From humiliation to Christ-like humility: A phenomenological-theological study on the Naga experiences of British colonialism,American Western Christianity,and Indian political statehood

The Naga people in Northeast India have experienced collective humiliation through interactions with three major forces: British colonial rule, American Western Christianity, and Indian political statehood. The experience of these external forces weaved a sense of solidarity and collective identity among the Nagas. However, such a collective consciousness comes with stereotypes of who Nagas are and structural oppressions (such as terming Nagas as tribals, minorities, enforcing on Nagaland the status of a special economic zone [SEZ] and so on). Thus, the collective Naga identity remains misconstrued, politically and socially.

Studies have addressed the issue of humiliation either by understanding the damages done to the victim's perception of self and dignity—individually and collectively—or by examining the behavior of the perpetrators. Eventually, the mechanisms of humiliation could trigger counter violence and cause vicious cycles (Lindner, 2006, 4). Some have addressed the issue by critiquing the perpetrators, others by addressing the rights of the victims, and asserting human rights and other forms of justice.

This phenomenological study looks into experiences of humiliation of a people as expressed by individuals in interviews and in written documents and argues that humiliation confronted with a positive attitude (Christ-like humility) can be a tool (forgiveness) that helps build a healthy community and identity.

Theories of humiliation

Humiliation has various components and it can manifest in multiple facets such as making people feel inferior (Lindner, 2003, 5), injuring of self-respect (Margalit, 1996, 9), and creating of unhealthy image about self and others. Evelin Lindner states that the word humiliation has three different elements: the perpetrator's act, the victim's feeling, and the social process (Lindner, 2006, xiv). She proposes a strategy of addressing humiliation that includes raising the underlings, egalization, and globalization. Lindner defines egalization as a mutual relationship that strives to live in equality (Lindner, 2006, 52) and where people in a community do not put down each down (Lindner, 2003, 6–8). Furthermore, she calls today's society the global knowledge society, where there are human rights and interdependence, and all human beings are in principle considered to be born free and equal in dignity and rights. This society views subjugation as illegitimate (Lindner, 2003, 15–18). The global knowledge society addresses liberation and women's rights who have distanced themselves from male supremacy (Lindner, 2006, 53–55).

Lindner, a German-Norwegian medical doctor and psychologist, noted two responses to humiliation. The first is what she calls a “Hitler”-like response. ¹ In this response, a person responds to humiliation by choosing the way of violence, by humiliating back, and by using violence as the means to humiliate others (2006, 142). The second response is a “Mandela”-like response, ² wherein individuals refuse to engage in the cycles of humiliation and to treat those who humiliate them with dignity (2006, 142–143). Lindner's theory focuses on the act of the perpetrator and how their acts can create a cycle of humiliation that can become destructive and difficult to stop. It is an interdisciplinary approach encompassing disciplines such as anthropology, history, social philosophy, social psychology, sociology, and political science.

While taking cognizance of Lindner's ground-breaking work on humiliation, I will employ theological perspectives in understanding her theory. This includes to use a victim-focused approach while Lindner's approach is perpetrator-focused. Dominique Moisi asserts that “humiliation cripples life, incapacitates our mind, and makes us feeble individually and collectively. The curve of humiliation soars, especially when one starts depending on the other for every little thing. It infringes our today and dampens our tomorrow and eventually our political, economic, social, cultural being dominated and dictated by others” (Moisi, 2010, 39). He further states that “the feelings of humiliation could haunt individuals from the past… the greater threat is the feelings of hopelessness in the wake of the past [and] the future is doubtful and it weakens the will to live for today” (2010, 39). Moisi's description of humiliation relates with the Naga context, as the shadow of the past lingers on and the Indo-Naga political issue has become stagnated. The hopes of the people are being tossed upside down, with the politics of the Government. The promise of a political settlement for the long protracted Indo-Naga impasse has become elusive because of the twists and turns in the process of negotiation. While Nagas are being rendered helpless economically, due to the dependency upon the government funds, they feel to have become social parasites. This kind of humiliation causes both physical and psychological damage.

Imagining Naga humiliation

The Naga humiliation came in the form of violating their dignity, identity, and religiosity. Though Naga humiliation is experienced by individuals it is more on the group level. The ideological and territorial subjugation over almost two centuries by the colonial administrators, the cultural and religious imposition of the American Baptist missionaries, and the non-recognition of the Naga political rights by the Government of India have several negative impacts on the people. The way this has impacted the Naga society and the self-identity of the Nagas can be seen in the emergence of different forms of social problems such as tribalism, idolatry, corruption, demonizing the other, factionalism, political instability, Christian nominalism, creating enemy images, greed for power and identity politics.

