ASIA 

PACIFIC SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APSA) CONFERENCE
TRANSFORMING SOCIETIES: CONTESTATIONS AND CONVERGENCES IN ASIA
AND THE PACIFIC
Chin Ethnic Identity and Chin Politic in Myanmar
Salai Vanni Bawi
Head
Research and Development Unit
Chin League for Democracy Party
Myanmar

Background of Chin State

Chin State is located within Myanmar, and has a shared border with Rakhine State in the
south, Bangladesh and India in the west and north, and Sagaing and Magway Divisions in the
east. The whole state has 13,906.97 square miles in area, and consisted of 3 districts which are
Mindat district including Mindat, Matupi, Kanpalet, Paletwa, Hakha district including Hakha and
Thanhlang, and Falam district including Falam, Tedim, Tuanzang. Chin State is over 300 miles
long in south to north, and in east to west, it has 100 miles width in the widest and over 30 miles
in the narrowest areas generally (Chin State Government, 2012). Currently, there are more than
four hundred thousand chin population is staying in chin state.
Historically, Chin State, also calls Chinland is a very remote, independent, and isolated
part of western Burma. Infrastructure in Chin State is very poor, with no fully paved roads,
making access difficult.
According to Chin Hills regulation 1896, the Chin Hills has been recognized for the
common historical and culture heritage of the chin tribes. The British divided Chinland into three
administrative districts as Chin Hills District (Chin state), Lushai Hills District (Mizoram State in
India) and the Chittagong Hill tracts of Bangladesh1. The land is a very important starting point
to discuss traditional administration and land division. For instance, it is also to the cultural and
political system of chin society. Land is very important part of the heritage. It is traditional to
share with public or give a tax or give to family heritage. It is even more difficult to distinguish
between the political system and administration, as it is deeply rooted in the traditional land
division process and defines the autonomy of the village.
Chin State was governed by the ‘Chin Hills Regulation’ of the British government in
1896. After being used as hilly regions by, Chin state was named as ‘Chin Special Division’ on
the Fourth of January, 1948 with the combination of Chin mountain ranges and some of Rakhine
mountainous regions according to 1947 Constitutional Law article 196, and ‘Chin Special
Division Act, 1948’ was enforced instead of Chin Hills Regulation, 1896.
Chin State has been isolated and discriminated against politically, socially and
economically by the government and development actors. According to the national household
record of UNDP in 2011, Chin State is the poorest area in Myanmar. The main challenge is the
insufficient road and transportation systems. Most areas do not have a proper road and public
transportation. Many areas have constructed the village link roads by their own contribution,
partly supported by International Non-government organizations. Most of the people are relying
on self- constructed roads, and motor bike is a major vehicle to mobilize around the areas.
Furthermore, chin state is depending on three major road links as Pakhuku-Mindat-
Matupi in southern Chin state, Kalay-Kankaw-Hakha- Thanghlang in the middle part of chin
state, and Kalay-Kankaw-Falam-Tedim-Tonzang in northern part of chin state (IID, 2013).

1 See In Search of Chin Identity, pp.95.

Source: In Search of Chin Identity
 These just opened after Myanmar has emerged as a democratic government from junta
government. In fact, the area is facing limited education, health care and employment
opportunities. Consequently, the people are struggling very much to find the ways of improving
their living standards, education and healthcare.
Many people have moved into downstream areas such as Yangon, Mandalay and Kachin
State for a better life. Furthermore, many people have flowed into neighboring to secure their
life, education and livelihood. However, numerous people believe that the God promise land is
“our Chin State” and still embedded staying in the chin state and survive naturally.
Meanwhile, there is no economic incentive for local farmers as an alternative to
cultivating in the forest and destroying a big forest. Large forestlands are cut and burned for
agriculture purpose. Sometimes, wood is also used for construction and commercial purposes.
No one could have predicted the negative impact of destroying forestlands in the chin state.
Consequently, climate changes, soil erosion and deforestation are large impacts on the local
farmers and local residents.
Some experts said that in the chin state there remain lots of wildlife and needs to be
conserved and equally treated as a human. However, because of the negative impacts of human
beings, the nets of wildlife have been destroyed. Therefore, the way of conservation for future
utility of ecological practice of the chin state in local context is one of the crucial responsibilities
for the Chin People.

The Myth of Founders

Chin people is one of the Tibeto-Burman groups and has migrated along the river of
Ayeyawaddy. For instance, the history of Chin people was documented in the middle of the
eighth century in Chindwin valley, Sagaing region in Myanmar. Mostly, the Chin people lived in
the mountains and Chindwin river basin, and did not go to war with Burmese people. However,
the Chin people fought with Burmese people because of language2. In some ancient stories, it
was described that the Chin put his language in leather book and Burmese people put his
language in the stones. When the dark came to them, the leather was wet. When the sun rises
again, the stones became very hard and the language of Burmese remained. However, the
language of Chin people was eaten by a hungry dog during the dark time, and in this way, the
chin people lost their own language. In fact, that was the reason why the Chin speaks different
dialects on the earth.
After that, the Chin resettled in the west mountain as chin hill and the Mizoram state in
India. Villages were established throughout the mountain ranges of Chin State in accordance
with different tribes with diverse languages. New land finders had to face and struggle with the
dangers of wild animals and other challenges according to shifting cultivation methods, and
resided in individual families as well as groups when new lands were found with the leader who
vested in first.
The system which was used in choosing a leader was termed ‘First Smoke Maker’. Land
for late comers was distributed by the first lodged person. As the leaders of group residing areas,
the ones who could remove the danger of wild animals, who are physical strong in hunting, and
the adventurous and brave ones were selected in former Chin tribes. The villages were named
after the names of their founders. There was a tribal leader in villages set up with more than a
single tribe collectively, for each tribe; the most intellectually and physically perfect person
among them was designated as the leader. In addition, chin people believe that a rock called “
Chinlung” is the original place of the earth. However, the original belief of Chinlung is not in
written documents and no one can point out the location where the chinlung is.

2 See In Search of Chin Identity, pp.14

 However, every Chin tribe differently describes it in various ways, such as legend stories
and traditional songs. However, some authors predicted that the place might be existed
somewhere in China or Tibet. understand the Chin philosophy in religion, the religion sensitivity
is strongly embedded in their hearts. It is always related with Chin social structure and traditional
ways of living style – including ancient practice in shifting cultivation, social relation among
different tribes, and practicing giving a respect. Even though Chin People speak different
dialects; the principal of traditional philosophy was very similar. This traditional norm has many
factual similarities to Christian religion3.
Especially, the traditional belief started with the concept of “mal rhai, mui hla and Ma
cael kho”.
1. Mal rhai or Kho means the God.
2. Muihla means the guidance spirit
3. Ma Cael kho means village of death
The “Mal rhai” is the phenomenon of Chin traditional religion. He is the owner of the
earth, father of God and is the creator of the earth. People need to give a respect on him, and his
power is extremely high. He can give food and water through rain and seasons. That’s why every
Chin people has a similar practice on offering the “God” at the beginning of cultivation, in the
middle of cultivation and at the end of harvest.
Moreover, the people believe that God is watching everybody on the earth from the sky,
if the people do some bad things, he or she would be punished. This is the way of social pattern
and norms, to avoid killing, stealing and hurting the people. “Muihla” is the guidance spirit who
is very powerful in treating the disease. When the people get sick they offer the “Muihla” in the
forest or the tree or at the top of mountains. However, the ancient stories did not clearly identify
the power distinction between the “Mal rhai” and “Muihla”.
As I earlier mentioned, “Ma Cael kho” is the village of death. Chin people also
traditionally believe that after the people died, the soul goes to “Ma Cael Kho”. Sometimes, the
“Ma Cael Kho” is also defined as the sacred place for the people where the soul can enjoy
peacefully. In fact, the people think that there might not be any favored traditional food or thing
of their family soul. Thus, when the people died, they put small things with the death body.
In addition, in analyzing the traditional belief, norm and practice of chin people, it is
strongly similar with Christianity belief in the Bible. The Bible clearly defines that “the earth is
created by God, who is always guiding the people, and whenever you need anything you can ask
to God”. Moreover, the Bible also describes that after the people die, the soul will be kept in the
heaven. Meanwhile, the Bible states that the heaven is a very sacred place for the soul, and there
is not suffering of life and can enjoy peacefully. Again, the traditional belief of Chin People in
“Ma Cael Kho” and the Christian’s belief in “Heaven” are very similar.
The perspective on Christian life is an integral part of social, culture, traditional and the
ways of living style of Chin people. Writing history from a social-culture perspective is very
much about the history of mentality4. This is one condition of the ways of believing Christianity
in Chin society. It is also believed that whenever a Christian society in chin state is intentionally
attacked, it becomes one of the important threats not only toward the Christianity but also the
traditional, norm, belief and the way of living of Chin people.
The way of life of Chin
Animism was the original religion of Chin Tribes. It was noted that two American
Christian evangelists arrived Ha-Kha on March 15, 1899, and in April 1904, Tee-Tain. Buddhist
monks were known to be in Min-Tut, southern Chin State, in 1899, and northern Chin State Tee-
Tain in 1946.
3 See In Search of Chin Identity, pp.22
4 See In Search of Chin Identity, pp.106
 Studies showed that the missions of Christian evangelists started Christian religion in
Chin State after 1886 when Britain colonized Myanmar. Now, the majority of Chin people
believe in Christianity and it was carried out by the mission of American Baptist Mission in early
twentieth century. Moreover, the Christian mission was expended in the Chin state according to
the strategy plan of Zomi Baptist Convention through Chins for Christ in one century (CCOC) in
1964 (Pum, 1998).
The belief in Christianity also based on three major factors,
1) the social political change of British colonial power,
2) the missionary factor and
3) the similarity between Christian and Chin philosophy – the belief in an ancient creator
is one of the major facts to become and believe in Christianity.
In order to looking at the intersection between ethnicity and religion, Chin people
strongly believe that the religion beliefs and practices are ethnic identity. It is also leading to the
effect of uniting members of the group, and ensures the group or the people or the tribe’s
existence and often its ethnic identity. In Chin state, 90 percent of population is Christian, in a
country that is predominantly Buddhist. It also is viewed as an integral part of the Chin identity.
It is particularly true that Christianity helps to unify the Chin and share the common identity in
the world.
For instance, the planting of crosses is a very important figure of their beliefs, but many
crosses have been destroyed by Burmese government. As a result, many Christian organizations
came together, prayed together, and documented what was going on in a decade. That
documentation will be carried for the new Chin generation in the world and it would be retained
in the Chin history.
The Chin social system has been categorized into three social classes as so-called Noble
class “Bawi Phun”, so-called Ordinary Class “Mi-Chia phun”, and Slaves called “Sal Phun”5.
Even there are diverse aspects categorized in social class; I will mainly describe the land owner
called “Kho Kung” and the ordinary “Pal Nam” in my article. The “Kho Kung” is the lord of the
soil and has the power to distribute the land to community. Meanwhile, he had a responsibility to
protect his villagers from any danger and enemy. “Pal Nam” means the villagers and had to take
the responsibility according to the order of the land owner, and sometimes, the decision of major
opinion of the villagers.
In fact, when the villagers hunted in the forest, they also gave some portion of meat to the
land owner. Above tradition and norm clearly mention that Chin people tend to choose their
leader by themselves and live independently in their community. The social construction,
administration and broadly called political aspect are mainly based on belief and practice of
traditional living and way of living style.
In comparing the administration structures of Chin traditional and colonial
administration, chin hill had been separately administrated in Myanmar, basically independent
structure. The Chin is an independent people, strongly opposes any national and international
interference not only because of political sovereignty but also for maintaining traditional
religious beliefs and culture practices.

