Social Identity of Zeliangrong People of Asssam,Manipur and Nagaland

Introduction

The notion of social identity that reflects ‘individual’s self-concept’ (Tajfel, 1978, cited in Greene, 2004, p. 137) based on ‘self-perceived membership’ in a group (Greene, 2004, p. 137) does not address the question of the source of ‘self-perceived membership’. Why does an individual perceive membership in a group? The theory does not explain the factor that induces an individual to identify his or her membership with a group as a natural member, if what one thinks of oneself is affected by one’s perceived membership in a group and what influences one’s knowledge about one’s membership in a group? The article attempts to present a theoretical contention that social identity, in which an individual realises a part of his or her identity based on his or her knowledge about membership in a group (Tajfel, 1978, cited in Greene, 2004, p. 137), has its origin in identification of the individual as a member of the group by other members of the group. A group which does not accept an individual as a member of the group due to various factors like racial, religious, political or cultural differences does not contribute to ‘self-perceived membership’ with a group and consequently ‘individual’s self-concept’ or social identity with a group. Individual’s self-concept as a result of knowledge about membership in a group can also be immensely influenced by the non-recognition of the individual as member of the group by other members of the group.

Zeliangrong People Identities

The term Zeliangrong connotes four groups of people: Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui. They are settled in their ancestral contiguous frontiers of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. Zeliangrong identities may be examined as migratory identity, colonial identity, Constitutional identity, movement identity and emic identities. The genesis of a formal use of the name Zeliangrong is traced to 15 February 1947 at Keisamthong (Imphal) in the then princely state of Manipur. Although Zeliangrong connotes four groups, it encompasses six Scheduled Tribes (ST): Kacha Naga, Zeme, Liangmai, Kabui, Rongmei and Inpui. This is because, Kacha Naga also collectively refers to Zeme and Liangmai, and Kabui collectively refers to Rongmei and Inpui. Kacha Naga and Kabui are still recognised ST names in India. They believe that they descended from a same ancestor, but relatively separated linguistically, culturally and geographically due to natural disposition for survival and insurmountable historical circumstances.

Migratory Identity

Every narratives of origin of the four Zeliangrong groups comprise tales of migration of the four groups and the individual group. Peculiar to characteristic of oral tradition, their migratory narratives are in conflict with each other between the groups and within a group.

It is believed that Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei migrated along with other Naga tribes and settled at Makhel, which is now in Senapati district of Manipur. The three groups were believed to have been not known differently at Makhel and at Makuilongdi where they settled after migrating from Makhel. It was only after two groups migrated from Makuilongdi, which is also traced to Senapati district, that they came to be identified by themselves as Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei. The identity of Inpui is prescribed by Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei. Thus, Inpui is believed to have been originated as a result of ‘a mixture of Liangmais, Rongmeis and others’ (Pamei, 2001, p. 19). Tasongwi Newmei believes the Inpui ‘to have [been] separated from the Liangmai’ (Newmei, 2010, p. 204). According to a renowned historian, Gangmumei Kabui, the social programme of Jadonang, Naga freedom fighter, was the integration of Zeme, Liangmai, and Rongmei (Kabui, 1979). Gangmumei did not mention the Inpui. According to Gangmumei Kamei, Nguiba, the Chief of Makuilongdi, had only three sons (Kamei, 2004). P. Binodini Devi, concluded that Inpui ‘are culturally and ethnically organized from the Rongmei and Liangmei’ (Devi, 2006, p. 30). None of the Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei narratives or writings account for four sons of the Chief of Makuilongdi. However, according to Alung Khumba (2012), Inpui emic narratives and writings account for ‘four sons’. Inpui even claim that they are the descendants of the first son of the common ancestor.

Zeme or ‘Zemei’ is derived from Zeme terms Ramzengning or Azengning meaning valley and as the group settled in valley after migrating from Makuilongdi they came to be known as Zeme (Newmei, 2010). The other group migrated towards ruang (south) and came to be known as Marongmei or Rongmei (Kamei, 2004; Newmei, 2010; Pamei, 1996). Thus, Rongmei are those who moved to the south of Makuilongdi. According to oral tradition among the Inpui, the father of the ancestors of Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui built a big house at a place called Kadingmuan. Inpui term for a big house is Inpui. According to the oral tradition, as given by K.H. Khumba (2012), since the ancestor of Inpui was the eldest son he inherited the big house or the Inpui and his descendants came to be known as Inpui. However, at present, among Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei, customarily, it is mostly the youngest son who inherits the house of his father. The eldest son often does not enjoy the blessing of inheritance of parental house.

The identity narratives of the four groups tracing to Makuilongdi remain in conflict with each other. The legitimacy of the claim of the Inpui tracing their origin to Makuilongdi as descendants of one of the sons of its Chief depends immensely on the acquiescence of the other three groups. The Inpui people were believed to have moved away from Rongmei group and consequently mingled with other ethnic groups. In the course of their migration and social mingling with other ethnic groups they developed culture and language now seen to have traces of Rongmei culture and of other ethnic groups. However, the Inpui identity narrative does not point to migration from Makuilongdi as their ancestor inherited the Inpui or the big house of the common ancestor of the four Zeliangrong groups.

