LINGUISTIC ECOLOGY OF MARA

LINGUISTIC ECOLOGY OF MARA 

(Note: I wrote this article for an edited book on "Linguistic Ecology of North East India," edited by a NEHU Professor through Ms Zamtei, a research scholar at NEHU in 2012. But I have not heard about the publication. This is an unedited version. I am working on making it a full book under a different topic. Criticisms and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Laiu Fachhai)

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

The bulk of the materials in this article is taken from the writer’s previous research, “A Brief Introduction to Mara History, Culture and Identity” in Rediscovering Mara History, Culture and Identity, edited by Bobby Beingachhi and M Vabeiryureilai and published by the Mara Research Society, Saiha, Mizoram, 2010, cut and paste verbatim in most cases. The writer is indebted to the Mara Research Society for the permission to reproduce the materials for the present book.

It is impossible to present a complete factual record of one’s (past) history, linguistic ecology included. The so-called historical records usually are only fragmented stories within the overall history of a person, family, clan, tribe, nation, or empire. Therefore, in this writer’s opinion, writing a history or doing historiography is a science of interpreting and reinterpreting myths, legends, stories, genealogies, and events of a person, family, clan, tribe, nation, kingdom and empire. This article is no exception. It is this writer’s interpretation and reinterpretation of myths, legends, stories, genealogies, and events surrounding the Mara people, with special reference to their linguistic ecology.

2. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE MARA LANGUAGE

The Mara language is spoken by Mara people who live in Maraland (ie, the boundaries where the Mara people live). Maraland is located in the area bordered by India to the west, Myanmar to the east and Bangladesh to the south. It straddles two countries (India and Myanmar, formerly Burma). It lies roughly between Latitude 20 and 23 North and between Longitude 92 and 95 East covering an area of more than ten thousand square kilometres (all Mara inhabited areas of both India and Myanmar) (for accurate area and location of Maraland in India, see Zohra 1995:2). West Maraland, (Maraland in India) is located in the southern Mizoram State of the North Eastern India. East Maraland (Maraland in Myanmar) straddles three townships of Tlantlang, Matupi and Paletwa in the south western Chin State of Myanmar.  The land is mountainous with a few valleys and flat areas along the banks of rivers. Rich in flora and fauna, bamboo jungles prevail on the lower slopes while the higher hills are thickly clothed with oaks, rhododendrons, dwarf bamboos and other kinds of trees (Parry 1932:4-5; Zohra 1995:2-6; Fachhai 1994:3-4).

3. NUMBER OF SPEAKERS OF MARA LANGUAGE

Due to the dynamic nature of the language coupled by the fact that speakers of the language live in two nation-states of India and Myanmar, it is difficult to know the actual number of speakers of the Mara language. A rough estimate of the present number of speakers of Mara language would stand at one lakh (half in India and the other half in Myanmar).

4. NUMBER OF MARA DIALECTS

There are six Mara regional dialects, or more correctly accents, as the variations are minimal and all the root words are similar. They are: Lyutu, Vyhty, Lôchei-Hawthai, Chapi-Ngiaphia who were then collectively known as Sizô group, Zyhno-Lialai-Heima and Tlôsai-Siaha. The hyphenated groups denote a combination of two or three regions whose accents fall into one group yet having different kingdoms. With the division of the Maraland by international boundaries (see below), the Lyutu, Lôchei, Lialai and Heima groups fell under Myanmar while Hawthai and Zyhno groups were annexed to India. Vyhtu, Chapi-Ngiaphia and Tlôsai-Siaha groups were divided between India and Myanmar.

5. MARA CULTURE AND SOCIETY

5.1. Origin and migration of the Mara people

The following is the origin of the Mara people as handed down by tradition (as summarized in Parry 1932:4, emphases replaced Parry’s inaccurate spellings on the names of Mara groups):

Long ago, before the great darkness called Khazohrâ fell upon the world, men all came out of a hole below the earth. As the founder of each Mara group came out of the earth he called out his name. Tlôsaih called out, “I am Tlôsaih”; Zyhno called out, “I am Zyhno”; Hawthai called out, “I am Hawthai”; Sabyh called out, “I am Sabyh”; Heima called out, “I am Heima.” Accordingly God thought that a very large number of Maras had come out and stopped the way. When the Lusheis came out of the hole, however, only the first to come out called out, “I am Lushei,” and all the rest came out silently. God, only hearing one man announce his arrival, thought that only one Lushei had come out, and gave them a much longer time, during which Lusheis were pouring out of the hole silently in great numbers. It is for this reason that Lusheis to this day are more numerous than Maras. After all men had come out of the hole in the earth, God made their languages different, and they remain so to this day.

The use of the term “Lusheis” here seems to be a late interpolation. The Mara people in antiquity did not know their northern neighbor the Lusheis as Lusei; they called them “Tlaikaopa” (meaning who wear short clothes only, whose men do not wear long dua and shawl, and whose women do not wear long hno) or simply “Mawpa” (Northerner). Dua is the Mara man’s loin cloth of about half foot wide and ten feet long that he wrapped several rounds to fully cover his private parts. This is the only piece of cloth the Mara man worn while at work and war. On formal occasions, he would put on a shawl to cover his whole body from neck to ankle. Hno or poh is the Mara woman’s long “skirt” reaching up to her ankles. The Mara woman also covered her top fully.

Parry’s list of the Mara groups is not exhaustive. One wonders, whether a phrase “so on and so forth” should not rather be added to the end of the list, that is, after the Heima group? Zohra (1995:15-17) contends that Parry’s story could not be taken as the sole Mara story of origin, as some principal groups are missing in his list. Zohra also discusses an attempt to locate the “hole” (“leikhao” in Mara language) in the story somewhere in the Chindwin valley of the north western Myanmar.

The Mara phrase for calling out one’s group’s name in this story is “moh chhuah”. It is a kind of war cry declaring one’s status, achievements, bravery, wealth, especially dominion. When a Mara warrior performed a “moh chhuah”, he declared to the world that he was the master of the land; if anyone dares to challenge his dominion, let him come forward and fight him. This Mara origin story depicted the Mara people as brave warriors even from their inception. The story also takes certain stands: that the Mara people and Lushei people are two distinct and separate people groups; that the Mara language and Lushei language are different; that there are many languages in the world and the Mara language is one of them. This origin story is also different from that of other Chin-Kuki groups’ origin stories who are said to have come out of “Chinlung” (rock cave). The story presented the Mara people to have come out of a “leikhao” (earth cave).

Some discrepancies in the text notwithstanding, Parry’s work remained the earliest written text available concerning the origin of the Mara people. All the Mara groups, including those not included in his list, tell the leikhao origin, albeit in a slightly different ways. The term for great darkness, “Khazohrâ”, has a theophoric connotation (the word Khazo in its lower tone is a Mara name for God and “hrâ” connotes a terrifying sound, event, person, or animal). There could be some correlation between this Mara origin story of Khazohrâ causing them to come out of a hole of the earth and the biblical account of God’s creation of the world from chaos to order as well as his creation of man out of the dust (earth) (Gen 2:7) which, however, needs further investigation.

Like many of their neighboring people groups in North-Eastern India and Chin State in Myanmar, the Mara people belong to the Mongoloid race of the Tibeto-Burman family. Their ancestral homeland would appear to have been somewhere in southern China. They possibly migrated from southern China via Tibet crossing the hills of north western Myanmar reaching their present habitat somewhere between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries AD (Zohra 1995:23-24; Fachhai 1994:1-2; but see Hlychhô 1972:7 who puts it in the middle of the sixteenth century and Parry 1932:2-3 who suggests a much later date of early seventeenth century).

Mara people are said to have migrated also to the eastern Chittagong Hill Tracks of eastern Bangladesh, the Mara in this area seemed to have lost their language and identities as Mara. Some traditions say that a few groups of Mara also migrated to Nagaland and Manipur States of the North Eastern India. This is not surprising considering Mara language’s affinity to some of the Naga languages. It would be interesting to know whether the people called Mara and/or its variant forms in the Manipur State (India) and the Mara people in Mizoram (India)-Chin State (Myanmar) belong to the same people group!

There is also a story about brothers who migrated further southward.  As they trekked southward through thick jungles, their youngest brother could not catch up with his older brothers. The older brothers left their marks by cutting hlachâh (wild plantain) trees for their younger brother. But hlachâh trees sprouted so fast that the younger brother could not identify the marks anymore. Lost in the jungle he decided to settle there. The place where the youngest brother settled was identified as the present Palâ Lake region. The Vakô people (Taung Mru, meaning Hill Mru people in Burmese; a variant of Mara?) of northern Rakhine State, Myanmar, have the same story. They said that they are descendents of the older brother in this same story. Thus, in those days, the Vakô settlement would build an extra homestead for their younger brother whom they expected to arrive any time. Some of their clan names and root words are the same as that of Mara (for example their Kathie and Mara Kathie or Khihthie, their Khaimie and Mara Zohra, etc) (from this writer’s research and interview of a few Vakô leaders from 1987-88. The finding was reported in the church’s annual mission report of 1988).

5.2. Etymology and Meaning of the name “Mara”

The Mara people were formerly known by their several exonyms. They were known as Lakher-ho (people who “kher” cotton), a name given to them by their northwestern neighbors, the Lushais (present Mizos). “Lakher-ho” in Lushai language seems to be a combination of la (cotton), kher (possibly meaning plucking the cotton or description of a step in the long process of cotton work; however, the exact meaning is not clear), and ho (group/people). The Lushais seemed to have called the Mara people “Lakher-ho” because of the latter’s vast cotton fields, cotton works at every household, and cotton products for both local use and export. The Mara people were also known as Shandus by their southern neighbors, the Khumis and Arakanese. The etymology of the term “Shandu” is not clear. In a variant of its Khumi word, the term seems to have a connotation of the Mara people’s warlike nature. The Mara people must have been accorded this name by the Khumis after their repeated raids on the Khumiland. The Arakanese also adopted this term. In some cases Parry’s (1932:5) “Shandu” would appear to include some of the Haka-Thlantlang Chin tribes, especially Thlantlang people. However, his superimposition of this term on the Mara people shows that Parry in many cases use this term exclusively to refer to the Mara people. For Parry, Shandu, Lakher, and Mara refer to the same people group.

In a secondary and derogatory usage, the Haka-Thlantlang (Lai) people called their southern neighbors, Sizô (Miram in Lai language), Vyhtu (Zophei), Lyutu (Lautu), Saitha (Senthang), and Azyuh (Zotung) groups as Zo. The Haka-Thlantlang people’s reference to these groups as Zo was, however, confined only to negative and inferior stereotyping of the latter, as phrases “Zo chhia” (inferior Zo, literally bad Zo), “Zo ek tan sau” (long feces Zo), would indicate. Calling these people “Zo ek tan sau” (long feces Zo) could also be indicative of the fertility of their lands – they have plenty to eat, therefore their feces are long. One could also present a good case that the Sizô Mara group was not included in whom the Haka-Thlantlang people called “Zo”. The Haka-Thlantlang people called the Sizô Mara group Miram. The term Miram seems to be a direct translation of Mara into the Haka-Thlantlang language. The literal meaning of Miram in Haka-Thlantlang language is “alien land” (mi = alien; ram = land). In its variant meaning, Miram in Haka-Thlantlang could also mean human habitat (mi = human; ram = land, habitat). 

Thus, the early British officer-writers of the Arakan in Myanmar adopted the term “Shandu” while the Lushai Hills officers in India used the term “Lakher” to refer to the Mara people. But the Mara people never called themselves Lakher, Shandu, Zo, or Miram. They called themselves Mara from time immemorial. Based on its connotative meaning, in this writer’s opinion, the name “Mara” must have been born after their fore-fathers’ often migration to the south in search of fertile land. The opposite of “Mara” is “Khâkhaih” (a variant word for northerner or highlander) in the Mara language. The term “Khâkhaih” has a connotative meaning of being non-rice eaters (instead they eat maize and millet). Thus the term “Khâkhaih” describes a less fertile land in opposition to “Mara”, a fertile land. As noted above, as Haka-Thlantlang people’s translation of the term Mara indicated, the word “ma” in Mara language could be a shortened from of “maniah” (alien or other in Chapi-Ngiaphia dialect) and “ra” means “land”. This meaning implies that the Mara people did not come to their present land because it was no-man’s land, but they settled there by way of invasion and conquest pushing the original settlers further south. Connecting these possible meanings, the name Mara has connotations of being southern, alien, human, bamboo, rice, fertility, land. Thus, Mara as a people group could refer to those who have left the less fertile Khâkhailand (northern/higher land) for alien southern/lower slope fertile Maraland. Thus, in this writer’s opinion, the name “Mara” as a people group refers to “dwellers of southern fertile land” which today is called Maraland. A consensus, however, is yet to be reached among Mara researchers concerning the etymology and meaning of the name “Mara”. Because of this, some (for example Vakô 2007) even suggest that there is no point of endless arguments and counter arguments concerning the etymology and meaning of this name; the Mara people are simply Mara people from time immemorial. The jury is still out (for further discussion, see Zohra 1995:24-34; Parry 1932:5-9; Vakô 2007; Pillai 2006).

5.3. Ethnic Identity and Affinity of the Mara People

Hutton in his interesting introductory remarks to Parry’s The Lakhers (Parry 1932:xvi) mentions that the Mara people “include in their composition more perhaps than their immediate neighbors of the races that preceded them, of which the Indonesian race, everywhere submerged by the Mongolian flood, appears to have been one, while Bodo, Mon-Khmer and Melanesian elements seem to be definitely traceable.” Hutton’s hypothesis presents a strong possibility. When this writer (a Mara) was visiting Indonesia, an immigration officer, looking at his Indian passport, asked him, “Are you an Indian born Indonesian?” 