The discoursing on Federalism into Chin society

At the beginning of federalism, I would like to address the meaning of a Union. The
oxford dictionary explicitly defines that UNION is the actions joint together, and work together
especially in political context moreover in power sharing and administration. However, the
definition of Myanmar government is totally different from the major concept of the union
terminology.
 In addition, the oxford dictionary addresses that federalism is a political concept and a
system of government which is based on democratic rules and institution, and power sharing
between the local government and state government. State government is also called as Union
government. Historically, the concept was also clearly defined in vital agreement of Burma in
order to get independence from British. In the statement in Panglong agreement, the delegation
of different ethnic groups of Myanmar was clearly defined.
For instance, General Aung San represented majority Burmese and the so-called frontier
areas such as the Chin, Kachin and Shan because they were independent people before and after
British colonization. In fact, General Aung San also recognized that the frontier areas had the
right to regain their freedom, independence and sovereign nation status. Not only the Chin hill
but also Kachin state and Shan state have the same status on strong identification and traditional
administration. Thus, after Panglong, chin hill started including, and has been administrated
under Burma administration structure.
When the representative from Chin addressed “kan ram cu kan mah te in le kan
phunglam ning te in uk kan duh” in Panglong Conference on 12th February 1947. It meant
“we want to rule our country by ourselves according to our own political system”6. Across
Myanmar, ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples have been negatively affected by the
political system and development agenda. Especially, Chin state remains impoverished and
under- developed. Consequently, violation of human rights has been frequently caused by the
military government.
Moreover, freedom of expression and worship are being strongly prohibited in some
areas. Myanmar had been more than sixty years ruled by the junta government. The union
political system has been destroyed and dominated by majority Burmese people. Moreover, the
junta government had created “Burmanization” in different government eras.
Today, Myanmar is called the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, but the concept of
union only exists in the newspaper and concept notes, not in practical application of the state. In
fact, the administration and political decisions have been being dominated by central Burmese
government even when the country is called the Republic of Union of Myanmar.
In fact, most of the local Chin people want to know the answers of the following
questions;
What is federalism? What are the advantages and disadvantages of federalism?
What is the importance of local autonomy and local democracy?
What is the proper role of local government?
So far, the distinction between the roles and responsibilities of local government and state
government, and the understanding level of chin people is very diverse. According to the
discussion of Chin Youth Forum, Chin youth stressed that federalism was the fundamental right
for Chin society to address own needs, sovereignty, governing body and common philosophy in
Chin state.
Meanwhile, Chin political parties highlighted in their policy that federalism was a
political system and it should not be demanded but should be created among Chin and Myanmar
society. For instance, Chin people from Chin state believe that federalism is self–determination,
and self- administration to promote the life of Chin people for sustainable development.
However, many of Chin people still believe that federalism is self-determination and isolation
from the union state, especially from the Union of Myanmar.
Many people also believe that after Chin state becomes a federal state from Myanmar,
we can create a better future and rule Chin state by ourselves, but the financial situation and food
security will be a challenge.

5 See In Search of Chin Identity, pp.35

 Many people also observed in some circumstances of Mizoram state the place shares its
border with India and Myanmar. If there is border tension or social and religion conflict,
commercial issues and food supply are highly challenged. These also are some of the stresses of
local Chin people in Chin state.
Therefore, different institutions from Chin society such as local ethnic, Chin educated
people, and political parties defined the means of federalism differently. Meanwhile, federal idea
and philosophy are also hidden in their own institutions and never show up for the common
understanding on federalism.
The fact also points out that the awareness on federalism and political system in major
Chin population is very weak in Chin society. “The Federal System wished by Chin People is to
be drawn up and achieved based on the equity with other national people. Federal is to
strengthen the Union more. However, Myanmar public is anxious because the series of Burmese
leaders have smoked their minds with the wrong idea that Federal is the system that will break
the Union. The idea still caves in the thoughts of the public until today” said Salai Mang, CEO of
Chin World Media.
As there are differences between the Federal set in the policy of parties led and
established by Burmese People and the system in the policy of Chin party, Chin League of
Democracy formed and run by Chin People ourselves, it is time to answer clearly the question
which side Chin People are standing for. The difference is to discuss, negotiate, and shape at the
table as Panglong agreement was signed based on the equity. “Federal is in the hands of all
National People, not with Burmese People or Burmese parties. Building a Federal Union where
there is equity for National People by debating and discussing between the Union National
people is to gain the long lasting peace”, expressed by Salai Tin Royal, Leader of Political
Campaign for Chin League of Democracy Party.
As the leader of Chin party, Chin People need someone who is able to discourse on a
level with other people, and other leaders of the parties to be able to structure a Federal Union.
There is no way for participants at State, District, or Township level in other parties apart from
Chin political party, as they are under the central committee, to be able to treatise equably with
leaders of other people’s parties.