Colonial Identity

Colonial identity may also be termed as ‘Administrative Identity’ (Samson, 2012, p. 323). Various names were used by the British to suit their colonial administrative work. The British identified the Rongmei and Inpui collectively as Kabui for their administrative convenience. Zeme and Liangmai were collectively recorded in colonial accounts as Kacha Naga. However, a question remains contested whether or not the British were the first to use the names Kabui and Kacha Naga to collectively refer to Rongmei and Inpui and Zeme and Liangmai, respectively.

According to Colonel W. McCulloch, the Kabui tribe comprises ‘Songboo and Pooeeron’ (McCulloch, 1859, cited in Hodson, 1911, p. 75). According to R. Brown, Kowpoi consists of Sungbu, Koiveng and Kowpoi (Brown, 1874). A number of villages in Manipur valley in ‘a semi-servile’ conditions were identified by T. C. Hodson as Kabui villages (Hodson, 1911, p. 5). To improve the living conditions of the Kabui, S. D. O. Booth exhorted the Kabui to form a collective organisation of Kabui (Rongmei and Inpui) and Kacha Naga (Zeme and Liangmai) which was named Kabui Samiti (Pamei, 2001, p. 44). Robert Reid (1937–1942), who was the governor of undivided Assam of the colonial days, termed the movement under the leadership of Jadonang, a Naga leader, as ‘rebellion’ of Kabui and Kacha Naga (Kamei, 2004, p. 145). In view of the larger Naga identity of Kabui and Kacha Naga, J. C. Higgins, the political agent, called the movement under Jadonang as ‘Naga Raj movement’ (ibid., p. 145). Various names were used and recorded in colonial writings to identify Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui collectively or separately as Kacha Naga, Kabui, Songboo and Pooeeron. But so far, no group of Zeliangrong has identified itself as Koiveng.

Constitutional Identity

Constitutional identity may also be termed as scheduled identity. In Manipur, they are scheduled as Kacha Naga referring to Zeme and Liangmai, and Kabui referring to Rongmei and Inpui. In Manipur, Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui are also recognised ST names. Thus, in Manipur, we may say that Zeliangrong comprises Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei, Inpui, Kacha Naga and Kabui. In Nagaland, they are scheduled as Zeliang (Zeme and Liangmai) (Newmei, 2010, p. 208) and Rongmei (since August 2012). However, Rongmei has been removed from the ST list of Nagaland state in 2017. Inpui is not recognised as the ST of Nagaland. In Assam only ‘Jeme’ (Zeme) and ‘Rongmei’ are recognised (Kamei, 2004, p. 13).

Movement Identity

Zeliangrong is recognised by the Government of Peoples’ Republic of Nagaland (GPRN) of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN Isak-Muivah [I-M]). Thus, under the GPRN/NSCN (I-M), the Zeliangrong region is divided into Zeilad block, Asalu block and Makuilongdi block. The Zeilad block in Tamenglong district of Manipur is conventionally understood to be predominantly of the Rongmei. The Asalu region is located in Zeme area in Dima Hasao (formerly North Cachar Hills district) district of Assam. Makuilongdi block is located in the Senapati district and it is believed to be under the Liangmai. Some Inpui, Zeme and Liangmai (personal communication, 2012) were believed to have been disappointed as Zeilad region that encompasses Tamenglong district with high potential for revenue collection fell beyond their control. The Inpui predominantly settled in Haochong area in Tamenglong district do not have any administrative block where they enjoy dominance. A sense of discrimination has already intruded among those who felt less privileged in terms of revenue collection.

The Zeliangrong people in Manipur valley who cherish the name Kabui are mostly followers of ancestral religion. No Naga armed groups have any wing or region under the name Kabui. Even Christians’ organisations do not use Kabui. Some Kabui in Manipur valley dislike Rongmei as a name of their tribe. For them, Rongmei refers to cardinal direction South and not to people. Many Christians prefer Rongmei and despise the name Kabui which is taken to be an ‘adulterated name’ (Pamei, 1996, p. 58) believed to be prescribed by Meetei. However, Inpui, who are also identified as Kabui claim that Kabui is derived from the name Inpui (Inpui Tribe Recognition Souvenir, 2012). One of the reasons for a delay in recognition of Rongmei as ST in Nagaland was due to nomenclature issue. The Rongmei were not initially recognised as ST as the Nagaland government, in the early 1960s, wanted to use the name Kabui instead of Rongmei and it was opposed by the Rongmei (Kamei, 2004, pp. 12, 14).

