Mizo chieftainship, also known as Lushai chieftainship, is a political structure used for the Mizo people, which historically operated as a gerontocracy. The chieftain system persisted among the various clans and tribes from the precolonial era through to the British colonial period and Indian independence briefly. Upon independence, Mizo intellectuals, under the choice of political direction, chose to maintain a union with India to offset the autocratic nature of the chiefs from becoming too dominant once again. The formation of the Mizo Union advocated for abolishing chieftainship in Mizoram. The chieftainships of Mizoram were eventually disbanded with the Assam-Lushai District ("Acquisition of Chief's Rights") Act in 1954.
In his administration the chief would cooperate with various individuals to achieve his duties.
Among the most important of these individuals were the chief's elders, also known as Lal upate. The chief could choose who to appoint to this position and how many individuals could fit this capacity. The elders did not possess the ability to question decisions or criticise the chief and typically held meetings at the Chief's house while drinking zu (rice beer). [1][2][3][4][5]
The brothers of the chief would also enjoy prestige by association if they did not rule any village. They were exempted from paying the rice paddy tax known as fathang. They would be given the first choice on choosing plots for jhumming and cultivation.[6]
Influential culativators known as ramhuals would also get the right to choose cultivation plots before other people. These individuals were appointed by the chief on account of their agricultural output in order to collect larger paddy tributes.[6][7]Ramhuals will select the slope suitable for jhumming in the year. This process allows the chief to make the first choice over his jhum plot. Ramhuals were second in the privilege to choose their jhum plots, often reserving the best and paying a larger paddy tax.[8] Zalen were families exempted from paying the paddy-tribute due to their specific obligation to help the chief if the food supply declined.[9][10]
The village blacksmith was known as thirdeng. This craft and skillset would be passed down hereditarily. One of the village blacksmiths would be chosen by the chief to as a personal blacksmith. The chief's blacksmith would take part in the administration with the chief and elders. Their responsibilities would include repairing tools for agriculture and other daily work.[6] Due to this, they could also claim Thirdengsa, which is a small share of any wild animal killed by the village hunting party.[8][11]The thirdeng would get renumeration by being given a basket of paddy from each household in the village.[12] The thirdeng would also have a separate workshop known as a pum. A unique social function of the pum outside of blacksmithing was the storing of heads of enemies brought from war.[13]
The puithiam was the priest of the village and had authority over rituals and spiritual matters.[8] A sadawt was a private priest for the chief and was granted the ability to be shared by multiple chiefs of the same clan.[10][14] The sadawts were in charge of festivals and ceremonies with knowledge of the practice of witchcraft.[6] The sadawt typically has an assistant known as a Tlahpawi. A Tlahpawi was typically a friend of the chief. Their most common task would be scraping the skin of pigs with bamboo to file off the hair.[14] A bawlpu was assigned to cure sicknesses and procure medicine. The bawlpu would typically prescribe animal sacrifice, which would be brought with debt or offered if already owned.[15] The incantations used by Bawlpu were closely guarded and were only imparted to the next prospective bawlpu either due to their inability to carry out their tasks or being close to death.[6]
The val upa played an important role in traditional Mizo society. They were not appointed by the chief but elected by people based on reputation and merit towards community contribution. Their powers included managing all matters with children and young men. They operated as spokesmen to the chief on matters pertaining to bachelors in the zawlbuk. They also regulated and assented to decisions made by young men and opinionated common policy.[6]
The Tlangau was a village crier. Their responsibility was to proclaim the chief's orders and assign what tasks or work was to be done the next day. The crier was repaid with a basket of rice from each family.[16][17]The crier would often essentially function as a servant of the chief with little status in the chiefdom. While assault was punished in Mizo chiefdoms, hitting the crier for bearing bad news or tedious work was an exception with no fines.[18][6]
