Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM): Sawm Institution as Guiding Principles for Social Justice Research in Northeast India

Abstract

For decades, Indigenous Zomi tribal researchers in the northeastern Indian region have predominantly used Western methods to research their tribes in various socio-political, historical, and economic aspects. Building on existing research on Indigenous research methodologies, this article presents a descriptive account of a wholly Zomi-centered methodology for researching Zomi’s lived experiences with a focus on social justice. The Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM) is established as a framework for knowledge production and social justice emphasizing “roles” in utilizing Zomi traditional sawm institutional practices to co-create meaning and analyze data collectively. Researchers have invested significant effort in developing Indigenous methods of data collection. However, there are few attempts to provide guidelines for analyzing data from Indigenous worldviews. ZNRM offers both Indigenous Zomi ways of data collection and analysis building on existing scholarships. While this research is specific to the Zomi in India, it will also be beneficial to other tribes in the northeast Indian regions who practice institutions like sawm in considering practical ways to achieve social justice through Indigenous tribal research.

Introduction

My role and responsibility as a cultural member (shared language, beliefs, values, customs, and history) of the Indigenous Zomi ethnic groups of Zo ancestry in so-called Manipur, India, drive my research. It carries forward the knowledge, principles, and traditions of my ancestors while engaging in conversation with the social justice needs of the Zomi community on the Indo-Myanmar border today. Given our socio-political conditions of living in the colonially mapped border regions of India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh (Zou & Kumar, 2011), our lived experiences are inherently political; hence, our research is justice driven. Colonial cartographies divided our community into three countries, namely India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, creating what Laitin (1998) describes as a beached diaspora, which is a context in which a community becomes a diaspora in its own country. Due to our situatedness, we encounter social injustices that are deeply rooted in the structures of education, the economy, politics, health, and culture.

In this article, I establish a research methodology, the Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM), centered on the Zomi cultural and traditional practice of sawm to resist these social injustices. It offers an approach to asserting “roles” on co-creators in Indigenous methodology and establishing these roles across each stage of the research, oriented towards social justice. By social injustices, I mean to address the “economic, cultural, racial, religious exclusion and marginalization experienced by various populations” (Ohajunwa & Mji, 2021, p. 1). The sawm is an institution that culturally gathers young men in villages to sleep together in a dormitory to acquire cultural knowledge, share experiences, play indigenous games, and so on. This practice was often related to welfare and justice within the community. The principles of sawm can guide Zomi and non-Zomi researchers in indigenizing and decolonizing knowledge production through research for social justice achievement. However, it does not seek to generalize the methodology for the entire tribe of Zo ancestry, but rather to the Zomi specifically, owing to their varied historical experiences, identity politics, and social injustices they encounter. The tribes of the Zo ancestry comprise several sub-groups- Chin, Kuki, Mizo, and Zomi. Scholars argue that external ethnic groups propagated terms such as Chin and Kuki, which were further legitimized by British colonization (Piang, 2020), while Mizo and Zomi are terms certain tribes of Zo ancestry associate with as their authentic identities (see Das, 2021; Piang, 2020). ZNRM is grounded in Zomi identity, history, principles, and cultures; while developed from within Zomi lifeworlds, the methodology is accessible to researchers from both Zomi and non-Zomi backgrounds who work respectfully and collaboratively with Zomi communities.

Depending on the context, histories, and culture, elements of ZNRM, particularly sawm principles, may also support research with and for other tribes in Northeast India who are culturally grounded and appreciate community-accountable practices. These different tribes in northeast India are not limited to the Karbi tribes in Assam, the Naga tribes in Manipur and Nagaland, the Hmar and Kuki in Manipur, the Adi in Arunachal Pradesh, the Mizo in Mizoram, the Garo in Meghalaya, among others (Baite, 2014, p. 127; Borah & Sengupta, 2016). Given the complexity of the region, its diverse and distinct historical, political, cultural, and identity, gender, militancy, and transborder experiences, this paper follows Mignolo’s (2018) pluriversality in encouraging scholars to avoid homogenizing Northeast India or identities in the region but pay attention to differences to ensure generative space for knowledge production without the intent to divide the communities. For Mignolo (2018, p. X), pluriversality is a universal proj-ect that argues that “the universal cannot have one single own-er.” This establishes the ground for ZNRM, which is borne out of the politics of homogenizing “Northeast” that tends to remove and silence knowledge from within the margins, thus often resulting in the subordination of particular groups’ knowledge from the region. The point of establishing this methodology is not to assert the Zomi as “progressive” through this methodological tool, but to establish a co-creating space in research that centers on Zomi epistemologies. While Western-centric approaches often overlook these lifeworlds, this space must be open to scholars from any background, provided they are relationally grounded and honor Zomi ethical principles.