Emic Identities

Who do they say they are? The Zeme and the Liangmai despite having identified as Kacha Naga in Manipur prefer to be known as Zeme and Liangmai. They reject the name Kacha Naga. Some Rongmei, especially in Manipur valley, prefer to retain the name Kabui and reject the name Rongmei. The Inpui people of Kabui negate the claim of some Rongmei that they are also Kabui. According to Inpui, Kabui refers originally to and should refer only to Inpui. The Inpui, however, prefer the name Inpui and not Kabui. The Inpui are also identified as Puimei by Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei. The Inpui dislike the prescribed name Puimei. In Nagaland, the Zeme and the Liangmai are recognised collectively as Zeliang and they still want to retain that collective name. The Rongmei in Nagaland do not accept Kabui as their name and therefore they are known and were recognised as Rongmei. In fact, one may safely conclude that there is no Kabui in Nagaland though there are Inpui and Rongmei in Nagaland.

Under the nomenclature Zeliangrong they emphasise on a shared origin and the same ancestor. In this context, Zeliangrong may be viewed as people. However, in the context of the four groups claiming to be different in terms of origin, cultures and dialects, Zeliangrong is apt to be used to mean peoples. Thus, depending on the contexts Zeliangrong is both people and peoples. And the identification with their respective linguistic group continues with their weakening adherence to their collective Zeliangrong identity.

Ancestry Within Ethnicity

To ‘assert the oneness and renew shared bond between the two communities’ (The Sangai Express, 2015a) and ‘to celebrate and foster the common fraternity and usher in the renewed spirit of brotherhood’ (The Sangai Express, 2015b) so that they share a common platform to work collectively for the welfare of the two communities, Maram and Thangal tribes renewed their belief in common ancestry under a theme ‘Revisiting the past and shaping the future’ (The Sangai Express, 2015c). It is worth noting that the Zeliangrong groups, along with Maram, Thangal and Kaorang, share a belief in common ancestry (Pamei, 2001). But the recent tracing of common ancestry of Maram and Thangal did not witness the participation of Kaorang, Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui. All the seven groups had even tried to come under a same nomenclature Haomei. Haomei is understood as ‘people of the God as well as cultured peoples’ (Mukherjee, Gupta, & Das, 1982, p. 71) and it also means ‘ourselves’ (Meijinlung, 1976, cited in Mukherjee et al., 1982). However, it is believed that it failed to materialise as a name, Haomei is a derogatory term in Maram dialect and its meaning is close to an act of copulation. The Maram were believed to have proposed Hamei meaning God’s people. Some Rongmei, however, disliked the name Haomei as neighbouring Meetei abuse it by calling them Haothu. Hao refers to the Hao people and thu literally means vagina in Meetei language. A Rongmei term for banana is hao. Thus, sometimes Meetei abuse the Rongmei/tribals calling out haothu and exonerate themselves from being reprimanded by claiming to refer to banana seed. In Rongmei, kathu is a generic term referring to seed. Thus, hao kathu in Rongmei means banana seed. And for the Meetei, from hao kathu comes the haothu. For some Rongmei in the valley they therefore prefer Kabui and not Haomei.

There is a process of ancestry which is defined as ‘one or more societies’ claiming their origin to a common family history (Eller, 1999, p. 10) or common ancestor among Haomei or Hamei. And ethnicity in a group, according to DeVos, is a ‘subjective symbolic or emblematic use of any aspect of culture, in order to differentiate themselves from other groups’ (1975, p. 16, cited in Eller, 1999, p. 8). Ethnicity brings groups believed to share nationality, tribal affiliation, religious or cultural origins (Duruji, 2010, p. 94, cited in Attah, 2013, p. 608). It is the common belief in common origin that facilitates formation of common identity (Mbaku, Pita, & Kimeny, 2001, p. 61, cited in Attah, 2013, p. 608). Unlike ancestry, ethnicity is vague as it hinges on a group with shared characteristics while ancestry identifies a single root in the form of a parent. The ideas of the group may vary depending on the narratives of the constituent groups. Ancestry is more precise as it traces to a known or legendary single personality.

Irrespective of the differences in their views on Haomei, the Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei, Inpui, Maram, Thangal and Kaorang share a belief in common ancestor and they desire to project themselves as a distinct group within the larger Naga group. This ancestry within ethnicity of Haomei is observed to be dwindling with growing interests to advance the welfare of their respective group. Based on distinct dialects spoken and some variations in their cultures, the four groups, Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui, have begun to produce narratives of their distinct origins and cultures. Thus, ‘Ethnicity unifies and differentiates simultaneously’ (Arora, 2013, p. 106) because the bond of ethnicity is not frozen and is subject to changing characteristics of a group (Barth, 1969, p. 17, cited in Attah, 2013, p. 608). The conception of ancestry within ethnicity has two dimensions. First, it means tracing the common origin of different groups that constitute a single ethnic group. Second, it refers to searching for common ancestor of each group within an ethnic group. Ancestry still holds true within an ancestral group of an ethnic group formed by different ancestral groups. However, ethnicity of a group loses its relevance when each ancestral group that constitutes a larger ethnic group attempts to trace their respective ancestor different from the ancestors of other ancestral groups constituting the larger ethnic group based on linguistic and cultural variations.