The first documented account of the Mara people as a separate tribe seems to be the writing of Captain SR Tickell in 1852. Tickell wrote an article titled “Notes on the Heuma or Shendoos, a Tribe Inhabiting the Hills North of Arakan” in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume XXI (Parry 1932:6). The people referred to here are none other than Mara, Heuma (Heima) being one of the Mara groups. Mara scholars seem to have reached a consensus that the six groups of the Mara people together belong to the Tibeto-Burman family (see Zohra 1995:9-13 and works cited there). Largely following their dialects and clans of their rulers, the entire Mara country can be divided into six provinces: Lyutu (Fachhai kings - Khihrâ, Thâh-y, Chhaongai, Hnaro, Hraihpi, Chapy, La-u, etc city-states); Lôchei-Hawthai (Fachhai kings in Lôchei - Lôcheipi, Lôcheita, etc and Nohro kings in Hawthai - Tisi, etc; Choza kings in Chhaolô, etc); Vyhtu (Zophei in Lai language) (Zawthâ kings - Leita, Iabao, Khabôh, Lytlâh, Iana, Siata, etc), Chapi-Ngiaphia or Sizô (Choza kings - Ngiaphia, Lialai, Chapi, Satly, Khihlô, Sabyh, Tisi, Tiko, etc; Fachhai kings in Old Chapi city-stateand Bamai city-state), Zyhno-Lialai-Heima (Bohia and Thlyuthâh [twin brothers] kings in Zyhno - Zyhno, Khopai, Laki, etc; Zawthâh kings in Lialai – Lialaipi, Lialaita, etc; Choza kings in Heima – Heimapi, Heimata, etc), Tlôsaih-Siaha (Hlychhôh kings - Saikao, Amôbyu, Paitha, Siaha, Thiahra, etc; and Khuhlyh kings in Kiasi, etc).

Some, for example, Mihlô (2006), following the vision of RA Lorrain, includes the Senthang area (Saihthâh in Mara) in the Haka Township of the northern Chin State and Zotung area (Azyuh in Mara) in the Matupi township of the southern Chin State, both in Myanmar, in the Greater Maraland. Zohra (1995:13), however, following the final Lakher (Mara) Pioneer Mission field areas and the present alien imposed political and administrative divisions, restricts Chapi-Ngiaphia (Sizô), Iana-Siata (a sub-group of Vyhtu), Zyhno-Lialai-Heima whom he collectively calls “Hlaipaoh”, Lôchei-Hawthai (Zohra distinquishes Lôchei from Hawthai), and Tlôsaih-Siaha groups only as belonging to a people called Mara. He seems to have made this conclusion based on the fact that some Lyutu and Vyhtu groups in Myanmar do not identify themselves as “Mara” (see Zohra 1995:9-13 and Hutton in Parry 1932:ix-1vi for further discussion on the Mara people’s ethnic affinity). In sum, the Mara people are those who regard the above mentioned six provinces as their mother land as well as those who use the six Mara dialects as their mother tongue. These groups collectively and exclusively refer to themselves and each other as Marapa, Marasaw, Marapasaw, or keimolâsaw, the last meaning “children of our people”, “our own people”, or “a people belonging to us.”

5.4. Structure of Mara Society

5.4.1. Sequence of Mara Social Structure

The sequence of the social structure of the Mara society is strikingly similar to that of the Israelite society: chhôhkha (family, Hebrew beit av), pho (clan, Hebrew mishpaha), chi (tribe, Hebrew sevet), and râh (nation, Hebrew go-i or im). Like the family and clan in the ancient Israelite society, chhôhkha and pho were the most active social units of the Mara society. Citing their cultural similarities with that of the Israelites, some quarters in Mizoram and Manipur State of India claim that they are the lost tribe of Israel, the descendents of Manasseh (Bnei Menashe). It is interesting, however, to note that the government of Israel accepted their claim and close to 1,000 Bnei Menashe from Mizoram and Manipur are currently residing as citizens in Israel. However, lately the government of Israel has re-evaluated the whole issue (see Snyder 2006). This has generated considerable scholarly debates in Mizoram – “Are we a Semitic or Mongoloid race?” In this writer’s opinion, similarities between the ancient Israelites and the Mara people are nothing more than the universal similarities of cultures across indigenous (tribal) people groups of the world. It is unlikely that the Mara people are Semites. They belong to the Tibeto-Burman group of the Sino-Mongoloid race.

5.4.2. Mara Clan Strata, Kinship and Other Social Norms

There were three levels of clan stratification: royal clan (high), patrician clan (middle), and plebian clan (low). Slaves were below the plebian clan. Slavery was practiced especially by the royal and higher patrician clans and other rich and wealthy commoners. There were three kinds of slaves: those who were bought with a price, rescued or indebted ones; war captives, and those born of slave parents. Ahmawhs were below slaves.

The Mara people had a strange mythical tradition. During the universal flood, humans and animals all escaped to the “busadoh tlâh” (ash mountain peak). There was a human infant orphan boy who was adopted by a tigress. The boy grew up drinking tigress’ milk. This resulted in the descendents of this baby becoming ahmawh. Ahmawh-ness could be passed to the other person through marriage and all the children of ahmawh parents were born ahmawh. It was believed that if an ahmawh is offended, mistreated, or if he or she covets some one, he or she could make his or her offender or whom he covets or one of his/her family members get sick even unto death. Ahmawhs did not want to be ahmawhs. But the Mara custom and religion did not provide them with a way out, as they believed that the ahmawhness could not be undone since it was by sexual relationship or by birth. This implies that ahmawhness is biological and therefore permanent. To be regarded an ahmawh was a great shame. The saying, “Sei cha a kô ta ma a pyu, ahmawh cha a kô ta a pyuhpa cha” (slavery does not have root, but ahmawh does, meaning one’s slavery status can be undone, but the status of ahmawh cannot be undone, thus implying that it is better to be a slave than an ahmawh). Many Mara today continue to believe in ahmawh. But in this writer’s opinion, there was and is no such thing as ahmawh. This would appear to be a mere superstition. The ahmawh story might have originated with a scrupulous king or person who wanted to down grade a family or group for one reason or another and thus called them ahmawh. However, owing to the Mara people strong believe in ahmawh system, it sure warrant a further and thorough studies with empirical evidences from scientific and theological perspectives.

Kinship was strong in the Mara society. Kinsmen were surrounded by concern and care. Elders were to be obeyed, young ones and the aged to be loved, women treated with respect and dignity, and orphans and widows to be cared for. Needy people were to be helped and strangers to be received, if they were not from among the warring enemy tribes. The norms of society and oral traditions maintained down through the centuries were strictly observed. Both men and women wore their hair long, the men knotting it at the top and the women at the back. Both sexes wore different kinds of colorful clothes covering themselves fully. “Chyna”, meaning sacred cloth (transliterated as Cawngnak in Lai/Haka language, read Chawngnak in Mizo transliteration), a kind of shawl made of the best silk, originated from Sizô (Chapi-Ngiaphia) Mara group, was used by both men and women. It was a sacred and most valued cloth. “Chylao”, said to have been originated from the Senthang group, a bit darker color and thicker material than “chyna” was exclusively men’s shawl. Mara women were fond of ornaments, mostly silver.

5.5.        Mara Patriarchal Society

5.5.1.     The Rule of Primogeniture and/or Ultimogeniture in Inheritance and Succession as an Expression of Patriarchy in the Mara Society

The Mara descent was patrilineal and all the Mara groups (chi), except the Sizô group (see below), practiced the law of primogeniture, that is, the firstborn son was the prime heir. When his father died, the firstborn son inherited all the property and had to pay up all his father’s debts. He also had to pay his father’s death due. An essential requirement for inheriting a man’s estate is that the heir has to pay the death due payable on the deceased and his wife, the payment of which may in no circumstances be dispensed with. According to old custom, if a king or a member of the royal house died and his heirs refused to pay his death due, one or two of the deceased’s slaves could club together and pay the death due, and thereby ransom themselves from slavery (Parry 1995:287-288). A mother’s death due was paid by the youngest son. If a man left only one son, that son had to pay the death due of both his father and mother. Sons other than firstborn and lastborn had no claim whatever to any share in the estate. In practice, the firstborn son often allowed the lastborn son a share (Parry (1995:285-288). Parry does not explain the reason behind giving a share to the lastborn, but not the middle sons. The most logical explanations seemed to be based on the practice that the mother’s death due had to be paid by the lastborn son, the father’s special emotional attachment to his lastborn son, the older siblings’ affection for their baby brother, the lastborn as the last to reach the adulthood, and he was the one who normally stayed with and took care of the aged parents. In the event of a dispute arising because a firstborn son refused to give his youngest brother any share in the paternal estate, the king’s court could insist on a compromise, giving the lastborn son a share, unless the firstborn son had very good reason for refusing. Women could not inherit, and if a man died without any sons, his brothers, nephews, or the nearest kinsman inherited his estate (Parry 1932:286-287).

If the deceased was one of two brothers, the estate went to the survivor. If the deceased was the firstborn of three brothers, the estate went to the youngest brother or his heirs. If the middle brother died childless, his estate went to the first brother or his heirs. If the youngest brother died childless, his estate went to the first brother or his heirs. In the case of four or more brothers, the firstborn and the lastborn inherited from each other if either died childless, and if a middle brother died childless, his estate went to one of the other middle brothers or his heirs (Parry 1932:286). The law, however, was not explicit as to which middle brother inherited what portion if the numbers of middle brothers amounted to three or five.

Since women could not inherit, if there were no brothers, the estate went to uncles and first cousins, and then to more distant relations, eventually going to the nearest fellow-clansman. A woman would only inherit if she was the last of the clan and no other clansmen at all were surviving. Such an eventuality, however, had probably never arisen. If a man died leaving an only daughter and this daughter was on bad terms with her paternal uncles, she could claim an atonement price called hmiatlâ (literally, face healing) from them, and if they refused to pay it they could not claim her marriage price, which in such circumstances would be taken by her maternal uncle (puhpa) or his heir or his representative. When a puhpa received his niece’s marriage price in this way, he took the okia (principal bride-price) and its subsidiary prices, but could not claim his original entitlement of pumâ (maternal uncle’s share of the girl’s bride-price) as well. If the paternal uncles had paid the hmiatlâ (face saving; literally face healing), then they could receive the girl’s bride-price. This was another manifestation of the protection of female dignity in the Mara society – even orphaned girls were treated with respect and dignity. As a rule, anyone inheriting the property of a man who had died leaving daughters but no sons, handed over to the deceased’s daughters, any article usually recognized as woman’s property that the deceased might have left, such as belts or women’s clothes or ornaments (Parry 1932:286-87).

If a man died leaving children who are minors, his wife was entitled to the custody of his estate on behalf of his firstborn son, and may continue to occupy her late husband’s house and bring up his family, provided that she did not remarry. If a widow in these circumstances remarried, the property and children went to her late husband’s brothers. If a widow was unable to look after the estate and support the family, the youngest brother of the deceased or, if the deceased himself was the youngest of several brothers, his eldest brother would have to support deceased’s wife and children. If a man died without children, his father inherited his estate, or may allow one of the deceased’s brothers to take it. The heir, whoever he was, had to pay the deceased’s death due (Parry 1932:287).

If the deceased was a polygamist, his firstborn son of his principal wife inherited his estate, even if he was younger than his half-brothers. Brothers of the same mother (auxiliary wife) inherited from each other, as described above in the inheritance rule of a monogamous family. In the case of a man who died without having sons with his principal wife, his brothers and nephews inherited his estate before his sons by his auxiliary wives or illegitimate sons.  Sons by auxiliary wives inherited before illegitimate sons, and the latter before a mere fellow clansman (Parry 1932:287-288). This situation usually happened with royal or higher clans-men who had a principal wife and an auxiliary wife or wives.

Like in the neighboring Lushai tribe, where the lastborn (fathlum) inherited his father’s estate, Chapi, Ngiaphai, Sabyh and other villages of Chapi-Ngiaphia group practiced ultimogeniture. The prime heir was the lastborn son. He took his father’s house (opi) and divided all other property with his eldest brother, the largest share of the movables going to the lastborn son. Like in other areas, sons other than the lastborn and firstborn received no share in the inheritance, and if the firstborn son had died before his father, the lastborn son inherited the whole estate; but if any of the middle sons were still unmarried when their father died, the firstborn and the lastborn brothers had to subscribe and pay bride-prices for them. If a man left daughters and no sons, his brothers inherited, and gave the daughters of the deceased a share of his property for them to have as a dowry and to take with them when they married. A man’s daughter inherited prior to cousins of more than three generations. If the only heirs were the daughter of the principal wife and the son of an auxiliary wife, the estate was divided between them. The son by an auxiliary wife had to pay all debts and the death dues of his father and of his father’s widow, but could claim his half-sister’s bride-price. As in other areas, the lastborn son paid the mother’s death due and the firstborn son the father’s. Owing to the death of either the firstborn or lastborn son before his father, the surviving brother inherited the whole estate and paid the death dues of both his father and mother (Parry 1932:288).

In the Chapi-Ngiaphia group, the opi (big house or mother house) was regarded the most valuable inheritance. The floor of the house was raised some two metres above the ground so that mithuns could rest under it. Panels, poles, walls, and floors of the houses were made of huge and lasting woods. For example, a floor plank of this researcher’s father’s house (an inheritance handed down from at least two to three generations) was about a meter wide, 10 meters long and ten centimeters thick. Planks of this size were laid as the floor of the house (approximately 30x7 meters if it was the house of royals and nobles). King Vâsai’s palace (house of this kind) of the Khihlô City-State was said to have contained fifty slave families inside the house (narrated by Laizô Fachhai, this writer’s father). Normally, older brothers went out of the opi as they established their own families and houses. The lastborn son who remained with his parents until their death at the opi naturally inherited the opi (Zohra 1995:51).

The inheritance law motivated by the practice of primogeniture or ultimogeniture system was fair and final for then. No Mara man could make a will. All property had to descend to the customary heirs. At the same time, no one could refuse an inheritance on the basis of its being over-burdened with debt. An inheritance simply had to be accepted, which implied that debts were inherited as well as assets. The heir inherited everything, debts and obligations as well as assets. Thus in Mara society it was practically impossible for a man to die and leave an orphaned family without provision, as his brothers and heirs were bound to support the orphans. This they were quite ready to do, as family bonds and feelings were strong. The orphans themselves soon earned their keep if boys, and, if girls, their protector was amply recompensed for any expense he incurred on their behalf when he received their bride-prices. In rare cases, if an old man so wished, he could divide up his property among his sons in his lifetime, and if he did so his sons had to abide by the division made by their father. Even then, he still had to recognize the rights and privileges of the lastborn (Sizô area) and firstborn (the rest of the land) by giving them larger or more valuable shares. However, it was ana (taboo) for any man who was not really old to undertake such a division of property in his lifetime, as it was believed to induce an early death (Parry 1932:288-289).