The bawis were slaves in Mizo society. There were typically four categories of slaves: Inpui Chhung Bawi, Inhrang Bawi, Chemsen Bawi and Tukluh Bawi. Inpui Chhung Bawi means a slave within a big house. This term was applied to individuals in poverty, sickness or distress who sought protection under the chief. An Inpui Chhung Bawi was expected to work within their physical capacity but would gain privileges under the chief regarding food, rice-beer and meat taxes.[19] After being married for three years, a bawi would be considered an Inhrang Bawi, which means a separate house slave. A Chemsen Bawi, which means a red knife slave, was anyone who had killed someone in a village and had sought sanctuary under the chief.[20][19] A Chemsen Bawi was not obligated to work under the chief but the chief would assume paternal responsibility for the murderer's children as punishment for the criminal. Tukluh Bawi were slaves captured from war with neighbouring tribes through raids and battles. These slaves were relatively free and were allowed to live in seperate houses. Mizo customs provided that these Tukluh Bawi would purchase their freedom by paying the chief a Mithun or an equivalent.[21][22]
The khawchhiar is the village writer. This occupation emerged under the British administration and the influence of literacy with Christian missionaries' efforts. The khawchhiar is appointed by the superintendent and represent the British administration. Their responsibilities typically consisted to statistic registers, listing of village houses, rostering of coolie labour and supervising list of guns in the village. All khawchhiar were exempt from coolie labour and house tax.[8]
Mizo villages were typically built on hills for fortification purposes from other warring tribes. To protect from high winds, many structures would be built on a slope on the hill as protection. Houses would not be built in a valley or the base of a hill, but raised three-four feet off the ground as protection from wild animals and draining of water. A house would be built of materials such as timber for walls, bamboo matting for floor and thatched grass for roofing.
A standard house would have decks with hollow basins designed for rice husking at the front, which would be worked with long wooden pestles. At the back of the house was a small enclosed deck serving as a storeroom. Interiors were fitted with a hearth fitted with mud or flat stones. Above this hearth was a suspended larger wooden square of grains, herbs, jerky and cured bacon. Next to the hearth was the main bed known as a Khumpui where the parents of the household sleep. This was respected and only the parents could sit or lie on it. Young unmarried men would typically sleep in the zawlbuk, a bachelor's barrack. A final section was also cleared to store water with bamboo pipes and pots, where individuals could take a bath behind a bamboo wall in a corner of the house. Windows were not built unless an individual had performed the khuangchawi ceremony, a public feast given by chiefs to well-to-do Mizos, or it was believed to bring bad fortune.[23]
The chief's house is generally situated in the heart of the village. A large space in front of the house was the village square known as Lal mual. The chief's house was built to accommodate various resources and activities, often with a community effort. The chief's house would consist of a front verandah with a wooden mortar for husking rice known as a sumhmun. Several rooms known as vanlung were established as slave quarters for families captured during raids. Through the vanlung you would enter the spacious area known as dawvan. The dawvan held a fireplace and was known to be the meeting room for discussion, dispute settlement and administrative work.[6]
A dormitory for bachelors known as a zawlbuk would be provided to the young men of the village. The zawlbuk would have young men concentrated in a single building for emergencies and quick decisions. Responsibilities of the men in zawlbuks could include organising hunting parties, warfare and raiding missions, or cohesive policies decided by the chief. The boys would be divided into two groups based on age. The young men were known as tlangvals while the boys were known as Thingfawm Naupang. The boys typically did the firewood duties alongside washing clothes, doing errands and carrying materials for grave preparations.[24]
Before the arrival of British legal doctrine and laws handling offences under the superintendent, the Mizo people operated under a separate, unfixed legal system. The chiefs would have customary practices and rules.