Zeliangrong Christians

There is no denial of the claim that Christianity changed the social countenance of the Zeliangrong peoples. About 99 per cent of Zeliangrong in Nagaland and 95 per cent of them in Manipur have embraced different denominations of Christianity (Roy, 2013). Much of the advancements in education and social harmony were results of changing attitudes of peoples with teachings of Christianity and formal education. It may be taken as a grand statement when M. P. Namthiurei stated:

It is a fact that if Christianity had not come at all in this area [Zeliangrong areas], this area would have not been an area as it is today. We know that with the coming of Christianity a new civilization and new pattern of living such as refined manners, broadened views, well culture and bend of spirituality begin to grow. (Namthiurei, 1972, p. 1).

Namthiurei links Christianity to ‘civilisation’ or modernity, reason or scientific temper of a society. Jackson and Brian of a ministry, Prophecy and Apologetics Research and Resource Center, view Christianity ‘as the most theologically sound, philosophically justified, scientifically verified, and most easily perceived, accepted and understood of all beliefs’ (Palmeri, 2007). Christianity, however, is not viewed in a positive light in some contexts. Thus, John Wilson associated ‘the arrival of highly divisive Christianity’ with the coming of the white men (Wilson, 1973, p. 52). Christians often degenerate the ‘traditional sacred practices as sinful’ (ibid.). The Zeliangrong Christians, according to Gangmumei Kabui, questioned the basis of the belief system of Zeliangrong (Kabui, 1979). They even banned beating of drums in church and dancing in congregation which were initially allowed (Namthiurei, 1972, pp. 18–19). And the Christian missionaries are also sometime patronised by imperial power (Sharma & Devi, 2011). According to Colonel W. McCulloch, the Khullakpa or the Chiefs among the Kabui forfeit their authority over religious affairs (McCulloch, 1859, cited in Hodson, 1911, p. 102) after they become Christians.

Such views on the vices of Christians are unequivocally expressed by some Zeliangrong people. N. C. Zeliang held Christian missionaries responsible for degeneration of tribal religion on the pretext of saving the tribal people (Zeliang, 2005). A strong allegation was that Christians convert the common people at gunpoint (ibid., also see Mariam, 2003). Similar instance of forced conversion was also claimed to have happened within the armed ‘Naga National Workers’ (Pamei, 2006, p. 40). Traditionalist Naga National Workers, who dared to question the role of Christianity in Naga freedom movement, were forced to convert to Christianity at gunpoint and their hairs were cut which ‘tantamount to beheading in Naga custom’ (ibid., p. 39). Utter disrespect was shown to traditionalists who were stigmatised as animists. The Naga movement assumed a facet which was more of a religious movement for expanding Christendom with religious intolerance. The Convenor of Nagaland Prayer House said, ‘Let the Nagas reconcile and stand solidly behind, “NAGALAND FOR CHRIST”, and to send 10,000 Missionaries to preach the world the gospel of Christ’ (Shapwon, 2000, p. 116). The Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN), in its constitution, asserted that, ‘Nagaland shall be a kingdom of Christ’ (Kamei, 2004, p. 213). The article of the constitution, as it alienated traditionalist Nagas, was amended, and the constitution saw a new Article 136 that read as ‘Protestant Christianity and Naga religion shall be religion of Nagaland’ (ibid.; Pamei, 2006, p. 38). The Article still bears discriminatory nature as it did not mention the Catholic.

From ‘Nagaland shall be a kingdom of Christ’ to ‘Protestant Christianity and Naga religion shall be religion of Nagaland’ the Nagas, including the Zelian-grong, went, consciously or unconsciously, to prove that there is a Christian denominational conflict within the Nagas. They remained divided implicitly on denominational ground. Despite believing in the same God and collectively condemning the traditionalists, the Zeliangrong Christians nurtured a divisive element on ground of denominational differences. ‘[F]actionalism’, which is ‘one of the most destructive effects of proselytization’ (Rollings, 2004, p. 123) is a truth desired to be swept under the carpet of liberation ideology of the Nagas and the Zeliangrong in particular.

Linguistic Organisations

The epicentre of Zeliangrong Christian (here Baptist) activities in Manipur was the Tamenglong area which is predominantly settled by Rongmei tribe. Initially, the Zeliangrong Baptist churches were associated with the Missionary Fund of Kangpokpi. The churches in Zeliangrong regions in Manipur were looked after by the Kukis. Thus, the ‘RAGUANG LU’ (Lord’s Hymn) was published by Pakho, a Kuki pastor in the late 1930s (Namthiurei, 1972, p. 22). The Zeme, Liangmai and Inpui are comparatively much lesser in number at Tamenglong headquarters. The Kukis left the Zeliangrong and formed the Kuki Christian Organisation in 1943 (ibid., p. 25). This dissociation and formation of separate Kuki Christian Organisation has been termed by MP Namthiurei as ‘the first communal Christian organization in Manipur’ (ibid.).

