Abstract
This article is an attempt at identifying ways and means to gauge the construction and reification of ethnicity and socio-cultural identity among Mizo Presbyterians and Mizo Baptists. This is to be done against the backdrop of exercises in cartography and the partitioning of communities undertaken by the colonial administrators. It takes into account the erecting of geospatial boundaries and the creation of specific identities limited to and centred on such demarcations. And it proposes that in instances of a definite lack of sufficient historical sources, it is imperative that one harnesses imagination, the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful.
Keywords
Introduction
The year 1983 saw concerted attempts at the organisation and creation of a Baptist congregation in a village named Serchhip in north-central Mizoram. To the uninitiated, this seemingly was an innocuous event. It could simply have been the formation of yet another local congregation in a state with one of the highest percentages of Christianity. For anyone with some knowledge of Mizoram, it could have been a logical conclusion to developments in the 1960s during Rambuai, which may be rendered ‘The Disturbances’ in English, the struggle for Mizo independence (1966–1986) and the conflicts entailed. Whole villages were uprooted and relocated by the Indian Army in the initial years of the struggle and some Mizo Baptist families from southern Mizoram, forced to move slightly north, decided to organise themselves into a proper church. However, things are not as simple. This article proposes that it is erroneous to view the instance of church organisation in Serchhip as an isolated event. The incident rightly was, and is, part of a chain of events that led to strained relationships till today between the Presbyterian and Baptist churches in Mizoram. It also contends that subsequent breakdown in relations between two of the biggest Christian denominations should not be reduced to a case of the two largest churches in a given area engaging in a struggle over prominence. It is a manifestation of the larger struggle between competing ethnonational 1 identity assertions within the Mizo community, an ethnic entity constantly engaged in internal negotiation over its contours and composition.
Rather than arguing for history and the historical as something ‘out there’ or ‘back there’ which can be retrieved by the historian, my approach is more attuned to Collingwood's assertions, and the metaphysical implications and epistemological consequences of such assertions. Collingwood held that ‘[h]istory regarded as knowledge of past fact, is unattainable’ (1994: 395), which further led him to contend that ‘[t]he past is in no sense whatever actual. It is wholly ideal’ (1994: 403). This unreality of the past, for Collingwood, constrains our ability to know it; hence his argument for the necessity of a ‘historical imagination’.
Historical Background
Indian nationalist and post-independence historical discourse is awash with partition narratives about the split of an ‘Indian’ nation into two, one secular with a Hindu majority and the other religious, with a Muslim majority. Conceived under the two-nation theory, the division of the Presidencies and Provinces of British India is indeed one of the most significant features of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. It was an event which impacted the second and third largest Muslim ethnicities after the Arabs, the Bengalis and Punjabis. It was an act that brought separation among two ethnicities, followed by mass violence at places where the new India shared borders with West Pakistan and East Pakistan. ‘Partition was the defining event of modern, independent India and Pakistan, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that partition continues to be the defining event of modern India and Pakistan[.] … Partition … was and is a profoundly religious event for both sides, namely, Neo-Muslim Pakistan as well as so-called “secular” India[.]’ (Larson, 1997: 182). The religious implication of the entire episode is never in doubt, and its ethnonational and socio-religious ramifications never lost.
However, there are two prior instances of partitioning which have profound impacts upon the Mizo community and the nascent Mizo ethnonationalism that was gradually growing in the erstwhile Lushai Hills. The first is the Partition of the Lushai Hills in 1892 and the second, the Partition of Bengal in 1905.
Partition of the Lushai Hills 1892
Prior to the adoption of a policy of permanent occupation, British India hardly had any dealings with the hill areas later known as the Lushai Hills. It merely sent punitive expeditions as and when the hill people decided to get adventurous and pose a hindrance to colonial machinations in areas claimed to be British territory. The most well-known was the Lushai Expedition of 1871–1872, which is known in Mizo as the Vailen Vawi Khatna. It was a response to raids by the Lushai 2 chiefs and warriors on the tea plantations and other British establishments in the plains. It consisted of two columns, with the right advancing from Chittagong in Bengal and the left from Cachar in Assam. The expedition wound up after achieving its stated goal of subduing the warlike tribes and rescuing British subjects captured by the Lushais in raids into Assam.