In the case of murder, the family of the victim has the liberty to take revenge and kill the murderer. This led to a practice in which a murderer would run to the Chief's house for protection. By clinging to the foundation post of the Chief's house, the perpetrator achieves 'Lal sutpui pawm which binds a chief to protect the murderer. This protection would ward away revenge-seekers due to fears of confronting the chief. If the perpetrator seeks out the chief, they become a lifetime slave to the chief.[6][25][26]
A special procedure for the chief was available known as kut silna which means the washing of hands. This would allow a chief to take revenge on any individual who captured or detained them during war or a raid. This was a customary practice approved by all the chiefs and no higher authority held them questionable by it.[25]
Due to lack of locks and other features of security, traditional homes were unguarded and a wooden pole was placed at the door to show the home was empty. Punishment for theft led to punishments known as sial and salam. Sial was a fine of the biggest domestic animal known as Mithun, while a salam was a swine. Both of these would go to the chief and other elders for a feast.[25]
Historically, Mizo chiefdoms were based on subsistence, with very few economic activities outside of this range. However, historically the tribes and chiefdoms had been linked to ancient trade routes connecting Yunnan with the Bay of Bengal, which passed close to the mountain ranges of Mizoram.[27][28]
Regular payment by villagers would typically be made with a share of their harvest known as a fathang or padddy tribute. Animals procured through hunting were bound to a due known as sachhiah, which was the animal's left foreleg. If the animal was already dead upon collection, it was exempt from sachhiah. Failure to pay the sachhiah would lead to a fine.[6] Procurement of salt springs would have an entitlement known as chikhurchhiah if it fell within his territory. Khuaichhiah is the collection of portions of honey collected by villagers of the chief's land and territory. If the honey was collected by one person the chief would claim half, for any other group, the honey was divided with the chief in count.[6][10][26][29]
Land or ram was controlled by the chief. It operated both as communal ownership and private peasant ownership. It was unlike other forms of land ownership in that there was no right to ownership or right to transfer. The chief would claim his own land known as Keimahi ram and entitle himself to economic privileges. These privileges would also be distributed to blacksmiths, headsmen and priests as a feudal resembling system.[26]
The chiefdoms in the central Chin Hills had a two-category land classification system. Namely Bul ram (private land) and Kland ram (community land). Bul ram gave the individual the right to cultivate, forage, hunt, and customary law of a right to inheritance.[29]
Mizo chiefdoms and villages engaged in the barter system. Larger transactions required a medium of exchange known as 'mithun (tame bison). Mithun would function as a measure of wealth for the chiefs. In the legal system of Mizo chiefdoms, mithun would also function as the currency of compensation or fines for offences.[29]
Raiding formed an important part of the economy regarding trade and financing. Raids were formed with a coalition of chiefs against a more prosperous chief. Guns were highly valued in raids and held as trophies by chiefs. Raids, in general, were associated with a chief's funeral custom or the marriage of his daughters. A successful raid would oversee the looting of valuables, men and women. Individuals taken during raids would become slaves of the chief and traded for profits.[29]
Men would be valued upon their age and physical qualities, usually amounting to three mithuns. Female slaves were valued depending on age, beauty and physical fitness, usually amounting to five mithuns. Good-looking female slaves would typically become concubines to chiefs. Chiefs were also responsible for the marriage of their slaves, which increased demand for female slaves. Tribal women would not only meet this demand but also Bengali women working on tea estates.[29]
