GENESIS AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ZO RE-UNIFICATION ORGANISATION (Z.O.R.O.)
Dr. Jangkhongam Doungel
Associate Professor & Head,
Department of Political Science,
Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram.
Abstract:-The paper attempts to trace the common historical origin of the Zo ethnic tribes who are trifurcated into three sovereign countries by the colonial power. It also briefly analyses the various movements, spearheaded by Zo ethnic tribes with special emphasis upon the genesis and functioning of ZORO.
Introduction: –
Identity issue is one of the most problematic and chronic issues in North East India and most of the political problems are interrelated with identity issue. The identity issue in North East India is also not strictly confined within the geographical boundary of the region but it has its impact in the neighbouring countries too. There are many ethnic groups in North East India whose kindred tribes are scattered in the neighbouring countries by the colonial powers and the Zo ethnic group happened to be one of the main casualties. The different tribes of the Zo ethnic group traced their origin to a mythological cave known by different names among different tribes, such as, Chhinlung, Shinlung, Khul, Khur, Khurpui, Khurtu-bi-jur, (H. Kamkhenthang, Imphal, 1986, p.5) Khor, Puk, (C. Hrangzuala, 2000, p. 26) and Lungkua, and the naming of Chhinlung differs, depending upon the specific dialects ( Lian H Sakhong, 2003, p. 6). Thus, the said mythological cave was believed to be located in the present South China. Carey and Tuck wrote “With out pretending to speak with authority on the subject, we think we may reasonably accept the theory that the Kukis of Manipur, the Lushais of Bengal and Assam, and the Chins originally lived in what we now know as Tibet.”(Carey & Tuck, 1976, p. 2). However, the exact location of Chhinlung, Shinlung, Khul or Puk is not yet definitely known. Different tribes of the Zo ethnic groups are now under the political domination of three sovereign countries, namely, India, (Burma) Myanmar and Bangladesh. The Zo people were popularly identified with foreign words, namely, ‘Chin’ in Burma and ‘Kuki’ in India during the colonial period. (Sing Khaw Khai, Zo People and their Culture1995, p.1) The term .Mizo came to be popularly used for identifying Zo ethnic group of people in Mizoram after the establishment of the Mizo Union party on the eve of India’s independence. Further, the Zo ethnic group of people is commonly known as Zo Hnahthlak in Mizoram. They are also known as Kuki, Chin, Mizo, Chikim, Zomi, Shendus, Aso, Dzo, Jo and Zo. There have been different armed movements, spearheaded by the Zo ethnic group of the three countries with different nomenclatures, namely, Mizo, Chin, Kuki and Zomi and all these movement have the same goal of achieving targeted political goal for people of the ethnic group, however, inclusive approach or inclusivity seem to be lacking with all the above mentioned movements. Thus, the inclusive approach which seemed to be lacking in the above mentioned movements has been filled up by the Zo Re-unification Organization (ZORO) since 1988.
Common socio-culture entity and geographical inhabited areas:-
The anthropologists stated that Zo language is related to the Tibeto-Chinese languages and it is further placed in the Tibeto-Burman group along with Burman, Meitei (Manipuri), Naga, Kachin, Tibetan etc. The different tribes of the Zo ethnic group who are inhabiting various geographical areas from Nagaland in the north to Rakhine (Arakan) state of Myanmar in the south; Burmese plain (Kawlphai) in the east to Tripura in the west have linguistic, social and cultural affinity despite six decades of their separation by the international boundary. Zo culture is very much connected with zu (Rice beer) and it occupied an important place in customary Programmes and religious rites among tribes of the ethnic group. The different tribes of Zo also have practice of khuangchawi which was usually performed by a person who thought himself to be wealthy. A