After the Kukis left the Zeliangrong Baptist, the Zeliangrong, Hmars and Chirus decided in 1947 at Khongjaron in Tamenglong to use ‘Rongmei language’ for their communications (ibid., 1972, p. 44). As communications and religious worships happened mostly in Rongmei language, the other tribes began to experience difficulties. Without specifically referring to language inconvenience, M. P. Namthiurei said, ‘As suitable hymn book was not available the people were very much down-hearted’ and to address this issue they published their language-based song books KRISTIANLUI for Liangmai and PHUAMLING LU and LU REO for Rongmei (ibid., p. 52). The suitability referred to here by Namthiurei is most likely to refer to linguistic inconvenience. The linguistic inconvenience in the context of the Zeliangrong in the church certainly brings in here the idea of Nirmal Minz and Renthy Keitzar’s tribal theological approach of ‘contextualisation and Indigenisation’ in which there is an adaptation of tribal cultural values (cited in Aleaz, 2002, p. 20). The linguistic inconvenience necessitated adoption of their own language so that the teachings of the religious scriptures and doctrines can be more closely related with their social context facilitated by their language. Often local church leaders present anecdotes drawn from local folktales to illuminate the teachings embedded in the religious scriptures (also see Keitzar, 1993, cited in Aleaz, 2002, p. 25). Thus, Chad Ellis, campus minister of Clayton State’s Baptist Collegiate Ministries (BCM) stated, ‘Your ministry needs to reflect your community’ (Burton, 2014). Adjustment in missionary work to address certain inconvenient situations was also seen even during the colonial days. Thus, while ‘the British were predominantly Protestant’ (Latourette, 1944, p. 78), ‘[t]o enable the Roman Catholic Church to fit in with the British regime, Irish priests were appointed to the post’ (ibid., p. 82) of missionary work in the colonies.

Gradually, there emerged Rongmei Naga Baptist Association (RNBA), Liangmai Naga Baptist Association (LNBA), Zeme Naga Baptist Association (ZNBA) and Inpui Naga Baptist Churches Association (INBCA) as the existing tribe-based Baptist church associations within Zeliangrong. The Catholic churches among the Zeliangrong also saw a group christened Zeliangrong Catholic Progressive Organisation (ZCPO). There is also Rongmei Catholic Dimphuam. The name Kabui is used neither by Baptist nor by Catholic even in Manipur valley. Thus, it may also be said that the names Rongmei, Zeme, Liangmai and Inpui are closer to Zeliangrong Christians and Zeliangrong hill people.

Besides the religious-based organisational and ethnic identities there are also non-religious distinct ethnic-based organisations in the form of Rongmei Naga Council (RNC), Liangmai Naga Council (LNC), Zeme Naga Council (ZNC) and Inpui Naga Council (INC). Zeliangrong is the only name recognised by Naga body, United Naga Council (UNC). After the recognition of the four groups of Zeliangrong as distinct tribes, LNC and RNC demanded recognition of their councils under the UNC beside Zeliangrong already being recognised. The UNC did not agree with the demand of the RNC and LNC. This is because Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui are collectively recognised by the UNC under the collective body, Zeliangrong Baudi. This resulted in declaration of non-cooperation of the Rongmei and Liangmai in all the activities organised by UNC (The Sangai Express, 2015d). Zeliangrong Baudi, though claim to be Zeliangrong apex body and recognised by UNC is not the only apex body of Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. Zeliangrong Union is another body claimed to be the apex body of Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. While Zeliangrong Union was formed on 14 December 1947 at Imphal in Manipur for the Zeliangrong of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur, Zeliangrong Baudi was formed on 15 November 2006 at Jalukie in Nagaland. According to one of the executive members of UNC (personal communication, 2012), the formation of Zeliangrong Baudi is attributed to the intervention of some leaders of NSCN (I-M) who wanted to rechristen every Naga organisations and places into native names.

Zeliangrong in Metropolitan Cities

Zeliangrong Christian Fellowship, Delhi’s (ZCFD) conventional medium of communication is English. They carry along with them the tradition of ethnicisation of their churches. From ZCFD they mushroomed into Liangmai Christian Fellowship (LCF), Rongmei Christian Fellowship while retaining ZCFD. There is also Bangalore Rongmei Christian Fellowship and LCF, Bangalore. A reliable source mentioned that with increasing number of trained Zeliangrong theologians migrating to metropolitan and other cities where Zeliangrong students and working people were found in large number, there was a need to create linguistic-based Christian groups so that the unemployed trained theologians could also play their role as Church leaders and earn their livelihoods (personal communication, June 2015). The person was a close associate of Zeliangrong Christian Fellowship, Bangalore, before it was closed as a result of formation of Bangalore Rongmei Christian Fellowship. According to him, the RNBA of Manipur and Nagaland Baptist churches of Rongmei community played a significant role in the emergence of separate fellowship of the Rongmei Baptist in Bangalore.