In traditional Mizo custom, young men would leave around 6-7pm to the house of the girl they were courting to sit down and talk. Commitment would entail the young man suggesting to help each other more in farm work of jhumming to prepare for marriage. Cooperating with farm work would allow the girl to accept or reject her suitor based on their conduct and work ethic. To guard against false defamation, a boy known as a puarak observes the couple's courting as a definitive witness for sexual relations. On the puarak's testimony, if sexual relations were declared, then the girl can't claim compensation for defamation if it has been publicized.[30] The nature of courting in general did not hold penalties for sexual relations unless the girl got pregnant. In the case of pregnancy during courtship the man responsible pays a sawn man.While men sneak to meet their courtships at the girl's house, they will have to avoid being caught by their parents, or else they will be forced to pay khumpuikaiman or marry the woman.[31]
Once successful and committed, a palai would be sent to work out marriage terms. A palai is an envoy typically selected from the boy's family for the purpose of marriage discussion. The discussion would entail the bride price and the date of marriage. Unlike a dowry system; a bride price would simply be paid to sell the girl into the boy's family. Traditionally a bride price would be placed at two mithuns, while a chief's daughter would demand or fetch as high as ten mithuns. Physical intimacy was permitted upon marriage agreement in a tradition known as zawl-puan-phah which means preparing the lover's bed. If the marriage does not take place after the consummation of the relationship, then the boy is fined four mithuns. Typical marriage age did not have much age difference with men at 22 and women at 19.[32]
Marriage typically entailed a feast where the bride's father would slaughter a mithun, and half were given to the groom's family. The bride would restribute a portion of the bride price, and a special sum known as pusum was given to the bride's favourite uncle. The uncle receiving the pusum was placed under the responsibility of caring for the family of the newly married couple. All others who received a portion would give a hen in return which would contribute to the settling of the couple. After the feast the bride would return to her house and is returned to her husband's house in an act known as Lawi That (permanent entry). Divorce for marriage was equally available for men and women and provided on the grounds of physical cruelty and unfaithfulness. In certain circumstances portion of the bride price would be refunded or given up.[33]
There are five types of marriage in Mizo society. Lungvar is marriage through negotiation and is the most common type. After paying the bride price the bride goes to the groom's house which is called lawi. Fan is when a man goes and lives in a girl's house as her husband. This practice is considered disgraceful for the man. Luhkung is the practice of a girl living in the man's house as a wife before marriage and this is also disgraceful. Sazumeidawh is a marriage without bride price. This agreement is made with both parties consent and allows the man to leave and divorce her at any time without penalties. These marriages are rare but common for daughters of widows and this custom does not require a palai.[34]
Traditionally, a chief would have a wife and concubines. These concubines are known as hmei and their children hmeifa are considered illegitimate for inheritance. The oldest sons would typically be granted a village as a headsman and answer to the decision of their chief father. The youngest son would stay with the chief and inherit the chiefdom as a result. With the arrival of British administrations, the superintendent approved who would inherit chieftainship and typically awarded it to the eldest sons.The chief also had power to set up new villages under his administration and influence but this power was restrained with British oversight of the Lushai Hills.[35]
Constant warfare with neighbouring tribes, villages and clans saw the need for a stable leader. The idea of a chief was unpopular due to the lack of material rewards as a leader and the risk of death with leading war parties.[36]
One account discusses the origins of chieftainship among the Mizos through the Lusei clan. The earliest records of chieftainship among the Mizo tribes are dated to Zahmuaka and his six sons in the 16th century. The six sons of Zahmuaka are known as Zadenga, Thangluaha, Thangura, Paliana, Rivunga and Rokhuma. In the modern day, a significant portion of the population holds these surnames as descendants. Zahkuama and his sons were forced to accept chieftainship by the Luseis, who lacked anyone willing to take on the role.[36][25] By the 18th century, chieftainship was established into a consistent form which would last till the British annexation of their territories. Originally chieftainship was fought for, but the institution became hereditary[37] through the youngest son, who would remain with the chief while the elder sons would gain their own villages.