person who performed khuangchawi prepared grand feast for the community and show his riches and glory in the festival. Khuangchawi was also known as ‘tawn’ and chawn or chon’ to some other tribes of the group. ‘Ral Ai or Gal Ai’ is another common festival, performed by the tribes when a man had killed an enemy as a celebration over his victorious act. (Vumson, pp. 12-13 & 20-23). Another common heritage of the Zo culture is a mithun culture in which wealth of a person is measured in terms of mithuns. H.N.C. Stevenson writes “While a man may have numerous other kinds of live-stock, it is by the number of his mithun that his wealth will be judged, for the mithun is the supreme unit in the economic sphere, in the payment of tribute in pre-annexation days and in the scale of sacrificial offerings” ( H.N.C. Stevenson, Reprinted, 1986, p. 47)
The different tribes of the Zo ethnic group can also be broadly classified into two linguistic groups, such as, ‘R’ group and ‘G’ group or non ‘R’ group. The Lusei, Hmar, Lai (Pawi), Mara (Lakher), Rangkhol, Darlong, Biete, Kom, Chiru, Chothe, Maring, Koireng, Anal, Moyon, Monsang, Lamkang, Khoibu, Darlong, Hrangkhol, Biete, Bawm, Pang, Aimol, Ralte etc belong to the ‘R’ group; Where as the ‘G’ group or non ‘R’ group comprise of Gangte, Paite, Thadou-Kuki, Vaiphei, Zou, Simte, and Tiddim-Chin etc. Tribes of the ‘R’ group pronounce ‘land’ as ‘ram’ whereas, tribes of the ‘G’ group pronounce it as ‘gam’. Likewise, snake is pronounced as ‘rul’ by tribes of the ‘R’ group’ but the ‘G’ group pronounce it as ‘gul.’ In the same way, war is pronounced as ‘ral’ by tribes of the ‘R’ group but the ‘G’ group pronounce it as ‘gal.’ The Zo people also did not generally cut their hairs before their conversion to Christianity and some of them still maintained traditional hairstyle even after conversion to Christianity. There are two distinct hair fashions among them, namely, the top knot on the top of the head and the chignon on the nape of the nack. Mara, Lai and Maring are the top knot wearers who coil the whole hair of the head into one ball which is placed well forward on the crown of the head and almost on the forehead. Whereas, in the chignon fashion the hair is worn long and combed back and tied in a knot on the neck. The Sukte, Vaiphei, Lusei, Hmar, Thadou-Kuki, Anal, Gangte, Zou, Simte, Siyin etc are the chignon wearers (S. Prim Vaiphei, “Who we are/Who are we?’ in “In Search of Identity,” 1986, pp. 31-34). In fact, Anal, Aimol, Maring, Moyon, Monsang, Lamkang, Khoibu, Chothe and Kom are listed in the sub-tribe or clan list of the Pawi (Lai). (Pawi (Lai) Union, 1996, pp. 5-15). It is evident that certain common features as people of the same ethnic group can still be inherently found among the Zo ethnic tribes who are now separated by the international boundary because of the effective divide and rule policy of the colonial powers. The Zo ethnic group now occupy the whole Chin Hills in Myanmar and Mizoram in India, and their other settlements are in Sagaing Division, Kabo valley (Kawl phai) and Rakhine State (Arakan) in Myanmar; Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) in Bangladesh; where as, their other settlements in India are found in Hill Areas of Manipur, Karbi-Anglong District, N.C. Hills District and Cachar District of Assam, some areas in Jantia and Khasi Hills of Meghalaya, Tripura and, specific areas in Kohima District, Peren District, Dimapur District and Phek District of Nagaland. (J. Doungel, 2011, p. 272). L. Keivom states that the population of Chin-Kuki (Zo) ethnic stock in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh is estimated to be about 2.5 – 3 million. The greatest harm the British authority did to us was trifurcation of our inhabited areas in to three sovereign countries, namely, India, Myanmar and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Thus, unpardonable damage had already been done since 1935 with the passage of bill by the British Parliament for administrative division of India and Burma as per the Government of India Act of 1935 (Keivom, 2010).