The post-colonial phase in the Zomi experience saw Zomi researchers and intellectuals pioneer their history, culture, and identity. These pioneers, such as Vumson (undated publication), Gangte (1979), Ngaihte (1979), Gougin (1980), Kamkhenthang (1988), and Neihsial (1993), laid crucial foundations in establishing Zomi history, culture, and identity. Their institutional framework and resources at the time influenced their adoption of Western-centric research methods to legitimize and articulate the Zomi lifeworlds. As valuable as their contributions are, they did not establish their works within methodological frameworks originating in Zomi paradigms, that is, culturally specific values and worldviews. A more recent contribution by Ngaihte and Paulianding (2022) marks a significant shift in their book Christianity & Empire in South Manipur Hills, as they challenge portrayals of the Zomi as passive recipients of Christianity and foreground the Zomi agency in negotiating the faith’s arrival and integration. Another outstanding and exceptional piece is Vaiphei’s (2022) paper, “Indigenous Ontology in Zo Oral Narrative.” Deviating from Eurocentric critical frameworks that were inherently inadequate for understanding the complexities of Indigenous Zo lifeworld, the author situates folktales and oral narratives as tools for navigating the path to decolonize ‘Zoness.’ Even so, like their Zomi academic ancestors and other non-Zomi scholars, their research does not explicitly articulate or operationalize a methodology that can guide them in following and adhering to Zomi knowledge-making systems, principles, and ethical standards. The lack of methodologies grounded in the Zomi paradigm does not necessarily devalue their work, but it does open space to highlight broader structural conditions that limit their ways of conducting research. This structural pattern is not unique to the Zomi and non-Zomi research community. However, it is shared among the over 200 distinct Indigenous tribes in northeast India (Sivakumar, 2013), where researchers often navigate the structural tension between representing their communities and conforming to dominant academic norms.

The Western-centric approach to research compels the Zomi and other northeastern tribes and ethnic groups to assert their agency in proposing a methodological shift in pursuit of social justice, especially given the region’s socio-political, economic, and geopolitical context. As a transborder community in India, the Zomi continue to face underlying social tensions, including the politics of identity, religion, migration, and recognition, as well as the erasure of their histories and culture by the government, limited access to infrastructure, and other challenges. In response to these social injustices, this article is grounded in Indigenous methodologies that draw on Zomi Indigenous paradigms to co-create and co-produce knowledge that contributes to Zomi knowledge production aimed at social justice. I incorporate Zomi Ngeina (the Zomi way of life), particularly its social institutional principles and practices, to establish the Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM), which will address the social injustices faced by the Zomi in India. While ZNRM is grounded in Zomi paradigms, this does not mean that only insiders are qualified to undertake rigorous, ethical research. It is an invitation of scholars from varied backgrounds and positionalities to co-create meaning and produce knowledge through intentions grounded in relationality, accountability, respect, and reciprocity for Zomi sovereignty. To lay the groundwork for Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM), I will first contextualize the basis for this methodology, then examine the long and ongoing historical and contemporary social injustices faced by the Zomi and other tribes in northeast India, and finally present ZNRM as a methodology.

Emphasizing Roles in Critical Indigenous Research Methodology

Social justice is both a goal and a process that addresses economic, cultural, racial, religious, gendered, and other marginalized experiences by various populations. Following Asimeng-Boahene (2010), the concept emphasizes that human beings have a sense of responsibility towards themselves, others, and society, which also concerns questions of power and the fair and equitable distribution of resources and representation for marginalized people and communities (see also Parris et al., 2019). Indigenous methodologies are critically grounded in the social justice framework and engage in decolonizing methodologies rooted in knowledge production that reproduce social justice from the framework of the Global North. In a justice-oriented Indigenous research methodology, the design approach is to move beyond an “Indigenous perspective in research” to “researching from an Indigenous paradigm” (Wilson, 2001, p. 175) to perpetuate justice in the research context. This “Indigenous paradigm” is about acknowledging story work and storytelling to traditional ecological knowledge practices, from yarning to singing, from survivance to contemporary technological innovation (Archibald, 2008; Kovack, 2009; Smith, 2014; Vizenor, 2008). This methodological approach in social justice means looking through a set of beliefs grounded in one’s Indigeneity that will guide the researcher’s actions in gaining knowledge about the community they work with and for. Paradigm includes four aspects: ontology, epistemology, research methodology, and axiology. The ontological aspect, as a belief about the nature of reality, will determine the way of being and the perception of reality in the world, of myself, and of the community. The second is the epistemological perception of how they think about reality. The third is the research methodology, the way of thinking about gaining more knowledge about our reality. Finally, the axiological aspect is the moral and ethical codes they will employ to guide my research (Wilson, 2001). All these together will help the research unpack the community’s relationship to certain realities resulting from knowledge production and establish cases to address social injustice, power, and disparities (Belcourt et al., 2015).