Initially, the role of the chief had no material reward in terms of tribute to the village chief. Eventually, people within villages began to contribute a portion of the annual harvest for the chief, known as a paddy tax. This system remained among Mizo chiefdoms until its abolishment in 1954.[36]
Zahmuaka's son, Thangura, became the most powerful chief among the six sons and was the last to migrate into present day Mizoram. Population increases and increase of chiefs, many smaller and weaker chiefs originally began to migrate west. The descendants of Zadenga were the first to migrate and managed to reach as far as the Chittagong Hill Tracts.[38] Migration was followed starting with Palian and continuing with Rokhum, Rivung, Chenkual and Thangluah descendants. Thangur's grandson Sailova was a famous chief whose name became eponymous to the Sailo clans. Sailo clans also oversaw cooperation with the Ralte, Fanai and Lushai clans.[39]
Hmar groups established in Eastern Mizoram were pushed Northwards by the Sailo chiefs who migrated away from Chin aggression. Other established clans, such as the Pangs, Dawlawng, and Mirawngs, were scattered. The legacy of Hmar settlements is seen in eastern Mizoram, where villages are named after groups such as the Biate, Zote, Dawngawn, and Thiak.[39] The Lushai clans managed to assimilate smaller clans such as the Chawte, Chongthu, Hnamte, Khiangte and Ngente while other clans like the Fanai, Ralte, Paite and Rangte maintained individualities.[40] Other groups such as the Thadou were forced to migrate north to Cachar.[41]
Lalulla was purported by deputy commissioner Sir John Edgar to be the first Sailo chief to live in Mizoram despite the Sailos entering Mizoram half a century before.[42] Yet, Lalulla was the first Lushei chief to be known to foreign administrations. He led a migration from Myanmar into the western hills.[43] Lalulla's descendants moved westwards and became neighbours to the Zadeng chiefs who considered themselves strong enough to wage war. However, the Zadengs faced defeat and were forced to accept seek alliances with southern chiefs. Lalulla's descendants consolidated their control over northern Mizoram eventually with the absorption of petty chiefs. Further developments saw a North-South war between Sailo chiefs, which ended in uniting against Pawi and Sukte aggression.[44] Due to this the Pawis failed to maintain a permanent settlement in Sailo territory.
The Sailo chiefs lost unity once more as Suakpuilala, the head of the western Sailo chiefs, and Lalsavunga, the head of the Eastern Sailo chiefs, grew tensions. This was due to the lack of help to the eastern chiefs in migrating east against the Chin. The western chiefs preferred to strengthen and defend their own dominion and expand west and north instead. War emerged between the east and west chiefs after a dispute on a marriage candidate of a fallen chieftain's daughter. The Lushai expedition eventually cooled the internal tensions of the Sailo chiefs.[45]
Amidst the internal conflicts, the chiefs also engaged in raiding, headhunting and kidnapping of British subjects working in tea plantations. The Lushai chiefs attacked and raided Sylhet in 1844, Hill Tipperah in 1847, and Sylhet and Cachar in 1849, continuing sporadically to 1862 and 1868.[46] The British sent their first expeditionary force in December 1844 against these raids. A chief named Lalsuktla had raided Kochabari, a Manipuri settlement in Sylhet, to collect heads to commemorate the passing of the previous chief, Lalrinha. Twenty people were killed, and six were captured. Lalsuktla was defeated and apprehended, but this didn't stop further raids. Another expedition was prepared in 1850 to strike against Chief Mulla who had raised a Kuki village in Silchar tolling twenty-nine deaths and forty-two captives. Mulla's village was burnt down but was forced to retreat against a bigger force of 5000-7000 being mobilized.[47]
The British employed a Policy of Conciliation for Northeastern chiefs between 1850-1870. This oversaw chiefs releasing captives and participating in exchange for gifts. Some chiefs allied with the British due to these advancements.[48] In 1850, Chief Suikpilal cooperated with the British by sending an emissary to Cachar about the fear of Pawi attacks in the South. The British assured non-interference if British borders were respected in return. During this period, some Lushai labourers left the hills and worked in tea gardens and timber industries. The British authorities such at the Liuetenant Governor of Bengal decided on a policy of leaving chiefs undisturbed in the administration of their territory. Relations soured in 1860, after Chief Rothangpuia raised a village in Tipperah.[47] The tensions lead to chiefs withholding their men and labourers from working on British tea estates. Suikpilal also participated in a raid in 1862. The deputy commissioner of Cachar negotiated terms for tribute to the British in return for payment. Proposals for a punitive expedition were rejected because of the failure of attempts before and the expenses required. A policy of obtaining political control was preferable.[49]