Nomenclature controversy of the Zo ethnic group:-
Despite separation of their inhabited territories into three countries, namely, India, Myanmar and Bangladesh; the different tribes of the Zo ethnic group are aware that they are one and the same people. However, nomenclature is the main bond of contention for their disunity. Despite their homogeneity in custom, culture, tradition, language, social way of behaviour and in economic aspects; internal nomenclature crisis still stands in the way of their unification. The nomenclature tussle is between Chin and Zomi in Chin Hills and Kuki and Zomi in Manipur. So far as Mizoram is concerned, Mizo is accepted as the common nomenclature of the Zo ethnic group. The coverage and extend of Kuki as a nomenclature of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people experienced a downslide movement due to emergence of many new terminologies as contesting nomenclature to Kuki, such as, Chin, Mizo, Chikim, Zomi and Zo in different areas of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo inhabited Tracts in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. Earlier, Khulmi was ushered as alternative to Kuki by different tribes of the Khul origin people in Manipur in early fifties and Khulmi National Union was formed as a political platform. After that, the term ‘Chikim’ which is said to be combination of the three contesting nomenclatures, namely, Chin, Kuki and Mizo evolved since the eighties and it is still adheres to as a suitable alternative by certain section. At present, tussle is going on between Kuki and Zomi as acceptable nomenclature. Thus, nomenclature issue happened to be the Pandora box for unification of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people.
The term ‘Chin’ first appeared around 1100 A.D. in a stone inscription, erected by Pagan king, Kyanzittha in Chindwin valley. However, Chin began to be used in a written form by Major W.G. Hughes in his military report and by A.G.E. Newland in his book “The Images of war” in 1891. Then, it began to be legalised officially with the enforcement of the Chin Hills Regulation of 1896 (Lehman, 2009, pp. 2-3).Consequently, all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people who settled in the erstwhile Burma or the present Myanmar were collectively identified as Chin and the compact area, dominated by them also came to be known as Chin Hills which is now Chin state. Therefore, the term ‘Chin’ is preferred and widely accepted in Chin Hills and other part of Myanmar.
Sangkima, B. Lalthangliana and Vanchhunga stated that, the term ‘Mizo’ had been in use since the forefathers’ time. Vanchhunga who had an intensive investigation on the Mizos in Burma claims that even the forefathers used to say “Keini Mizote chuan” meaning “We the Mizos.”(Sangkima, 2009, p. 16).On the basis of this statement, advocates of the Mizo nomenclature claim that Mizo had been in used as their calling name from the past many centuries. However, the official use of Mizo began only with the formation of Mizo Union at Muallungthu on 9th April, 1946. As a positive gesture for acceptance of the term, the erstwhile Lushai Hills Autonomous District Council was also changed into Mizo District Council through an amendment of the Sixth Schedule provision of the constitution of India by the Indian Parliament in 1954 so as to integrate different tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people of Lushai Hills in the Mizo fold. Then, as an appeasement step for solving the intensified armed struggle of the Mizo National Front (M.N.F.), Lushai Hills was declared as Union Territory of Mizoram in 1972 and it was subsequently upgraded to the status of statehood in 1987 with the signing of Mizoram Accord by the Government of India and the M.N.F. in 1986. (Doungel, 2010, pp. 1 & 26-27). Consequently, Mizo seems to be the common nomenclature of all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people in the state of Mizoram. However, Thangkhangin negated the idea that the term ‘Mizo’ had been in used since forefather’s time (Thnagkhangin’s ‘Why we should be called Zomi’ in ‘In Search of Identity, 1986, p. 55). What ever be the case, Mizo is commonly accepted by all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people in Mizoram and they are ambitious in bringing all their kindred tribes outside Mizoram under the Mizo –fold. If people of Mizoram are serious in bringing their kindred tribes outside Mizoram under the Mizo-fold, they should be persuasive, accommodative, tactful and mature in their dealing with their brethren of outside Mizoram. Yet, many tribes outside Mizoram are still not convinced at all by the Mizo nomenclature.
The term “Zomi” originated in Chin Hills in the early fifties. Many church leaders advocated the unification of different Baptist Churches of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group of Myanmar under a common umbrella with acceptable nomenclature. As a result, Zomi was accepted by church leaders at Saikah on 5-7 March 1953 and Zomi Baptist Convention (Z.B.C.) was subsequently established.(Sing Khaw Khai, Op.cit, pp. 69-71). At present, there are 25 Baptist Church associations under the umbrella of the Z.B.C. The acceptance of Zomi nomenclature at present confines mostly to religious aspects but Chin is still used in the political aspect. The Chin National Front (C.N.F.) and Chin Forum are still actively spearheading political movement in the name of Chin.16It should also be noted that Zomi Baptist Convention was again changed into Chin Baptist Convention at its conference at Kalemyo on 24th March 2013 (www.goggle search, accessed on 16.4.2013). On the other hand, Zomi was advocated in Manipur with the establishment of Zomi National Congress (Z.N.C.) by T. Gougin in 1972 and Z.N.C. intensified its movement for Union Territory status of the Zomis in the eighties. After that, revolutionary movement was spearheaded in the name of Zomi with the formation of Zomi Revolutionary Organisation (Z.R.O.) by Kaizasong Guite which has its armed wing Zomi Revolutionary Army (Z.R.A.) in the mid-nineties. It is evident that there is tussle for nomenclature between Chin and Zomi in Chin Hills as well as Kuki and Zomi in Manipur at present.