Following social justice and postcolonial approaches to research from an Indigenous paradigm, Indigenous scholars have successfully decolonized the conventional interview method, which leans toward individualistic and Westernized assumptions and theories. As Chilisa (2012) argues, the Indigenous research methodology offers what conventional interview methods do not: centering the lifeworld of Indigenous communities’ togetherness, cooperation, and connectedness. The idea propagated in Western preoccupation is the assumption that an interviewer is an “individual knower, focusing on the concept of the individual researcher (aware of his own limitations and capabilities as a human instrument), talking with rare exceptions, to an individual informant” (Viruru & Cannella, 2006, p. 184; see also Chilisa, 2012, p. 175). Following ancient conversational strategies, analysis, and interpretation etched in the practices of dingaka (diviners) in southern Africa, among other Indigenous ways of life, researchers from the region adopted a relational approach to interviewing, namely the diviner/client construction of a story. These trends are established along the lines to ensure research methodologies in the African continent are not means to alienate African Indigenous Knowledge and its peoples (Chilisa, 2012; Sillitoe & Marzano, 2009; Waldron, 2010), generally leading to a lack of well-being (King et al., 2009; see; Ohajunwa & Mji, 2021). In a similar vein, Kovach (2021) argues how participation in the participants’ stories was a primary method of the research. The significance of storytelling in conversational methods is also addressed by Thomas (2015, p. 184), who argues that storytelling allows “the storytellers to use their own voices and tell their own stories on their own terms.” This approach honors “the talk” and offers a context that moves away from the mere process of receiving responses to specific research questions, thereby empowering participants’ stories to be shared in relation to the question (Kovach, 2021; Lapan et al., 2011).

These existing Indigenous research methodologies demonstrate communal engagement, conversation, and relational responsibilities among the co-creators, which, in my perspective, can be tied to the concept of “roles.” As much as these literatures are grounded in the agency of the co-creators within each contextual worldview, there is little engagement in the significance of “roles” associated with the co-creators. Addressing the significance of “role” is my main contribution in this research methodology. Raewyn Connell (1979), the decolonial scholar and author of Southern Theory (Connell, 2020), problematizes the domestication of roles, which is often taken for granted in social science. Connell insightfully traces the notion of role paradigm emerging from classical social theorists, then critiques “roles” by exploring how the concept operates across various fields of social practice. In doing so, Connell attempts to generalize role concepts and establishes four role elements: position (structural nature of one’s occupation in a society), prescription (a given position is attributed to specific actions), counter-position (other possible roles define roles), and sanction (role definitions are defined by the application of sanctions that enforce certain expectations). Connell pushes this critique further by arguing that these approaches to role theory are ahistorical and require historical (and contextual) explanations in understanding how roles came to be, such as “the girls who become tomboys, the women who become lesbians, the shoppers who become shoplifters, the citizens who become revolutionaries” (1979, p. 13). I follow Connell’s critique of the role in the social sciences and identify the same problem in Indigenous research methodologies, highlighting the need to pay more attention to co-creators’ roles in the research. For example, like other Indigenous scholars (Absolon, 2010), when Pidgeon and Riley (2021, p. 4) address how the principle of responsibility relates to researchers’ responsibility to community and participants, the project itself, and to themselves as researchers, thinking through Connell’s roles in ZNRM invites the co-creators to situate responsibilities as roles from their historical and contextual positionalities from which they generate meaning and produce knowledge to contribute to the well-being of the community. The following section will establish the context for ZNRM and move into its methodological dimensions.

Zomi and Social Injustice in Northeast India

The northeast of India, a geopolitically significant and racially diverse region, comprises eight states: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. The northeast geographic region covers an area of 98,488.06 sq miles and spans between 22° and 29°25′ N latitude and 89°42′ and 97°25′ E longitude. It shares international borders with Tibet (China), Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan. As of 2011, the region’s population exceeded 45 million, constituting 7.75% of India’s total area and 3.7% of its population (Dikshit & Dikshit, 2014, p. 2).

The region is home to over 200 tribes and other ethnic groups, making it one of the world’s most culturally diverse regions (Paramasivan et al., 2013). Geographically and culturally, it serves as a transitional zone between South and Southeast Asia, as well as the Indo-Aryan and Mongoloid racial and linguistic domains. The unique location reflects the intersectional characteristics and histories of both South and Southeast Asia (Dikshit & Dikshit, 2014, p. 3), mainly reflected in the policies adopted by Western European colonists. The complexity of identity and culture, on top of the British colonization and postcolonial Indian state oppression, plays a significant role in continuing social injustices against the tribes in the region. Due to constraints of space, it is challenging to address all aspects of social injustice in the region such as ethnicity, education, politics, gender, migration, militarization, capitalism, religion, among others. I will briefly share some of them below.

Social injustice is the unfair or unequal treatment of individuals, groups, or communities within a society, often resulting from systemic inequalities and structural biases. This social injustice can emerge from forms of oppression, such as the state, inter-Indigenous dynamics, gender, and identity, capitalism, but they are significantly interrelated. The tribes in northeast India experience social injustices in the form of structurally designed unequal access to opportunities, rights, and resources that lead to marginalization and discrimination. One of the familiar places, amongst other forms, where social injustices against these tribes are observable is in the Indian government’s politics of ethnicity, where, over the past 20 years, nearly a million people in the region have been forced to flee their homes due to ethnic violence, often allegedly instigated or backed by the government (Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2011). The region is one of the most studied areas in current trends, especially regarding violence and conflicts, such as inter-ethnic conflicts between tribals and non-tribals (Hausing, 2009; Nunthara, 2005), intra-ethnic conflicts (Bhattacharyya et al., 2018), and state versus people conflicts (Baruah, 2003; Das, 2013). Tribes like the Zomi in Manipur have been historically facing discrimination from the government, evident in the ethnic violence in May 2023, which displaced the Zomi and Kuki to different parts of Manipur. This conflict caused over 219 deaths, 60,000 displacements, and over 1,100 injuries (Chakrabarti, 2024). As much as ethnicity and conflict in the region is studied as a product of state, it also studied variedly as an influence of state and neoliberal capitalism which ties to politics of land (Wouters, 2023), development (Mishra & Upadhyay, 2017; Ray et al., 2024), border-relations (Chakraborty, 2016), among others.