With the Chin-Lushai Expedition of 1889–1890, the old policy was abandoned, and a new policy of pacification through permanent occupation adopted. This Vailen Vawi Hnihna was organised after resumption of large-scale raiding in 1888 by tribes increasingly identified as Chin-Lushai. It was a three-pronged force, and involved columns from Chittagong in Bengal and Pakokku and Tiddim in Burma. 3 And its main objective was to ‘pacify’ the tribes. At the same time, and as part of the pacification process, the forces were to construct an East-West road through the hills, and create a series of military posts, thereby establishing a permanent British presence in the region. 4 In its aftermath, the Chin-Lushai Land was divided into at least three administrative zones, the Chin Hills in the East and the North Lushai Hills and the South Lushai Hills in the West.
The North Lushai Hills became part of the Chief Commissionership of Assam, while the southern district was attached to the Bengal Presidency. For the purpose of our study here, focus is placed on the partition of the Lushai Hills as it is intertwined with the development of Mizo Presbyterian and Mizo Baptist identities in Mizoram. Management of the South Lushai hill country was transferred from Bengal to Assam in 1898 when the two districts were amalgamated to form the Lushai Hills district of Assam. However, the delineation and traces of the division it engendered came to the fore and was amplified later when the English Baptists were allowed to work in south Lushai Hills from 1903 onwards, and the work of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (Presbyterians) was limited to the north Lushai Hills. 5 This took place in spite of the colonial administration's stated policy of allowing only one mission society to work among a community or people.
Partition of Bengal 1905
The British colonial administration enacted the Partition of Bengal in 1905. Through this piece of legislation, the Hindu-dominated western part of Bengal was separated from the eastern, which was predominantly Muslim. The newly created Eastern Bengal was then joined with Assam to create an administrative subdivision (province). Eastern Bengal and Assam included most of modern-day Bangladesh, Northeast India and Northern West Bengal, and possessed one of the most fertile lands in the British Empire. From an economic point of view, the move made sense having the potential to unlock and widen Assam's commercial expansion. But it was vigorously opposed by the large middle-class from the Hindu Bengali community who saw it as a divide-and-rule policy.
The Reorganisation of Bengal in 1912 brought the two Bengals together once again. Lunglei, the seat of power and prestige in the South Lushai Hills, had been playing second fiddle to Aizawl in the North Lushai Hills for quite a while by then.
Missions and the Arrival of Christianity in Mizoram
Christian mission in Mizoram came on the heels of the colonial expansion, and the consolidation of British imperial rule in 1890–1891 was followed soon after by missionary endeavours. 6 William Williams, a Welsh missionary working at Shella in the Khasi Hills, was the first ever Christian missionary to set foot on the soil of Mizoram. He visited the area in March 1891 to explore the prospects for mission work (Saiaithanga, 1993: 10).
Williams arrived at Fort Aijal (Aizawl) on 20 March 1891 and left on 17 April 1891. During his stay, he preached in and around Aizawl with the help of interpreters and distributed Bible pictures. On his return, he persuaded the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists’ Foreign Missionary Society (hereafter, the Welsh Mission) to adopt the area as its mission field, and was duly appointed to take up the work himself. However, his death in 1892, along with the difficulties involved in finding a suitable replacement, delayed the start of the project. In the meantime, missionaries sent by a privately-funded organisation known as the Arthington Aborigines Mission entered Aizawl on 11 January 1894 and started mission work. These pioneering missionaries were James Herbert Lorrain and Frederick William Savidge, members of the Highgate Baptist Church in London. Thus, it was not the Welsh Mission but the Arthington Aborigines Mission which pioneered the work of evangelising Mizoram.