The term ‘Zo’ is also obscure as its exact period of origin could not be accurately traced. Zo signifies the conglomerate tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people who settle in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. It is also sometime written as Dzho and Asho by different writers. F.K. Lehman and, Carey and Tuck also mentioned about Zo in their books but the exact origin of the term was no where mentioned accurately. The term ‘Zo’ has been propagated in written form by Vumson in “Zo History” and by Sing Khaw Khai in “Zo people and their culture”. Whatever be the case, many intellectuals and scholars of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group regarded Zo as the uncontroversial and acceptable nomenclature which is free from any tribe bias. It is alleged that by like-minded scholars that all the contesting nomenclature other than Zo are inflicted with parochial tribe centric ideology. The reason being, Kuki is identified with the Thadou-Kuki, Mizo with the Luseis, Chin with Lais of Chin Hills and Zomi is identified with Tidims and Paites. Therefore, the term ‘Zo’ with out any prefix “Mizo” or suffix “Zomi” happened to be better alternative as acceptable nomenclature in the opinion of many like-minded scholars.
Movement prior to ZORO:-
There have been many movements, spearheaded by different tribes of the Zo ethnic group which shall be briefly analysed as given below.
Armed movement in Mizoram and Chin Hills: – Despite absence of commonly acceptable nomenclature, Zo ethnic tribes in different geographical areas fought for their political survival in both peaceful and violent means in pre – ZORO era. The Mizo National Front (M.N.F.) led by Laldenga was formed as a political party on 28th October 1961 at Tuikhuatlang, Aizawl and it functioned as a political party for four years. However, it transformed itself into armed movement because it was declared as unlawful organization under Rule 32 of the Defence of Indian Rules, 1962 due to its (M.N.F.) unilateral declaration of independence on 1st March, 1966. Subsequently, the M.N.F. too abandoned its activity as a political party and intensified its insurgent activities which consequently led to frequent skirmishes with the security forces. (Hermana, Aizawl, 1987, pp. 69-70). It should also be noted that different tribes of the Zo ethnic group from Manipur and Myanmar took active part in the MNF insurgent movement and some of them rose to senator and high ranking post in army. In fact, many of them lost their lives for the cause of Mizoram independence. Therefore, it is evident that the blood of many Zo ethnic people outside Mizoram has been shed in the creation of Mizoram. Thus, armed movement, spearheaded by the MNF activated till the signing of Mizoram Accord in 1986. In the same way, insurgency movement also started among the Zo ethnic tribes in Myanmar by Hrangnawl in 1964. Hrangnawl in association with Lt. Col Sonkhopau and Tunkhopum carried the armed struggle but no much headway was made after the death of Tunkhopum. Yet, insurgency continued with out stop by the Zo ethnic tribes of Myanmar (Vumson, pp. 231-239) and it is still being pursued by the Chin National Front (C.N.F.).