In addition to the politicization of identity, tribes, Dalits, and ethnic groups in India are denied sovereignty over educational curricula (Salam, 2021; Singh, 2022; Tonsing, 2020). Decision-making in educational curricula regarding which aspects of their identity, history, and culture should be studied and how they should be studied is denied (Jamatia & Gundimeda, 2019; Kumar & Kumar, 2016). This denial of power creates a significant disparity in how they interpret and perceive themselves, often viewing themselves through the lens of both mainstream Indians and colonial perspectives. Another area is the denial of political voice, and in the case of the Zomi, is evident in their underrepresentation in the Manipur state legislature. In the Manipur assembly, the Meiteis dominate 40 of the 60 legislative seats. These disparities also inform intergovernmental relations and how ethnic politics and developments are further localized, becoming instruments of governance for both the federal and state governments (Hausing, 2023).

Gender is another aspect of social injustice in the northeast as much as it is in India (Borah et al., 2017; Choudhury & Kumar, 2022; Dey, 2025). For example, in a recent study, Dey (2025) argues that spousal violence in northeast India might influence women’s age, education level, and employment status, but economic aspects such as their ownership of a house and having a savings bank account still have negative impacts on spousal violence experiences. Injustices against queers and their repressions are also expressed in the writings of Chakraborty (2025), Longna et al. (2024), and War and Albert (2013), who argue on the silences on homosexuality in education, space for “queer marriages”, and stigmatization. Within the community, the Zomi also share gender disparities, especially among women and groups whose identities are not within the established norms, such as queers. These are internal social injustices within the Zomi community, widely shared across the tribes and ethnic groups in northeast India, but highly unaddressed in Indigenous research in India. Today, despite the structural barriers that still exist in Zomi society, women are taking significant steps to address social justice. To contextualize, Darlianmawii (2024) studied the role of Zomi Mothers Association (ZMA), established in 1991, in providing philanthropic services through education and counselling for children, especially girls. She found that girls educated through these services are working as nurses in hospitals, some in major cities of the country, such as Delhi and Mumbai.

These social injustices also intersect with religion. Longkumer (2020) argued that in northeast India, the discourse of “religion and culture” is used strategically by Sangh Parivar activists to assimilate disparate tribal groups and to envision a Hindu nation. Within communities, religious conservatism often translates into different forms, and one common problem is patriarchy attached to institutions (Walling, 2024). Phaipi (2023) addresses how biblical texts are weaponized to perpetuate female subjugation in Northeast Indian tribal societies after over 100 years of accepting Christianity in the region (see also Hangzo, 2024). Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM) aims to address these social injustices faced by Zomi, and other tribes in northeast India, which emanate from both external and internal factors stemming from colonial histories and postcolonial realities. In the following section, I will introduce these practices and principles and explain why it is important to situate them in the Zomi research context.

Zomi Ngeina and Sawm Institution

The Zomi, comprising tribes such as the Paite, Simte, Sukte, Thangkhal, Vaiphei, and Zou, among others, were historically culturally rich communities. Some members of these tribes today identify with Kuki and Mizo; therefore, this identification with Zomi must not be equated with the imposition of non-conforming members onto Zomi identity. In the Zomi Ngeina (Zomi way of life), a particular principle and practice that once played a central role was the sawm, though it is no longer practiced today. To my knowledge, the historical origin of sawm remains untraceable. However, the institution declined alongside other Zomi cultures due to the imposition of “cultural change” under colonial rule and the introduction of Christianity (Pau & Mung, 2023). The principle of sawm encompassed certain cultural practices in which young men slept together in a dormitory, called a ham, in groups of tentatively ten members (Neihsial, 1993). Sawm was a key aspect of Zomi social and cultural practice for establishing social justice through community cohesion, cultural preservation, education, socialization, disciplining, training youths, and individual growth and collective welfare (such as giving back to the community) (see Baite, 2014). The sawm’s rootedness in social justice principles was evident in its emphasis on mutual responsibility, equitable contributions, and the upliftment of all community members (Hauzel, 1987). However, these principles are not free of contemporary issues such as class, gender, inter- and intra-indigenous dynamics, religion, and so on, which will also be addressed in the latter part of this section. Sawm metaphorically referred to ten, accommodating ten men. However, this was not strictly adhered to and varies across villages and contexts. The sawm, however, was limited to men and boys only. Villages and contexts often determined the location of the dormitory and usually existed at the outermost part of the chief’s house. In big villages, there could be two or more sawms.