The British tried another agreement between chiefs to agree on the border of Cachar and their territories. However, the kidnapping of Mary Winchester by Chief Bengkhuaia led to the British intervening in the Lushai Expedition.[50] The incident was followed by other chiefs, such as Lalbura attacking the Monierkhal outpost and Thanranga raiding Nugdigram.[51] The British replaced their Policy of Conciliation with the Forward Policy. Some Chiefs began to cooperate with the British and participated in their markets.[48] Lalbura surrendered in his village when expeditionary forces reached Champhai. He was forced to grant the British their peace demands. The demands included granting free access to his village, providing three hostages to the force, seizure of arms and heavy fines. The fines consisted of elephant tusks, a necklace, a war gong and several animals. The force then recovered Mary Winchester and subdued numerous chiefs.[52] Peace was established with the chiefs until 1888 when large-scale raiding resumed.[53]
Within the peaceful years between the Mizo and the British, bazaars were established on the borders to encourage trade. The Lushai chiefs would barter rubber, ivory, and forest produce in return for salt, iron utensils, and tobacco.[54] Internally, the Sailo chiefs engaged in the east-west war and encountered an anti-Sailo rebellion aimed at dethroning the chiefs, which was crushed.[53] The mautam famine also occurred in the 1880s; due to this, traders were encouraged to provide aid in rice under police protection.[48]
By 1888, Sailo chiefs and a Pawi chief began to resume raiding British plantations and killing British subjects. Two expeditions were held in close succession in 1889. The first 1889 expedition oversaw exacting punishment to chiefs responsible for raiding in the south. A fort was established at Lunglei, and the force burnt down the offender, Housata's village.[54] The second expedition, known as the Chin-Lushai Expedition of 1889–90, did not meet resistance from Mizo chiefs and saw the establishment of Fort Aijal. Captain Browne of the North Lushai Hills was responsible for disarming the tribes of guns but was ambushed fatally. The British eventually burned down several villages of the western chiefs who tried to attack Aijal. [55] The eastern Sailo chiefs did not resist the British.[40]
The chiefs continued to resist after establishing the North and South Lushai Hills. This was exacerbated by the policies of a house tax and coolie labour quotas. By 1895 the situation became stable in the Lushai Hills and chiefs no longer resisted the British militarily.[56]
Ropuiliani was a Mizo chieftainess. She was the wife of a prestigious chief, Vandula in the South Lushai Hills.[57] When her eldest son Dotawna died with only minor sons, Ropuiliani took over as regent and chieftainess. She continued her husband's policies of non-cooperation and resistance to British power. Negotiations were rejected, and taxes, labour levies, and rice demands were all withheld from the British. The settlement of the British at Lunglei led to Ropuiliani instigating her allies Zakapa and Dokapa to confront the British, attempting to disarm the chiefs. This is what led to the killing of H.R Browne.[58] Ropuiliani and her son Lalthuama did not attend the Chief's Durbar held in 1890. She refused to attend all three durbars. The British efforts to let Ropuiliani's brothers Seipuia and Lalluava convince her also failed. The British even sent an interpreter known as a Rashi, which frustrated her to the point a warrior named Hnawncheuva executed the interpreter.[59]
The British decided to raid Ropuiliani's village upon hearing of the execution. The raid was organized under Captain John Shakespeare and R.H.S Hutchinson and Pugh. It was discovered that Ropuiliani, Lalthuama and a northern chief, Doakoma, planned an uprising against the British.[60]An ultimatum was given to pay a fine of several guns, pigs, fowls and rice. After some resistance, the British captured Ropuiliani and her son Lalthuama, which left the settlement leaderless. Ropuiliani was carried in a palanquin claiming she was unable to walk with her captors. In jail she was offered the opportunity for peace and freedom if she submitted to British rule which was rejected once again. Ropuiliani and her son were eventually moved to a prison in Chittagong Hill tracts out of fear of her influence.[61]