The perspective on Forming Political Parties

Myanmar, so-called Burma is formed by diverse ethnic groups, with over 135 different
ethnic groups and is using more than 100 different languages and dialects. In fact, Burmese,
Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, Rakhine and Shan are highly categorized as major
ethnicities in Myanmar. Meanwhile, they also are recognized as the founders of the Union of
Myanmar, as well called the Union of Burma. Before the British occupied the territory of Burma,
those areas had been ruled by various kingdoms and local tribal leaders.
6 See In Search of Chin Identity, pp.212
Furthermore, before Burma achieved her independence in 1948, those ethnic areas had
had no political relation and/with the Burma areas. Especially during colonial regime, the chin
hill was ruled as the “frontier area” according to chin hill act in 1896. It means that chin hill had
been administrated through local traditional leaders and chiefs because the traditions, beliefs,
norms and the ways of living were different from Burmese. British had promoted Christian
missionaries to support the education of the Chin people.
Thus, the Chin language had been created using roman alphabets for easier
communication. “Politics means not only for forming a government and gaining the power. It is
for guiding a government to serve fairly and rightfully for the people on the correct track; raising
the national features, literature and culture, traditional law as well as personal features; and
preventing the control and overwhelming of other countries” Ngai Sak, Chair of Chin League of
Democracy Party.
He also concluded that as no exact policy was set and drawn up for Chin People in
political parties like NLD and USDP led by Burmese People, Chin people who carry out their
policy were, instead of being politicians, performing alike political staffs supporting in the
background to achieve the policy set by other people. It was needed to accomplish the policy
drawn up by Chin people ourselves, not undertaking as the staffs for the policy established by
any other people, as being a nationality started constructing the Union of Myanmar.
According to the Panglong Legal agreement, the document officially promised the rights
of self- determination of the indigenous nationalities. Moreover, the Shan and Karenni have been
granted the right to separate after 10 years. For other groups, territories have not been clearly
defined whether it should be separated or not from the Union.
However, General Aung San was
assassinated and the promise of Panglong was broken. The political and administration system
had been dominated by the junta government for more than 60 years. Different ethnic groups and
some people have started to establish their own military to go against Burmese military.
Critically analysis the above causes and an effect, breaking the promise of “Panglong agreement”
has been a major starting point to increase civil wars in Myanmar. Moreover, the spirit and the
promises of Panglong are strongly embedded in the hearts of different ethnic groups. It is one of
the major keys to establish different ethnic political parties in Myanmar.
There are ten Chin political parties and most of them are based in Yangon, Myanmar.
Those are; Chin League for Democracy Party, Chin National Democratic Party, Chin Progressive
Party, Asho Chin National Party, Zomi Congress for Democracy, Zo Democratic Party, Mro
Party, Ethnic Nationality Development Party etc. In analysing the current policies of Chin
Political parties, they are very similar in some points such as development of Chin people and
tribal groups, the federalism, and self- administration. However, the way of interpretation on
federalism is slightly different. Some do not have a concrete strategy and interpretation on
federalism. It also depends on how they connect alliances with different ethnic political parties in
Myanmar. The idea of establishing political party also has different facts and reason.
According to my observation on Chin political parties, I have categorised three different
patterns in Chin politic. The first one is the geographical fact, the second is searching their tribe
identity and the last one is interpretation on the wheel of democracy. The qualification of leader
also strongly sticks on people-centre orientation such as leadership, knowledge and Personality.
In Myanmar, Chin people live not only in Chin state but also in Magwe division, Bago
division, Mandalay, Ayeyawaddy, Yangon, and Rakhine states. Overall, most of the chin
population is in Chin state but many of Chin population also settle outside of Chin state. Most of
them are minority population in Rakhine, Magwe, Bago and Sagaing regions. This is one of the
first facts, why the Chin political parties want to establish political institution in Myanmar. Even
the Chin political parties cannot cover the rights of Chin people from outside of Chin state, but
can alliance with different political parties in those areas in Myanmar. It is political engagement
with different political institutions and gives grantee for their language, culture, traditional,
identity and representative in democratic system.
According to the Myanmar national constitution, if there are more than 50,000
populations, the ethnic group also has the right to elect one ethnic affair minister in the area. The
problem is that selecting a representative for them is not the choice of those ethnic groups, but
mostly centralized by the government. Therefore, Chin ethnic groups from outside of Chin state
want to nominate their representative, and contest between the chosen one of the ruling party
and their own selection.
 In terms of searching Chin identity, Myanmar has more than thousands of national
identity problems and still cannot solve them at the moment. For instance, most of the cases
could be seen in rakhine state, Bagon and Magwe regions. Most of the Chin people do not have
national identity cards, in consequence, they cannot travel to other places, cannot vote for their
representative in democratic system.
Those Chin people need protection and national identity. Moreover, the Chin people are
not comfortable with those conditions; and the rights and national identity are needed to be
promoted. In those areas, Chin people are minorities; and the rights of Chin people are required
to be protected everywhere, and the heritage of generation such as culture, language, dialect,
traditional and forestry, conserved. Moreover, the Chin people from outside of Chin state want to
involve in political dialogue and state-building as well. Therefore, Chin Political Parties have
been established based on their tribe groups and showing their national identity in political
transformation of the state.
The term “Nationalism” also refers to the common feelings and sense of social, cultural
and political attachments (Kscowivd, A.1998). Meanwhile, Godfrey strongly agreed that the
nationalism was to promote and defend a particular culture and the way of life of own identity.
For instance, when a person migrates into another country, he still continues the practices of his
beliefs and tradition, is interested in his homeland news and cheers for his country; even when he
is far away from his native. Nationalism is also the fundamental social, cultural and political
solidarity (Godfrey, 2008).
This phenomenon is a significant tool to establish political parties and promote national
identity in Myanmar as well. We can say that Chin politics is in search of chin national identity
in order to protect its national tradition, culture, language and beliefs. Deeply go to the ground,
chin politics is the promotion and protection of tribe-based national identity as well. The threats
of foreign investment pressures are also one of key factors to establish ethnic political parties in
Myanmar. Now we see most of the raw materials are being produced from ethnic areas.
According the lessons learned from previous investment, for instance, in mining at
Kachin state, it also is related with resource sharing between the local people and the state. The
identity and the resource areas of investment from foreign country were forgotten, and the
systematic condition for ethnic areas was never been taking into account. They mainly engaged
with the Burmese/ national government who mainly dominated in the politic of Myanmar.
Furthermore, Myanmar is located in the strategic economic zone of Asia and a very important
place for trade and foreign investment for future global economic trend. Especially, India’s look
east policy is one of the important facts to establish chin political parties.
For instance, in development processes, many issues of ethnic groups of Chin state are
neglected. According to India’s Look East Policy, the policy begins inter-relation between India
and Myanmar in new political phase. The challenges of India and china play a vital role in social,
economic and politic of Myanmar. India felt that the influence of China was a new threat for
future strategic plan of them in the near future. Thus, India wanted to play closer ties with
Myanmar new government, and Singapore played an important role to interact between India and
Myanmar.
Finally, India established IEP and had had a strong advantage to engage systematically in
social, economic and politic of Myanmar (Strachan, Kang, and Sinha.2009). Therefore, India
started building trade route to Myanmar – from Rakhine deep sea project to India, Mizoram
state. They trade route passes many ethnic areas of Chin people, and also is one of the threats to
affect the way of living and tradition of Chin people.
Those international pressures are also some of the stresses to establish Chin ethnic
political parties in Myanmar. Looking at the east watch policy, we can clearly see the
engagement level of India with national government. The national government and India have
never regarded the future of challenges in Chin state. The community people have always been
neglected in the development agenda of those two countries, the event is called inclusive
development agenda. This is also one of the stresses to forming Chin political politic or tribe
group party as like as developmental oriented structure.

Chin Perspective and Myanmar National Politic

Before we start discussing the concept of chin politics, the means of ethnicity needs to be
defined clearly because most of the chin people strongly regard on their ethnic identity or tribe
group identity. Ethnicity is socially constructed, and defines the category of the people who has
common tradition, origin myth, culture heritage, homeland, language, dialect and experience
(Isajiw, 1974).
Thomas Hylland Eriksen also described that “ethnicity and nationalism are universal
structures of the contemporary world”. For instance, “ethnicity is a group of people who has a
property aspect on dynamic and shifting social relationships regarding on class, gender and
nationhood”, Esiksen (2002). Therefore, ethnicity is a leading introduction to the field of Chin
ethnic identity and Chin politic in Myanmar to cover recent tradition, culture, language, social,
and politic.
Current political atmosphere of Myanmar is unpredictable and I personally assumed that
no individual political party can form the government in 2015. Preparing for the unity manner,
United Nationalities Alliance (UNA), led by National League of Democracy (NLD) and National
Brotherhood Federation (NBF) were founded. UNA has more than eight major ethnic groups’
political parties and NBF has more than 20 ethnic political parties included. Both of alliance
groups want to encounter the current political problems, literature, culture and tradition of
different ethnic groups, and fundamentally, the rights of their own identity in the country. Thus,
some of the Chin political parties joined NBF and some joined UNA for future political
cooperation and alliance culture.
In Myanmar political sphere, chin political parties are explicitly standing on peaceful
democratic transition with equity. Moreover, chin political parties eager to engage and enlarge
the political system of Myanmar as based on former political right of chin and believing on co-
founder of the union of Burma. Thus, they look forward to have an administration power,
executive power and judicial power to ensure the right of chin people in democratic transition of
Myanmar.

Post-Election and Lessons Learned

In post-election, there are nine candidates from Chin national Democratic Party and
twelve candidates from Chin progressive party elected. Therefore, two candidates for upper
house, two candidates for lower house, and five candidates for state level parliament were
elected in Chin national party.
Moreover, four candidates for upper house, two candidates for lower house and six
candidates for state level parliament were elected from Chin progressive party. Furthermore, one
candidate from a tribe group political party, call ethnic national development party (ENDP) was
elected for state level parliament. In addition, two members of Chin political parties were
selected for two minister positions in Chin state government. Mr. Kyaw Nyein was selected for
Ministry of Forestry and Mines, and is the representative from Chin Progressive Party.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ral Mang was selected for Ministry of Planning and Economics, and is
the representative from Chin national democratic parties (Lall.M, San New.N, Myat Theint .T,
and Aye Nyein.Y, 2015). With the advent of democracy, not only national and states’ elections
are raised but also townships and villages level elections are held as well. On the other hand,
there are still many blockages that blur the transition. Generally, there are two main obstacles,
which are the side of government and the side of people. The grassroots are still treated as the
way they had been previously and the local media is still discriminated. On the people’s side,
because of not trusting the government, they do not participate well in the government business
as good citizens.
There is still lack of being well- informed. They do not know who their representatives
are. Although there had not only been national or state level election but also election for award
administer or village administrator, they did not participate well. The main problem is, in some
parts, there are civil societies, but in others there is still lack of civil societies. Although there are
some civil societies, there is no cooperation between them. It means collaboration practice is still
weak among civil societies and they just focus on social welfare as they used to under the former
military government.
In the perspective of local Chin people, the following questions are not clear in their
minds until now.
1. How federalism looks like?
2. Who can form the government in 2015? One party (USDP or NLD) only can form or
not?
3. What changes can a tribe representative political party make?
4. What are the roles and responsibilities of ethnic political parties?
5. What are the roles and responsibilities of state and regional MP?
6. What are the roles and responsibilities of Lower House?
7. What are the roles and responsibilities of upper house?
Mostly of the political campaigners has convinced them based on development oriented
politics such as health infrastructure, education infrastructure and road construction but has not
granted protection of the rights of Chin people.
At the same time, there has been very little explanation on democratic system and
practice in grassroots level. It has led to the point that they just voted for their tribe people
because they felt that being politician was a quota system and took advantages from the state
such as in salary and several benefits. To some extents, these are very true in current Chin
politic. For example, Chin state is one of the focus areas on development agenda of Myanmar.
Especially, infrastructures such as road and official buildings construction have been a
famous tender issue in current Chin state government. Most of the tender opportunities have
gone to the close-friends of ruling party – called Union Solidary Development Party (USDP).
When the construction was done, the people also thought that it has been constructed by the
people of USDP.
In fact, the community people think that their tribe people get the opportunities to have
benefits because they support and collaborate with ruling party. The fact is because of poverty
and the government being only looking toward the benefits of their interests.
Therefore, many of local elites have occurred and dominated the tender opportunities of
the Chin state government, and it in turn has been expending its political power to use as a tool
for 2015 election. Many campaigners have been carrying out those strategies to win again in
2015 election regardless of promoting and protecting the rights of Chin ethnic people. We can
call those messages as tender opportunities selling of our rights to others and establishing local
elites to take over the rights of local people in Chin state (Aung Ling, Secretary-1 of Chin
League).