The politics of misrecognition

During the British rule of the region, the Naga people suffered humiliation through colonialism and a politics of misrecognition. The attitude of the colonial powers toward the Nagas was loathing and humiliating. Tezenlo Thong states, “when the West forced its ‘civilized’ and ‘superior’ culture on the Nagas, especially with regard to religion, law, and administration, the Nagas suddenly found themselves ignorant and powerless against the arbitrarily imposed dominant paradigm” (Thong, 2016, 52). Chasie notes that the British emissaries who represented the empire were told to consider all the Nagas as savage head-hunters (Chasie, 2017, 14–15). Akum Longchari asserts that terms such as savages were used as justification for ignoring the rise of the Naga collective consciousness (Longchari, 2016, 20). In what many considered to be an act of misrecognition of the political destiny of the Nagas, the British colonizers included their territory into the map of India. The peace-activist Niketu Iralu (hereafter, Niketu) states in an interview I had with him in 2018, “When the British were leaving India they gave the land patta (records of rights) to India, including the Nagas in that land patta.” The British kept the Nagas isolated and underdeveloped which effectively set them apart from the political movements taking place in British India through the set of regulations that were meant to protect them. The British colonial powers were aware that Nagas were not Indians and that they did not want to be part of India. Despite knowing that it would result in a deep crisis, the British left the political destiny of the Nagas in the hands of the Indians. Niketu continued, “We must tell the Indians that the map which the British charted was wrong because they included Nagas in that map.” Today, the core issue of the Indo-Naga political problem lies in the non-recognition of the Naga political rights through territorial integration by the Government of India. Not only did the British include the Nagas in the land patta that was given to the Indians, they also divided the Nagas into India and Burma, says the writer Kaka D. Iralu (Interview in 2019). Half of the Naga territory came under the Indian political jurisdiction and the other half under the Burmese political jurisdiction (Lotha, 2007, 55). This division was a deliberate misrecognition of Naga identity. The identity of the Nagas was breached because of this division and it continues to affect the existence of the Pan-Naga identity today. It resulted in identity politics, us and them, and other forms of social exclusion within Naga society. The impact of misrecognition is deeply embedded in the Naga identity and continues to trigger instant polarization and stereotyping among the Naga tribes.

The politics of non-acceptance

There are areas where the contribution of the American Baptist missionaries to Naga society needs to be appreciated. Their pioneering works in the field of modern education, medicine, and social life are still today remembered. Through these efforts Nagas have come a long way, and religious conversions to Christianity indeed resonated with the changes in the political and socio-cultural sentiments of Nagas. However, the newly preached religion (Christianity) and the traditional ancestral religion became and continue to be a contending religious issue of how one is going to fare as a devout Christian. Celebrating cultural festivals were seen as idolatry, ³ church hymns and constitutions were a replica of the format of westernized Christianity whereas traditional and contextual worship patterns are few in the church context. Additionally, the rise of individualism in Christian ministry ⁴ is taking toll on community oriented traditional churches. Nevertheless, appreciating the work of the American Baptist missionaries, Huzo Meru, Director for Operations in the North East Christian University (NECU) Nagaland and a church deacon, states that when the gospel of Christ was preached to the Nagas, people came to know the value of their common identity in Christ and at the same time the political identity to live as a nation (2019, Interview). Sanyü Visier Meyasetsü recollects the apprehensions he had about the moral teachings of the Christian faith before embracing the faith. ⁵ However, when he accepted Christianity, he realized that Christianity helped him overcome the negative attitudes and find forgiveness in his life (2020, Interview).

In contrast, Aziebu Shaiza recounts how the missionaries subtly came and imposed their religious views and Western practices upon the Nagas. He opines that the Nagas are still trying to recuperate from the damage (though many times done unintentionally and with benevolent motive) missionaries have inflicted on their traditional beliefs and customs (2019, Interview). ⁶ The missionaries did not hold back in calling the Nagas savage and bloody (though many of them later accepted Naga culture and practices which they felt were in tune with Christianity). Critiquing the strategies of the missionaries, Tezenlo Thong states, “the missionaries came along with their culture of puritan streak and passed it on to the Naga converts.” This made the Nagas abandon several core traditional practices like folktales, music, myths, dance, etc., trough which they affirmed their tribal identity (2016, 33).