ZCFD, though named as Christian fellowship, is primarily a Baptist fellowship. Similar is the case in all the Baptist dominated fellowships in metropolitan cities. The students and Christian communities of ZCFD despite English being the language used in church services still saw the separation of certain groups as LCF and Rongmei Christian Fellowship. Certainly, language was not an issue in ZCFD as English was known to all. The split in ZCFD may be appropriately attributed to the need of few trained theologians to undertake missionary work for livelihood and the growing tribalism within the educated youths. In Bengaluru, there was LCF before a common fellowship of the Zeliangrong. After the emergence of Zeliangrong Christian Fellowship some Rongmei in Bengaluru felt the need for separate Rongmei fellowship like the Liangmai fellowship. With an able guidance of RNBA elders in Manipur the Rongmei Baptists in Bengaluru formed a separate fellowship. As majority of Zeliangrong comprises Rongmei and they formed their own fellowship, the relevance of Zeliangrong Christian Fellowship in Bengaluru began to dwindle. A Rongmei Baptist leader in Bengaluru pointed out that such division and mushrooming of linguistic-based Baptist fellowships in cities was primarily due to a sense of responsibility towards the spiritual needs of the people and also due to a quest for sources of livelihood by new graduates flowing from theological institutions.

Ethnicity and Beliefs

Unlike the Meetei, who, after having converted and immersed into Hinduism, made a failed attempt to trace their origin to Arjun of Mahabharata (see Kabui, 1979; also see Zehol, 1998), the Zeliangrong retain their ethnic identity. Their ethnic identity is not meddled with their religious identity unlike the Meeteis. There is no knowledge of Chinese government inviting any of the tribes or communities in Northeast India tracing their origin to China to migrate to China. Dindai Gangmei traces the origin of Rongmei to Fujian Province of China (2008). Note that the Bnei of Mizoram or the Bnei Menashe traces their origin to one of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, Menashe. Genetic test is claimed to have established this claim and many from Manipur and Mizoram who claimed to be descendants of Menashe had migrated to Israel. It was reported that ‘the mitochondrial configuration of the DNA of some of the blood samples drawn from women match the unique “haplotype”—a genetic sequence code found in Jews of Uzbekistan. A specific cellular mutation that is sometimes found in Indian Jews was also noticed in some of the samples’ (Hmar, 2004).

Their ethnic identities represented as Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui are closely associated with their political identities. Each distinct ethnic identity of the four groups, as seen earlier, strongly endorses the need to have distinct ethnic Christian identity especially based on their dialects. A strong attachment to their ethnic identities within Christian identities leads to emergence of ethnic-based Christian identities of the four groups. Their ethnic identities which are immensely strengthened as distinct groups by their distinct ethnic Christian identities are also acknowledged within the political movement for sovereignty of the Nagas. This contributes towards strengthening the claimed legitimacy of their distinct ethnic identity as political entity much to the chagrin of those who endorse collective identity under the nomenclature, Zeliangrong. Their ethnic identities serve as bases for engendering elements of ethnic Christianity or ethnic-based Christian identity. Here ethnic Christianity means the phenomenon of each ethnic group differentiating themselves from the other ethnic groups to form a distinct ethnic-based Christian identity. And political Christianity means the phenomenon of each ethnic group identifying and representing themselves as a distinct political group in a political movement after going through ethnic Christianity. Political Christianity is more appropriate for Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui Christians as there is no distinct Kabui ethnic group, which is endorsed mostly by traditionalists, within the political movement of the Nagas.

Lausanne Covenant that was drafted by John Stott stated that, ‘…evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty’ (Bonk, 2007, p. 259). Also according to the International Missionary Council assembly held at Jerusalem in 1928, the comprehensive approach of a missionary work should view human beings as a whole and ensure their ‘physical, mental and social’ dimensions and link spiritual to all the other dimensions (International Missionary Council, 1928, VI, p. 287, cited in Bonk, 2007, p. 260). McGavran proposed the conservative Protestants to emphasise on church growth as the primary objective and keep all other activities of missionary as subsidiary (1955, cited in Bonk, 2007, p. 262). One might observe the manifestation of such objectives of the Protestant churches in the involvement of the Protestant churches in Naga political issues since independence. The Naga Christians, particularly the Naga Baptist Churches Council, denounced the first batch of Naga armed group that returned after receiving training from China in 1968 for associating with China, a Communist nation (Pamei, 2006). The contribution made by Baptist churches in the hills of Manipur during the political turmoil of 2001 when the Nagas from Manipur valley left their houses fearing communal attack by the Meeteis was priceless. The Nagas in Manipur valley feared that the Meeteis might vent their anger against the NSCN (I-M) who extended its ceasefire agreement with the Government of India in 2001 to cover Manipur by attacking the Nagas in the valley. Their fear was not unfounded as some Naga villages in the valley were pelted with stones at nights and villagers were forced through the village councils to join the Meetei to protest against the ceasefire agreement extension. The church played immense role in sheltering the internally displaced Nagas. The role of the church was also seen in attempting to resolve conflict of interests over land issues concerning two Naga tribes each settled in Manipur and Nagaland. The Angami of Nagaland and Mao of Manipur were in deadlock over their rights over Dzuko valley. Manipur Baptist Convention (MBC) and Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC), parent bodies of Baptist Churches in Manipur and Nagaland, respectively, reportedly asked the South Angami Peoples’ Organisation (SAPO) of Nagaland and Mao Council of Manipur ‘not to exacerbate the crisis in any manner so that violence and bloodshed may be prevented at all cost’ (Hueiyen Lanpao, 2015). The two bodies also formed a joint peace committee to help resolve the crisis.