The Beginnings of the Presbyterian and Baptist Churches in Mizoram
Though the Welsh Mission resolved to commence mission work in Mizoram as early as 1892, it was only 5 years later that real work could take off. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Rev. David Evan Jones, the first Welsh missionary to Mizoram, arrived only in 1897. He reached Aizawl on 31 August 1897, in time to receive some background knowledge of the country and its people from the pioneer missionaries who left by the end of the year. The second Welsh missionary, Edwin Rowlands arrived to join Jones on 31 December 1898. It was these two missionaries that laid the foundation for the Presbyterian Church in Mizoram (hereafter MPC). 7
The Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) entered the picture a few years later. In 1903, the BMS, with the approval of the Welsh Mission, sent the former Arthington missionaries, J.H. Lorrain and F.W. Savidge to southern Mizoram. Facing a severe financial crunch because of heavy losses incurred during the great Assam earthquake of 1897, the Welsh Mission was unable to send more personnel. 8 Though Rowlands had started plans to found a station in the south, nothing much could be done there except making a few trips now and then. By that time, the BMS had missionaries working in Rangamati, a government station on the banks of the Karnaphuli River, which was virtually the entrance to southern Mizoram from Bengal. They also had important stations in the surrounding areas, the closest being Chittagong. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the BMS turned its attention to southern Mizoram.
As soon as they received the approval of the Welsh Mission, the BMS in 1903 sent its first missionaries to Mizoram, Lorrain and Savidge. These two were in disagreement with the Arthington Mission over some of its principles, especially its ‘preach and pass on policy’ (Pachuau, 2002a: 73). Because of this, their service had been terminated by Arthington during their furlough. (Chirgwin, 1936: 80–82) They had then formed their own organisation named ‘The Assam Frontier Pioneer Mission’, and were working among the Abor-Miri people in North Assam when the call came from the BMS. The Welsh missionaries initially disapproved of their Home Board's decision. They apparently felt that it would be detrimental for the cause of the Mizo Church if denominationalism was brought into the land so soon. But the Home Board, seemingly convinced that north and south were two distinct countries, felt that there would be no harm in handing over the latter to the BMS. Besides, the BMS was better off financially at that stage. Finding no recourse, Jones and Rowlands learned to accept the possibilities involved in sharing the work, and it is said that Rowlands himself suggested to the BMS that they recall the two pioneers to work in Mizoram (Lloyd, 1991: 75). The two pioneers set up a station at Serkawn (now part of Lunglei) and resumed their work on Mizo soil on 3 March 1903.
In view of developments that later marked the relationship between the Mizo Presbyterians and Baptists, it is worth noting how the life and work of the two groups of missionaries were intertwined and how this fostered remarkable cooperation between the two missions. When the Welsh missionaries started work in northern Mizoram, they built up on the work that was initially launched by the pioneer missionaries. Similarly, the pioneer missionaries later returned to continue the work that the Welsh missionaries had started in southern Mizoram. In the words of C.L. Hminga (1987: 104), ‘In the North, the Welsh Mission took over what the Baptist pioneers had started, and in the South, the Baptist Mission took over what the Welsh pioneer missionaries had started’. 9
Signs of Discord – Discontent within the Zoram Pawn Mizo Kristian (ZPMK)
The Zoram Pawn Mizo Kristian [Mizo Christians Outside Zoram], earlier known as Assam Phaitual Mizo Kristian [APMK, Mizo Christians in the Plains of Assam], was a fellowship of all Mizo Christians in the plains of Assam which was started around 1950. However, the MPC had arranged pastoral visitations to these pockets of Mizo Christians as early as 1937. However, in 1962, the MPC started formalising its pastoral care of the APMK by appointing a Pastor to be stationed at Shillong. The APMK consisted of members from various denominational backgrounds, and the appointment of a Presbyterian pastor presumably to look after the fellowship along Presbyterian lines was bound to lead to discontentment.