Ropuiliani's old age and health was reason of concern to free her from jail. Before she could be released, she passed away in confinement on 6 January 1895. Her death ultimately decentralized coordinate efforts to resist British takeover of the Lushai Hills. Guns amounting up to 100 in Ropuiliani's village and 500 in allies settlements were seized subsequently.[62]
The first political officer of the North Lushai Hills, H.R Browne, was killed by resisting chiefs in 1890. The succeeding officer McCabe took action to punish the chiefs by burning down villages in the eastern hills and destroying crops. Rebellious chiefs such as Kalkhama, Lianphinga and Thanghula were deported. Another uprising in the South Lushai Hills was also crushed in 1891. Chiefs that resisted militarily to the new policies of house tax and coolie labour quotas had the villages burnt down subsequently. By 1895, Shakespeare of the South Lushai Hills decided that gentle civilian rule can be established rather than constant military responses. Outposts and forts were decomssioned for financial and budget reasons and the British let the chiefs manage internal administration of the villages.[63]
During the British colonial era of Mizoram, the British pursued a gradual policy of weakening the power of the chiefs. The British allowed the chiefs to continue their rule in accordance with aligning to British interests and authorities such as the superintendent and administrators. A number of rights and privileges exercised by the chiefs were permitted to remain unaltered. This paled in comparison to the erosion of the prestige of chieftains and their traditional roles. In 1901 the British introduced the circle system administered by chiefs. The circle system would see regulations on the practice of jhumming by restricting it to the circle administered by the particular chief. British interest in cash crops such as coffee, cotton, potatoes and oranges was also introduced under private ownership policies, further changing the traditional doctrines of land distribution under chieftainships.[64][65]
The changes in chieftainship under British intervention can be seen as standardizing indirect rule of the Lushai tribes by limiting the power of the chiefs but granting autonomy in standard administration and chieftain rights. The land was under the government but effectively treated as a hereditary possession of chiefs who could exercise reasonable rights on it. The British also diluted the power of traditional chiefs by proclaiming and granting chieftainship on individuals who would not ordinarily be granted such a right under the traditional system. The Britsh also extinguished certain rights of chiefs such as:[66]
Customary Mizo law continued to be exercised by chiefs but serious crimes such as murder, rape and sodomy were to be put under British jurisdiction in courts at Aizawl and Lunglei. Novel responsibilities for chiefs included maintaining routes between villages, reporting epidemics, heinous crimes, serious accidents, and the presence of foreigners.[67]
During this era a new privileged class began to emerge with British modernisation and Christianity. This privileged class would challenge the power of chieftainship in the Lushai Hills. The increase of employment in government jobs and rise of salaried employment allowed for the cultivation of material wealth which would afford social mobility. This increased opportunities for education beyond the free primary course which would require extensive agricultural cultivation to afford for traditional communities. This privileged class was described as an intelligentsia that did not belong to indigenous Lushai society. It dominated in fields of medicine as doctors, agriculture as experts and nurses which was increasingly pushed back upon and unappreciated.[68]
The British also employed a policy known as non-interference. Non-interference saw that the British would rule and administrate the lands of the Lushai Hills through the Chief's and their existing institutions. The British tended to also confer chieftainship to anyone they felt that would be helpful as a collaborator, hence increasing the number of chiefs drastically through the years of administration. The British policy of sanctioning Chiefs to carry out administrative duties led to a pattern of autocratic tendencies in tribal leadership. The British also enabled the system of Bawis and headhunting, as these two factors determined the power of a chief and did not wish to curb these privileges. Tribal groups requested for a new administration and policy through democratic representation in a memorandum submitted to the Governor of Assam in December 1933. However, the memorandum was rejected by the governor on suspicions of conspiracy and objection to increasing representation for scheduled tribes.[69]
