiance for maintaining distinct identity. Hence, sooner or later, such identity issues will lead to the bifurcation and recognition of distinctiveness because pan-tribal identities are never unified and stable but are contested by the subjucated group and constantly in the process of change and transformation. The pan-tribal ideology had indeed discovered its subjects and swayed for a certain period of time. Yet it did not endured the test of time because the subjects did not find belongingness to it. It rather distanced the subject than belonging.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Daniel Tikhir completed Doctor of Theology in 2017 from Senate of Serampore, Kolkata, India, and served as an Assistant Professor from 2016 to 2023 at Witter Theological College, Wokha and Baptist Theological College, Pfutsero. A present serving as Back Translator (Tikhir Bible Translation) under Evangel Bible Translators.

References

Action Commander Tisary, Government of the Peoples Republic of Nagaland (1995) Letter to the General Secretary Nagaland Baptist Church Council, 25 September.

Aier

Alongla P

(1997) From Darkness to light. In: Aier

Alongla P

(ed.) From Darkness to Light. Kohima: Nagaland Baptist Church Council.

Akum P Executive Secretary YBBA (1990) Letter to Tiakaba, Kimatsung, and Nungsang, 22 January.

Akum P Executive Secretary YBBA (1985a) Letter to Anatongre, Wapher and Shamator Baptist Churches. 6 January.

Akum P Executive Secretary YBBA (1985b) Letter to Anatongre, Wapher and Shamator Baptist Churches. 2 February.

All Tikhir Tribal Movement (1980) Memorandum to the Executive Secretary, YBBA, 2 November.

Das

(2014) The Yimchunger Nagas: local histories and changing identity in Nagaland, Northeast India. European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 45: 33–59. Available at: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journal/ebhr/pdf/EBHR_45_02.pdf (accessed 10 August 2020).

Ghosh

(1981) Nagaland District Gazetteers: Tuensang District Gazetteers. Kohima: Government of Nagaland.

Ghosh

(1982) History of Nagaland. New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.

10.

Government of Nagaland (2007) Notification, 6 March.

11.

Jamir

Lanunungsang

(2005) Naga Society and Culture. Mokokchung: Nagaland University, Tribal Research Centre.

12.

Morley

Chen

K-H

(eds.) (1996) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London and New York: Routledge.

13.

Sangnuliu

(2015) Thunoknyu Town, Interview, 9 June.

14.

Sangtam

(1989) Letter to the Executive Committee Chairman, TBBA. 26 October.

15.

Sengupta

(2018) Language as Identity in Colonial India: Policies and Politics. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillian.

16.

Shiuto

(2003) Introduction and Growth of Christianity among the Tikhir Naga. B.D. Thesis. Clark Theological College, Mokokchung.

17.

Tiakhaba K Pastor Anatongre Village (2005) Interview, 21 December.

18.

Tikhir

(2015) Thunoknyu town, Interview, 13 May.

19.

Tikhir Tribal Council (2004) The Roots and Growth of the Tikhirs as A Distinct Tribe and the Struggle for Their Rights, A Document submitted to Government of Nagaland. Tikhir Tribal Council.

20.

Tikhir Tribal Council (2016) Letter to the Tikhir Study Committee.

21.

Tsinthong Y L Pastor, Tikhir Baptist Church Shamator (2014) Interview, 15 September.

22.

Yim

(2010) The Yimchungrü & Christianity: A Brief History. Pungro: Daniel Brothers.

23.

Yimchunger

Akhum

(1991) Letter to the General Secretary, Nagaland Baptist Church Council, 14 June.

24.

Yimchunger

(1983) Letter to the General Secretary, NBCC, 25 August.

25.

Yimchunger, K GAO of NSCN (GPRN) (1994) Letter to Tiakaba, Pastor, Anatongre village, Kimatsungba, Pastor, Wapher village and Yanger Pastor Shamator village, 4 November.

26.

Yimchunger Tribal Council (2016) Brief Historical Account of the Origin of the Yimchunger Tribe. Memorandum submitted to Government of Nagaland.

27.

Yimkhiung Tribal Council. The Birth and Genesis of the YTC. Available at: https://yimkhiungrutruk.org/2019/07/21/the-birth-and-genesis-of-the-ytc-yimchunger-tribal-council/ (5th August 2020).

28.

Yongpan

(2003) Interview, Thonok Town, 21 December.

29.

Yongsonglo and Akum K (1995) Letter to the General Secretary, NBCC, 21 October.

30.

Zungkum

(1995) Letter to the General Secretary Nagaland Baptist Church Council, 22 October.

31.

Mission Record Register. USBLA, Kiphire Sub-Centre.

32.

“Shri. K. Topan Tikhir and Shri. W. Tothong Philip Tikhir Versus The State of Nagaland, 2004,” Guwahati High Court: Kohima Bench: INDEX-W.P.(C) No. (K) (1976) “Yimchunger Students Conference, Resolution, 18 January”.

33.

(2006) Tikhir Students Union Silver Jubilee.

34.

(2007) “The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. No. WP-© No-122 (K) 2004, Judgement and Order, 24 May”.

35.

(2012) Nagaland Post, 30 November.

36.

(2015) Nagaland Post, 5 August.