The politics of non-recognition

From the very onset, Indian political leadership after Independence refused to acknowledge the Naga demand for self-determination. Nehru thought it would be best for the Nagas to be under the protection of India. Being a socialist he concluded from a humanitarian perspective that Nagas need economic, military, and political help from India. Thus, Nagas must remain under India. In 1952, when the Naga National Council (NNC) leaders met Jawaharlal Nehru to discuss the issue of Naga independence, Kaka D. Iralu tells how Nehru exploded with anger and said, “Whether heaven falls or India goes to pieces and blood runs red in the country, I don’t care. Whether I am here or for that matter, any other body comes in, I don’t care. Nagas will not be allowed to become independent” (2009, 64).

Morarji Desai, another Prime Minister of India, told Phizo that if he was going to talk about Naga independence, he would show no leniency. While the Naga leaders expressed their desire for freedom through peaceful and non-violent means, the Government of India failed to recognize it and termed it as a law and order problem. Meanwhile, the Government of India also started enacting draconian laws such as the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Regulation), 1958, to curb the uprising situation, which granted the army legal power and immunity to harm and kill even on slight suspicion (2009, 88).

After more than a hundred rounds of political talks and related peace talks a breakthrough was made when Atal Behari Vajpayee (former Prime Minister of India) expressed that the Naga political settlement would be made based on the uniqueness of their history and situation. ⁷ This effort from the Prime Minister of India in 2002 was a significant step toward the recognition of Naga political self-determination. However, the actual solution for the Indo-Naga political issue is still pending on the table.

The Indo-Naga political talks have gone through many twists and turns. With every new central government, the hope, patience, and aspiration of the Nagas seem to be tested. In the past, the attitude of several emissaries of the Government of India toward the Nagas has done more damage than building rapport and friendship. Having come across several hitches in the Indo-Naga relationship, non-recognition has caused scars and wounds that will not be healed until and unless they get what is demanded.

Humiliation and humility

Having looked into three forms of humiliation Nagas have and continue to experience, this section will look at humiliation and humility from a theological perspective. The goal is to develop on the basis of the Christian faith an attitude which will help to cope with humiliation by humility instead of by retaliating and continue the vicious circle of violence and bloodshed.

Even though humiliation and humility come from the same Latin root humilitas, they are two different concepts. Humiliation is a violation of one's dignity and humility is volition to go below one's dignity without feeling violated (Dickson, 2013, 34). Conceptually, imposed humiliation is wrong; whereas, a self-willed or accepted humility is acceptable. The notion of self-willed humility is exemplified in the Biblical teaching of Christ's self-emptying (kenosis) act mentioned in Philippians 2:1–11. Commenting on the kenosis of Christ Craig Keener argues that “Adam being human sought divinity, whereas Jesus, being deity, relinquished his rightful position of honor. Thus, the ‘form’ here is more of a role than [an] image” (1993, 1008). Rightly so, the one who existed in the form of God became man and took on the form (role) of a servant. Moreover, Homer and Kent explain that,

The word, “taking” does not imply an exchange, but rather, an addition. The “form of God” could not be given up, for God cannot cease to be God; Jesus did take on the very form of a lowly servant when He entered human life in His incarnation. This passage (Phil. 2:1–11) emphasizes Christ's condescension and humble station (1999).

Some argue that Christ divested Himself of something. Whether it is “divested himself,” “emptied himself,” “pour out,” “self-condescension,” “self-deprecation,” or “taking the form of human being,” all must be understood in the context of taking on an additional nature. It is not minimizing something from within but adding and adopting an additional nature—humanity. Hence, Christ became a God-man in the person of Jesus. His identity as God was not compromised. He took on an additional nature, that is, human, which does not make Him two persons but two natures dwelling in one person. The focus of Christ in becoming human was not Himself, not His image, but the welfare of human beings.

When Christ became human, the will not to embrace His pre-incarnate form itself was “emptying of self”. The will not to embrace the God-like form/role, but choosing to become a slave-like image, is a self-emptying act. However, this self-emptying is not a reduction in His attributes, person, or nature. Rather, it is an addition of what He already was and, therefore, is not an exclusion of something but the inclusion of humanness. Christ emptying Himself is neither emptying the form of God nor his role but the manner of his existence as equal to God. Consequently, “the act of becoming human” reveals the depth of Christ's humility. It also discloses the position from where he descended and reveals that in the act of becoming human, there was no selfish motive found in Christ. Christ knew that in becoming human, He would face death. However, the knowledge of His imminent death did not deter Him. Thus, Christ did everything for the sake of others. In becoming human (incarnation), Christ gained nothing, but all for the sake of humanity. In his death, Christ paid the ransom for the sins of the world. Both Christ's incarnation and death resulted in empowering, enriching, and ennobling our welfare and status. Christ's self-emptying was willing and voluntary. This attitude is expected among Christians because Jesus himself embraced, lived, and qualified this form of humility in his life. In a world where humility is despised and ignored, Christ made it desirable and virtuous (Srokosz, 2013, 103).