Historical Purposes

Generally, the sawm served several primary purposes. Firstly, the sawm provided a place for unmarried village men to sleep, but, more importantly, it served as a workshop where insolvent or indolent villagers were trained in discipline. Secondly, the sawm served as a recreation, training, and educational center. It could be a hub for recreational activities and training. Young men spent time courting village girls, wrestling, playing Indigenous games, dancing, singing, or discussing joint ventures. It was crucial for imparting social education, balancing family and village responsibilities, and fostering a sense of community spirit. These functions reflected the principles of social justice, which emphasize inclusion, responsibility, and mutual aid. Thirdly, the sawm was meant for the guardian’s barracks and emergency support. The sawm members took responsibility for protecting the village from external threats, such as enemy attacks or threats from wild animals. Fourthly, the sawm members also served as reinforcements for welfare services, such as helping the sick, arranging funerals, and supporting families in need. These support systems-maintained fairness, solidarity, and collective care within the community. The overall function was to ensure the welfare of the entire village (Hauzel, 1987; Neihsial, 1993).

Membership and Roles

Sawm members were divided into three grades: upas (elders), monitors (middle-aged), and boys who had not yet attained puberty (Hauzel, 1987, pp. 99-101). The qualifications were measured by age (seniority), ability, experience, and importance in the village. The adults are full members, whereas the boys are not accepted as full members until they reach puberty and pass a test that fulfills the norms of adulthood. The upas consisted of sawm-upa and val-upa. Upa means elder. In most cases, the oldest and most industrious, courageous, and efficient hunter in the group was known as sawm-upa and led the dormitory (Hauzel, 1987). The other adults are called val-upa. The total number of adult members depends on the size of the sawm. The sawm-upa oversaw the sawm’s administration and took full responsibility. His powers were absolute within the sawm, but in exercising his powers and functions, he always consulted the other val-upas and the village chief, if necessary. The village chief is consulted only in emergencies. Sawm members transmitted knowledge orally (conversational) and through experiential learning. They educated each other by sharing stories, training through practical activities, and playing Indigenous games. These roles were crucial for promoting social justice within the village, ensuring fairness, protecting the communities made vulnerable, and providing equitable access to communal knowledge and responsibilities. Similarly, the collective roles of the sawm members included exchanging ideas, singing songs of heroism, and speaking of the achievements of their ancestors (Hauzel, 1987; Neihsial, 1993).

Next to the upas are the monitors, who are middle-aged, and they took on the leadership role in maintaining the relationship between the boys and the upas. The monitors ensured that the boys were administered correctly, trained, and assisted them in carrying out their duties. The monitors were appointed by the upas to carry out these roles (Neihsial, 1993), including ensuring that boys received education and performed the physical work ascribed to their roles. The boys, who are the least responsible in the group, are expected to collect and carry wood for the sawm fire, which is always lit at the center of the dormitory where the sawm members and visitors would sit around it (Hauzel, 1987, p. 100). To gain full admission as adult members of the sawm (that is, an upa), boys had to undergo a test after applying for membership. The claim was to be verified by val-upa or any of his assistants and pull out the longest pubic hair from the boy’s private part which must be long enough to circle the established size of a bamboo pipe. If the boy were found qualified, he would be classed as an adult, and the val-upa would formally admit him as a full member of the sawm by announcing the presence of other members (Neihsial, 1993).

This is where I want to point out that Indigenous and tribal societies are not free from injustices even in their own social settings historically and contemporarily. The first significant problem within the historical sawm framework was its inherent patriarchal structure. Girls, women, and queer individuals historically were denied access to these dormitory spaces, especially for meaning-making practices and knowledge production. They are socially ascribed secondary “roles” in the process that limits the very nature of social justice that we seek to address in contemporary times. Secondly, the flow of knowledge from the elders to the youths tended to be linear. In contemporary times, where technological and social changes are rapid, establishing circular and reciprocal processes of knowledge production is essential in the meaning-making process, as youths may bring unique expertise and perspective that enrich collective understanding. In the following section, I will incorporate liberatory elements and emphasize the issues addressed in the sawm principles as they are translated into ZNRM to fit the contemporary social and cultural milieu.

Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM)

Indigenous methodologies like Kaupapa Maori Research establish research “that encompasses the different sets of ideas and issues that are claimed as being important in doing culturally safe, sensitive, and relevant research in the Maori community” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 153; see also Bishop, 2008). Following this approach, I refer to my methodological approach as Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM), which is translated as “Zomi way of life Methodology.” I define ZNRM as research that emphasizes roles to achieve social justice, guided by the mentorship of Upate (elders), cultural knowledge keepers, and the younger generations as learners and co-creators, ensuring it aligns with Zomi cultural values while upholding rigorous academic standards (see also Irwin, 1994). It is conducted by a Zomi or a non-Zomi researcher who respects and values Zomi cultural practices rather than merely identifying as Zomi.

ZNRM encompasses logic based on Zomi Indigenous knowledge systems, which addresses Zomi Indigenous values, cultures, and ways of being. The key establishment is to challenge and reject the colonial underpinnings established in mainstream academia, advocating for Zomi self-determination and decolonization within the research process. It emphasizes Zomi’s control over research, ensuring it benefits Zomi communities and addresses their social justice needs and priorities. As a research design rooted in Indigenous embodiment, ZNRM research data collection and analysis will be guided by the pursuit of the relationality the researcher has with their community and the non-living entities, keeping in mind what is meaningful to the community.