Movement in Manipur: – The Kuki National Assembly (K.N.A.) raised the demand of Kuki State and submitted memorandum to the Prime Minister of India on 24th July 1960 when Haojakam Chonglci was the General Secretary. Different tribes of the Zo ethnic tribes were included in the state demand of the Kuki National Assembly (Memorandum, submitted by K.N.A. to Prime Minister of India, 1960). After nine years at the time when Haokholet Ngailut was the General Secretary, he made proposal to revive the state demand, as such, memorandum was again submitted to the Prime Minister of India in 1969. On the other hand, the Paite National Council (P.N.C.) also submitted a memorandum which demanded the formation of a state for Zo ethnic tribes of India, Burma and East Pakistan to be known as “Chinland” to the Prime Minister of India in the same year (Vumson, p. 306). The Zo ethnic (Kuki-Chin) tribes claim Hill Areas of Manipur as their ancestral land because their forefathers fought many wars since colonial era. In such away, immense trouble was given to the king of Manipur especially by some tribes of the Zo (Kuki Chin) ethnic tribes, namely, the Suktes, Kamhaus, Aisans and the Chasad (Chahsads) etc. The greatest trouble to the British Administration in Manipur during the colonial era was the Kuki Rebellion which was fought by the Thadou-Kuki against the Britishers in their reluctance to go as labour corps in the First World War (Rao et al, 1991, pp. 8-9). Besides these, Zomi National Congress (Z.N.C.) was founded by T. Gougin on 21st January, 1972at Daizang village and the political goal of the Z.N.C. was to integrate the inhabited areas of the Zo ethnic group in India under one administrative unit. Subsequently, the Z.N.C. intensified its demand for Union Territory status of the Zomis (Zo ethnic group) in the eighties and memorandum was also submitted to the Prime Minister of India. (Telephonic interview with Nehkhojang, 18.2.2014). The ZNC movement exited with the formation of ZO Reunification Organisation (ZORO) at Champhai in 1988.
Armed Movement of the Zo ethnic group at present
The C.N.F. is still active in Myanmar and movement of different forms can also be found among the Zo ethnic groups in different states of Northeast India. Armed movement among the Zo ethnic group is still prevailing in the state of Manipur and it also has some impacts in Zo ethnic inhabited areas of other states. Insurgent groups of the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock are now broadly divided into two groups, namely, Kuki National Organisation (K.N.O.) and the United People Forum (U.P.F.). The armed insurgent groups under K.N.O. umbrella are Kuki National Army (K.N.A.), Kuki National Front (Military Council) K.N.F. (M.C.), Kuki National Front (Zougam) or K.N.F. (Zougam), Zomi Revolutionary Front (Z.R.F.), Hmar National Army (H.N.A.), United Socialist Revolutionary Army (U.S.R.A.), United Komrem Revolutionary Army (U.K.R.A.), United Minorities Liberation Front (U.M.L.F.), Kuki Liberation Army (K.L.A.) and Pakan Reunification Army (P.R.A.). On the other hand, U.P.F. formed in 2006, is another umbrella organisation of insurgent groups of the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes. The insurgent groups under U.P.F. umbrella are Zomi Revolutionary Army (Z.R.A.), Kuki National Front (Samuel) or K.N.F. (Samuel), Kuki National Front (K.N.F.) led by Thangboi Kipgen, United Kuki Liberation Front (U.K.L.F.), Kuki Revolutionary Army (K.R.A.), Kuki Liberation Army (K.L.A.), led by Timothy Khongsai and Hmar People’s Convention (Democrats) or H.P.C. (D) (D.K. Thangboi Haokip, 2007) and Zou Defence Volunteer (Z.D.V.).
Birth of Zo Reunification Organisation (ZORO) and its activities:-
Different Zo ethnic tribes are fighting for specific cause but inclusivity is lacking because most of the movement have geographical restriction. Efforts have been taken to integrate the different Zo ethnic groups of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh but positive result in this regard could not be achieved. As a positive gesture in the unification efforts, the Zomi National Congress (ZNC) of Manipur and People’s Conference (PC) of Mizoram in their meeting at Lamka (Churachandpur) on 5th March, 1988 resolved to convene an international convention of the Zo ethnic tribes. Accordingly, the first World Zomi Convention was convened at Champhai from 18-19 May, 1988 and thousands of delegates from different states of India, Bangladesh and Myanmar gathered in the convention. Many significant agenda which could guide the destiny of the Zo ethnic group were passed in the convention:- (i) The nomenclature of the Zo ethnic group of people who traced common origin from Chhinlung should be ‘Zo.’ (ii) Steps should be taken up to integrate the Zo ethnic tribes who are already scattered in territories of three sovereign countries (iii) Appeals should be made so that accommodative approach should be adopted by various groups and tribes for better unification and integration (iv) Political forum should be established so as to initiate necessary steps for speedy pursuance of unification campaign. (Declaration of the Convention, 1988). In pursuance of the declaration, a political forum known as Zo Re-unification Organisation (ZORO) was formed with the following adhoc office bearers. Brig T. Sailo as Chairman, T. Gougin and C. Chawngkunga as Vice Chairmen, S. Thangkhangin Ngaihte and Lalhmingthanga as Secretary General and Thangmawia as Treasurer. With the adoption of ‘Zo’ as nomenclature of the Chhinlung/Khul origin people who are also known as Chin, Kuki, Mizo, Chikim and Zomi, the term ‘Zo’ began to be popularly used for identifying and naming the cognate tribes. Ropuiliani Award was given to three eminent persons, namely, Rani Gaidinliu, T. Gougin and Capt. L.Z. Sailo Long March was organized on the eve of the convention at Champhai and volunteers took 17 days to reach Champhai from Lamka (Churachandpur before the convention. After the convention, the volunteers took 6 days to reach Aizawl from Champhai in the Long March (ZORO, Champhai Convention, 1988, p. 12).