Disagreement between the two main denominations represented in the APMK first surfaced in 1965 when the ‘Baptist’ components proposed that the Mizoram Baptist Kohhran (Baptist Church of Mizoram, hereafter BCM) and the MPC take turns in looking after the APMK on an alternate basis. However, this was not approved. A proposal that the APMK become independent came up in 1967, and in 1969, it was proposed that the fellowship, which had by then been renamed ZPMK, be made into a Presbytery with a Baptist Pastor named Khuala appointed as ZMPK Pastor. None of these proposals were approved and the Baptist component, being the minority, apparently started feeling that their concerns were ignored.
Representatives of Baptist and other non-Presbyterian members that met in Shillong on 11 July 1970 wrote their grievances to the General Secretary of the BCM. These included the feeling of being repeatedly snubbed, financial contributions being handed over only to the Synod, and dissatisfaction in terms of doctrinal matters and administration at the ministries of the ZPMK Pastors who were all Presbyterians. The formation of a ZPMK Board in 1971 and the adoption of a ‘Charter of ZPMK’ did not really solve the growing dissatisfaction.
This discord was possibly fuelled by differing understandings regarding attachment to one's ‘mother church’. The leaders of the MPC seemingly felt that the ZPMK, though comprised of different denominations, was under its care and hence required no arrangement different from that of other Presbyterian congregations within Mizoram. On the other hand, the Baptist component within the ZPMK expected at least a mixture of Presbyterian and Baptist practices and traditions. And when the MPC seemed unwilling to accommodate such a view, there was a genuine fear that it was an attempt to turn them all into Presbyterians.
The attempts of the BCM to be more involved in the care of Baptist members of the ZPMK through the Joint Meeting were ineffectual as none of its suggestions were approved. Regardless of the BCM's proposal that it either be given responsibility of looking after the ZPMK or that each church should take care of its own members within the ZPMK, the MPC decided to ask the ZPMK members their preference. A majority in the ZPMK Conference in October 1973 declared preference for the MPC. The implementation of a new organisational set-up on 17 May 1975 in the face of opposition from some local churches within ZPMK subsequently led to the birth of the Zoram Pawn Mizo Baptist Kohhran [ZPMBK – Mizo Baptist Church Outside (Mi)Zoram] on 3 November 1975.
Steps Towards Removal of Geographical Demarcation
Rupture within the ZPMK soon had repercussions within Mizoram. In 1980, some Baptist members returning to Mizoram from ZPMK as well as those from southern Mizoram working in Aizawl, sent a letter to the BCM headquarters requesting the establishment of a Baptist Church in Aizawl. But the Executive Committee of the BCM discouraged it. On 14 August 1982, a Baptist Committee (Aizawl) was called to deliberate upon the creation of a Baptist fellowship. On hearing of it, the MPC requested the BCM to immediately stop their members so as to preserve their relationship. The BCM, affirming their ignorance of the matter, promised to look it up and did attempt to discourage these members, but to little avail. Even the intervention of the Chief Minister of Mizoram only led to the Aizawl Baptist Committee suspending its efforts temporarily.
Another attempt was made in Serchhip, a village which later witnessed the aforesaid creation of the first Baptist church in the north mentioned at the beginning. The grouping of villages in the aftermath of the Mizo Uprising in the 1960s led to whole villages and churches from the South being grouped in places such as Bungtlang and Thenzawl, villages which fell under the North according to the demarcation followed by the two churches. This was a new situation not covered under the comity arrangements, and the BCM Assembly of 1968 resolved to appoint pastors to look after these churches. However, the BCM complied with the request of the MPC to put its decision on hold until proper arrangements could be made so as to ensure that relationship did not deteriorate.