The NIV Thematic Reference Bible defines “humility” Phil. 2:3 as an attitude of lowliness and obedience, grounded in the recognition of one's status before God as his creature. Of the many examples of humility, Christ epitomizes true humility which is “the obedient submission of Jesus Christ to his Father, seen in his willingness to become a human being for humanity's sake, his freedom from self-interest, and his willingness to serve others” (NIV Thematic Reference Bibl^e). According to Norwin Richards, humility as a virtue is not about low self-esteem and being humble is a deliberate dim view of one's behavior and character. He asserts that humility is having an accurate sense of oneself and not thinking less of oneself. (1988, 245). Meric Srokosz, appraising the tradition of imitating Christ, which was epitomized by Paul, says we all must be imitators of Christ's humility. He quotes N.T Wright saying, “as far as Jesus’ moral life is concerned, he modeled an entirely new aspect of morality, namely, humility, a willingness to suffer without recrimination, and a determination to forgive those who were not asking for it” (Srokosz, 2013, 105). Firstly, Christ's humility serves as a context for embracing humiliation regardless of the intention and motive of the perpetrator. Secondly, the humanity of Christ exhibited in his incarnation is not a sign of weakness, but a power given to believers to embrace. Thirdly, non-retaliation and obedience amid persecution or even obedience to powers could redeem our identity in Christ.

Modern critiques of humility

In modernity, the concept of humility has been criticized by scholars and thinkers. According to Karl Marx, humility is a religious disposition that encourages weakness and social passivity. He sees humility as a tool used by the powerful to pacify the oppressed (Ruddy, 2001, 24). Marx argues that Christian humility promotes weakness and cowardice and emphasizes self-deprecation, humiliation, and subservience. In the in Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx claims that humility does not serve the interests and well-being of the proletariat, which requires courage, pride, and independence (Ruddy, 2001, 24).

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche saw humility as a vice. According to him, humility is “a tool used by the weak to assert their ‘will to power’” (Ruddy, 2001, 24). In his book The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche (1967, 135) cynically mocks Christian teaching—charity, evangelism, and virtues. Nietzsche mentioned that Christians do these things to combat depression called petty pleasure. Nietzsche also criticizes Christian obedience and commitment to God, calling it mechanical activity—a dull and fixated life, with no time for self, in need of permission for every petty thing, and lacking self-care (1967: 134). Humility is morality for slaves. The Christian congregation is about “the strong…naturally inclined to separate as the weak are to congregate” (136). David Hume views humility as neither useful nor agreeable. He thinks humility is superstitious under a false religion. He labels the celebrated virtues like “celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude” and others as vices and argues that these “monkish virtues” contribute nothing of fortune, status, pleasure, or value; instead, they dull the heart and the mind (Foulcher, 2011, 10). He proposes that humility cannot be an ideal ethic for society because it is rejected by men and it serves no purpose for honor and fortune. Like Nietzsche, Hume sees humility as a vice and can never be categorized as a virtue.

Christians and humility

In his Confessions, Augustine of Hippo talks about pride as the root cause of sin and evil in human life. His conviction about humility were based on the teachings of Christ and Paul. Concerning Philippians 2:1–11, he wrote, “You have hidden these things from the wise and revealed them to the babes; that they who labour and are heavy laden might come to you. And he refreshes them, because he is meek and lowly in heart” (2005, 104). Augustine insists that humility is the fundamental virtue of all other Christian virtues. He sees humility as a way for Christians to embrace, adopt, and live (Ruddy, 2001, 107). Explicating Augustine's salvific humility, Deborah Wallace Ruddy explains that pride has wounded us, but Christ's humility saved us. Christ's humility is humility that saves (2001, 107). Christ chose to become human by showing mankind an example of vulnerability over power and authority.

Kent Dunnington makes an insightful assessment of Augustine's humility. He explains that “Augustine had a low opinion of himself due to his belief in God's greatness, his own sinfulness and God's graciousness” (2016, 27). Augustine detested his lustful thoughts and desires that could not allow him to contemplate on things God desires, saying, “My secular activity, I held in disgust” (27). According to Dunnington, Augustine's humility is a disposition of will rather than the submission of self. But he also notes that Augustine could not have learned humility, which is the submission of will, had not it been for Christ (as exemplified in Philippians 2:7–8) because platonic humility did not command submission to God (29). Learning from Dunnington's description of Augustine's humility, it is important to note that humility is not just a disposition of will in prayer, but the submission of self to God.