As ZORO has been established in coordination with political parties in the initial stage, it was regarded as being influenced by certain political party. As such, step has been taken up since 1990 so as not to align with any political party and to make the organization as a social Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). Consequently, a convention was called at Vanapa Hall, Aizawl on 17th July 1991 and it was resolved to run the organization as a social organization which concern with political future of the Zo ethnic tribes. The slogan of the organization was also affirmed as ‘reunification as per the spirit of the Chin-Lushai Conference of 1892’ which practically means reunification of the whole Zo ethnic tribes of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The convention at Vanapa Hall in 1991 was also known as Second World Zo Convention and the Third World Zo convention was held at Vanapa Hall in October, 2013. The ZORO has now 7 zones and it functions actively in the Zo inhabited areas of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. Further, it also has branches in Washington and Florida. (Sources, ZORO (Gen HQ) Office, Aizawl, 22.1.2014).
R. Thangmawi, President, ZORO (General Headquarters), Aizawl stated that the plan of the British Administration for integrating the Zo ethnic tribes as per the Chin Lushai Conference of 1892 could not be materialized because of the objection raised by some British officers of Chin Hills. However, the Chin-Lushai land was kept neither under India nor under Burma but under Foreign Department. And, it was only in 1895 that the territory of the Zo ethnic tribes was trifurcated into the geographical area of Lower Bengal (East Pakistan or present Bangladesh), Assam (India) and Burma (Myanmar), he added. Thus, R. Thangmawia emphasized that ZORO stands and fights for reunification of the Zo ethnic tribes as per the spirit of the Chin Lushai Conference of 1892. Therefore, the Chin Lushai anniversary day is celebrated every year and the 122nd anniversary of the Chin-Lushai Conference anniversary was celebrated at Saikul, Sadar Hills in Senapati District of Manipur on 29th January 2014, he further added. (Interview with R. Thangmawia, 11.2.2014). The Conference cum 122nd Anniversary celebration at Saikul was organized by the ZORO (Northern Zone). Delegates and cultural troups attended the conference cum 122nd anniversary of Chin-Lushai Conference at Saikul from Assam, Manipur, Tripura and Tripura from India; Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh as well as Chin State and Kachin State of Myanmar. The ZORO Conference had made numerous resolutions. Some of the important resolutions, resolved at the conference were :- (i) To move the Government of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh to stop all projects, such as, Hydel projects, Oil & Natural Gas Exploration presently undertaken within the territories of Zo people as per Article 26 of the UN Declaration of 2007. (ii) To request the Government of India to halt construction of Railways and International Highway if it is not in conformity with the reservation policy for the Scheduled Tribes in India and the UN Declaration against exploitation. (iii) To request the Government of India to dismantle all border fencing dividing the Zo territory which would automatically restrict their social, cultural, spiritual, economic and political contacts across the international boundaries. (iv) Traditional chief rights of the Zo should be restored to the entire Zo indigenous chieftainship within the whole territory of the Zo people. (The Mizoram Post, 6 February, 2014). The participation of Kachin in the conference at Saikul seemed to be surprising but R. Zamawia stated that the Kachins now accept that they belong to the Zo ethnic group. He further said that the Kachin people were the one who helped the M.N.F. volunteers when they went to China for training. Thus, 3 M.N.F. officers were stationed in Kachin as Liaison Officers to maintain good relationship with them; whereas, one died and the other two returned to Mizoram after the signing of Mizoram Accord in 1986, he added. (Interview with R. Zamawia, 10.2.2014).