A joint statement from both churches, while encouraging members to put themselves under the ministration of Pastors already stationed in any given grouping centre, gave room for the appointment of Baptist Pastors to minister to those grouped as a whole village or church. This later became a bone of contention, with the BCM claiming that it was part of a process of dismantling of the boundary while the MPC maintained that it was a ‘one-off’ incident.
In the BCM Assembly of 1982, a proposal that ‘the Baptist church be established in and outside Mizoram’ was discussed but not approved in light of the existing relations with the MPC. 10 However, a special Executive Committee meeting was held on 2 March 1983 regarding the decision of the General Committee to remove the geographical boundary. The committee felt that only the two churches were bound and hindered by the agreement while different denominations established their churches everywhere. It further resolved to explore possibility of establishing churches everywhere without any geographical restriction, but so as to ensure that it does not affect existing relationships, notification be given in an open manner. It was also decided that their opinions and suggestions be informed in writing to the Presbyterians as resolved by the General Committee.
A response disapproving of the decisions of the BCM was received from the Secretary of the MPC Synod. This was read in the Executive Committee which decided to go ahead anyway with the resolution of the Executive Committee and recommended that the General Committee take steps in pursuance of the resolution. The Synod Meeting of December 1984 entrusted the Synod Executive Committee to look into all matters related to relations with the BCM. This was reported in the Synod Meeting the next year where it was resolved that the boundary also be removed on the part of the MPC and the observation noted that it marked cessation of relationship with the BCM. 11
The MPC sent out a circular to its Ministers, Pastors, and local churches on 24 June 1985 explaining its views on the effects of the removal of the boundary. The BCM also circulated explanations along with its views to its local churches on 19 July 1985. The MPC again produced a booklet entitled Mizoram Presbyterian leh Mizoram Baptist Kohhran Inkar Thu [Dealings between the Presbyterian and Baptist Churches of Mizoram] in 1994, and a ‘response’ named Mizoram Baptist Kohhran leh Mizoram Presbyterian Kohhran Inkar Thu [Dealings between the Baptist Church of Mizoram and the Presbyterian Church of Mizoram] was published by the BCM in 1997. It would suffice to mention here that these publications contained allegations and counter-allegations which did not clear the air but rather complicated matters.
Causes of the Rift: General Observations from the Post-Demarcation Era
It is acknowledged that a combination of various factors could have contributed towards making the relationship turn sour. However, some probable causes are highlighted here to supplement the readily available explanation that denominationalism ruptured the relationship between the two churches.
Socio-Economic Factors: Neiphi-ü Rio, the Chief Minister of another ‘tribal’ Indian state Nagaland, is attributed to have described the economy of Nagaland as a ‘salaried economy, with the state as the sole employer’. In a similar vein, the economy of Mizoram can also be considered a ‘salaried economy’ with the state as the primary employer and the Church collectively a distant second. With the seat of governance situated in the north and the development of infrastructure going ahead at a much faster rate in that area, it is natural for the south, apart from the three autonomous council areas there, to feel deprived. And the transfer of employees, especially the highly qualified ones holding high office, by the ‘primary employer’, namely the government, was usually from south to north and rarely the other way round.
It would not be far off the mark to suggest that the BCM probably felt it was ‘losing’ many of its members along with various other invaluable resources. The ‘migrant community’ from southern Mizoram was not necessarily economically deprived. Comprised of some of the most financially stable members of Mizo society, it constituted a vital source of revenue even for the Church, as the financial health of the BCM in the post-demarcation era would possibly attest. Thus, it would be difficult to argue convincingly that economic considerations did not play any role at all in the decisions to remove as well as attempts to maintain the demarcation.
In addition, the contention of the BCM that both she and the MPC continually lost large numbers of members to various denominations and sects could stand up to scrutiny. Though most of the ‘new’ Churches sprang up in the north, this problem was especially acute for the BCM because many of those from the north who joined were ‘former’ BCM members who did not feel at home in the MPC. Furthermore, the economic condition of Mizoram, as mentioned above, suggested that the ratio of transferred members from south to north was probably much higher than that from north to south. Thus, the BCM technically ‘lost’ members to the MPC as well as to other denominations and sects, and loss of members became a matter of serious concern for the BCM.