The leaders of Baptist churches are mostly native people. However, the religious leaders of the Catholic in higher echelons of the Church hierarchy are mostly non-natives. This may partly explain the phenomenon of little or no involvement of the Catholic church in political issues concerning the local people. One of the few exceptions was the ‘appeal’ made by Archbishop of Imphal, Rev Dominic Lumon, originally from Chandel district of Manipur and belonging to Monsang tribe of Nagas, to Mao Council and SAPO to settle the conflict on the ownership of Dzuko valley by means of dialogues (The Sangai Express, 2015e). During the colonial days the European Catholic priests were generally engrossed more in spread of education and pastoral duties (Latourette, 1944, p. 78) and this perhaps distanced them from the peoples’ political issues. Another factor that set a trend for Catholic church not to be engaged in political issues of the local people could be the fact that the British were predominantly Protestants and the Catholic did not want to invite the ire of the colonial force. The leaders of the Baptist churches easily and emotionally identify with the political, economic and cultural issues of their people or their land. In fact, by virtue of shared language, culture and similar experiences of political oppression by the state and the non-state actors, the leaders of the Baptist churches identify with the issues of the people more readily than the non-native Catholic leaders.

While the Christians among the native people identify with the issues of their ethnic group, the identification may be said parochial as they identify primarily with the people of their religious group. Thus, N. C. Zeliang blamed the Church leaders for stalling an attempt to politically integrate ‘Zeliangrong people in one administrative unit’, which according to him was already supported by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (Zeliang, 2005, p. 6). He further claimed that ‘[t]he only reason for opposing this achievement was that Rani Ma, N. C. Zeliang and members of the [Zeliangrong People’s Convention] team were not Christian’ (ibid., p. 7). Professor Gangmumei Kamei, Professor Meijinlung Kamson and N. C. Zeliang who were crucial leaders of the movement were all not Christians.

Implications of Divergent Religious Groups

It was an English educated Zeliangrong Christian who helped the British to arrest Gaidinliu (Yonuo, 1982, p. 99) who was fighting against the British for the liberation of her people. Christians spread propaganda to malign Gaidinliu. The Christians accused Gaidinliu of drinking human blood and offering the same to her God. Thus, the political aspiration of the Zeliangrong was nipped by the overzealous Zeliangrong Christians. Their Christian identity never allowed them to identify with their fellow people on political grounds. Their religious identity overshadowed the collective Zeliangrong political right.

The sustained church-based identity politics continued to nurture the aspiration of every group to be known by their distinct linguistic names. According to Alung Khumba (2012), the Inpui submitted a memorandum in 1995 to the Zeliangrong Union to review their demand for inclusion of their name in the collective nomenclature ‘Zeliangrong’ during the Annual Assembly of the Zeliangrong Union at New Jalukie (Nagaland) in December 1995. As their demand was not materialised, the Inpui ‘completely dissociated’ themselves from the Zeliangrong Baptist Churches Council and during the GPRN Zeliangrong Region Conference held at Intuma village (Nagaland) during 6–8 May 1998, the Executive Secretary of the Kabui (Inpui) Naga Baptist Association, Manipur (ibid.), representing the Inpui tribe unequivocally stated:

50th year is the year of liberty according to religious thoughts and practices. Therefore, we make known to general public that from today we are no more a part of Zeliangrong; we shall maintain our identity separately. And let there be no interruption between each other in advancement.

Social Identity of Zeliangrong

Examining the pattern of shift in identification of the Zeliangrong groups with their respective linguistic group from identification with their collective identity, Zeliangrong, the concept of social identity appears relevant and apt. Social identity is defined as ‘that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to the membership’ (Tajfel, 1978, cited in Greene, 2004, p. 137). Thus, social identity process entails an individual and a given group in which the acknowledgement and acceptance of the group’s realities by an individual is the core aspect. It also follows that social identity cannot be conceptualised in the context of a group if the individual chooses to refuse to identify his or her membership with the group. However, the group may also influence the individual’s conception about his or her membership with a group and thus conceptualise his or her identity based on the group’s realities. Social identification is not based on any formal membership in a group, but it is a ‘self-perceived membership’ in a group (Greene, 2004, p. 137). The article extends the theory of social identity in stating that individual’s self-identification with a group is influenced by an existing conception of the group about an individual’s membership in a group.