With its transformation into social NGO, the ZORO initiated different steps for reunification of the Zo ethnic tribes. The ZORO submitted memorandum to John Major, Prime Minister of United Kingdom stating that England was responsible for trifurcation of the Zo ethnic tribes into three sovereign countries. Therefore, he (Prime Minister) should take the moral responsibility and initiate necessary steps for reunification of the Zo ethnic tribes. So, he should do the needful things for the damage which had been done a century ago by Great Britain, it was further added in the memorandum. The ZORO also sent memorandum to Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, the President of India in April, 1992 urging him to take necessary steps for reunification of the Zo ethnic tribes in the like manner how he had declared support for reunification of the two Koreas in Seoul. Memorandum was also submitted to Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America in 1994. After that, another memorandum was sent to Dr. Boutros Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) in 1995, urging him to initiate necessary steps and to do the needful for reunification of the indigenous tribes who are separated by international boundaries with out their consent. The ZORO leaders also participated in the meeting of Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Population from 19th November to 25th November 1998 and registered ZORO as member of the group. The ZORO also raised the issue of indigenous land ownership rights of the Zo people in 17 session of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous People (UNWGIP) at Geneva from 26-30 July, 1999 and ZORO delegate was allowed to participate in the UNWGIP session since 2000 (ZORO, Zofate Lungkham Ram, Aizawl, pp. 7-10). Since then the ZORO leaders regularly attended annual session of the UNWGIP and other agencies of the UNO; and R. Thangmawia is one of the regular participants in the said sessions. Other than the UNWGIP session, the ZORO also participated in Committees meeting of World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Bank, World Indigenous People etc at Geneva. It also participated in Racism, World Indigenous Summit at Durban, South Africa and Asian Indigenous Summit at Kathmandu, Nepal and Korea, and in Declaration of Indigenous Rights Drafting Committee at Geneva in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Besides these, the ZORO attended the 59th Session of Commission on Human Rights in 2003 and in Asia Civil Society Forum Conference on NGO at Bangkok in 2002. The ZORO is also included in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issue (UNPFII) since 2004 and in the Expert Mechanism on Implementation on the Rights of the Indigenous People (EMRIP) session of the United Nations Human Rights Council at Geneva since 2008. In such away, the ZORO handles the Herculean task of reunifying the Zo ethnic tribes of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh in a peaceful and democratic spirit. Further, ZORO also played significant role in the formation of ZO INPUI on 9th August, 2010 which is destined to unify all socio-political organisations of the different tribes of Zo ethnic group under its umbrella (R. Thangmawia, UNO leh Zofate, Aizawl, pp. 16-25). Thus, the ZORO shoulder the responsibility of reunification of the Zo ethnic tribes with its utmost efforts.
Conclusion:-
The Zo ethnic tribes who are also known as Chin, Kuki, Mizo, Chikim and Zomi share common historical origin and they are related linguistically, culturally, socially and ethnically because they are one and the same people. However, the division of their inhabited territories into three sovereign countries, namely, India, Myanmar and Bangladesh created many rifts among themselves. The Zo people in different territories launched different types of movements and they tried to include their fellow ethnic tribes of the cross border so as to be unified again. In such away, movements of both peaceful method and violent means came up among the Zo ethnic tribes in Manipur, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura in India, Chin Hills in Myanmar and Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh. The main hurdle in the unification of the Zo ethnic tribes is the contesting nomenclature in which there is struggle for nomenclature in all their inhabited areas. And, as a result of the formation of Zo Re-unification Organisation (ZORO) through the initiative of the Zomi National Congress (ZNC) of Manipur and People’s Conference of Mizoram at Champhai in 1988, some transformation happened in the unification campaign of the Zo ethnic tribes. The ZORO then adopted the term ‘Zo’ as the nomenclature to be followed and it popularizes and uses the term ‘Zo’ so as to reunify and integrate the whole ethnic group under its umbrella. The ZORO was then freed from the clutch of political parties since 1991 and it initiated necessary steps to internationalist its slogan for wide publicity and acceptance. The ZORO then started participating in agencies and committees of the United Nations since 1999, as such, its fight for the cause the Zo people is now internationalize in a wider scale. The ZORO now extends its influence more and more in the inhabited territories of the Zo ethnic tribes and it pursues its agenda peacefully in democratic method. The slogan and determination of the ZORO seemed to be utopian misnomer in the judgment of some critics, however, it should be noted that even if political reunification is doubtful, it at least creates awareness for psychological unification which is also an essential ingredient for reunification. In fact, the ZORO movement and its slogan seemed to be untenable but it is the movement which inclusively fights for the cause of all the Zo ethnic tribes in democratic spirit with out the use of violence.