Adopted son could claim to inherit his sonless or childless father. However, in reality, adoption was very rarely resorted to except in very exceptional cases since it was useless for any one to adopt a stranger as a son, as the claims of an adopted son to inherit could not be sustained against the claims of members of the deceased’s family or clan. In addition, as family tie and clan awareness were very strong, if the child proposed to be adopted had any family relations, they would certainly object to his being adopted into another family and clan. Usually a childless man would take (or be given) a son of one of his brothers, and no objection would be raised to such an “adoption” within the family (Parry 289-290).

In exceedingly rare cases in the past, adoption did take place outside the family circle. Even then, it was restricted to slaves or captives who did not have family or clan relations in the city-state. A lone man without children or other recognisable heirs adopted a slave or captive made in war as his son. To effect such an adoption the adopter performed the khazohpina (sacrifice to the god Khazohpa) and gave the person he wished to adopt part of the phâhvaw (parts of the animal sacrificed including flour, salt, and some blood of the animal sacrificed, which were dedicated to the god or spirit). The participation in this sacrifice made the person thus allowed to become a member of his adopter’s family, and after this ceremony the adoption was completed. The adopted son was treated in every way as the son of the man adopting him, and on the death of his adoptive father inherited his property (Parry 1932:289-290).

Substances of inheritances included heirlooms, movable and immoveable properties (house, household items, farming and horticulture plots, animals, etc), slaves, and city-state with its territory in the case of a royal firstborn (crown prince). In the families of kings and nobles, heirlooms are handed down from generation to generation. These generally consist of necklaces of pumtek beads (different sizes, shapes and kinds of black and white beads having special names), jewellery (mostly silver and bronze), rahos (brass basins), gongs, and guns. Heirlooms, in fact, are never sold unless the owner is in very great distress indeed. In Chapi city-state it is believed that if a man sells his heirlooms he will have no children, and will be the last of his family (Parry 1932:290).

There was no inheritance in terms of land for ordinary citizens, as the king was the sole owner of his city-state lands. One could inherit his father’s ohmo (a piece of land on which their house stood) and sadô (a horticulture farm). Even so, one did not own this house-land and sadô-land. To some extent these lands could be sold, but the king reserved the right to approve or disapprove the sale. He could reclaim the lands and if he had a good reason for doing so, he would pay the holder for the improvements and works he had done. The royal ownership of the land was inalienable, as it was a dynastic land (inheritance). In rare instances, especially under “weak kings” (Zohra 1995:177), some nobles held fiefs within the city-state territory. Even so, none of them succeeded in establishing his own city-state in his fiefdom. To the delight of the kings, the fiefdom system was abolished by the British government (Parry 1932:250).

5.5.2. Royal succession

Succession to the throne was by primogeniture. Even in the Chapi-Ngiaphia area where the lastborn inherited the estate, succession to the throne was by primogeniture. A king usually had a queen (principal wife) and a few auxiliary wives. An auxiliary wife’s son, called “nothosaw,” could inherit the kingdom only if a king had no legitimate heir, that is, sons, brothers, or nephews. In such a case, a king would select a nothosaw he preferred to succeed him. Among the sons of the auxiliary wives primogeniture was not followed. Illegitimate sons, called riasaw, who were the result of the king’s casual amour with a woman who was not taken even as an auxiliary wife could never succeed his father as king (Parry 1932:250). The younger sons of the principal wife (the queen) who did not succeed to their father’s throne, would either found a new city-state or remained in their father’s city-state as “beitho” (auxiliary royal). Sometimes it was the older princes who founded their own city-states during the life time of their father-king. In such a case, the lastborn son who remained with his father would succeed him. The new city-states were not required to pay any kind of tribute to the father-king. However, they were expected to help the father-king or his successor in times of difficulties like famine, war, etc. (Zohra 1995:50-51).

5.5.3. Reasons behind the practice of primogeniture/ultimogeniture

Both Parry and Zohra do not provide any explicit reasons for the Mara society’s practice of primogeniture. The following are some possible reasons deduced from the above discussions and other Mara beliefs, customs and practices:

To maintain pure royal blood for throne succession

Sons of auxiliary wives and illegitimate sons were excluded from throne succession. The reason for this would appear to have been mainly for the throne to be occupied by pure royal bloods. The principal wife (queen) normally came from a royal clan (the princess of a ruling king or descendent of a king) and auxiliary wives came from patrician, plebeian, or even sometimes from slaves. As such, the sons of auxiliary wives were not pure royal blood. Once a dynasty was established, each dynasty worshipped its own henotheistic god, referred to as the god of such and such king and it was believed he had an exclusive relationship with the dynasty. In some respects, the Mara people treated their kings as divine. As such the purity of one’s royal blood was mandatory to become a king. That could be the reason, why a non-pure royal from amongst plebeian and patrician clans was not accepted as a king. Parry (1932:250) noted that commoners who were made chiefs by the British government never commanded the same respect as a hereditary chief. The essentials of the relationship between the chief and the people was lacking with a commoner who was made a chief.

To shoulder familial responsibilities

For the Mara society, primogeniture was not so much a privilege as it was a responsibility. In subsistent farming families of Maraland in those days, practically speaking there were not many valuable things to inherit. In fact, in some cases, it was more of a burden for an heir than a profit. However, the firstborn sons were willing to carry the burdens of their families. In the subsistent farming Mara society, the firstborn son was practically a father to his younger siblings. When the brothers and sisters were all young, the firstborn was the big brother who protected, led, helped, corrected and rebuked his younger siblings. When he became a teenager, he together with his father, provided for and protected the family. If his father died prematurely, the firstborn would immediately assume all the family leadership responsibilities. He would provide for his mother and all his siblings. He would get wives for his younger brothers and marry off his sisters.

Even if they were not accorded the right of inheritance, the Mara firstborns would gladly provide for and help their younger brothers and sisters. Because of this, younger ones would respect their oldest brother nearly as much as they would respect their father. Primogeniture was, therefore, a recognition and reward for all the hard work the firstborn rendered and the heavy responsibilities he shouldered for the family. Indeed, to be a firstborn son (and daughter) in the Mara family was a heavy responsibility. In exceedingly rare cases, if the firstborn grew up to be an irresponsible son, succession (in case of kingship) and inheritance would go to the second born, and so on. In the Mara family, the firstborn daughter too was like a mother to her younger brothers and sisters. She cared for all her younger brothers and sisters by helping her mother in all the household chores. For this reason, the mother’s heirloom (mainly ornaments and clothes) normally went to the firstborn daughter.

A sign of parents’ fertility and a symbol of hope

The term for human first fruit (firstborn) in the Mara language was thei hmiatua. It was used for both the firstborn son and firstborn daughter. The firstborn son was called sawchapaw thei hmiatua (first fruit son) or sahrôsi (“chief son”) and firstborn daughter sawchanô thei hmiatua (first fruit daughter). Both can be called uthei (eldest of the siblings) as well. It has a connotation of parents’ fertility and the firstborn’s purity in terms of seed because he or she is born of the virgin womb (of his/her mother) and virgin (pure) seed (of his/her father). Childlessness was a great shame and misfortune. The reason was socio-religious rather than biological. It was normally associated with a curse(s), a curse for displeasing (dishonoring) one’s maternal uncle, father, grandfather, or king. The anger of a god or goddess could also cause childlessness. With the birth of the first child, all these worries and burdens were lifted. However, if a son was not born to a man, he would be worried about who would inherit him and continue his name. So the birth of a son was normally welcomed with feasts and extravagant celebrations.

The modern Mara continues to maintain the principle of primogeniture primarily in terms of responsibility. The former royal families are now equal citizens, although they still command a high degree of respect, especially from the older Mara generation. With regard to inheritance, many parents today would divide their inheritance equally among all their sons. Daughters would also be given substantial shares. However, in terms of opi (mother house) and other prime estates, it would still go to the principal heir, in most cases the lastborn son (Sizô area) or the firstborn son (other areas).

Even if primogeniture is no longer practiced as a binding rule, the shouldering of family responsibilities by the firstborn son, including educating his younger brothers and sisters if he is in a position to do so, and the care for his aged parents by the lastborn, remains a virtue. In fact, any son would be more than willing to stay with and take care of his aged parents. In some cases, sons would “compete” for this privilege of staying with and taking care of their aged parents. Because of this, there is not a single old aged home in Maraland. Nor is there any orphanage, as big brothers/sisters, uncles, or aunts are so willing to take the responsibility of bringing up their younger brother, sister, nephew, or niece who is an orphan. The church’s women department runs a motherless babies’ home to take care of infants whose mothers died. They do this on behalf of the infant’s family. As soon as the child is weaned, he/she returns to his/her family. An irresponsible firstborn, either son or daughter, who does not want to help his/her younger brothers and sisters, is blamed or even shamed as the firstborn who does not know (who refused to know) that he/she is the firstborn. The lastborn son, in fact any son, who does not want to take care of his aged parents (normally because of his wife’s influence) is “cursed” as the one who succumbs to his wife at the expense of his aged parents or the one who forgets his parents who brought him up with sweat and blood.

5.5.4. Female-friendly Patriarchal Mara Society

Zohra (1995:72-73, 88-91) asserts that the Mara society was a patriarchal one:

Being patriarchal, the Mara family was practically dominated by the household head, the father or eldest son… The father was the head as well as leader and enjoyed full authority in the family… The children belonged to the father, and the mother had no share… The right to inheritance and succession was reserved for paternal descent through which clan lineage was computed… The father … was the master of the household… He also acted as the priest.

Zohra (1995:91) further asserts that a Mara husband treats his wife as he wishes because he acquired her by paying her bride-price. At a surface looking, this assertion may appear to be the case. But a deeper analysis of the system would reveal that the Mara society was not a rigid androcentric patriarchal society. Even if the Mara society practiced a form of patriarchy, it was a female-friendly one where women could have a say, have value, dignity, respect and freedom. Parry (1932:285), an established authority on the Mara people, does not directly describe the Mara society as patriarchal, although he refers to it as a patrilineal society. During a time (early twentieth century) when the Western missionaries and colonial officials were decrying female oppression and exploitation in other parts of India, Downs (1996:1-60) observes that Mara society was different.  Similarly, Parry (1932:276-278) remarks that Mara society did not oppress and exploit women:

Social relations between the sexes are easy and natural, men and women meeting freely on equal basis. The women are very far from being mere household drudges… [I]nside the house she is supreme…[I]t is very rare to find a Lakher who is brutal to a woman… People who beat their wives are looked down upon… Among Lakher women there is no false shame, they do not consider themselves as inferior beings, and take part in all matters in which the family is interested… Although the Lakher would be regarded by Indians as savages, … they are … on a higher plain of social civilization than the dwellers of the plains of India, and nowhere is this more clearly shown than in their treatment of women.

5.6. Traces of Matrilineal Mara Society

Based on the above female-friendly nature of the society, respect shown to maternal uncles and other factors, Hutton in his “Introduction” to Parry’s book The Lakhers (Parry 1932:xiii-xiv) suggests that the Mara society was first matrilineal but recently amalgamated with a patrilineal people. The following are what Hutton believes to be traces of recent matrilineal system in the Mara society:

·   The weakness or absence of exogamy as a result of the amalgamation of patrilineal and matrilineal groups. The amalgamation broke down exogamy in both sides.

·      The unusual practice of sending the bride-price by installments, each of which is always refused until the next installment appears, a formality which rather suggests the incorporation of strangers who can only get brides by an unfamiliar series of customary payments.

·      The prohibition of marriage between half-brother and sister by the same father, whereas uterine relationship is no barrier, a rule apparently at variance with a matrilineal system.

·      The maternal uncle receives a very substantial share of the bride-price, while a woman living with her husband nominates a sister to take her share of the bride-price of her daughter, thus effectively removing it from the control of her husband.

·      A divorced wife has the right to retain her okia (highest part of a bride-price).

·     The absence of any prohibition on the marriage by a younger brother of his elder brother’s widow, which most patrilineal Assam hill tribes prohibit (though the fact that the Mara wife may address her husband’s younger brother by his personal name, but not so his elder brother, suggests the levirate custom was once restricted to the younger brother by the Maras also, unless it happens that this familiarity had some special reference to the rights of the younger brother during the husband’s lifetime).

·      A daughter’s bride-price exceeds the normal rate of her father’s clan if her mother should be of a superior clan.

·      The reservation of the right of his sister or the sister’s son for the duty or privilege of opening the vault of the buried chief for a new internment and taking a fee for articles of value interred with the late chief, so that these heirlooms are lost to the male and secured in the possession of the female line.

Some of Hutton’s observations above are interesting. However, being an outsider, he does not adequately understand the background and purpose of some of the customs he refers to. In what follows, we will give an insider’s analysis of Hutton’s hypotheses.

Weakness or absence of exogamy

Both Parry and Hutton seemed to have overlooked the practice of a kind of exogamy in the Mara society. The norm prohibits marriage within one’s patrilineal clan (pho), especially within one’s sub-clan (chhôh). A prescriptive custom of marrying one’s cousin (mother’s brother’s daughter) or someone from one’s mother’s near or distant clan (“brother”) cannot be termed as endogamy (cf. Zohra 1995:80 asserts this practice as endogamy). Endogamy applies marriage within one’s own group (clan or tribe) only (Deist 1984:82). According to the Mara people, maternal uncle does not belong to one’s pho [hxpvm] group. He is from a different clan. Therefore, marrying from one’s mother’s clan was encouraged and regarded as a marriage that would bring blessing to the family. But it was not practised as a binding custom. Marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter (puhpa saw hnei) has a deep sociological meaning and implication: Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law would love and respect each other, because they belonged to the same family (clan), the man would receive blessings of posterity, prosperity, health and a long life because he would have honored his maternal uncle by marrying his daughter (dishonoring one’s maternal uncle will result in a curse), and for maintaining one’s social status especially if one’s mother belonged a higher clan.