In social identity we see maximisation of differences between one’s group or ‘in-group (the group to which one psychologically belongs)’ and other group or ‘the out-group (psychologically relevant opposition group)’ and perception of ‘greater differences’ than actual differences with ‘favouritism towards’ one’s group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, cited in Greene, 2004, p. 137). Favouritism is shown to the extent of ascribing ‘favourable qualities’ to one’s group and ‘exaggeration of the negative characteristics’ of the other group (Brewer & Brown, 1998, cited in Greene, 2004, p. 138). In favouritism of one’s group and derogation of other group, which need not occur simultaneously, a sense of superiority of one’s group is also realised (Greene, 2004, p. 138).

In Nigeria, the colonial socio-economic and political structures left behind by the colonial power forced the Nigerians ‘to compete along ethnic divides’ (Attah, 2013, p. 611). The Zeliangrong too had to address similar colonial legacy they inherited from the colonial power. They initially found a common platform in ancestry by tracing to common ancestor despite acknowledging their linguistic and cultural differences. The nomenclature ‘Zeliangrong’ which includes the first syllables of the names of three groups, Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei, reflects the continued acceptance of differences between them despite forming a collective identity based on a belief in common ancestor. Thus, ethnicity is sometimes illuminated in terms of variations in language, religion, colour and culture of the groups that form an ethnic group (Nagel, 1995, p. 443, cited in Attah, 2013, p. 608). However, their Christian identities based on linguistic differences overwhelmed their ancestry. Self-evident differences between the groups are emphasised and new narratives based on oral traditions and oral histories are used to prescribe primordial characteristics to the differences.

Social identity in which an individual acquires knowledge about self based on the knowledge about individual’s membership in a group begins when the conception of the society about individual’s membership in its group and the ‘value and emotional significance attached to the membership’ (Tajfel, 1978, cited in Greene, 2004, p. 137) is internalised by him or her as natural. Thus, an individual must know that the group accepts the membership of the individual in that group. If the group does not give acquiescence to a membership of the individual the individual’s conception of self will be bereft of the characteristics of the group.

Culture is an indispensable component of a society that influences one’s perception about one’s group and self. ‘Culture or Civilisation, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’ (Tylor, 1958, p. 1). Culture is acquired by individual from the society. The interactions between the individuals and groups in a society shape and reshape culture. This internalisation of culture and sense of membership in a group as natural also leads to their attempt to conceptualise existing differences and actualise certain perceived differences. Despite their common belief in common ancestor, the existing self-evident linguistic and cultural differences lead to the fission of Zeliangrong people into constituent groups. Their identification with their respective linguistic group as Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei and Inpui grows more relevant and stronger than their identification with their common ethnic group, Zeliangrong, with common ancestor.

Factors contributing towards fission of the collective Zeliangrong identity may be traced to aspiration for constitutional benefits. There is a miscalculated benefit among the relatively smaller Zeliangrong constituent groups who believe that their shares from the constitutional benefits would be more if they were distinctly recognised. The urge not to be a subsidiary of any tribe also contributes towards balkanisation of the Zeliangrong. Some believe that Zeme, Rongmei and Inpui are the offshoots of the Liangmai. This is so because many songs and prayers of the Zeme, Rongmei and Inpui contain Liangmai terms and Liangmai are believed to be the eldest of the constituent groups. It is also believed that the groups spoke Liangmai language while they were together at Makulongdi. However, these beliefs are beginning to be dismissed by those who prefer to see their own group as distinct and not resulting from any social processes. They prefer to view their group identity from a primordial perspective. Another factor leading to gradual diminishing of collective Zeliangrong identity is the varying dialects spoken by the four groups. Variation in the dialects is explained exclusively from different origins’ standpoint. Nevertheless, the proponents of division of Zeliangrong still face many social facts in the form of shared culture, shared beliefs, shared social institutions, narratives of common origin, common land and shared clans the alternatives of which are still a far cry.

Conclusion

Social identity is observed both in ancestry and ethnicity of Zeliangrong group and within its respective constituent groups. The presence of oral traditions and oral histories influences immensely in affecting the conception of self-identity of an individual in a group. Zeliangrong was a collective emancipatory identity that sought to improve their living conditions as a collective force. It was based on their belief in common ancestor and common place of settlement. Identification with their respective linguistic group organised based on their linguistic background is not a direct outcome of self-conception of one’s identity through identification with a group. But it is an effect of the group’s conception about the individual. The formidable and enduring social system influences individuals of a group to naturally identify his or her membership with an existing group to shape social identity of the individual.