Conclusion
To conclude the article, chin state has diverse and multiple dialects, language, norms,
traditions and religions, and is eager to set up own identity based on its context. Especially, from
a small tribe to a big tribe group, they want to get their own identity and self-administration
according to the history of myths and traditional practices. It means that every tribe group has the
same rights and the same opportunities in its life.
For instance, every tribe group has its own customary law and traditional land use
authority. Moreover, the rights are leading them to establish federal system in their own
destination, ensuring, respecting and protecting minority rights. Therefore, most of the ethnic
political parties believe that Federalism is the best way to ensure and protect their own identity
and own people in Myanmar.
In fact, ethnic political parties play officially in the democratic system of Myanmar,
demanding federal administration in the political agenda. For instance, by looking at the Chin
ethnic political parties, they have the same vision, that is to initiate the federal state and ensure
the rights of Chin people in Myanmar. Meanwhile, ethnic armed groups have been opposing the
political system of Myanmar because the junta administration and democratic practice of
Myanmar is not ensuring the political rights of ethnic people and indigenous people in term of
social, cultural, traditional and administration.
Mostly, Myanmar democratic transition has been a favor to the majority Burmese people,
discrimination toward ethnic people in different levels of constitution and bureaucratic system,
mainly dominated by central government as well. In fact, the minorities feel that they have to
retain their language, their religion, their custom and be granted to be full members of the state.
Especially, Chin political parties have been strongly standing on “We are co- founders of the
Union of Myanmar, also called the union of Burma”.
I assume that if there is no federal system in Myanmar, the rights of ethnic groups will
be neglected and the civil war will not end. In fact, the ethnic people and ethnic arm groups will
fight to retain them in political agenda of Myanmar. However, the ethnic minorities of Myanmar
need to tolerate the fact that inclusion is the best way to establish the union state rather than
separation from the union state. Majority of them also need to recognize the philosophy of
federalism and protect the rights of ethnic people, indigenous people and their ways of life. It
means that the Union of Myanmar is found together with multi-nationality.
The now-called the Republic Union of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is made up
of eight major ethnic groups, each composed of many minority tribal groups. Therefore, the
vastness of cultural diversity creates difficulty in the making of the Union a Unitarian country.
Under the forty- year long military rule, the country was indoctrinated by the ‘one nation, one
language and one religion’ ideology which led to “Burmanization”. However, it has also caused
the outbreak of civil war across the country and national uprising of democratic revolutions that
have cost thousands of lives, made millions of people homeless, created refugees, and finally
stateless.
Therefore, all the political leaders and intellectuals agree that the only way to solve the
ethnic conflicts and political crisis is to form a federal union state in which the central and
regional powers are evenly shared and distributed so that each ethnic group has the rights to
stand with ethnic identity, promote their right to self-determination and self-administration.
Especially, in remote places like Chin State, for instance, where people primitively live,
the majority of people are overwhelmingly unfamiliar to what federalism is and how it could
guarantee their political rights, the rights to self-determination and self-administration.
Moreover, the Chin People has a limited view (of aspect) on how the indigenous, knowledge,
value and the perspective can imply the core system of federalism.
In analyzing above information and the facts, not only chin political parties but also
ethnic political parties are eager to establish and practice federalism in Myanmar because we
have different cultures, traditions and own values. However, the level of understanding between
the political parties and the grassroots level community is different. For instance, the community
people in ethnic areas basically understand that federalism is self-administration, and sometimes
isolation from the Union.
Moreover, the people do not know what are the strengths and the weaknesses of
federalism in an ethnic area. The expression also depends on their own experience traditionally
and socially, and current circumstances in ethnic areas. In fact, the common understanding on
federalism, peaceful federalism, and political engagement among majority Burmese and ethnic
people is needed. Especially, the majority Burmese people need to understand the concept of
federalism, union administration training and peaceful transformation in political practice.
In addition, many ethnic political parties want the government to initiate “the second
Panglong” as a peaceful political transformation and a real democratization. They also believe
that without federal system in Myanmar, the country will not be able to end the civil war and
socioeconomic system will be continued to suffer.

References

Chin State Government Report, 2012. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Chin State
Government: Area information of Chin state, 2012.
Eriksen, T. H, 2002. Ethnicity and nationalism: Anthropological perspectives. Pluto Press.
Godfrey, C, 2008. The struggle between nationalism and globalization
Available at:
http://www.newrightausnz.com/2008/08/27/the-struggle-between-nationalism-globalization-part-
1- by-colin-godfrey/ Accessed (15/06/15)
IID, 2013: Support to the chin state government’s comprehensive development plan with local
social plan, the institute for International Development, Yangon, December, 2013.
Isajiw, W. W, 1974. Definitions of Ethnicity, Ethnicity, 1(2), 111-124.
Kacowicz, A, 1998. REGIONALIZATION, Globalization, and Nationalism: Convergent,
Divergent, or Overlapping?
Kellogg Institute, Working Paper #262
Lall.M, San. Nwe N, Myat.Theint T, and Aye.Nyein.Y, 2015: Myanmar’s Ethnic Parties and the
2015 Elections
Pum, Suan.P, 1998. Growth of Baptist Churches in Chin State: The chins for Christ in one
Century Experience.
Sakhong, Lian H, 2003. In Search of Chin Identity: A study in religion, politics and ethnic
identity in Burma.
Strachan, Kang, Sinha, 2009. India’s Look East Policy (IEP): A critical Assessment, October,
2009.
 Who are the Chin

By Lian H Sakhong

As the title indicates, this paper investigates, by applying a comprehensive

approach of ethno-symbolic theory, who the Chin are?  Why can they be described as
separate ethnic group? What are their chief features that distinguish the Chin as separate
ethnic nationalities from other human collectives or ethnic groups? And what criteria
make it possible for them to be recognized as a distinctive people and nationality in
Burma?

Anthropologists such as A. D. Smith, suggest that there are six main features,
which serve to define “ethnic nationality”. These are: (i) a common proper name, (ii) a
myth of common descent, (iii) a link with a homeland, (iv) collective historical
memories, (v) one or more elements of common culture, and (vi) a sense of solidarity. [1]
A causal link between the “ethnicity” and the formation of an “independent homeland” or
“Autonomous State within the Union” — which the Chin and other non-Burman
nationalities in the Union of Burma today are fighting so hard for — is the search for
what Clifford Geertz called “primordial identities”, that is, the search for the past to find
the evidence of the existence of “collective memories, symbols, values and myths, which
so often define and differentiate” the Chin as a distinctive people and nationality
throughout history. [2]

However, since I am going to opt for a comprehensive approach, I shall not limit
myself within any single theory of either “primordialism” or “circumstantialism” but
apply both theories when they are deemed to be appropriate the context of the study as I
explain the ethnicity of the Chin.

One of the main arguments in this paper is that the word “Chin” is not a foreign
tongue but the Chin in its origin, which comes from the root word “Chin-lung”.
According to the myth of the origin, the Chin people emerged into this world from the
bowels of the earth or a cave or a rock called “Chin-lung”, [3] which is spelled slightly
differently by different scholars based on various Chin dialects and local traditions, such
as “Chhinlung”, “Chinn-lung”, “Chie’nlung”, “Chinglung”, “Ciinlung”, “Jinlung”,
“Sinlung”, “Shinlung”, “Tsinlung”, and so on. In doing this, I am going to differentiate
between national name of “Chin” and tribal names such as Asho, Cho, Khuami, Laimi,
Mizo and Zomi. In other words, I shall argue that term “Chin” is the national name of the
Chin, and the terms such as Asho, Cho, Khuami, Laimi, Mizo and Zomi are tribal names
under their national name of “Chin”.

In this study, I shall therefore define the Chin people as a ‘nationality’ or ‘ethnic
nationality’, and Chinland or Chinram [4] as a ‘nation’, but not as a nation-state, based on
already well-recognized theories but also based on the traditional Chin concepts of
Miphun, Ram, and Phunglam. The meaning and concept of Miphun is an ‘ethnie’ or a
‘race’ or a ‘people’ who believe that they come from a common descent or ancestor. Ram
is a homeland, a country or a nation with well-defined territory and claimed by a certain
people who have belonged to it historically; and the broad concept of Phunglam is ‘ways
of life’, which includes almost all cultural and social aspects of life, religious practices,
belief and value systems, customary law and political structure and the many aesthetic
aspects of life such as dance, song, and even the customs of feasts and festivals, all the
elements in life that ‘bind successive generations of members together’ as a people and a
nationality, and at the same time separate them from others.