However, Hutton points out that normally it was the mother who would initiate the move to take a wife for her son from her family (the daughter of her brother, the daughter of her cousin– or distant cousin, or one from any family in her clan). Sometimes she would even ask the girl’s hand as soon as the girl was born or soon afterwards (Parry 1932:307 calls it “child marriage”, Zohra 1995:99, “betrothal of children”). If this is a trace of a matrilineal custom, the custom of marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter (daughter of mother’s brother) could also be regarded as a kind of endogamy.

Sending bride-price by installments

As Hutton and Parry (1932:311) admit, the Mara bride-price was a most complicated affair, and consisted of several parts which in turn had a number of subsidiary prices attached to them. The main price was called the okia, and the rate of the okia governed the rate of all the other prices. At any rate, the custom dictated that one should never complete the payment of his wife’s bride-price as a token of strong continual relationship and bond between the two families.

Marriage between half-brother and sister by the same mother

Hutton and Parry wrongly conclude that the Mara society did not prohibit marriage between half-brother and sister by the same mother. This is a reference to an unusual occurrence. Marriage between half-brother and sister by the same mother was not acceptable, as the two persons were regarded as brother and sister. If such a marriage ever occurred, it was regarded as abnormal. Even then, when it unavoidably happened, it was tolerated on the ground that the half brother and sister belonged to different clans.

Maternal uncle and mother’s sister receiving their niece’s bride-price

The former was called pumâ (maternal uncle’s/mother’s brother’s share of bride-price) and the latter nôchao (mother’s sister’s share of bride-price). The bride’s paternal aunt also received bride-prices called “nohchao” (paternal aunt’s/father’s sister’s share). These three kinds of bride-price would go to one’s close blood relation, but normally outside the clan. The main purpose of a bride-price in the Mara society was for the concern and care of the bride, her husband and her children to be.  Therefore, it is not clear if this could be regarded as a trace of a matrilineal society.

A divorced wife having the right to retain her okia

As mentioned above, the okia was the highest of all the different categories of a girl’s bride-price. If the husband was the one who divorced his wife, he would forfeit the whole bride-price he had previously paid and all his children of the divorced wife remain his. However, if it was the wife who divorced her husband, all of the bride-price has to be returned to the husband, except the okia. The reason was to enable the children of the divorced woman to remain the children of their divorced father. It is therefore not clear if this too may be regarded as a trace of a matrilineal society.

Levirate marriage

Levirate marriage in Mara applied normally, but not exclusively, to a young widow with or without children. If she did not have children, and since she could not inherit her husband’s property, she would have to return to her father’s or brother’s house if there was no unmarried brother-in-law to marry her. If she had children, it would be her choice to go if she wanted to remarry or to remain if she wanted to take care of her children even if there was no brother-in-law to marry her. In the Mara custom, the latter was called “kuh khei” meaning, staying and taking care of one’s children (like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings). Normally it was the unmarried younger brother who took his late older brother’s widow, provided that age difference between them was not pronounced. This was because all the elder brothers would have already been married with children. In that case, the widow of their younger brother would not want to become an auxiliary wife. A polygamist Mara had only one principal wife; the rest were auxiliary wives.

In the Mara language, this levirate marriage was called “bâh” and had a strong positive connotative meaning of love, responsibility and kinship relationship. If the family said to the young widow, eima châ bâh aw (literally, we will take hold of you), they were saying to her “we love you, you are our family, your children need you, we cannot afford to let you go, we could not think of you going through the shame of widowhood, so we will take hold of you for your late husband’s brother”. The purpose of the Mara levirate marriage was different from that of the Old Testament. In the latter it was to beget sons for the late brother so that the late brother’s name would not be wiped out from the land. In the former it was to protect and provide for the young widow and her children. Orphans and widows were vulnerable. Widowhood was a shame and it was difficult for a widow to remarry. For this reason, even if the young widow may not have any feeling for her brother-in-law, she would agree to the marriage, and the same applies to the brother-in-law. Family, responsibility and honor (brain) came before feeling/love (heart). Thus it is not clear whether the Mara levirate marriage can be regarded as showing a trace of recent matrilineal system.

A daughter’s bride-price exceeding the normal rate of her father’s clan if her mother was from a superior clan

Not only a daughter’s bride-price would exceed the normal rate of her father’s clan if her mother was from a superior clan, as mentioned above, the mother’s clan determined the social status of her husband and her children. This seems to be the strongest case of all the eight traces listed above by Hutton. Based on this, there is strong possibility that the Mara society was once matrilineal.

King’s sister to open his vault

The practice of the reservation of the right of the late king’s sister or her son to perform the duty of opening the vault of the king’s tomb for a new internment and receiving a fee for articles of value interred with the late king, so that these heirlooms were lost to the male and secured in the possession of the female line, has some connection with paying and receiving death dues, called “ru” or “rumâ”(literally, bone price). Ru was payable on the death of any married person. A man’s ru was usually paid by his eldest son to the late man’s maternal uncle, or if he had no son, by whosoever inherited from him. The youngest son paid his mother’s ru to his mother’s brother who is his own maternal uncle. The dead man’s maternal uncles carried his coffin and the dead woman’s brothers carried her coffin to the grave. As the corpse was lowered down into the grave, the maternal uncle (of the dead man) or the brother (of the dead woman) pushed the body into the vault and closed it with a stone slate (cf. Parry 1932:286, 401; Zohra 1995:111-112). When a mother died, her father’s clan took care of her; when a father died, his mother’s clan took care of him, which indicated that both duties were performed by the maternal side. The relationship should be noted here: the king in question was the one who would receive the sister’s ru. Hutton’s assertion (Parry 1932:xiii-xiv) that this is the most convincing survival of all the matrilineal system, has some possibilities that should be considered.

In addition to what Hutton lists above, there were other areas one could possibly argue for a trace of a recent matrilineal system.

Respect shown and importance accorded to maternal uncles

The respect shown and importance accorded to the maternal uncles may be deduced from the following sayings: Chakhâ lâ alô pazaw thei lei, puhpa bie thy thei lei (as you are unable to throw a stone far upward you are unable [not allowed] to disregard your maternal uncle’s words); Na puhpa mohnao kha, na chao a zaoh aw (despise [dishonor/look down] your maternal uncle, you loose your buttock [you will get sick and die/you will be cursed]); Puhpa o la a ngia hapa hmo cha a vaw kua hnabeiseih khao khah y (do not expect goods/money that have entered into maternal uncle’s house to return, a saying which implies that if your uncle asks you for a loan, never refuse, and when you have given him a loan, never go and ask him to return the loan); Puhpa vo a bu (literally, to cover oneself with maternal uncle’s skin, to mean that this person could not be touched because his maternal uncle’s clan would all come to avenge him); etc. In return, maternal uncles surrounded their nephews and nieces with love, concern and care. It was said that when the British came, they asked the Lushais whom they feared and respected most in their society and the answer was their kings (chiefs). They then asked them how they addressed him and the answer was “lalpa.” The British told the Lushais to address him “lalpa.”  When the British arrived in Maraland they asked the same question. The Mara people answered that they respected and feared their maternal uncle (mother’s brother) most and that they addressed him “pâpuh” (the Mara people addressed their king “abeipa” [majesty] and their queen “abeinô” [madam-majesty]). The Mara people ended up in calling a British man “maternal uncle.”

In many cases it was maternal uncles who brought up their nephews and nieces (sisters’ children), the case of this researcher is a practical illustration. Women also did not take their husbands’ clan names after marriage; they continued to maintain their own clans and remained strongly linked to their clans. Another interesting concept was the term opi. The principal and combined large dwelling (house) of the Mara extended family (chhôhkha) was called opi (principal house, which can also mean mother house – o [house], pi [a word used to refer to mature female animal as in seihpi [cow]). From all of these – how women were treated with respect and dignity, how maternal uncles were respected and feared, etc – Hutton’s hypothesis of traces of recent matrilineal system is quite interesting and displays strong possibilities.

Social ladder climbing through mother’s clan status

Mara people were social ladder climbers. But this social ladder climbing is determined not so much by one’s wealth or bravery as it is to the clan status of one’s mother. If a plebian or patrician family takes wives from the royal clans for three successive generations, then on the fourth generation, the family attained royal clan status. They could demand bride price equivalent to that of a royal clan. In the same way, the son or daughter of a royal father cannot claim equality with other royal children if his or her mother does not belong to a pure royal blood.

Mother’s leading role as expressed in proverbial sayings

The proverb, “Nô rei a ngiah leipa cha a po a su” (literally, one who disobeys one’s mother hits a bush) warns a child that if he/she disobeys his/her mother’s teaching and command, he will lose his/her way, that is, he/she will not succeed in life. There is no proverb which says, “Paw rei a ngiah leipa cha a po a su” (one who disobeys one’s father hits a bush). Another proverb, “Nô kyhpachana tlu ta a sôhpa y vei” (there is no greater love than a mother’s love) illustrates a mother’s life-giving love for her children. There is no proverb which says, “Paw kyhpachana tlu ta a sôhpa y vei” (there is no greater love than a father’s love).

Feminine words above masculine ones in word pairs

The importance, respect and affection females enjoyed in family and society may also be deduced from the order of word pairs (or “married words” in Mara language concept) that described a kind of hierarchy.  Normally, though not always as a rule, a higher one would come first in word pairs; for example, alai-achyh (big and small), molai-mochyh (big people and small people, an expression in terms of position), abei-machhie (royal and plebeian), etc. In the same way, in many cases, female or feminine words came first when paired with male or masculine words, for example, nô-paw (mother and father - parents), chanô-chapaw (female-male), seihpi-seihtôh (cow-bull) and so on.

Female ancestor names

The strongest argument for a past matrilineal system, which both Parry and Hutton have overlooked, is in tracing clan ancestors. For example, Fachhai clan and Bohia-Thlyuthâ clan claim that their first male ancestors were chhaohhiahpa or avâ (God or heaven) and the Python God respectively. Python was the chief God of the Bohia-Thlyuthâ area. In other words, these clans claim divine origin, that is, they are direct descendants of their gods. Some kings in the Ancient Near East too claimed divine origin to legitimize their ascension to the throne as well as to assert their power and dominion (Brin 1994:272-273; Fachhai 2007:39ff). On the Fachhai clan’s claim of divine origin, one tradition says that the one who conceived the mother of the ancestor of the Fachhai clan was a divine. In another tradition, Laihneizuanô conceived the Fachhai ancestor Zawkhai through eating a chheihluh (Phyllanthus Emblica) fruit (cf. Zohra 1995:46-47) which was coated with divine sperm. How did the Fachhais get their clan name “Fachhai” instead of following after the name of their first ancestor Zawkhaih? This question is shrouded in obscurity. One tradition, however, says that the Fachhais take the name of territory where they resided or ruled as their clan name.

These two clans have historical names for their first female ancestors who were said to have been conceived by the clans’ divine male ancestors. Pithlô was Bohia and Thlythâ (twin brothers) clans’ ancestor mother, while Laihnei Zuanô (lady of Laihnei village) was the ancestor mother for the Fachhai clan (Zohrah 1995:40, 46). However, it is interesting to note that except for these first mother ancestors, all the descents afterwards were traced patrilineally. Therefore, even if the Mara society practised a matrilineal system in the past, it could not have been a recent past phenomenon. It should also be concluded that, even if the Mara society was matrilineal in the beginning, it developed in the interim into a patrilineal and patriarchal society in some distant past, not in recent past as Hutton argues. The practice of primogeniture (see below) was indicative of this.

Female as physically weaker sex

Although women were not considered inferior to men, they were treated as the physically weaker sex who should not be asked to do hard “masculine” work and duties. The saying, “chapaw râh sa, chanô o sa” (literally, male, a jungle [wild] animal; female, a home [pet] animal) clearly defined gender roles in the Mara society. Men went to frontier and women stayed home.  Men went to farm, to war, to hunt, to fish, to gather house building materials, to travel, to sell exports and bring home imported goods, etc. Women stayed home to take care of children and to do household chores.

Although treating female as a physically weaker sex protected women from physical abuse and doing physically demanding works (or men’s work listed above), the ideology of female as the weaker sex inevitably created some stereotyping. Although wise, noble and aristocratic women and princesses freely participated in political and social discussions, and women were treated with respect and dignity, nevertheless, like many other women, Mara women, did not escape some negative stereotyping. Zohra (1995:88-91) regards this as a strong manifestation of the Mara patriarchal culture. Negative stereotyping of female gender could be inferred from sayings such as: chanô sona khih hawka zoh vei (the wisdom of a woman will not go beyond the village gate); cha-ia luh lei, chanô lôh lei (“headless crab, mindless woman”, meaning crabs do not have heads, neither do women have intelligence); chanô dô nao (easily deceivable woman – saying to excuse a woman who was impregnated by a man who would not marry her but who acted as if he really loved her to get the woman’s sexual consent); nô tai (female-defeated [male], a term used to shame boys who were defeated by girls in fights, games and sports); and “Dawhkiah chhie ky vei, chanô chhie ky vei.” This last saying compared less attractive women with a not-well-finished basket. Just as a not-well-finished basket has some use, a woman who was not necessarily attractive would find a husband. This saying has a positive connotation as well; suggesting that while a man may end up not being able to find a wife, a woman – however unattractive she may be – would have men who would want to marry her. This further implies that a woman could find a husband quite easily.

The Mara people’s northern neighbors, the Lusheis (Mizos), are far more notorious in negative stereotyping of their women folk. Their proverbial sayings in this regard include: bad fence and bad wife can be changed (replaced); woman is like a seed which depends upon the earth in which it is sown; the wisdom of women do not reach the other side of the river; an undisciplined wife and unweeded grass in the boundary of the field are both unbearable, the fruits of Taitaw lying on the road and a marriageable lady can be picked up by anyone who comes along; women and crabs have no religion; and many other sayings that compare women with crabs (cf. Ralte 1993:12-40; see also Downs 1996:70-76 and works cited there). Could the Mara people’s negative stereotyping of females be influenced by their northern neighbors, the Lusheis, who notoriously believed that women are lower than men? This would be an interesting topic for future research.