Grounding ZNRM in the Sawm Institution

ZNRM acknowledges that sawm constitutes certain principles that are incorporated through its cultural practices. To establish ZNRM towards social justice, I center on certain sawm principles and further refine these practices in line with the contemporary context and the evolving needs of the community. For example, membership in the sawm, which was previously limited to men and boys, will now include girls, women, and other gendered bodies. Hence, this also means extending Upa, earlier limited to older men, to Upanu, meaning elder women, and Upa-dangte (other elder gendered bodies). I aim to apply elements of the social justice principles and goals of the sawm rather than re-establishing the sawm institution in Zomi’s everyday lives. I cautiously say this because what must be reinstituted and revitalized is the collective decision of the community, the Chiefs, the elders, tribal institutions and organizations, the church, gendered bodies, and other related systems that encompass the Zomi society today. My aim, from a research perspective, is to center our sawm principle in research to enhance social justice practices in contemporary contexts of social injustice.

To this effort, I propose using the following logic and practices for my research, which encompass the purpose, membership, and roles of sawm in the ZNRM. There are four main stages in the research process, each of which incorporates the principles and practices of sawm.

I. Research preparation

II. Data collection with co-creators

III. Data analysis as meaning-making processes

IV. Giving Back through Collective Knowledge Production

By incorporating sawm, this methodology centers on the social justice principles embedded in sawm institutions and the relational roles that each member takes in the process. I will expand on the four steps to bring this methodology to fruition. The sacredness of the institution must be realized. Not everyone can be a member of the sawm.

Research Preparation

Collective Reflexivity

Reflexivity played a key role in my participation in the sawm. Just as entry into the sawm required a demonstration of maturity, discipline, and readiness to uphold community responsibilities, co-creators in ZNRM are expected to undergo a similar process of reflexivity. Each member of the sawm must reflect on their role and determine if they are eligible to contribute and take responsibility within the community, asking questions like: What have I done for the community? What can I do for the community? What should I continue to do? (following Russell-Mundine, 2012; Nilson, 2017). In tightly knit societies like the Zomi, where kinship and social ties are foundational, most community members contribute to communal life in some way. However, participation in research as a co-creator is not assumed by default. Depending on the nature of the inquiry, ZNRM will draw from sawm principles to carefully filter and invite those community members whose involvement can meaningfully shape the collective production of knowledge. For example, suppose the research topic is gender repression (such as the politics of “decent women’s behavior” in public and private spaces), as seen in the way some institutions are set up to address social justice. In that case, and if sawm members participated accordingly based on their experiences and expertise, the members of the sawm in ZNRM will also constitute knowledgeable and experienced members on the topic of conversation. The co-creators will assume “roles” based on their own conscious reflexivity, their attitude and actions towards gendered individuals in society, or if they are themselves going through gender repression. This approach, for example, will fulfil specific goals of gender and Indigenous feminisms (Awatere, 1995; Green, 2007), which is about remembering that “Women- of different kinds- must be heard. Men- of different kinds- must be heard. Underprivileged members of indigenous communities must be heard” (Olsen, 2017, pp. 13-14), while also acknowledging that Indigenous women (or queers) “are seen as having always been oppressed, even before colonization” (Awatere, 1995; See; Olsen, 2017, p. 7). Reflexivity through role assignment and the historicity of adopting roles in the research for collective meaning-making ensure that co-creators are not only willing but also prepared to uphold shared responsibilities, much as sawm members were expected to embody community values and readiness before full admission to the research. In doing so, ZNRM maintains the integrity of the research space and supports the creation of knowledge that is grounded, culturally relevant, and ultimately beneficial to the community (Wilson, 2020).

The researcher, as a member of the sawm, is not excluded from these criteria. Hence, the co-creators must commit to a shared process of inquiry, reflection, and giving back, just as the other sawm members do. The researcher must reflect on questions such as: Why do I intend to do research with and for the community? What is my motivation? How will the community benefit from this research and research methodology? These reflexive questions will serve as the guiding steps in determining who takes on the roles of elders (sawm-upa/upanu, val-upa/upanu, and upadangte), monitors, and young adult members. The role determination will establish the effectiveness of the research in shaping the idea and practice of social justice, which is inherently grounded in their cultural values and principles, while also addressing their contemporary experiences. This is an operationalization of the previous argument, following Connell, that roles are not to define the structure of the research but allow interpretive autonomy and relational experiences that each member is prepared to bring into the conversation.

Co-Designing the Research

Upon identifying co-creators and their roles in the research, the researcher must take responsibility to co-design the research with some or all the study members, avoiding the extractive nature of traditional research (Chilisa, 2012; King et al., 2022; Parsons et al., 2016; Snow et al., 2016). This means that the researcher must go back and forth with the sawm members before the actual sawm event to make sure that the theme, aims, research questions, and methods of the sawm conversation align with their social injustice concerns and are not detached from their real-world experiences. In this way, some sawm members can also be integral to the research, ensuring it is meaningful and relevant to the community that serves social justice concerns. When designing the research with the sawm members, it is highly advisable to adopt the flexibility of the sawm principles, allowing younger adult members to transition to adult status within the sawm institution. Given this inherent flexibility, younger adult members need not always be under 15 (i.e., not having attained puberty, as in the past) if they possess significant qualifications and experience to participate in the co-creation. Additionally, the roles they take upon their “transition” to qualify for research participation must be decided collectively among the sawm members. This approach enables the design to follow sawm principles, making it inherently flexible in establishing and facilitating effective participation and relationships among members (Gardner-Vandy et al., 2021).