The Chin Concept of Miphun

A Collective Name of “Chin”

The tradition of ‘Chinlung’ as the origin of the “Chin” has been kept by all tribes
of the Chin in various ways, such as folksongs, folklore and legends known as Tuanbia.
For people with no writing system, a rich oral tradition consisting of folksong and
folklore was the most reliable means of transmitting past events and collective memories
through time. The songs were sung repeatedly during feasts and festivals, and the tales
that made up Chin folklore were told and retold over the generations. In this way, such
collective memories as the origin myth and the myth of common ancestors were handed
down. Different tribes and groups of Chin kept the tradition of ‘Chinlung’ in several
versions; the Hmar group of the Mizo tribe, who now live in Mizoram State of India,
which I refer in this study as West Chinram, have a traditional folk song:

Kan Seingna Sinlung [Chinlung] ram hmingthang

Ka nu ram ka pa ram ngai
Chawngzil ang Kokir thei changsien
Ka nu ram ka pa ngai.

In English it translates as: ‘Famous Sinlung [Chinlung] is my motherland and the

home of my ancestors. It could be called back like chawngzil, the home of my ancestors’
(Chaterjee 1990: 328).

This folksong also describes that the Chins were driven out of their original
homeland, called ‘Chinglung’. Another folksong, traditionally sung at the Khuahrum
sacrificial ceremony and other important occasions, reads as follows:

My Chinland of old,
My grandfather’s land Himalei,
My grandfather’s way excels,
Chinlung’s way excels (Kipgen 1996: 36).

Modern scholars generally agree with the traditional account of the origin of the
name ‘Chin’, that the word comes from ‘Chinlung’. Hrang Nawl, a prominent scholar and
politician among the Chin, confirms that the term ‘Chin … come(s) from Ciinlung,
Chhinlung or Tsinlung, the cave or the rock where, according to legend, the Chin people
emerged into this world as humans’ (Vumson 1986: 3). Even Vumson could not dispute
the tradition that the Chin ‘were originally from a cave called Chinnlung, which is given
different locations by different clans’ (1986: 26).
 In addition to individual scholars and researchers, many political and other
organizations of the Chin accepted the Chinlung tradition not only as myth but as
historical fact. The Paite National Council, formed by the Chin people of Manipur and
Mizoram States, claimed Chinlung as the origin of the Chin people in a memorandum
submitted to the Prime Minister of India. The memorandum stated, ‘The traditional
memory claimed that their remote original place was a cave in China where, for fear of
enemies, they hid themselves, which is interpreted in different dialects as “Sinlung”
[Chinlung] in Hmar and Khul in Paite and others.’ [5] In this memorandum, they
suggested that the Government of India take initiative to group all Chin people inhabiting
the Indo-Burma border areas within one country as specified and justified for the
safeguard of their economic, social and political rights.

The literal meaning of Chin-lung is ‘the cave or the hole of the Chin’, the same
meaning as the Burmese word for Chindwin, as in ‘Chindwin River’, also ‘the hole of the
Chin’ or ‘the river of the Chin’ (Lehman 1963: 20). However, the word Chin-lung can
also be translated as ‘the cave or the hole where our people originally lived’ or ‘the place
from which our ancestors originated’ (Z. Sakhong 1983: 7). Thus, the word Chin without
the suffix lung is translated simply as ‘people’ or ‘a community of people’ (Lehman
1999: 92–97). A Chin scholar, Lian Uk, defines the term Chin as follows:

The Chin and several of its synonymous names generally means ‘People’ and the
name Chinland is generally translated as ‘Our Land’ reflecting the strong fundamental
relationship they maintain with their land (Lian Uk 1968: 2).

Similarly, Carey and Tuck, who were the first to bring the Chin under the system
of British administration, defined the word Chin as ‘man or people’. They recorded that
the term Chin is ‘the Burmese corruption of the Chinese “Jin” or “Jen” meaning “man or
people”’ (Carey and Tuck 1896: 3).

Evidently, the word ‘Chin’ had been used from the very beginning not only by the
Chin themselves but also by neighboring peoples, such as the Kachin, Shan and Burman,
to denote the people who occupied the valley of the Chindwin River. While the Kachin
and Shan still called the Chin as ‘Khyan’ or ‘Khiang’ or ‘Chiang’, the Burmese usage
seems to have changed dramatically from ‘Khyan’ (c†if;) to ‘Chin’ (csif;). [6] In stone
inscriptions, erected by King Kyanzittha (1084–1113), the name Chin is spelled as
‘Khyan’ ( c†if; ) (Luce 1959: 75–109). These stone inscriptions are the strongest
evidence indicating that the name Chin was in use before the eleventh century.

Prior to British annexation in 1896, at least seventeen written records existed in

English regarding research on what was then called the ‘Chin-Kuki linguistic people’.
These early writings variously referred to what is now called and spelled ‘Chin’ as
‘Khyeng’, ‘Khang’, ‘Khlang’, ‘Khyang’, ‘Khyan’, ‘Kiayn’, ‘Chiang’, ‘Chi’en’, ‘Chien’,
and so on. Father Sangermono, an early Western writer, to note the existence of the hill
tribes of Chin in the western mountains of Burma, lived in Burma as a Catholic
missionary from 1783 to 1796. His book The Burmese Empire, published in 1833 one
hundred years after his death, spells the name Chin as ‘Chien’ and the Chin Hills as the
‘Chein Mountains’. He thus recorded:
 To the east of Chein Mountain between 20’30’ and 21’30’ latitude is a petty nation
called ‘Jo’ (Yaw). They are supposed to have been Chien, who in the progress of time,
have become Burmanized, speaking their language, although corruptly, and adopting their
customs. [7]

In Assam and Bengal, the Chin tribes – particularly the Zomi tribe who live close
to that area – were known as ‘Kuki’. The term Kuki is Bengali word, meaning ‘hill-
people or highlanders’, which was, as Reid described in 1893:

Originally applied to the tribe or tribes occupying the tracks immediately to the
south of Cachar. It is now employed in a comprehensive sense, to indicate those living to
the west of the Kaladyne River, while to the west they are designated as Shendus. On the
other hand, to anyone approaching them from Burma side, the Shendus would be known
as Chiang, synonymous with Khyen, and pronounced as ‘Chin’ (Reid 1893: 238).

The designation of Kuki was seldom used by the Chin people themselves, not even
by the Zomi tribe in what is now Manipur State of India, for whom the word is intended.
Soppit, who was Assistant Commissioner of Burma and later Sub-Divisional Officer in
the North Cacher Hills, Assam, remarked in 1893 in his study of Lushai-Kuki:

The designation of Kuki is never used by the tribes themselves, though many of
them answer to it when addressed, knowing it to be the Bengali term for their people
(Soppit 1893: 2).

Shakespear, an authority on the Chin, said in 1912 that:

The term Kuki has come to have a fairly definite meaning, and we now understand
by it certain … clans, with well marked characteristics, belonging to the Tibeto-Burman
stock. On the Chittagong border, the term is loosely applied to most of the inhabitants of
the interior hills beyond the Chittagong Hills Tracks; in the Cachar it generally means
some families of the Thado and Khuathlang clans, locally distinguished as new Kuki and
old Kuki. Now-a-days, the term is hardly employed, having been superseded by Lushai in
the Chin Hills, and generally on the Burma border all these clans are called Chin. These
Kuki are more closely allied to the Chakmas, and the Lushai are more closely to their
eastern neighbours who are known as Chin.

He concluded by writing:

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Kukis, Lushais and Chins are all of the same race
(Shakespear 1912: 8).

In 1826, almost one hundred years before Shakespear published his book, Major
Snodgrass, who contacted the Chin people from the Burma side, had already confirmed
that Kukis and Lushai were of the Chin nation, but he spelled Chin as Kiayn. He also
mentioned Chinram as ‘Independent Kiayn Country’ (Snodgrass 1827: 320, on map) in
his The Burmese War, in which he detailed the First Anglo-Burmese War in 1824–26. Sir
Arthur Phayer still spelt Chindwin as ‘Khyendweng’ in his History of Burma, first
published in 1883 (Phayer 1883: 7). It was in 1891 that the term ‘Chin’, to be written as
‘CHIN’, was first used by Major W.G. Hughes in his military report, and then by A.G.E.
Newland in his book The Images of War (1894); the conventional spelling for the name
became legalized as the official term by The Chin Hills Regulation in 1896.

The Myth of Common Descent

Traditional accounts of the origin of the Chin people have been obscured by myths
and mythologies that together with symbols, values and other collective memories, are
important elements of what Clifford Geertz called ‘primordial identities’, which so often
define and differentiate the Chin as a distinctive people and nationality throughout
history (Geertz 1973: 255–310). As noted already, one such myth handed down through
generations describes how the Chin ‘came out of the bowels of the earth or a cave called
Chin-lung or Cin-lung’ (Gangte 1993: 14). According to some it was located somewhere
in China (Cf. Zawla 1976: 2), others claimed it to be in Tibet (Cf. Ginzathang 1973: 7)
and some suggested that it must be somewhere in the Chindwin Valley since the literal
meaning of Chindwin is ‘the cave or the hole of the Chin’ (Gangte 1993: 14). I shall
come back to the debate on the location of ‘Chinlung’, but here I shall concentrate only
on the traditional account of the origin of the Chin.