For Jeanine Grenberg, humility is seen and accepted by common people as a virtue of saints which they choose not to embrace. They insist upon different principles: “entering the fray, engaging in the competition, revealing, getting angry, refusing to stand for the injustices that surround one, perhaps even presenting oneself as better and stronger” (2005, 5). She argues that “humility is indeed a central human virtue, and we needn’t turn it into something it's not in order to rescue it from the dustbin of the virtues” (6). While some writers have compared humility with superiority, greatness, and other categories, Grenberg perceives humility as a virtue, recognizing and appreciating the limit of human beings (anthropology). She derives her theory of humility from Kant's Moral Theory that human nature is limited. Moreover, her work correlates with Dunnington's understanding of Augustine's humility which is the submission of will to God. Humility is a submission to God, a recognition of a higher and mightier authority above us. Indeed, humility does not force others, but it is a deliberate self-choice.

Regardless of criticisms and modern opposition to Augustine's work on humility, it is important to note that Christ-like humility is a submission of self, a saving humility, an exemplary humility worthy to embrace and recognized as the virtue of Christian virtues. Humility has also been considered as an empowering force. To help us understand this concept, we will quickly address the power of humility in two ways: Firstly, humility has the power to influence. John Dickson's speaks of three key elements in humility: first, humility assumes dignity in self; second, humility must be voluntary and willing; and third, humility is redirecting our powers for the good of others. He asserts that abandoned virtue (humility), which the world considers shameful and disgraceful, can become the most powerful tool to influence culture (2013, 24). Secondly, humility is an empowering force. Stephen Pardue examined Augustine's work on humility, emphasizing Christology and language as the primary focus of his work. Stressing on Augustine's humility, he wrote, “Augustine suggests that while humility's primary function is to restrain and limit, it also has a secondary, empowering function. Thus, Christ's humility is not only what moves him to become incarnate and crucified (restraining), but also what allows him to live a life perfectly animated by the Spirit (empowering)” (2012, 277). It is evident that humility is not only limited to incarnation, but it also empowers (divine), enabling a believer to live a perfect life. Augustine thinks that Christ's humility frees believers from the clutches of pride and gives them new life (2012, 279). Besides that, humility also helps mankind to have hope and faith and find a pure heart. For this reason, the differentiation of divine and human humility is possible. Pardue's work enabled us to understand that Christ's humility involves both self-limitation and empowerment. Thus, we must consider humility as a virtue and central teaching of Christianity.

Implications

Globally, we are witnessing the horrible long-term effects of Spanish colonialism in several Latin American nations like Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. The people in these countries are still hurting. In Asia, the unresolved conflicts between India and Pakistan and between Hindus and Muslims in the region are marks of humiliation and denigration of rights and human abuses in the past. The recent violent eruptions—riots and vandalism, cry for justice, and equality in the United States of America—are signs of hurts that are buried. But today, people are more courageous, protesting and demanding the rights they never had before. Sadly, people are using racism to denigrate others, justifying actions that destroy public properties and historical monuments. These actions reveal years of accumulated hatred, which is caused by humiliation, domination, and suppression. In Australia, Western Europe, North America, and New Zealand, some white people have apologized for conspiring and plotting policies to drive out natives from their land. It takes humility to make apologies and openly admit one's mistakes. Today, bills are demanded through various commissions for slavery reparations in America. Several countries are making reparations by relocating the natives and compensating them. We must understand that reparations do not only mean monetary requital but an admission of the wrong done against another and a commitment to repair damages if possible. Some individuals responded in humility to destroy evil and forgo vengeance in their lives and the community.

Christ-like humility is the antidote for humiliation. Humility is a benevolent attitude that can conquer violent forces in human life. It starts with the self but ends up influencing and impacting others in a greater way. It is a bottom-up transformation, from the individual to the community, choosing vulnerability over power and authority. Humility is a virtue that can transform not by opposing but by transforming. This concept of bottom-up transformation relates to Mahatma Gandhi's principle of non-violence, which is also derived from the principles of the Bible. It is like Mandela's response to humiliation, wherein he decided to use his understanding of humiliation to embrace peace. He decided to sit with both the humiliators and the humiliated in South Africa.

The experience of the Naga people with the three dominant forces they came across was humiliating. This study proposes to accept the past mishaps with humility, not resorting to self-defeat and self-abnegation, but to dignity, to face the humiliators by talking with the other about political rights and preferences. Christ's humility was portrayed in His obedience toward death even though he was the son of God, the most high. Christ's humility was taking a stand to forego his status as equal with God, it was more of redirecting his status and power to elevate us.