Politico-Historical Factors: Though there is nothing to suggest that the nationalities of the two groups of missionaries—English and Welsh—ultimately led to a thaw in their relationship, there is nothing either to suggest that their relationship continued to be as strong as in the early years. In fact, it never really reached the heights it did during the initial years. Apart from mutual exchange of fraternal delegates, cooperation in Bible translation and preparation of hymnals, etc., the relationship amounted to lay members crossing the divide being ‘subsumed’ within the churches in whose area they have newly set up residence. It did not really foster serious relationship at the grassroots level. Implicit to the understanding of the ‘healthy and vibrant relationship’ was a policy of non-interference and non-encroachment. It basically translated to leaders who meet up occasionally deciding what is in their best interests.
Northern and Southern Mizoram have separate histories even though there are overlaps at many stages. We have seen that the Lushai Hills was divided into two distinct administrative units when it was incorporated into British India. It is highly likely that this division at a very crucial stage of interaction with the outside world had a profound impact upon the identity formation of the people in both areas. For this interpretation, I draw on Lalsangkima Pachuau's assertion that identity formation of both the self as well as the community is directly relational to that of the other (Pachuau, 2002b: 65–67; see also Pachuau, 2009: 56–57). Even though a distinct Mizo nation ultimately arose from a conflation of Lusei [Lushai] and various non-Lusei tribes, it has its share of internecine strife arising out of regional as well as linguistic chauvinism. The amalgamation of the two tracts into one Lushai Hills District with its headquarters at Aizawl in 1898 also relegated Lunglei, the ‘centre’ of the South Lushai Hills, to a secondary position, quite possibly engendering resentment and/or a competitive spirit. Here the impact of the aforementioned Partition of India upon the power equation between South and North Mizoram also merits attention. After eastern Bengal became East Pakistan and an international boundary sprang up between the (south) Lushai Hills and the erstwhile Eastern Bengal, there was an abrupt shift in the balance of power and prestige, with the South losing out.
The comity arrangement also compounded the situation and served to perpetuate a north-south divide from 1903 onwards. This is noticeable to the extent that with regard to Mizo Presbyterians and Mizo Baptists, it is practically impossible to treat the confessional identity of an individual or a family in isolation from regional identity or affiliation. Confessional identity, reinforced by a strong sense of regional identity, has contributed towards the exacerbation of the rift (Lalbiaknia, 1988: 21). The church communities under discussion have created two distinct identities whereby the differing denominational affiliations, that is, Presbyterian versus Baptist, are undergirded by a strong regional identity, that is, northern versus southern. On a positive note, this provides a dialectical counterpart to the homogenising principle inherent in the common denominator ‘Mizo’. It ensures space for smaller and/or divergent Mizo ethnonational assertions and expressions at the discussion table, giving them room for negotiation and ultimately paving the way for their incorporation into an increasingly heterogeneous ‘Mizo’ community.
By way of conclusion, it can be said that inter-denominational relations in Mizoram, especially that of the MPC and BCM, go beyond denominational identities. They are strongly undergirded by regional identity assertions. One may even argue that this was exacerbated by the Partition of Bengal in 1947. That year onwards, Eastern Bengal finally became a different country, initially East Pakistan and then Bangladesh. This meant that Mizoram was landlocked between two international borders, with Bangladesh in the West and with Myanmar in the East. Overland connections with the rest of India was only through the north. This greatly favoured churches based in the North, to the extent that the ‘southern’ Baptist church also had to consolidate its position in north Mizoram in order to keep pace with the Presbyterian church over there. But then, this could well provide the basis for another study altogether.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author's Biography
John Lalnuntluanga is a Church historian and serves as the Programme Coordinator and Research Tutor for The Shepherd's Academy, Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life, Eynsham.