Almost all of the Chin tribes and clans have promulgated similar but slightly
different versions of the myth, which brings the ancestors of the Chin out from the hole
or the bowels of earth. The Ralte clan/group of the Mizo tribe, also known as the Lushai,
who now live in Mizoram State in India, have a tradition now generally known as
‘Chinlung tradition’ that brings their progenitors from the bowels of the earth. The story
was translated into English and recorded by Lt Col J. Shakespear in 1912 as follows:

[Once upon a time when the great darkness called Thimzing fell upon the world,] many awful
things happened. Everything except the skulls of animals killed in the chase became alive, dry
wood revived, even stones become alive and produced leaves, so men had nothing to burn. The
successful hunters who had accumulated large stocks of trophies of their skill were able to live
using them as fuel. After this terrible catastrophe, Thimzing, the world was again re-peopled by
men and women issuing from the hole of the earth called ‘Chhinlung’ (1912: 93–94).
Shakespear described another similar story:

The place whence all people sprang is called ‘Chinglung’. All the clans came out
of that place. The two Ralte came out together, and began at once chattering, and this
made Pathian [The Supreme God] think there were too many men, and so he shut down
the stone (1912: 94).

Another similar story of the origin of the Chin, also connected with the “Chinlung
tradition” as handed down among the Mara group of the Laimi tribe – also known as the
Lakher – was recorded by N. E. Parry in 1932:
 Long ago, before the great darkness called Khazanghra fell upon the world, men
all came out of the hole below the earth. As the founder of each Mara group came out of
the earth he call his name. Tlongsai called out, ‘I am Tlongsai’; Zeuhnang called out, ‘I
am Zeuhnang’; Hawthai called out, ‘I am Hawthai’; Sabeu called out, ‘I am Sabeu’;
Heima called out, ‘I am Heima.’ Accordingly God thought that a very large number of
Mara had come out and stopped the way. When the Lushai came out of the hole, however,
only the first one to come out called out, ‘I am Lushai’, and all the rest came out silently.
God, only hearing one man announce his arrival, thought that only one Lushai had come
out, and gave them a much longer time, during which Lushais were pouring out of the
hole silently in great numbers. It is for this reason that Lushais 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 (Parry 1932: 4).

All sources of Chin traditions maintain that their ancestors originated from
‘Chinlung’ or ‘Cin-lung’. Sometimes the name for ‘Chinlung’ or ‘Cin-lung’ differs,
depending on the specific Chin dialect – such as Khul, Khur and Lung-kua, – but it
always means ‘cave’ or ‘hole’ no matter what the dialect. The reason Chin-lung was
abandoned, however, varies from one source to another. Depending on the dialect and
local traditions, some said that Chin-lung was abandoned as a result of an adventure, or
because of the great darkness called Khazanghra, Thimzing or Chunmui. In contrast to
the stories above, some traditions maintain that their original settlement was destroyed by
a flood. The Laimi tribe from the Haka and Thlantlang areas had a very well-known myth
called Ngun Nu Tuanbia, which related the destruction of human life on Earth by the
flood. The Zophei also had their own version of the story about the flood, called Tuirang-
aa-pia (literal meaning: ‘white water/river is pouring out or gushing’), which destroyed
their original settlement. The story goes as follows:

Once upon a time, all the humankind in this world lived together in one village. In
the middle of the village there was a huge stone, and underneath the stone was a cave that
in turn was connected with the endless sea of water called Tipi-thuam-thum. In this cave
dwelt a very large snake called Pari-bui or Limpi, which seized one of the village
children every night and ate them. The villagers were in despair at the depredations
committed by the snake, so they made a strong hook, tied it on the rope, impaled a dog on
the hook and threw it to the snake, which swallowed the dog and with it the fish hook.
The villagers then tried to pull out the snake, but with all their efforts they could not do
so, and only succeeded in pulling out enough of the snake to go five times round the rock
at the mouth of the hole, and then, as they could not pull out any more of the snake, they
cut off the part that they pulled out, and the snake’s tail and the rest of the body fell back
into the deep cave with a fearful noise. From that night water came pouring out of the
snake’s hole and covered the whole village and destroyed the original settlement of
mankind. Since then people were scattered to every corner of the world and began to
speak different languages. And, it was this flood, which drove the ancestors of the Chin
proper to take refuge in the Chin Hills (Ceu Mang 1981: 12–19).

Many Chin tribes called the Chindwin River the ‘White River’, Tui-rang,
Tuikhang, Tirang, Tuipui-ia, etc; all have the same meaning but differ only in dialect
term. Thus modern historians, not least Hutton, Sing Kho Khai and Gangte, believe that
the traditional account of the flood story, which destroyed the Chin’s original settlement,
might be the flood of the Chindwin River. They therefore claim that the Chin’s original
settlement was in the Chindwin Valley and nowhere else.

The Chin Concept of Ram

For the Chin, Miphun cannot exist without Ram. They therefore define themselves
as a Miphun with a strong reference to Ram – the original homeland, a particular locus
and territory, which they all collectively claim to be their own. At the same time, they
identify members of a community as ‘being from the same original homeland’ (A. Smith
1986: 29). The inner link between the concepts of Miphun and Ram was strengthened in
Chin society through the worship of Khua-hrum at the Tual ground. As Anthony Smith
convincingly argues, ‘Each homeland possesses a center or centers that are deemed to be
“sacred” in a religio-ethnic sense’. In Chin society, the Tual grounds, the site of where
they worshipped the guardian god Khuahrum, were the sacred centers, which stood as
protectors of both men and land.

For the Chin, the concept of Ram, or what Anthony Smith calls the ‘ethnic
homeland’, refers not only to the territory in which they are residing, i.e. present
Chinram, but also the ‘original homeland’ where their ancestors once lived as a people
and a community. What matters most in terms of their association with the original
homeland is that ‘it has a symbolic geographical center, a sacred habitat, a “homeland”,
to which the people may symbolically return, even when its members are scattered … and
have lost their [physical] homeland centuries ago’ (ibid.: 28). Ethnicity does not cease to
exist simply because the Chin were expelled from their original homeland, or because
they are artificially divided between different countries, ‘for ethnicity is a matter of
myths, memories, values and symbols, and not material possessions or political powers,
both of which require a habitat for their realization’ (ibid.). Thus the Chin concept of
Ram as ‘territory’ and ‘original homeland’ are relevant to Miphun. The relevance of the
‘original homeland’ is:

Not only because it is actually possessed, but also because of an alleged and felt
symbiosis between a certain piece of earth and ‘its’ community. Again, poetic and
symbolic qualities possess greater potency than everyday attributes; a land of dream is far
more significant than any actual terrain (ibid.: 28).

I shall therefore trace the history of the Chin’s settlements, not only in present Chinram
but also in their original ‘homeland’ in the Chindwin Valley, in the following sections.

Migration Patterns

Chin tradition maintains that the ancestors of the Chin people originated from a
cave called ‘Chinlung’, but in the absence of written documents, it is difficult to locate
the exact site of ‘Chinlung’. Scholars and researchers therefore give various opinions as
to its location.
 K. Zawla, a Mizo historian from the Indian side of Chinram, or West Chinram,
suggests that the location of Chinlung might be somewhere in modern China, and the
‘Ralte group [of the Mizo tribe] were probably one of the first groups to depart from
Chhinlung’ (Zawla 1976: 2). Here, Zawla quoted Shakespeare and accepted the Chin
legend as historical fact. He also claimed that the Chin came out of Chinlung in about 225
B.C., during the reign of Emperor Ch’in Shih Huang, whose cruelty was then at its height
during construction of the Great Wall. Zawla relates the story of the Ch’in ruling dynasty
in Chinese history in a fascinating manner. He uses local legends known as Tuanbia
(literally: ‘stories or events from the old-days’) and many stories which are recorded by
early travelers and British administrators in Chinram, as well as modern historical
research on ancient China. Naturally, this kind of compound story-telling has little or no
value in a historical sense, but is nevertheless important in terms of socially
reconstructing collective memories as identity-creating-resources.

Other theories have been advanced in this connection, more noticeably by Sing
Kho Khai (1984) and Chawn Kio (1993). Both believe that the Chin ancestors are either
the Ch’ing or Ch’iang in Chinese history, which are ‘old generic designations for the non-
Chinese tribes of the Kansu-Tibetan frontier, and indicate the Ch’iang as a shepherd
people, the Ch’ing as a jungle people’ (Sing Kho Khai 1984: 53). Thus, according to
Chinese history, both the Ch’iang and Ch’ing were regarded as ‘barbarian tribes’ (Cited
in Sing Kho Khai 1984: 21). Gin Za Tuang – in a slightly different manner than Zawla,
Sing Kho Khai and Chawn Kio – claims that the location of ‘Chinlung’ was believed to
be in Tibet (Cf. Ginzathang 1973: 5; Sing Kho Khai 1984: 10; Gangte 1993: 14). Gin Za
Tuang, nevertheless, maintains that the Chin ancestors were Ch’iang, but he mentions
nothing about the Ch’ing.