On the other side of the coin, men were stereotyped as “chapaw kyh na sawku kyh” (like a small path way of porcupine in the thick bush, men can go anywhere); “chapaw bie, ngiahrai hnie” (the footprint of a bull/boar remains, likewise a man does not change his word); “chapaw haina ky vei, ngiahraih râna ky vei” (like a wild boar which can run anywhere, a man can explain away everything if he is cornered); “a chapaw lei kaw” (“he is no man”, to describe a coward); etc.

Concluding observations on Mara society as a matrilineal one in the past

A few societies/tribes (see examples immediate below) in the north eastern States of India continue to practice matrilineal and matrilocal systems (Downs 1996:65-66). However, Downs (1996:66) concludes that “at least from the time systematic study of the tribal societies of North East India began to be made, it is clear that all of them are patriarchal, irrespective of whether they have matrilineal or patrilineal kinship systems.” For example, in the matrilineal societies of Khasi and Jaintia in the Meghalaya State, even though the position and function of a woman within the kinship system is highly valued, it does not necessarily translate into power and influence of women in the family and society. The matrilineal system in these societies does not necessarily command respect for a woman as a person, regard her as equal to a man, nor are women necessarily highly regarded or permitted freedom of actions as persons (Downs 1996:67 and works cited there).

Based on the above discussions, the theory of the Mara society’s practice of matrilineal system in a distant past has strong possibilities. This may explain the female friendliness of the society as well as respect accorded to maternal uncles. However, if the Mara society had never been a matrilineal, but always been patriarchal, the society’s female friendliness would indicate that patriarchy was practiced differently in different societies. Some were more female friendlier than others.

5.7. Mara Marriage

Although Mara men and women freely mixed, their moral standards were very high. So adultery and rape were very rare. The public knowledge of one’s loss of virginity was the most shameful thing for the unmarried Mara woman and to some degree unmarried Mara man as well. Marriage was either through mutual choice or arranged. Whichever way it was, a bride price called “mâ” was given to the bride’s family, which was distributed (called “mâtlei” in Mara language) among selected clan male members of the bride’s father. The “mâ” of a bride from a patrician clan is higher than that of a plebian clan and a royal clan higher than a patrician. The Mara bride price or mâ system is, as Parry (1932:311) rightly asserts, the most complicated bride price system known. Only the insiders could understand it properly.

Parry (1932:307-310) and other writers such as Chawngkhuma (2010:168-169; 2011) misunderstood Mara apahawh as child marriage. There is no child marriage as such in the Mara society. It is very difficult to explain the Mara apahawh system in English. In the Apahawh system, the boy’s parents (normally the mother) asked the girl child’s hand (even yet to be born girl child’s hand) from her parents (family) with or without paying token engagement price called thuasôh to the girl’s family. However, it was not a full engagement, as it was not binding. It was simply a wish from the boy’s side. If the girl or the girl’s family no longer has interest in the apahawh by the boy’s family when the girl reaches marriageable age, the apahawh could easily be made null and void. And this apahawh system was not a common practice (for fuller details on Mara marriage, see Chawngkhuma 2001). 

Polygamy was accepted, but very rare in practice except in the case of the royal clans. Faithfulness to their spouses was mandatory, and regarded as the sacred life for the married Mara men and women. Divorce was therefore a very rare occurrence. Houses were left unlocked, fields and gardens kept unguarded, and cattle were unherded. No one stole. Stealing was a taboo and foreign word to the Mara people.

5.8. Mara Political Administration

5.8.1. Mara Political Administration before the Arrival of the British Government

The Mara people’s understanding of nationhood was different from the modern concept of nation-state. For the Mara people, each people or tribe is a nation in its own right by virtue of speaking a distinct language, having its own ruler (king), and territory (land). Before the advent of colonialism, the Maraland was comprised of numerous sovereign city-states.

The first Europeans who entered the region considered the Mara country as no more than “jungles” where “head-hunting”, “heathen”, “primitive” “wild tribesmen” lived (see Lewin 1870, Lorrain 1912; Parry 1932, etc.). As for themselves, due to ignorance or refusal to see a “log” in their own eyes, they regarded themselves civilized even if they did everything the Mara people did – raiding, killing, looting, enslaving, and so forth. But Maraland was a normal country with normal people and normal kings. It was composed of self-contained independent city-states (or city-states in most cases if one goes by size). In ancient times, a permanent settlement, however small, could be called a city. In Genesis 2:17 of the Bible, Cain was reported to have built a city, although the preceding verses seem to suggest the population of the entire world during that time at no more than the number of an extended family. From this concept, sovereign permanent settlements of the Mara people in antiquity too could well qualify to be called cities. Since these “cities” were sovereign states with their own kings, they were indeed city-states.

This city-state system seems to be true of other Chin-Kuki groups as well. Each city-state had its territory and king. Chief was a term imposed by the British for Mara as well as other Chin-Kuki kings. Since they had city-states, maintained a standing army (all men), collect royal tributes (taxes), established a dynasty, and exercised absolute power over their subjects and city-states, they were indeed kings in their own rights. Mara language in fact does not have separate terms for “king” and “chief.” The same term “abeipa” is used to refer to both British and Mara kings. The term queen (abeinô) is used for the principal wife of the usually polygamous king. The king ruled and settled all the disputes through his royal council or royal court called “abei-machâ ryureina”. In some cases, there was a system of a principal city-state (with its great king) with its sub-ordinate city-states (with vassal kings). The great king usually created separate city-states for his other sons who would not get the throne of the principal city-state usually by dividing his land (kingdom). In rare cases, these princes would also conquer new territories where they could become kings.

The records tell us that the nineteenth century Maraland was characterized by wars, both inter and intra-tribal conflicts. Warriors (“pasaiphazy”) were highly esteemed and honored. Lieutenant T Latter, NE Parry, Colonel Phayre, and TH Lewin gave a very vivid picture of the warlike nature of the Mara people. Latter, the 67^th NI of the Arakan Local Battalion, in his article “A Note on Some Hill Tribes of the Kolodyne River” in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. 169, concludes: “The most powerful among them are the Shendoos, who, being beyond our frontiers are known to us only by their devastations on those tribes which pay us tribute, the suddenness, secrecy and never-failing nature of these attacks cause them to be held by the rest in a dread…” (Parry 1932:6). NE Parry (1932:7) notes: “The Shindus or Lakhers, as we now call them, seem in fact to have been most assiduous raiders, and though the misdeeds of other tribes were doubtless not infrequently fathered upon them as the most redoubtable of the hill tribes, they seem to have well earned their reputation as harriers of the countryside.” Colonel Phayre, in his report to the Government of India, introduces the Mara people as follow: “I have known all the tribes personally except the Shendus for many years. The Shendu tribe is always been spoken of as powerful, and as being much feared” (Parry 1932:9).

Lewin (1870:157) is quick to concur: “If I go up the river I should never come down again as my head would be cut off and set on a pole by the Shendus (Maras) … a predatory and powerful tribe beyond British limit who feared neither man nor devil, and who by perpetual forays to obtain slaves, kept the whole frontier perpetual terror.”Commenting on the war-likeness of the Mara people, most writers, for example Lewin (1870), Zohra (1995), and a few others classify the Mara people as one of the head-hunting tribes. However, going against the grain, recently, C Vâkô (2006) interestingly argues that the Mara people were not head-hunting people in a true sense of the term. He contends that warriors occasionally brought the enemies’ heads home only to prove that they had defeated the enemy. This appears to be the assertion of Parry (1932) as well who contends that, although the Mara warriors brought heads home, head came second to other war motives.

Whether the Mara people were head hunters in a true sense or not will need further scholarly research. However, one thing is clear; “head” was not the primary motive of war; neither was territorial annexation the central motive. The primary motive of going for a raid was for gain of wealth in terms of guns, silver, gongs, any other portable articles, and slaves. Another major motive was for name and fame for the king and his city-state. The raiding also spelt glory for young warriors, who longed for a chance to show and prove their power and bravery (pasaiphana). One of the other war motives of the Mara people, which a modern mind would find difficult to comprehend, is executing a raid to cease the mourning of the king called “abei mâchhie paina.” When dead occurred in the royal family, the whole city-state and its sub-ordinate city-states spent days in mourning, with lamentations and war cries. Even after the burial, no drum or gong were beaten. Everyone had to remain quiet in his house till the king ceased his mourning. To restore happiness to the royal family, warriors executed a raid and brought home the heads of the slain persons which were placed on the memorial posts of the deceased royal member.  When this duty was completed, the mourning ceased and the city-states resumed its normal life.

The citizens had no right to exploit any part of the city-state land for cultivation without the permission of the king. The Mara people did not have permanent farms for growing rice (their staple food), maize or corn (common food), and other crops. Within the boundaries of the city-state lands, they moved from one range called lyupih to another lyupih every year. The distance of a lyupih from the village ranges from some five kilometres to even more than thirty kilometres depending on the location of the range. The process of this shifting farming system included: selection of a farming range (lyuhpih) for the whole city-state and surveying it (lyumo), distribution of farming plots (lyuhmo rai) (these three were usually done in October-November), clearing of the forests/felling trees/bamboos (lyuva) (November-January), burning of the felled trees/bamboos into ashes (lyuru) in (March/April) after two to three months of letting it dry, sowing of seeds (lyuhmitu) (April-June), clearing of weeds (lyuthlyu) two to three times before harvest (June-October), guarding the crops from pests (lyurieha) and harvest (sâhhria for rice - there are different terms of harvest for different crops) in November-December, and carrying (on their back and/or head) the harvests home (sawpâhphao) during and soon after the harvest. Normally all of these tasks were done by men except the last two – harvesting and carrying grains home – where both men and women participated.

In spite of the rapid degradation and deforestation, this practice of slash and burn farming system is still being followed in many Mara villages today both in India and Myanmar. Even from a commercial perspective, if trees and bamboos felled are sold instead of burning them down to ashes, its sale proceeds would have been much higher than the value of the crops harvested. But this option is not available due to lack of roads.

The royal council distributed (rai) farming plots (lyuhmo) according to the size and strength of the families and their nobility. Unlike their counterpart Sailo kings of the Lushai Hills, a Mara royal family reserved a large area as its own farm (cultivated by slaves), which was usually the most fertile plot. This was in addition to “royal and land taxes” called sabai (royal tax in terms of paddy), sahaw (royal tax [portion] in terms of game meat and slaughtered domestic meat), and râhpaw (land tax for cultivating the royal land or/and someone’s lyubô) they received. In some parts of Maraland, however, for example Sizô and Hlaipaoh areas, lyuhmo was called lyubô (literally, permanent holding farm). In addition to the kings selecting the most fertile plots as their lyobôs, nobles, aristocrats, and higher clansmen, too, had the right to hold their lyubôs (normally more fertile plots than others) permanently which were hereditarily handed down from generation to generation. A machhie (plebeian or commoner) could not keep a lyubô. If he cultivated a lyubô, he had to pay royalty, called râhpaw. According to Zohra (1995:178), the râhpaw was paid to the holder of the lyubô, but for Parry (1932:252-254) it was paid to the king. Both cases seemed to be in practice. If someone cultivated a farm which was not a lyubô, he paid râhpaw only to the king. If it was a lyubô, then he paid it to both the king and the holder of the lyubô.

This lyubô system seemed to suggest some kind of land holding (title holding). It would appear that within the land ownership of the king, some people were able to hold titles, or better called “sub- land ownership” of lyubô in several farming ranges. The holder of a lyubô could pass it to others on sale or through a gift exchange (Zohra 1995:178). This has some correlation with the ancient Israelite land holding system. Yahweh was the owner of the land. However, the Israelites could hold a piece of Yahweh’s land for their permanent settlement and cultivation. In the Mara society, the king owned the land, but others may hold a piece of the king’s land as their permanent lyubôs. These similarities between the Israelite family inheritance land and Mara lyubô (a family’s farming plot) would be an interesting topic for future research.

5.8.2. Effects of the British Colonial Expansion on the Mara Society

The British conquered Maraland much later than their neighboring tribes. Owing to the Mara city-states’ strong defense and their warriors’ skillful tactics in their attacks as well as the frontier terrain of their land, the British Bengal (India) and Burma governments seemed to foist on the other the responsibility of colonizing the Mara city-states (Parry 1932:9). However, the Mara warriors’ repeated attacks on the British administered city-states including the British outposts in the 1870’s (Parry 1932:9) unavoidably resulted in the expeditions of the Maraland by the British government. Spears, arrows and old flintlocks (tower muskets) of Mara warriors could not match with the sophisticated weapons of the British soldiers. Thus, with the fall of Zyhno, the last Mara independent stronghold under its powerful king, King Tevo, in 1924, the entire Maraland was claimed to belong to the British Empire. The continual independence of the Zyhno City-State, after all the city-states of Maraland had fallen, was thus coveted by other city-states as the following lines clearly demonstrate: “Zyhno khih la Pai lei khih naih ta, noh tatota khohty a tô e; Hiakha lâ Rôtlâh khih na a lyu e” (which roughly translated goes as follow: ’Tis Zyhno City-State, true to its independence, play drum everyday [feast everyday); in the tradition of the [great] Hiakha City-State of Mount Ro).

The first annexation of the Maraland into the British Empire occurred in the Chin-Lushai Expedition of 1888-89. This expedition was prompted by the murder of Lieutenant John Stewart of the Leicester Regiment who was engaged in the survey work, with a small escort of Gurkhas, by a Lai raiding party under their King Hausata. His brother King Vantura also raided Tlôsai, but died of wounds received in the raid. This connection resulted in the Maraland to be included in the expedition as well. A few Mara city-states of Tlôsai-Siaha group were brought under the British rule. In 1891, all the city-states of the Tlôsai-Siaha group were annexed to the British Lushai Hills (Parry 1932:9-11). In 1922 a meeting was held at Baw (Burma) between the Superintendent of the Lushai Hills and the Deputy Commissioner of the Chin Hills and Northern Arakan. From then onwards the annexation of all the independent Mara city-states was carried out on a large scale.