Data Creation With Co-creators

Co-Creation as a Collective Role

In the sawm, knowledge is co-created through oral traditions, stories, and lived experiences (see Fitzsimmons et al., 2024; Parsons et al., 2016). Zomi Ngeina Research Methodology (ZNRM) integrates these practices, defining the roles of the sawm members through a relational process rooted in experiences, responsibility, and reciprocity. ZNRM values collective co-creation of meaning and sharing knowledge over extraction. Just as the sawm intends to promote collective welfare and justice, transfer knowledge, and protect the village or community, ZNRM seeks to promote these principles and practices rather than extract their experiences from the community. By observing how these principles and practices are carried out by the elders and memory keepers, where dialogic exchange includes listening as crucial as speaking (Parsons et al., 2016), ZNRM will establish the significance of each member taking their role in shaping how knowledge is shared and understood. Depending on the member of the sawm and the researcher’s qualifications as a co-creator, the researcher can be a val-upa/upanu/upadangte, sawm-upa/upanu/upadangte, monitor, or even a young adult participant. Roles are emergent of the co-creator’s lived experiences and knowledge which give equal space for all voices to influence the conversation. The researcher plays a crucial role in the circle of meaning-making. Hence, the roles of the sawm members are defined by their relationship to the community, characterized by age, experience, wisdom, and a commitment to constant reflexivity.

The roles in ZNRM are functional and facilitating rather than merely symbolic. The roles’ functions facilitate how data are created, interpreted, and presented (see Grimes, 2011; Lees, 2016). For example, a sawm-upanu in conversation with the researcher may facilitate the themes of discussion or offer insights by framing issues along the lines of critical historical, cultural, or political experiences and concerns. In contrast, the youths may explicate or add stories to ensure continuity with the knowledge passed down from their ancestry. The monitors support younger members in raising new concerns or knowledge from the contemporary world, which would spark intergenerational dialogue. These roles collectively produce dynamic, context-specific, and grounded data in the lived experiences of the Zomi.

Using the sawm method, ZNRM adopts postcolonial conversational approaches that prioritize co-construction over extractive methods such as interviews or focus groups. Conversations, rather than structured interviews or focus groups, allow stories to flow naturally, preserving cultural integrity, accountability, and context. As Kovach (2021) advises, the researcher must honor the fluidity of storytelling and listen without redirecting. In doing so, stories become sites of empowerment rather than just data points (Chilisa, 2012). Knowledge in ZNRM is not extracted; it is co-woven through relationships, trust, and shared roles. Each co-creator position shapes the process and outcome, reinforcing ZNRM’s foundation in collective, situated, and ethical knowledge-making.

An Alternative Ham

As mentioned earlier, the ham, once a communal dormitory, was the physical space where sawm principles were put into practice. ZNRM also follows the logic of Indigenous futurism and Afrofuturism (Elwood, 2024), which is about Indigenous and Black communities envisioning their futures through digital platforms rather than having technology determine them. This digital space in ZNRM can be purely virtual or hybrid, whichever best supports collective engagement and its social justice goal. To accommodate the lived realities of the Zomi across India, ZNRM can establish a digital ham, a hybrid ham, or a physical ham, depending on the context, accessibility, and the research’s needs. Digital ham is the space where sawm members collectively participate. Hybrid ham is a practice that uses both physical and virtual spaces for sawm members to co-create knowledge inclusively. This will be beneficial in a context where the co-creators are not in the same space. For example, during the Manipur conflict, it could be beneficial for the research to use a hybrid ham because not all community members can commute efficiently across the country, within the state, or localities. Hence, if accessible to the co-creators, it will be beneficial to conduct the research through a hybrid mode. Researchers can use a physical ham where the community lives close by, and mobility is not hindered by distance or time constraints.

Data Analysis as Meaning-Making Processes

Meaning making holds a significant place in the research process, as it is embedded throughout, especially during data analysis (Tierney, 2018). In the data analysis phase, the researcher can interpret the data by grounding the lens on Indigenous knowledge that centers on relationality, memory, experiences, reciprocity, and ethical responsibility. Following this, the ZNRM approach views interpretation as a co-creative act that involves community roles and dialogue. Analyzing the data involves a collective meaning-making effort with the sawm members, rather than being an isolating process. For example, some sawm members, depending on the availability of time, resources, and context, should be consulted by the researcher to take up gatekeeping “roles” when analyzing and interpreting the data, so that the emphasis is on community-anchored interpretation, where meaning is always about people, land, language, and spirit.