Gin Za Thang simply follows Than Tun’s and G. H. Luce’s theory of the origin of
Tibeto-Burmans and other groups of humans, believed to be the ancestors of the
Southeast Asian peoples. According to Professors Than Tun and Gordon Luce, [8] the
Ch’iang were not just the ancestors of the Chin but of the entire Tibeto-Burman group,
and they ‘enjoyed a civilization as advanced as the Chinese, who disturbed them so much
that they moved south’ (Than Tun 1988: 3). Regarding this, Professor Gordon Luce says:

With the expansion of China, the Ch’iang had either the choice to be absorbed or
to become nomads in the wilds. It was a hard choice, between liberty and civilization.
Your ancestors chose liberty; and they must have gallantly maintained it. But the cost was
heavy. It cost them 2000 years of progress. If the Ch’iang of 3000 BC were equals of the
Chinese civilization, the Burmans [and the Chin] of 700 AD were not nearly as advanced
as the Chinese in 1300 BC (Cited in Than Tun 1988: 4).

Before they moved to the wilderness along the edges of western China and eastern
Tibet, the ancient homelands of Ch’iang and all other Tibeto-Burman groups, according
to Enriquez, lay somewhere in the northwest, possibly in Kansu, between the Gobi and
northwestern Tibet (Eriquez 1932: 7–8). It is now generally believed that the Tibeto-
Burman group and other Mongoloid stock who now occupy Southeast Asia and Northeast
India, migrated in three waves in the following chronological order:
The Mon-Khmer (Talaing, Palaung, En Raing, Pa-o, Khasi, Annimite.)
The Tibeto-Burman (Pyu, Kanzan, Thet, Burman, Chin, Kachin, Naga, Lolo.)
The Tai-Chinese (Shan, Saimese, Karen.)

The Tibeto-Burman group initially moved toward the west and thereafter
subdivided themselves into several groups. They follow different routes, one group
reaching northern Tibet, where some stayed behind, while others moved on until they
reached Burma in three waves. These people were:
The Chin-Kachin-Naga group
The Burman and Old-Burman (Pyu, Kanzan, Thet) group
The Lolo group (Enriquez 1932: 8).

This migration pattern theory, as mentioned above, has mainly been adopted by
historians like Than Tun and Gordon Luce. However, anthropologists like Edmund Leach
believe that ‘the hypothesis that the Southeast Asian peoples as known today immigrated
from the region of China is a pure myth’ (Lehman 1963: 22).

The main difference between the historical approach and the anthropological
approach is that while historians begin their historical reconstruction with the origins and
immigration of the ancestors, anthropologists start with ‘the development within the
general region of Burma of symbiotic socio-cultural systems: civilizations and hill
societies’ (ibid.: 22).

However, both historians and anthropologists agree – as historical linguistics,

archaeology and racial relationships definitely indicate – that the ancestors of these
various peoples did indeed come from the north. But, anthropologists maintain their
argument by saying that, ‘they did not come as the social and cultural units we know
today and cannot be identified with any particular groups of today’ (ibid.: 23).

Their main thesis is that the hill people and plain’s people are now defined by their
mutual relationships in present sites, because, for anthropologists, ethnicity was
constructed within the realm of social interaction between neighbouring reference groups.

The anthropological approach could be very helpful, especially when we

investigate the pre-historical context of the Chin people, with no written documents
existing. Thus, based on ethnic and linguistic differentiation, not on written documents,
Lehman demonstrated that ‘the ancestors of the Chin and the Burman must have been
distinct from each other even before they first appeared in Burma’. And he continues:

Undoubtedly, these various ancestral groups were descended in part from groups
immigrating into present Burma, starting about the beginning of the Christian era. But it
is also probable that some of these groups were in Burma in the remote past, long before
a date indicated by any present historical evidence. We are not justified, however, in
attaching more than linguistic significance to the terms ‘Chin’ and ‘Burman’ at such
dates.
And he concludes, by saying:

Chin history begins after A.D. 750, with the development of Burman civilization and
Chin interaction with it (ibid.: 22).

Chin anthropologists like T. S. Gangte seem eager to agree with Leach and Lehman. Like
Leach and Lehman, Gangte rejects hypothetical theories proposed by Zawla and Gin Za
Tuang, who locate ‘Chinlung’ somewhere in China and Tibet, respectively, as myths. ‘In
the absence of any written corroboration or the existence of historical evidence to support
them,’ he said, ‘such hypothetical theories are considered highly subjective and
conjectural. They are, therefore, taken with a pinch of salt. They remain only as legends’
(Gangte 1993: 17). He nevertheless accepted the ‘Chinlung’ tradition as the origin of the
Chin and even claims that the Chindwin Valley is where Chin history begins. Similar to
Gangte, the ‘Khuangsai source of Chin tradition mentions that the location of Chin-lung
was somewhere in the Chindwin area’ (Sing Kho Khai 1984: 10).

The Chin’s Homeland of Chindwin

Professor Than Tun claims that Tibeto-Burman groups of the Burman came down
into present Burma via the Salween and Nmai’kha Valleys, and reached the northern Shan
State before AD 713. But before they were able to settle themselves in the delta area of
the Irrawaddy Valley, ‘the rise of Nanchao checked their movements soon after 713’
(Than Tun 1988: 3). The Nanchao made continuous war with neighbouring powers such
as the Pyu who had founded the Halin Kingdom in central Burma. In 835 the Nanchao
plundered the delta areas of Burma, and in 863 they went further east to Hanoi. However,
by the end of the ninth century the Nanchao power collapsed because, according to Than
Tun, they had exhausted themselves. Only after the collapse of the Nanchao were the
Burman able to move further South into the plains of Burma.

The Chin, according to Professor Luce, descended from ‘western China and
eastern Tibet into the South via the Hukong Valley’ (1959 (b): 75–109), a completely
different route than the Burman had taken. Thus Lehman’s theory is quite convincing that
the ancestors of the Chin and the Burman were distinct from each other even when they
first appeared in Burma. There is ample evidence that the Chin were the first to settle in
the Chindwin Valley. The Pagan inscriptions dating from the eleventh century onward
refer to the Chin of the Chindwin Valley. There is also persistent reference in the legends
of almost all the Chin tribes to a former home in the Chindwin Valley. Chin myths
uniformly refer to the ruling lineage when speaking of the original homeland in the valley
(Cf. Lal Thang Lian 1976: 9). Archeological evidence supports this interpretation. [9]
Sing Kho Khai therefore claims that:
 The literal meaning of the name ‘Chindwin’ definitely suggests that the Chindwin
area was primarily inhabited by a tribe called the Chin (1984: 36).

Vumson goes even further by saying:

When the Burman descended to the plains of central Burma, during the ninth century,
they [the Chin people] were already in the Chindwin Valley (1986: 35).

Concerning historical evidence of the Chin settlement in the Chindwin Valley,

reliable sources come from the Burman inscriptions erected by King Kyanzzittha and
other kings during the peak of the Pagan dynasty. According to Professor Luce, an expert
on Pagan inscription, ‘Chins and Chindwin (‘Hole of the Chins’) are mentioned in Pagan
inscriptions from the thirteenth century’ (Luce 1959 (a): 19–31). The earliest Pagan
inscriptions put the Burman in upper Burma in roughly the middle of the ninth century.
Professor Luce suggested that the Chin settlement in the Chindwin Valley began in the
middle of the eighth century, while allowing for the possibility of a date as far back as the
fourth century. Lal Thang Lian, a Mizo historian, also gives the eighth century as the
possible date for Chin settlement in the Chindwin Valley (Cf. 1976: 71).

Before the Chin settled in the Chindwin Valley, kingdoms of the Mon and the Pye
existed in the major river valley of Burma, Sak or Thet and Kandu in Upper Burma, and
also the Shan in the eastern country, but no one occupied the Chindwin Valley until the
Chin made their home there. The Burman fought against the other occupants of the area,
such as Thet, Mon and Pyu, but they did not fight the Chin. G. H. Luce writes;

The Pagan Burman had wars with the Thets (Sak), the Kandu (Kantú), the Mons,
the Shans and the Wa-Palaungs, but he called the Chins ‘friends’. Moreover, while he
pushed far up the Yaw, the Mu and the Irrawaddy, he apparently did not go up the
Chindwin. I cannot identify any old place of the Chindwin much further north than
Monywa. From all this I infer that in the Pagan period the home of the Chin was mainly
in the Chindwin Valley above Monyaw (1959 (a): 21).

In his major work, ‘Old Kyakse and the Coming of the Burmans’, Professor Luce also
mentioned the Chin settlement in Chindwin and their relation with the Burman as
follows:

If the Chins had joined the Thet peoples in opposing the Burmans, the latter’s
conquest of the central plains might have been precarious. But the Thets probably hated
the Chins, whose descent from the Hukong Valley had cut off their western tribes in
Manipur, and overwhelmed their tenure of Chindwin. Burman strategy here was to
conciliate the Chins. They advanced up the Lower Chindwin only as far as Monywa and
Alone, called the Chins Khyan, ‘friends’, and seem to have agreed to leave them free to
occupy the whole Upper Chindwin Valley. There is no mention of any fighting between
the Chins and the Burmans; and whereas the Pagan Burmans soon occupied the M’u
Valley at least as far as Mliytú (Myedu) and the Khaksan, Yaw and Krow Valleys as far
as the Púnton (Póndaung) Range and perhaps Thilin, I know of no place up the Chindwin
much beyond Munrwa (Monywa) and the Panklí 10 tuik (ten ‘taik’ of Bagyi), mentioned
in Old Burmese (1959 (b): 89).