The hitherto one ethnic group Mara people and their land was then divided and annexed to three different districts of British India and Burma colonies. The entire Lyutu and Lialai groups, larger parts of Vyhtu and Chapi-Ngiapha (Sizô) areas, and half of Lôchei-Hawthai (mainly Lôchei group) came under the British Chin Hills of Burma. The entire area of the Heima group and a small part of Tlôsai-Siaha territories fell under the British Northern Arakan District (Burma). The entire regions of Zyhno group, half of the Lôchei-Hawthai (mainly the Hawthai group), a larger part of Tlôsai-Siaha and small parts of Vyhtu and Chapi-Ngiaphia (Sizô) territories came under the British Lushai Hills District of Assam, India. This division made “birds of the same feather” fly in opposite directions while forcing “birds of different feather” fly together.

With the annexation of the entire Maraland into the Bristish administration, the raiding eventually came to an end. However, although they stopped raiding for fear of the British government, and the land appeared to be peaceful outwardly, in their inner beings, the Mara warriors were still longing for those “good” old raiding days. This is demonstrated vividly by the songs of Zyhno:

The Government has taken over all our country, we shall always have to work for the Government; it were better had we never been born.

The Government has now hemmed us in, on the north, on the south, on the east, on the west. Henceforth none of our young warriors will drink the waters of the Salu River, where we always used to raid (Parry 1932:18).

5.8.3. Effects of India and Burma Independences on the Mara Society

With the independence of India in 1947 and the impending independence of Burma in 1948, West Maraland, ie, Maraland in the British Lushai Hills, became part of the independent India. The Maraland of the British Chin Hills and Northern Arakan District remained within British Burma. With the independence of Burma in 1948, they became part of the independent Burma, now called Myanmar. During the border delineation between British India and Burma, the Mara people were not in a position to speak up for themselves. They were neither given a choice in the matter, whether to be together in India or Burma; or become a separate sovereign state as they used to be. The British government did not have the slightest concern for the welfare of the Mara people to keep them together in one country. It was more interested in rivers, mountains, and valleys of Maraland than the people of the land. The international boundary between India and Burma thus largely followed that of the colonial drawn boundaries. West Maraland, i.e., Maraland in the British Lushai Hills became part of India while Maraland of the British Chin Hills and Northern Arakan District became part of the erstwhile independent Burma.

The immediate effect of decolonization and subsequent political rearrangements was that a Mara has now become a foreigner to his brother who lives in the next village. He has become a foreigner at his own uncle’s house. A unified nation was now separated. Then, and now, the hardships caused by this division have been unspeakable. Political exigencies have not spared the Mara people of many hassles, for instance, of the need of procuring visas in order to visit their brethrens living just a stone’s throw away. For without visa, to visit one’s brother across the river could result in an arrest on account of “illegal” border crossing. This is against the Creator God’s will. So it is causing tremendous human miseries. You are now a “foreigner” in your own land and at your uncle’s home. Your brother, too, has become a foreigner. To visit your brother who lives a couple of kilometres away, you have to get visa first from the embassy of your brother’s new nation thousands of kilometers away.  But the Mara blood is thicker than the waters of the alien imposed international boundary rivers. They had to cross these borders (see also Fachhai 1994:100). Currently, the governments of India and Myanmar allow certain degrees of freedom of movements across the international boundaries for the Mara people to visit each other.

One of the biggest changes effected on Maraland by the independence of India and Burma is the transfer of land ownership from that of monarchy to community. With the abolition of the monarchy, kings were forcefully compensated with a small amount of money and the city-state lands became community lands. The village council replaced the king and his royal court in controlling and managing land tenure. Boundaries of the village community land remained as those of the city-state boundaries. In Maraland in India, with the establishment of the Mara Autonomous District Council, the custody of the land went to the District Council. However, except in town areas like Siaha and Tipa, the District Council exercises control and management of the village community lands through respective village councils. The District Council issues land holding titles called PS (Permanent Settlement) to land holders. Older generation laments that land and forests were better conserved and taken care of during the monarchic period compared to the present democratic time.

In Myanmar, boundaries of the village community land remained as those of the city-state boundaries. However, land tenure system in Maraland in Myanmar became complicated when Myanmar became a socialist country and military junta subsequently. The citizens have the right to settle (build a house) in a given village and work on a piece of land within the boundaries of their respective village councils, but they do not have the right to own. Nevertheless, the villagers have the freedom to work within their village council boundaries by the approval of the village council. And the Government and the people continue to respect their village council land boundaries.

With the colonization of these city-states by the British and the subsequent establishments of India, Burma and Bangladesh nation-states, the order of existence as “one language, one land, one nation” has been violated against the Mara people. They were divided into two and annexed to hitherto alien nation-states of India and Burma for interests other than their own. The next day the Mara people woke up only to find themselves become foreigners in their own land. Their brothers and sisters who speak the same Mara language are now foreigners while whose language they do not know become fellow citizens of their new respective nation-states.

5.9. Mara Society Today

5.9.1. West Maraland (Maraland in Mizoram State, India)

A few years after Indian independence, the Lushai Hills District of the then Assam State in India became the Mizo District Council in 1952. “Mizo”, meaning “hill people’ in the Lushei language and is used as inclusive of all the Mara, Lai, Lushei, and other groups of the Lushai Hill District. The following year, in 1953, the Mara and Lai peoples of the former Lushai Hills were grouped together under the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council. “Pawi” is a name given to the Lais by the Lusheis. In 1972, the Mizo District Council was upgraded to a Union Territory. The Pawi-Lakher Regional Council was also divided and constituted as two separate autonomous district councils within the Mizoram Union Territory. In 1987, Mizoram became the 23^rd State of the Union of India.

When the Mizo District Council was upgraded to a Union Territory level, the Maraland too was upgraded to an Autonomous District Council level. Logic and common sense dictate that when Mizoram Union Territory was upgraded to a State of India, the Mara Autonomous Council too should have been upgraded to a Union Territory level.  But that was not to be the case. The Mara Autonomous District Council remained as it was within the State of Mizoram.

There are three major political parties in West Maraland today – Indian National Congress (the oldest one in Maraland), Mizo National Front, and Mara Democratic Front. The Mara people, largely represented by these major parties, one way or the other feel that Maraland is being neglected by successive Mizoram and Indian governments. This assumption springs from the fact that less developmental funds are allocated to the area. They are also frustrated over and again by many hurdles successive Mizoram government seems to have placed for the releasing of funds to the Council. The Mara people also lamented about successive state government’s slow action in the recommendation of the Council’s projects to the Central government. Some Mara people also fear the danger of them being assimilated into the Duhlianized identity of Mizo.

In response to these, the Congress is appealing to the Government of India for a “Direct Finance” system for the Mara Autonomous District Council. They want all the Central funds meant for the Council to come to the latter directly without going through the Mizoram state government. Together with the Lai Autonomous District Council and Chakma Autonomous District Council, they also speak about a Union Territory for areas covering these three Autonomous District Councils. The slogan of the Mara Democratic Front is a Union Territory exclusively for the Mara people covering the present West Maraland area. On their part, the Mizo National Front in Maraland, which became a formidable force while this party was the ruling party of the Mizoram State since the beginning of the last decade, seems to have the opinion that if the Mara people want their land developed, they had better join the ruling party of the state. They argue that without the blessing of the state government, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out any developmental programes in Maraland. There have also been talks among students about a Maraland Territorial Council somewhere in the line of Bodoland Territorial Council. Meanwhile, West Maraland remains one of the least developed areas of the Mizoram state (further discussion on the poverty and alienation of West Maraland, see Hazarika 2001; Pillai 2006; Fachhai 2008c).

5.9.2. East Maraland (Maraland in Chin State, Myanmar)

For East Maraland people (Mara people in Myanmar), the situation is even worse. They do not have their own district (or township). They are divided into three and annexed to Paletwa, Matupi and Thlantlang townships of Chin State respectively. They became not only a minority but neglected regions of these townships. Till recently, there was not even a single high school in the entire East Maraland. Mara boys and girls had to trek days, sometimes even five to six days altogether, to reach the nearest high school. Today, there are a few “bush” high schools in East Maraland. Since there are no roads in East Maraland, except short distance seasonal roads in recent years, the land is entirely cut off from the rest of the world. Thus, the people transport all essential goods from nearby towns in Myanmar or India either on their own backs or on horse backs in case of families rich enough to own a horse. In order for roads to reach Haka, Thlantlang, and Matupi towns, the Mara people under these townships have committed their wealth, sweat, toil, and blood. Some of them were said to have died while constructing these roads. But these roads were not to reach their own land. The Mara people had spent all their energies in constructing roads to reach Lumbang, Falam, Haka, Thlantlang, Hmawngtlang, and Matupi. No more energy left to continue to construct roads to reach their own land.

There is not a single hospital for the entire East Maraland. Therefore many Mara people are dying every week for curable diseases and sicknesses. There is no college or university. So, Mara people in this region have had to endure long distances to obtain their higher education. The harsh military rule in Myanmar compounded all these. For this reason, many young men and women of East Maraland have left their villages for abroad in search of freedom from fear and for greener pasture. The exodus of these working forces is causing tremendous problems especially in the area of food security. Only very few families in a given village would now farm, and that the harvest could no longer support the entire village. This was further compounded again by bamboo flowering called Mautam in Mizo (Mawh chakâh in Mara) in 2008 and into 2009, which have resulted in severe food shortages in many of the East Maraland villages (see Fachhai 2008a). After decades groaning in agony and pain, there is though, a small ray of hope after the recent democratic election and formation of government.

6. MARA RELIGION

Mara religion maybe divided into two eras: Mara Traditional Religion and Modern Mara Religion (Christianity).

6.1. Mara Traditional Religion

The Mara people were notoriously religious. Being adherents of the Mara traditional religion (some call it “Animism”), it was impossible to dichotomize the religious, social, economic and political life of the Mara people. They were all interwoven. Everything was regarded sacred, taboo, or shrouded in superstition. From conception to pregnancy, birth, life, and death, the Mara lived in fear of spirits. Thus endless rituals, rites, and sacrifices were performed to please the gods, goddesses, demons, and spirits of the dead. One significant thing in the Mara people’s religion was the belief in an all powerful transcendent God called “Khazohpa” or “Khazoh Lythâhpa” (which term was adopted by missionaries for the Biblical God), who was believed to be above all gods. To worship and please this God, the highest animal sacrificial ceremony called “hrôpi bao” was observed annually. There was no human (adult or child) sacrifice in the Mara Traditional Religion.

To be accorded a befitting funeral and burial was every Mara’s last will and honor. The absence of this would be a great shame. Thus, the dead were honored with grand funeral feasts, funeral dances, lamentations, construction of memorial stone mounds called “lôphei” or pagoda type stone mound called “phura” in the case of royal family, erection of memorial stones and memorial pillars. Family tombs were built of rock slates which would last “forever.” Dead family members would be buried if the death interval in the family was at least three years apart. For this reason, the Mara people today still remember and honor the tombs, memorial lôpheis, phuras and stones of their dead, especially the tombs and memorials of their kings and queens. Thus, a Mara lived in a timber-thatch or bamboo-thatch house when he/she was alive (discussed above); when he/she died she lived securely in a beautiful concrete-stone house (rock-slated tomb described above).

After death, a dead man’s spirit went to the country of the dead, called “athih râh or athih khih,” and was believed to be still living as a spirit-body, continued to live in relation with the living family members and society. Therefore, rituals relating to the dead were performed from time to time to make the dead (especially dead relatives) happy so that they may not harm the living in any way.

Other beliefs of the Mara Traditional Religion include: Man having two spirits of good and evil (or one spirit having two natures of good and evil?): This evil spirit of man can disturb him and others (normally causing bad dreams and nightmares). Gods and goddesses of abode (azipa): They are believed to be owners of rivers, pools, lakes, big trees, rocks, mountains, so on and so forth, who can cause many diseases and misfortunes, even death, if not pleased. To propitiate these gods they practiced an animal sacrifice called “pana.” Demons or evil spirits (“khachhie-vâhrupa”), who can cause harm even unto death (for details of other beliefs, rituals, rites, and sacrifices, see Lorrain 1912:88-109; Parry 1932:349-500; Syhly 1988; Zohra 1995:122-163).

6.2. Modern Mara Religion: Christianity in Maraland

Christianity came to Maraland in 1907. Rev Reginald and Mrs. Maud Lorrain of the Lakher (Mara) Pioneer Mission from England were the pioneer missionaries (see Lorrain 1912 for a detail account of their mission work among the Mara people during the first five years as well as his view of the Mara culture and religion before Christianity). Later they were joined by more missionaries from England and the United States. In a matter of fifty years, that is, by the year 1957, the entire Maraland (both India and Burma) was claimed to be Christianized (Syhly 1981). Lorrain and his Lakher (Mara) Pioneer Mission ceded part of their intended mission field (Maraland) to other missions: the western part of Maraland to the Baptist Missionary Society and northern part to the American Baptist Mission.

Some, (e.g. Fachhai 1994:12-13), attribute this mass movement of the Mara people towards Christianity to a spiritual and political vacuum caused by the cease of raiding. Some warriors were said to have retorted: “If we cannot raid anymore, what about trying this new thing (Christianity)?” A new experience of peace and freedom of movement under the British rule also added the fuel. Missionaries and their evangelists could move freely.

The majority of Maraland Christians today are either second or third generation Christians. Although the so-called “nominalism” is gaining ground and some Mara people embrace Christianity as a culture other than following the life and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, Maraland could for all practical purposes be called a “Christian land,” and Mara people a Christian faith community. A large number of the people of the land are committed Christians and an overwhelming majority of Christians are Bible-believing, regular and faithful churchgoers. Today, there is no Mara who adheres a religion other than Christianity (for fuller discussion on Christianity in Maraland, see Syhly 1981; Fachhai 1994; Hlychho 2007).