In 1935, the Young Mizo Association (YMA) formed and voiced their issues during the latter era of the British colonial period. Their concerns particularly focussed on the lack of democratic institutions in Mizoram and the privileged positions of chiefs and their councils. R. Vanlawma, a member of the YMA, founded the Mizo Commoner's Union to oppose and abolish chiefly rule. It's leadership and political direction was to emerge in union with India as this would entail the disbandment of the institution of chieftainship. The party split into left-wing and right-wing factions. The right wing was dominated by chiefs who rejected the union with India. Some members of the Mizo Union right wing supported a union with Burma to form a separate province in Burma. This led to the establishment of the United Mizo Freedom Organization. However with little time to campaign and having a reputation as privileged elite chiefs, support for the party was small and ineffective to secure any political goals.[69]
After Indian independence, the Indian constitutions permitted autonomy at both regional and local levels for chieftainships to manage their natural resources. The pre-independence superintendent of the Lushai Hills, L.L Peters, remained in position after the declaration of Indian independence. The policy of chiefly privilege was perpetuated with corruption, and his policies would safeguard the chiefs and their interests. The superintendent also allowed chiefs to report misbehaving subjects for punishment; this led to many members of the Mizo Union becoming targeted by chiefs and being arrested subsequently.[69]
The Mizo Union organised an ultimatum of non-cooperation if Superintendent Peters was not removed from his post. Upon submitting a memorandum to the Government of Assam, the leaders of the Mizo Union were arrested. After the deadline for the ultimatum passed, supporters of the Mizo Union stopped obeying orders of the superintendent, stopped supplying taxation to their chiefs and halted all supply of labour as coolies to the administration. A massive crackdown with large-scale arrests and fines was imposed in retaliation for the protest.[69]
After the passing of the Assam Autonomous District Council Act 1951, the Lushai Hills district possessed more political agency in its domestic affairs. The Mizo Union secured dominance in the Lushai Hills Autonomous District. The superintendent positions was abolished and replaced with a weaker deputy commissioner role that would affect the chieftain's leverage with political policies.[70]
The onset of Christianity saw a change in the traditional institutions of Mizo society, such as slavery and chieftainship. As more individuals and chiefs converted to Christianity, they released the Bawis or slaves held under their possession. However poorer, rural and destitute areas continued the tradition of maintaining bawis under their possession. One of the central figures to protest chieftainship and the bawi system was Hmar Khawbung Bawichuaka. The influence of Christianity made it so that the slave system of Mizo society was obsolete. However, this further stratified Mizo society as commoners was now bound in virtual serfdom to the chief.
The Mizo union would win all three seats to the Assam assembly in the 1952 general election. The following election in the same year saw the Mizo Union win 23 of 24 seats and campaign heavily on the topic of abolishment of chieftainship. The fist bill passed by the Mizo Union was the Lushai Hills (Chieftain Abolition) Act, 1952. It suspended the powers and rights afford by cheifs while allowing the continuation of their office and political structure. On the 1st of June 1953, the district council passed an act abolishing the taxations of thirdengsa, khuaichhiah and chikhuchhiah. The coolie system was also abolished on 1 January 1953. The Lushai Hills District Act no.III reduced the fathang (paddy tax) from six tins to 3 tins.[71] The Lushai Hills Act (Acquisition of Chief's Rights) 1954 abolished chieftainship. The final legislation was the Lushai Hills Reorganisation of Chiefs' Rights Act 1954 which abolished the powers and privileges that chiefs held onto. The LHA came into force in 1958 while the RCRA came into effect April 1956, 259 Lushai chiefs and 50 Pawi-Lakher chiefs were affected by the act and village councils were established instead. [69][64]