REFERENCES
Carey, B.S & Tuck, H.N. (1976), Chin Hills Volume – I, Tribal Research Institute (T.R.I.), Aizawl.
Doungel, Jangkhongam (2010), Evolution of District Council Autonomy in Mizoram, Spectrum Publication, Guwahati.
Doungel, Jangkhongam (2011), Status of the term Kuki in the past and present – a critical analysis in Michael Lunminthang and Ngamkhohao Haokip (eds) ‘Kuki Society Past, Present, Future’ , Marxford Books, New Delhi.
Haokip, D.K. Thangboi (2007), A brief analysis of insurgency in Northeast India, paper, presented in U.G.C. Refresher Course, Department of Political Science, Manipur University, Canchipur, Imphal.
Hermana, C. (1992), Zoram Politics (Thli Tleh Dan) Vol. I, Press Com Production, Aizawl.
Hrangzuala, Rev C (2000), The Lai People’s Struggle for Political and Ecclesiastical Autonomy, M.Th Thesis, Senate of Serampore, unpublished.
Kamkhenthang, H et al (Eds). (1986), In search of Identity, Kuki Chin Baptist Union, Kuki Baptist Convention Press, Imphal.
Keivom, L., Ethnic Nation Building Chin-Kuki-Zo Trail, paper, presented in a seminar,
organised by Kuki Research Forum (K.R.F.) and Shinlung Indigenous People’s Human Rights Organisation (S.I.P.H.R.O.), J.N.U. Campus, Delhi, April 5, 2010.
Pawi (Lai) Union, (1996), Pawi (Lai) Union leh Pawi (Lai) Union Hnahthlak chungchang, Pawi (Lai) Union, General Headquarters, Aizawl.
Rao, Venkata V., Gangte, T.S. & Devi, Bimola KSH (1991), A Century of Government and Politics in North-East India, Vol. AV: Manipur, S. Chand & Company LTD, New
Delhi.
Robin, K.(Ed) (2009), Chin – History, Culture & Identity, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
Sakhong, Lian. H. (2008), In Search of Chin Identity, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies,
Copenhagen S, Denmark.
Sangkima (2004), Essays on the History of the Mizos, Spectrum Publications, Guwahati.
Sing Khaw Khai (1995), Zo People and their Culture, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1995.
Stevenson, H.N.C. (1986), The Economics of the Central Chin Tribes, Tribal Research Institute (T.R.I.), Aizawl.
Thangmawia, R, UNO leh Zofate, Aizawl.
The Mizoram Post, 6 February 2014 issue, edited by Nilotpol Choudhury, Silchar, Assam.
Vumson, Zo History, Aizawl, Mizoram, India.
ZORO (General Headquarters) Office, Records and Documents, Aizawl, 22nd January, 2014.
Interviews
Telephonic interview with Nehkhojang, Former General Secretary of Zomi National Congress and present General Secretary of ZORO (General Headquarters) on 18.2.2014
Interview with R. Zamawia, First Defence Minister of the Mizo National Front, Tanhril, Aizawl on 10.2.2014
Interview with R. Thangmawia, President, ZORO (General Headquarters), Aizawl, Zarkawt, Aizawl on 11.2.2014)
Memorandum
A memorandum, submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations by the Zo Re-Unification Organisation, General Headquarters, Aizawl, Mizoram, 1995.