7.    EDUCATIONAL PROFILE AND LIGUISTIC DESCRIPTION OF THE MARA LANGUAGE

7.1.       Ethno-Linguistic Affinity of Mara

According Hlychho (1967:8), the Mara language belongs to the Kuki-Chin group of the Tibeto-Burman languages (see also Hiphei 2010; Zohra 1995:9-13 and authorities cited there for further discussion on this). However, in recent years this has become a subject of scholarly debate owing to the fact that Mara language is quite different from other Chin-Kuki-Lushai languages.

Based on their socio-linguistic distinctiveness, rich cultural heritage, and economic and political independence, TH Lewin, the first British Officer in the Lushai Hills (now Mizoram); RA Lorrain, the pioneer missionary to Maraland, JH Lorrain, the pioneer missionary of the Baptist Missionary Society in Southern Lushai Hills, and S Barkataki, the first Indian Deputy Commissioner of the Lushai District of Assam of the independent India, after their extensive research and experience, assert that the Mara people are a very distinct people, who speak a distinct language of their own, altogether different from their neighboring tribes.

Lewin (1870:190, 281), who Parry (1932:8) describes as the first British officer who came into contact with and had developed a strong respect for the Mara people, classifies the Mara people as Shendoos or Lakhers, a tribe entirely independent and representing more of a nation than a tribe. RA Lorrain (1912:64) concludes: “There was no likeness between these people and their neighbors, the Lushais. They were quite a different nation …” JH Lorrain (1940:vii) notes: “… Mr Parry’s book ‘The Lakhers’ – is a fascinating work containing much interesting information concerning the Lushais as well as their neighbors, the Lakhers. Amongst these latter tribesfolk – who speak a distinct language of their own …”. Barkataki (1969:82-83; emphases added) in his extensive research of the tribes of Assam, rightly writes: “There is another major tribe called Lakhers (who call themselves Maras) inhabiting the southernmost part of the district. Their dialect [sic] is altogether different from those of other sub-tribes.” Accepting the uniqueness of the Mara language, the Bible Society of India till date does not know where to classify the Mara language. Former North East India Director for the Bible Society of India notes: “Mara or Lakher is spoken in southern Mizoram. During colonial period they were also called Shendus. Whether they belong to Kuki-Chin group has to be ascertained” (Rai 2008).

Chhangte (1987:xix-) attempts to present a case for using the present Mizo (or Duhlian) language as a generic and common language for all the so-called “Mizo” people groups in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh, including the Mara people. He noted that when he visited Maraland in the 60’s his preaching in “Mizo” had to be interpreted into Mara. When he visited the land again in the 80’s, he did not have to be interpreted anymore, as almost all the congregation members understood Mizo now. What Chhangte seems to have deliberately ignored is the fact that if a Mara preacher preaches in one of the Mizo congregations of Lunglei or Aizawl using the Mara language, Mizo people would not understand him, unless they had learned the Mara language. In Maraland today, let alone Mizo, if Chhangte preaches in English in one of the Siaha congregations, many would understand him. But that does not make English the language of the Mara people. In the same way, the Mara people in the Mizoram State in India do understand and speak Mizo, or more correctly Lushei or Duhlian, as it is the lingua-franca of the State. Therefore, it should be noted that although most of the Mara people today are bilinguals, speaking both Mara and Mizo, they will not replace their language with that of the Mizo (Duhlian). The Mara language is alive, loved, cherished, and spoken in both East and West Maraland today.

On the question of whether the Mara people today are Chin (in Myanmar) or Mizo (in India), the answer is both positive and negative. Positive, if the terms Chin and Mizo are used to include all the Kuki-Chin groups in Myanmar and India. Negative, if the terms are more popularly used to describe a more dominant group within the Kuki-Chin group. Inclusive usage of these terms would have resulted in the Mara people in East Maraland having lesser problem in calling themselves Chin, more correctly Mara-Chin, as a neutral term “Chin” is used to include all the Chin-Kuki groups in Myanmar.  The etymology of the term “Chin” is still in discussion among the Chin scholars. There was a Chin Dynasty of ancient China. It would be an interesting research to investigate a possible connection between the Chin groups of Myanmar and the Chin Dynasty of ancient China. Another interesting research would also be the relationship, if there is any, between the Hakha people of Taiwan and Haka people of Chin State.

For the Mara people in West Maraland (Maraland in the Mizoram State of India), because of the practical usages and equation of Duhlianness with Mizoness as well as calling Duhlian language the Mizo language, they feel alienated from the Mizoness. When the official language of the Mizoram State was called Lusei, Mara people could identify themselves as Mizo and use Lusei as their official and trade language of the state. But when the name of the Lusei language was rechristened Mizo, and the term Lushai (Lusei) became obsolete, the Mara people were automatically alienated from the Mizoness, for the Mizo language is not their mother tongue. A research finding shows that the overwhelming majority of the Mara people do not identify themselves as Mizo owing to the fact that the Lusei language is called Mizo language (Khiangte 2009:201-202). In this trajectory, when the Mara people say that they are not Mizo, they basically mean that they are not Lusei. Having said that, if the term “Mizo” is used to include all the Kuki-Chin groups of India, then the Mara people in India could be included in this inclusive Mizo identity.

Mention must also be made concerning the omission of, or only in passing comments about, the Mara people by some authorities in writing “Chin” or “Mizo” history. For example, Liangkhaia (1938, 1947 reprint 2002:24-42) does not include Mara clans under his lists of Mizo clans in his classical piece of Mizo History (Mizo Chanchin). Lalthangliana, B (2000:330) puts the Mizo population in Burma in 1972 at 33,554. This population is too small to include the entire Chin State population and Plain Chins. The figure exclusively refers to the Duhlian/Lusei speaking Mizo only. If the omission is deliberate, then these authors definitely assert that the Mara people are not Chin or Mizo.

There has been much debate concerning the relationship between Mara and its immediate northern neighbor Lai. Based on cognates of some Mara and Lai (Haka-Thlantlang) words and clan similarities between Lai (Haka-Thlantlang) and Mara, some argue that the Mara people are a branch or a sub-tribe of Lai. If the term “Lai” is used as the equivalent of the terms Chin, Mizo, or Kuki, then the Mara people could be one of the Lai tribes exactly the same way Lushei, Hmar, Paite, Gangte, Kom, etc groups would also be sub-tribes of Lai. But this is not to be the case. In reality, Falam and Haka-Thlantlang speaking people would call their language Lai hawlh (language) and their people Lai. This must have been the reason why the Mara people feel alienated from the term “Lai”. For the Mara people, a people group called “Lai” refers mainly to the Falam-Haka-Thlantlang groups of Chin. In the Mizoram State in India, the Lai people today are those formerly known as Pawi. Presenting language cognates (root words) and a few clan similarities as an argument for belonging to one ethnic group is, therefore, not adequate. One must rather go to one’s history.  There are many language cognates between Hebrew and Arabic, but they are two different languages who belong to two different people groups/nations. In the same way, in spite of many cognates between Mara and Lai languages, one simple fact remains – they could not communicate each other. Therefore, it is an undeniable fact that the Mara language is not a dialect of Lai; it a complete language by itself.

Clan names that cut across Mara and Lai are mostly those of the royal clans. This could be a result of the Mara people’s invitation of the princes of Lai to be their kings who would lead them to war and conquer their enemies. These princes did not come to Maraland with their subjects; they came alone and become kings for the Mara people. In other words, before the arrival of the royal clans such as Hlychho (Hlawnchhing in Lai), Choza (Chinzah in Lai), Zawthâ (Zathang in Lai), etc in Maraland, there already were Mara people in Maraland who spoke a distinct language of their own. This must have been the reason why the Hlychho, Choza and Zawtha royal clans no longer speak their ancestors languages – Haka-Thlantlang languages. Instead, they speak Mara language. Before the arrival of these princes, these Mara city-states did have their own kings. But when they were not victorious in their battles, as already noted above, they usually invited the Haka-Thlantlang princes to replace their kings. This was called “abei châta amâ kaw la” in Mara, meaning “they went up and invited them to be their king”. This writer’s father once made an interesting argument concerning which is a royal clan and which is not. According to him, clan royalty was not static, it was a dynamic one. Every clan was a royal clan before. They had legendary mythical clan progenitor. Each clan’s progenitor was the clan’s father-king. But it was the survival of the fittest. With the establishment of a long dynasty by some clans, a system and static nature of royal clan somehow emerged.

Against this backdrop, it must therefore be firmly established that there were indeed Mara royal clans before the arrival of the above listed royal clans from the Haka-Thlantlang areas. Some of the Haka-Thlantlang clans also migrated to Maraland and thus became a part of the Mara history, culture, and ethnicity. This migration of the Haka-Thlantlang speaking people to Maraland must have subsequently resulted in the infusion of many of the Lai words into the Mara language. The reality today is, if a Hlychho clan member from Saikao in Maraland visits his kinsman Hlychho in Thlantlang in Chin State, someone who knows both Mara and Lai has to translate for them so that these kinsmen could communicate each other. The former visits the latter as a Mara and comes back to Maraland as a Mara. This shows that, in spite of clan similarities, they no longer belong to the same ethnic group; their ethnic affiliations are different now – Mara and Lai.

Although Mara language is very distinct from other Kuki-Chin languages and therefore could not communicate with these groups, it is true that there are many root words that are similar between Mara language and other Kuki-Chin languages (see the table below). This again testifies that Mara, Lai, Mizo (Lusei) and other Kuki-Chin groups together belong to the Tibeto-Burman family.  However, it must be established firmly that Mara language is not a dialect of Lai language, nor is it a dialect of Mizo (Lusei) language. It is one of the major languages of the Kuki-Chin group.

The following tables will show that Mara and its northern neighbors Lai and Mizo (Lusei) are close yet distinct ethnic groups.

Examples of cognate words in Mara, Lai, and Mizo (Lusei) languages

Mara	Lai	Mizo (Lusei)	English
ti	ti (long – ie sound)	Tui	water
mei	mei	Mei	fire
thi	thi	Thi	to die
lyu	lo	Lo	farm/field
luh	lu	Lu	head
vao	vawk	Vawk	pig
awh	ar	Ar	chicken
seih	sia	Sial	mithun

Examples of cognate words in Mara & Lai but have no cognate in Mizo (Lushei)

Mara	Lai	Mizo (Lusei)	English
pho	phun	Hnam	clan/people group
chava	tiva	Lui	river
lâ	lam	Kawng	path/road
bei	bawi	Lal	royal/king
zaw	zuang	Thlawk	to fly

Examples of words that have no cognate in Mara, Lai and Mizo (Lushei)

Mara	Lai	Mizo (Lusei)	English
viasa	hoi	Ţhian	friend
ngiachhie	zangfak	Khawngaih	sympathetic
zia	it	Mu	to go to bed/sleep
pati	rawl	Chaw	food
hawti	nghakchia	Naupang	child

The tables above show that the Mizo (Lusei) and the Lai languages are very close compared with that of the Mara language to the Lai or Mizo (Lushei) language. Most words in Lai and Mizo (Lusei) are cognates. But in terms of clan affiliation, clothing, and marriage customs, the Mara and Lai people are closer than the Lai to Mizo (Lusei) or Mara to Mizo (Lusei). As noted above, the Lai and Mara share many common clans, for example Chinza (Lai) and Choza (Mara), Hlawnchhin (Lai) and Hlychho (Mara, etc). However, because they have been living separately from the Lais, Mizos (Luseis), and other neighboring tribes for centuries, the Mara people had developed into a distinct, independent, ethnic people group by themselves, speaking a language different from that of their neighboring tribes. It is yet to be ascertained when these three groups separate from each other. Thus the fact remains: although there are many cognate words, the Mara people could not communicate with their northern neighbors - Lai and Mizo (Lushei) (Lewin 1870:190, 281; Lorrain 1912:64; JH Lorrain 1940:vii; Barkataki 1969:82-83; Fachhai 1994:2-3; Zohra 1995:6-7).

7.2.        Mara Alphabet

The written Mara language, reduced into writing by Rev Reginald Arthur Lorrain in 1908, is a combination of the different dialects and words of the Mara groups, with the Tlôsaih-Siaha dialect dominating the whole. Its alphabet is derived from the Roman script. It is a three tonal language following the tonic solfa tones of d, r, and m. All Mara syllables and words are open, that is, all the Mara syllables and words end with vowels uttered with the open mouth. There is no closed syllable or word. No Mara syllable or word ends with a consonant.

Mara language has 24 alphabets – 16 consonants and 9 vowels, with 7 combined vowels (dipthongs). They are: A  AW  Y  B  CH  D  E  F  H  I  K  L  M  N  NG  O  Ô  P  R  S  T  U  V  Z.

   

Mara consonants and vowel sounds:

Mara Consonant	English Sound Equivalent	Vowel	English Sound Equivalent
b	b	â	as in far
ch	Close to “j” sound	a	as in ago
d	Close to “d” sound	aw	as in paw
f	f	y	No English equivalent,   close to as in day
h	h	e	as in pet
k	k	i	as in big
l	l	o	No English equivalent, half “o” sound
m	m	ô	as in go
n	n		as in
ng	No English equivalent, a combination of n and g sound.	u	as in put
p	p	Combined
r	r	ai	as in spy
s	s	ao	as in too
t	Close to “th” sound	yu	No English equivalent, a combination of y and u sounds. Closest is the sound of “que” in English word “question”
v	v	ei	as in play
z	z	ia	as in fiat
		ie	as in leave
Combined		ua	No English equivalent, a combination of u and a sounds
chh	as in check
kh	as in cut
ph	as in play
th	Close to as in theme
hl	No English equivalent, harsh sound of “l”
hm	No English equivalent, harsh sound of “m”
hn	No English equivalent, harsh sound of “n”
tl	No English equivalent, close to as in little.
thl	No English equivalent. Combination of th and tl sounds.