To structure this complex process, I draw and expand on Yunkaporta and Moodie’s (2021) four-part Indigenous data analysis framework in conversation with the sawm principles of connection, diversity, interaction, and adaptation. Yunkaporta and Moodie (2021) identified the absence of studies on discrete Indigenous data analysis methods in the literature on Indigenous research methodologies. They argue that in Indigenous methodologies, data analysis is occasionally incorporated as an aspect of Indigenized research frameworks (Elder & Kersten, 2015; Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014) or, more often, follows emic academic techniques mediated by etic values and paradigms (Castleden et al., 2008; Gillies et al., 2014; Hill et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2012). I find this argument helpful for situating the context of Zomi or tribal data analysis in northeast India, which is heavily influenced by Western techniques rather than having developed indigenous ones.

The four principles of Yunkaporta and Moodie (2021) offer a fluid yet grounded methodology for Zomi Indigenous-centered analysis, facilitating its progression through several steps in data analysis. In following these principles, “roles” must be assigned amongst co-creators to guide the researcher in coding, thematizing, and analyzing the data to carefully produce knowledge that is meaningful to the community. First, it is important to emphasize connections across the sawm members to identify shared relationships and how these connections shape the flow of knowledge through these ties. These connections can be based on kinship, roles in society, age, social positions, gender, and so on. These relationships between the variables must be understood as networks to comprehend the complex systems from which they are constituted in society. Diversity in the data analysis stage signifies the multiplicity of voices across individual elements (co-creators, variables, data points, themes, and datasets), reflecting the relational positionality among the study members and accounting for different experiences and complexities of interaction. This approach will offer avenues for drawing the most inclusive array of shared experiences and knowledge. The interaction stage involves identifying data through cultural expressions to establish relationships between the experiences and knowledge shared across independent elements. These cultural expressions could take the form of activities such as weaving, dancing, and storytelling. This moment highlights the need for the first stage of ZNRM, which requires the researcher to be reflexive and culturally grounded to participate in the research. The last stage is the adaptation stage, which invites ancestral connectedness to the data analyzed at this point, geared towards the collective transformation of the meaning produced to be responsive to new insights and resonate with the social justice needs of the community. It is a moment of inspiration, sparked by cultural practices and reflection, that leads to realization (Yunkaporta & Moodie, 2021). This data analysis model encourages the researcher to analyze conversational data through relational Indigenous Zomi logic.

Giving Back Through Collective Knowledge Production

To avoid the extractive nature of research, in which collective conversational circles are translated into individual-centric knowledge production, ZNRM’s practice of giving back is key. This also relates to Louis (2007, p. 131), who argues that giving back to the community is about empowering research with indigenous communities and that “...if research does not benefit the community by extending the quality of life for those in the community, then it should not be done.” The ethics of giving back to the community is to ensure that it benefits the community. The sawm’s purpose will be served through ZNRM by emphasizing responsibility, cooperation, and social justice values that foster giving back to the community (Salis Reyes, 2019). We might achieve this through the exchange of outcomes by collecting through sawm, or, if needed, extend it beyond sawm members through community workshops, co-developed resources, and collective activities in observance of the cultural practice of phattuamngaihna (in Paite Zomi), which is selfless service for the community. This practice of giving back aligns with Wesner et al.’s (2014) study, which found that giving back is situational and can have different meanings depending on context, social justice, and the Indigenous communities. By situating research in these reciprocal and relational foundations, the research is not extractive or colonial; instead, it serves as a tool for social justice, advancing fairness, solidarity, and collective care.

Conclusion

There is a key drawback to this methodology. I limit the approach to India-centric practices, not those of Myanmar and Bangladesh. The reason is to avoid hyper-homogenization of Zomi experiences across these countries, which are highly distinct due to experiences shaped by distinct nation-states, governance, economies, cultural hybridity, and other factors. However, the methodology can be a foundation for Zomi and non-Zomi scholars to establish their own case contextually, even if they are researching in or from Myanmar, Bangladesh, or from other regions in northeast India. This article offers new avenues for Indigenous researchers or non-Indigenous scholars working with and for Indigenous communities to think about the significance of role attribution among the co-creators. Another limitation, but also dependent on innovation and context, is the concept and practice of giving back to the community. I intentionally did not provide deeper insights on how to “contribute” to society because that is entirely dependent on the research, the social issues, context, and overlapping reasons. Overall, giving back to the community must be tangible with real-world impact, irrespective of how one might interpret what “giving back” means. However, ethical responsibility at a multi-scalar level remains outside the scope of this article and requires further investigation.

The article centers on the sawm institution, reflecting the significance of Indigenous research in exploring aspects of Indigenous culture that are still in practice, are dying out, or are being assimilated into the larger cultures. ZNRM does not suggest that the exploration of cultural practices must be limited to sawm. It intends to give space and insights for incorporating new ways of thinking into ZNRM that are culturally authentic and decolonial in praxis. By allowing co-creators to assign roles in the research, ZNRM will de-hierarchize the gaps between the researcher and the researched, and the researched and the researched, allowing inclusivity in meaning-making processes. The article also offers both approaches to collecting and analyzing data, which are often limited in Indigenous research. If integrated into the research, the methodology will enable us to more accurately and cautiously commit to social justice in a way that respects the cultures of the Zomi and speaks to their struggles, interests, and commitments.