7.3.        Grammatical Features and Sentence Structure of Mara Language

Mara proper nouns and names are gender-conceptual and sensitive. Unlike Hindi and Mizo, Mara names do not need to suffix “a” for masculine and “i” for feminine names. However, Mara language is not a gendered language. Other parts of speech are gender neutral. Unlike English and other languages, pronouns are neutral in both singular and plural forms. The same pronoun “a”,  “ano” for third person singular, “ama”, “âmo” for third person plural, “nâ”, “nâma” for second person singular, “nâmo” for second person plural, “ei”, “kei”, “keima” for first person singular, and “eima”, “keimo” for first person plural are used both for masculine and feminine pronouns. When one’s gender must be specifically referred to, “nô” for feminine and “paw” for masculine is suffixed to the noun. A noun is made plural by suffixing “zy”. Like English, uncountable nouns do not take plural form “zy”. Verbs do not change forms according to person, gender and number. Nor is it changed according to tenses. To indicate tenses, tense marker “haw” is placed after the verb for past tense, “ngâ hai” or “ngâ kaw” for present tense and “aw” for future tense. Adjectives stand alone when used as predicate. But when it qualifies a noun, it takes suffix “pa”. Adjective follows the noun it qualifies. In the same way, adverbs (kaw, ngaita, ngaitakaw, hmeihseih, chaihmâh, rima, muarua, dâhdei, deita, sikhua, etc) follow the adjectives they qualify.Suffixes “na” or “pa” is suffixed to a verb to become a verbal noun. Usage of Mara conjunction, interjection and exclamation are more or less the same as that of the English conjunction.  

The normal sequence of Mara sentence is: subject, object and verb. For example, Ei paw lyu lâ a sie when literally translated in English read, My father to farm he goes. Ei = my, paw = father, lyu = farm, lâ = to, a = he, sie = go.

The following is some examples of agreement as analyzed by Professor George Bedell (2009). Bedell suggests that Mara language has a system of agreement between a finite verb and its subject and object. According to him Mara and Mizo languages are closely related, but show some striking variations on the common theme. The categories relevant to agreement are person (first, second and third; abbreviated 1, 2 and 3) and number (singular and plural, abbreviated s and pl). The Mara pronouns which correlate with these categories are the six in (i)..

(i)           s                                            pl

1          keima 'I'                           keimo 'we'
2          nâma 'you'                       nâmo 'you'
3          ama 'he/she/it'                  âmo 'they'

The subject agreement particles (or affixes) in Mara are as illustrated in (ii) for intransitive verbs (and also for transitive verbs with third person singular objects).

(ii)          s                                            pl

1       ei sie 'I go'                              eima sie 'we go'
2       na sie 'you go'                         nama sie 'you go'
3       a sie 'he/she/it goes'                ama sie 'they go'

The forms given in (i) and (ii) are quite similar to the corresponding Mizo forms. Object agreement in Mara is illustrated in (iii) to (vi)..

(iii)  ei châ tyh              'I meet you (sing)'

Ei châ tyh ei             'I meet you (pl)'

(iv)   einâ tyh chi         'you meet me'
maniah nâ tyh             'you meet us'

(v) einâ tyh                 'he/she meets me'
mania â tyh                 'he/she meets us'

(vi) a châ tyh               'he/she meets you'
a châ tyh ei                  'he/she meets you'

Bedell rightly discovers that third person objects have no overt agreement markers. The interesting forms are those with first person object agreement. First person singular einâ causes second person subject agreement to be marked in a way different from other forms, and first person plural maniah does not use the general object plural agreement marker ei.

7.4. Usage and Status of Mara Language Today

The division of their land resulted in the Mara people becoming a minority group in the Mizoram State in India and the Chin State in Myanmar respectively. In Myanmar, although they are minorities in their respective townships, the Mara people continue to preserve their separate identity and speak their language. In India, however, from the time the Lusei language was adopted as the lingua franca of the Mizoram Union Territory and later the Mizoram State and renamed Mizo and used as the medium of instruction for all the public middle schools, including schools in Maraland and Lai areas, the Mara language faces the problem of being assimilated by Mizo language, especially in the two major towns of Maraland – Siaha and Tipâ. It must be noted that the Lai (Pawi) people in Mizoram do not speak their Lai language anymore.

Alarmed, within the constitution of the states where they are now, the Mara people in both sides of India and Burma began to encourage each other to use the Mara language. Mara remains the official language of the Mara Autonomous District Council and is taught as a compulsory subject in schools under the Council (at present primary and middle level schools). Mara language is the language of worship and ministry for Mara Christians. In fact, this is the only way how the Mara people in Myanmar preserve and develop their language, as their government does not allow to teach Mara language in schools. The complete Mara Bible (both Old Testament and New Testament) was published in 1956 and Mara Hymnal has gone through stages of enlargement. English-Mara and Mara-English dictionaries were first published by the Rev Reginald Arthur Lorrain before the Second World War. Today there is an English-Mara Dictionary written by a Mara by the name of Mr PT Hlychho which was published in 2005. There are also numerous volumes of literate both religious and secular written in Mara language. 

8.      CONCLUDING REMARKS

For the Mara people, their land and their language are their root and identity. However, the occupation of their land and the subsequent division of it seriously jeopardize the development of their land and language, as they have become a minority group living in remote corners of the Mizoram State in India and the Chin State in Myanmar respectively. In Myanmar, as far as linguistic ecology is concerned, although they are minorities in their respective townships, the Mara people continue to preserve their separate identity and speak their language.

In India, however, from the time the Lusei language was adopted as the lingua franca of the Mizoram Union Territory and later the Mizoram State and used it as the medium of instruction for all the public middle schools, including schools in Maraland and Lai areas, Lusei became the trade language of the state as well. The name “Lusei Language” was later changed into “Mizo Language” and thus “Lusei” became obsolete. This poses a danger that Mara language could be assimilated by Mizo language, especially in the two major towns of Maraland – Siaha and Tipâ. It must be noted that the Lai (Pawi) people in Mizoram do not speak their Lai language anymore. Alarmed, recently the Mara Autonomous District Council adopted English as medium of instructions for primary and middle schools under its jurisdiction, having Mara language as a compulsory subject. The reason for choosing English has twofold. The first reason is simple. English has more or less become the language of the world, thus to understand English well will help Mara students in pursuing higher and technical education. Second, English would not assimilate Mara language; Mizo language could. Having said that, it must be noted that Mara people do not shun Mizo language. They do not want their language to be assimilated or replaced by Mizo language. Thus most Mara people in India are bi-linguals, speaking both Mara and Mizo.

Even as the year 2007 marks 100 years since the missionaries first arrived in Maraland, who reduced Mara language in writing and who has helped the Mara people become a recognized, significant and respectable people group, the Mara people experienced a new ethnic awakening. They began to develop a new self-awareness that their existence as a distinct people group with a distinct language is not by chance; it is within the eternal plan of Khazohpa (God) (Fachhai 1998: i). Therefore, the Mara people renewed their storytelling – stories of their origin, stories of their language, stories of how they were released from the bondage of Satan by the Gospel, stories of how God had chosen first an insignificant people group like Mara who were smaller in number than their neighboring tribes, etc. Within the constitution of the states where they are now, the Mara people in both sides of India and Burma began to re-discover and preserve their identity as a separate and distinct people group and so encourage each other to use the Mara language. They take this as their God-given responsibility.

Because of their political struggle and identity crisis to survive as a formidable people group, biblical themes, especially the Old Testament, such as the promise of land, the formation of the nation Israel, and biblical aspect of “nations”, God’s election (the purpose of God in reaching out to the Mara people before he reached many other people groups), etc. have special appeals to the Mara people. Maraland may not become an independent nation again in a foreseeable time. Even so the Mara people across the international boundaries long for a time they would enjoy greater freedom of fellowship and association, as the following table demonstrates nostalgic parallels between the Mara people’s struggles to survive as a formidable people group with those of the Israelites’ struggles for their nation building:

Israel God created humankind out of the dust. God called Abraham by name. God chose the descendents of Abraham out of many nations and made them a great nation to be a blessing to other nations. Babylon destroyed Israel, exiled them to Babylon and made them aliens there. Israelites maintained their own identity and spoke their language even in exile. God brought back the Israelites to the land (from exile).

Mara God caused humankind to come out of a hole in the earth. The founders of Mara groups called out their names. God gave Mara people their language. God searched the Mara people and found them – God first reached the Mara people with his gospel while there were still many unreached people groups – so that they can become a blessing to others. The British, India, and Burma governments divided Maraland, scattered the Mara people and made them minorities in “other peoples” states. The Mara people must keep their own identity        and speak their language even if they have become minorities in India and Burma. God will cause the Mara people across the international borders to have greater freedom of fellowship and association; even be united in one country one day.

WORKS CITED

Barkataki, S. 1969. Tribes of Assam. New Delhi: National Book Trust.

Bedell, George 2009. “Agreement in Mara Language” in Maraland.Net (20 September

2009).l

Brin, G 1971. The First-Born in Israel in the Biblical Period. Ph.D Dissertation: Tel-Aviv University

(Hebrew).

Chawngkhuma, C 2001. A Sociological Study of Mara Marriage System. Unpublished PhD thesis submitted the North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, Meghalaya, India/

_______ , 2010. “Mara Inneih Dan” in Bobby Beingachhai & M Vabeiryureilai (eds), Rediscovering Mara History,  Culture and Identity. Saiha, Mizoram: Mara Research Society, 166-171.

Chhangte, LH 1987. The Life and Witness of the Churches in Mizoram. Lunglei: Baptist Church of

Mizoram Literature Committee.

Downs, FS 1996. The Christian Impact on the Status of Women in North East India. Professor H K

Barpujari Endowment Lectures.  Shillong: North-Eastern Hill University Publications.

Fachhai, L 1994. The Maras: From Warriors to Missionaries. Siaha: ECM Mission.

_______, 1998. Ei Chhôhso Rôs Paw. Siaha: Mara Thyutlia Py.

_______, 2007a. “Exclusivity and Inclusivity in Mizo Identity Negotiation: A Mara’s Experience as a

Mizo”. Zawlbuk.net (Oct 2007). This article is revised and published as “Exclusivity and

Inclusivity in Zohnathlak Identity Formation” ”, in Chawngte L and Tonson V (eds), 2009. Chibai: Zofest 2009 Souvenir. Aizawl: Mizo Zirlai Pawl, pp 14-24.

_______, 2007b. Primogeniture in the Old Testament: Towards a Theological-Ethical Understanding of

Patriarchy in Ancient Israel. Doctor of Theology Dissertation. University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

_______, 2008 “Mautam nge Zotam Zawk?”. Zawlbuk.net (July 2008).

_______,2009. The Land Must Be Distributed Equally: The Promise and Covenant Aspects of Land in the

Old Testament. New Delhi: ISPCK.

_______, 2009. “Becoming Foreigners in One’s Own Land: The Mara People’s Experience of the Division

of their Land”, in K Robin (ed) 2009. Chin: History, Culture & Identity. New Delhi: Dominant Publishers and Distributors.

Grierson, GA 1967 (reprint). The Linguistic Survey of India, Vol III, Part III. New Delhi:

Hazarika, S 2001. “Mizo Woes: Small Interventions Can Help Solve Problems. Delhi: Statesman

(September 12, 2001) (also by Maraland.Net September 21).

Hiphei 2010.  “Future of Mara Language: Problems and Prospects” in Bobby Beingachhai & M Vabeiryureilai (eds), Rediscovering Mara History,  Culture and Identity. Saiha, Mizoram: Mara Research Society, 86-96.

Hlychho, M 1972. Mara History. Serkawr, Mizoram: Louisa Lorrain Memorial Press.

Hlychho, PT 2007. Maraland: Yesterday and Today. Shillong: Author.

Hlychho, Z 2007. The Hundred Years of Maraland 1907-2007. Siaha: Gospel Centenary Edition.

_______, 2009. Mara-te Tobul. Aizawl: Author.

Khiangte, L 2009. “Mizo Identity leh Zo Hnathlak Inpumkhatna”, in Chawngte L and Tonson V (eds),

2009. Chibai: Zofest 2009 Souvenir. Aizawl: Mizo Zirlai Pawl.

Lalthangliana, B 2000. “Rev. Liangkhaia leh Mizo History”, in Khiangte, LTL 2000. Liangkhaia

Lungphun (A Biography of Liangkhaia). Aizawl: L.T.L Publications, pp 324-334.

Lewin, TH. 1870. Wild Races of South-Eastern India. London: WH Allen & Co.

Liangkhaia. 1938, 1947. Mizo Chanchin (Mizo History) (reprinted in 2002 by L.T.L Publications, Aizawl) .

Lorrain, RA. 1912. Five Years in Unknown Jungles: For God and Empire. London: Lakher Pioneer

Mission.

Lorrain, JH. 1940. Dictionary of the Lushai Language. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.

Mihlô, Z 2006. “RA Lorrain Râh Apahawhpazy.” Marâland Gospel Centennary Pamphlet. Siaha: ECM.

Pillai, SK 2006. “Ethnicity, Autonomy and Governance – The Maras: A Case Study. South Asia Terrorism

Portal (also by Maraland.Net (July 2006).

Parry, NE. 1932. The Lakhers. London: Mcmillan.

Rai, B 2008. Brief Survey of Languages of North East India for Bible Translation. Paper presented at North

East India Church Leaders’ Consultation on Languages, Umran, Meghalaya (May 26, 2008).

Ralte, L 1993. Crab Theology: A Critique of Patriarchy, Cultural Degradation, and Empowerment of

Mizo Women. Doctor of Ministry dissertaton. Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, MASS, USA.

Snyder, E 2006. “Bnei Menashe stymied in aliya bid.” Israel.jpost.com (Jun 25, 2006).

Syhly, M 1981. Marârâh Awnanopa Thatih (Marâland Church History). Siaha: Louisa Lorrain Memorial

Press.

______, 1988. Hlano Marâpa Hro (Marâ Life in Antiquity). Siaha: Louisa Lorrain Memorial Press.

Vâkô, C 2006. “Marapasaw Lutaipa Chi eima Châ ma? (Are the Marâ People Head Hunters?),”

______, 2007. “Definition of Marâ – Marapa tahpa cha,” www.maraland.net (22 July 2007).

Zohra, K 1995. The Maras in Mizoram: A Study of their History and Culture. Unpublished PhD

Thesis, University of Gauhati, Assam.