Based on the Burman inscriptions of the Pagan Kingdom, which refer to the Chin
as comrades and allies in the Chindwin Valley, Prof. G. Luce even suggested that the
word ‘Chin’ might come from the Burmese word Thu-nge-chin ‘friend’. But this is very
unlikely, because the word ‘Chin’ had already been well recognized by the Burman and
other peoples, such as Kachin and Shan, even before the Chin made their settlement in
the Chindwin Valley. The Kachin, for instance, who never came down to the Chindwin
Valley but remained in the upper Hukong Valley and present Kachin Hills, called the
Chin Khiang or Chiang. So did the Shan. Thus, it is obvious that the term ‘Chin’ had been
used to denote the Chin people long before the Chindwin Valley became their homeland.
And the term Chindwin comes from ‘Chin’, as in ‘the hole of the Chin’ or ‘the river of
the Chin’, but not the other way around.

Collective Memories of Chindwin

Over the course of time, the Chin people moved up from the eastern bank of the
Chindwin River to the Upper Chindwin of the Kale Valley. Although we do not know
exactly when and why, the date can be set approximately to the final years of the
thirteenth century or beginning of the fourteenth century. Until the fall of the Pagan
dynasty in 1295, the Pagan inscriptions continuously mentioned that the Chins were in
between the eastern bank of the Upper Chindwin and west of the Irrawaddy River. Thus,
it can be assumed that the Chin settlement in the Kale Valley began just before the end of
the thirteenth century. The reason is equally unknown. Perhaps a flood destroyed their
settlement as oral traditions remembered it; or as Luce has suggested, ‘the Chin were left
to themselves in Upper Chindwin’ (Luce 1959 (b): 89).

As far as linguistic evidence is concerned, traditional accounts of the flood story

seem more reasonable than Professor Luce’s suggestion. The traditional Chin account
from the Zophei group of the Laimi tribe has recounted that the flood from the low valley
had driven their ancestors to the mountains on other side of the river, in Chin: Khatlei,
Khalei or Khale. It is believed that the root word of Kale is Khalei, and the meaning is
‘other side of the river.’ [10]

After their original settlement in the Chindwin Valley was destroyed by the flood,
according to the traditional account, the Chin moved to the Upper Chindwin, and some
groups such as the Asho went as far as the Pandaung Hills and other hills near the
western part of the Chindwin River. Since then the Chin have been broken into different
tribes speaking different dialects. Many myths and legends exist to explain why they
broke into distinct tribes and speak different dialects. One such story is recorded by B. S.
Carey and N. N. Tuck:

They (the Chin) became very powerful and finding no more enemies on earth, they
proposed to pass their time capturing the Sun. They therefore set about a sort of Jacob’s
ladder with poles, and gradually mounted them higher and higher from the earth and
nearer to their goal, the Sun. However, the work became tedious; they quarreled among
themselves, and one day, when half of the people were climbing high up on the pole, all
eager to seize the Sun, the other half below cut it down. It fell down northwards, dashing
the people beyond the Run River on the Kale border and the present site of Torrzam.
These people were not damaged by the fall, but suddenly struck with confusion of
tongues, they were unable to communicate with each other and did not know the way
home again. Thus, they broke into distinct tribes and spoke different languages (Carey
and Tuck 1986: 146).

Another story from the Zophei area, also known as the “Leather Book”, relates not
only the story of the Chins being broken up into distinct tribes but also how their written
language came into being:

In the beginning, when the stones were soft, all mankind spoke the same language,
and there was no war on earth. But just before the darkness called Chun-mui came to the
earth, God gave different languages to different peoples and instructed them to write on
something else. While the Chin ancestors carefully inscribed their language on leather,
the Burman ancestors, who were very lazy, wrote their language on stone, which was soft.
However, soon after they had made the inscription of their languages, the ‘darkness’
came and the Sun disappeared from the earth. During the ‘darkness’ the stone became
hard but the leather got wet. Before the Sun came back to the earth, and while the wet
leather was still very smelly, a hungry dog ate up the leather, and in this way, the Chin
ancestors lost their written language.
When the Sun came back to the earth, the Chin ancestors realized that while they
had lost their written language, the Burman language which was written on the stone had
turned into ‘the magic of letters’. Moreover, while the sons of Burman spoke the same
language, the sons of Chin spoke different dialects because their common language was
eaten up together with the leather by the hungry dog. Thus, the ancestor of the Chin
prepared to make war against the Burman in order to capture ‘the magic of letters’.
Although the Burmans were weaker and lazier, the Chin did not win the war because ‘the
magic of letters’ united all the sons of the Burman. Since the sons of Chin spoke different
dialects, their fathers could not even give them the war order to fight the Burman. It was
for this reason that the Chin broke into distinct tribes and speak different dialects (Pu
Sakhong 1969: 11–12).

Another story connected with the ‘magic of letters’ comes from the tradition of the
Mizo tribe, which was recorded by Shakespear in 1912. According to Mizo tradition, God
gave mankind not only different languages but different talents as well: ‘to the ancestor
of the Poi [Laimi] tribe he gave a fighting sword, while the ancestor of the Lushai tribe
only received a cloth, which is the reason that the Poi tribes are braver than the Lushais’
(Shakespaer 1912: 95). In contrast to the Zophei tradition, the Mizo story tells that ‘the
magic of letters’ was given to the white man, not to the Burman. Shakespeare therefore
concludes by saying that ‘I was told he (the white man) had received the knowledge of
reading and writing – a curious instance of the pen being considered mightier than the
sword’ (1912: 95).
From the Chindwin Valley to Present Chinram

Historical evidence indicates the Chin lived peacefully in Upper Chindwin of the
Kale-Kabaw Valley for at least a hundred years, from the fall of Pagan in 1295 to the
founding of the Shan’s Fortress City of Kale-myo in 1395. There is no historical evidence
that, between those periods, the Chin’s life in the Kale Valley was disturbed either by
natural disaster or by political events. During that period, the Chin founded their capital
at Khampat in the Kabaw Valley. Lal Thang Lian, a Mizo historian, and M. Kipgen, a
Zomi historian, both claim that the Khampat era was ‘the most glorious period’ in Chin
history. ‘Most of the major clans, who now inhabit the Chin State of Burma, Mizoram,
Manipur, Cachar and Tripura, are believed to have lived together there under a great chief
having the same culture and speaking the same language’ (Kipgen 1996: 39).

But in 1395 when ‘the Shan built the great city of Kalemyo with double walls’ at
the foot of what is now called the Chin Hills, twenty miles west of the Chindwin River, a
century of peaceful life in the Kale Valley came to an end (Luce 1959 (a): 26–27). The
Shan had become the rising power in the region of what is now called ‘Upper Chindwin’
and ‘Central Burma’ by the middle of the thirteenth century. Before they conquered the
Chin country of the Kale Valley, the Shan had already dominated the regions by
conquering the then most powerful kingdom of Pagan in 1295. They continued to fight
among themselves and with the Burman kingdom of Ava, which was founded after the
fall of Pagan by King Thadominphya in 1364. The Shan finally conquered Ava in 1529.
Although Ava was recaptured by the Burman King Bayinnaung in 1555, the Kale Valley
remained under the rule of Shan until the British period. In the century after they had
conquered the Chin country of the Kale Valley, the Shan also annexed Assam and
established the Ahong dynasty, which lasted for more than two centuries.

According to Sing Kho Khai and Lal Thang Lian, the Chin did not leave the Kale
Valley after the Shan conquest. The Chin traditions of the Zomi and Mizo tribes, which
were accepted as historical facts by Sing Kho Khai (1984) and Lal Thang Lian (1976),
mentioned that the Chins lived in the Kale Valley side by side with the Shan for a certain
period. Zomi tradition, as noted by Sing Kho Khai, goes on to relate that ‘while they were
living in the Kale Valley, a prince came up from below and governed the town of Kale-
myo. During the reign of that prince the people were forced to work very hard in the
construction of the fortress and double walls of the town’ (Sing Kho Khai 1984: 43). The
hardship of the forced labor was said to be so great, according to Naylor, that ‘the fingers
of workers, which were accidentally cut-off, filled a big basket’ (Naylor 1937: 3). The
tradition continues to relate that the Chins, unable to bear the hardship of manual labour,
moved up to the hills region to establish such a new settlement as ‘Chin New’, which was
located in the present township of Tiddim of the Chin State in Burma (Carey and Tuck
1986: 127). Historian D. G. E. Hall confirms that the Shans ‘drove the Chin out of the
Chindwin Valley into the western hills’ of present Chinram (Hall 1968: 158).

According to a legend, which Lal Thang Lian accepted as historical fact, the Chin
planted a banyan sapling at the site of an altar where they used to worship their Khua-
hrum,   [11]  just before they were forced to abandon Khampat. They took a pledge at the
sacrificial ceremony to their Khua-hrum that ‘they would return to Khampat, their
permanent home, when the sapling had grown into a tree and when its spreading branches
touched the earth’ (Kipgen 1996: 40–41).  [12]

We do not know exactly when the Chin left Khampat and the Kale-Kabaw Valley
to settle in the hilly region of Chinram. But we can trace the periods, approximately, from
the Shan and the Burma chronicles from the east and the Manipur chronicles from the
west. The Manipur chronicles first mentioned the Chin people, known to them as Kuki, in
1554 (Cf. Shakespear 1955: 94–111; Lehman 1963: 25). It is therefore certain that the
Chin settlement in present Chinram began only after the founding of Kale-myo in 1395,
and reached the furthest northern region of their settlement in present Manipur State of
India in about 1554.

According to Sing Kho Khai, the first settlement made in present Chinram was
called ‘Chin Nwe’, or ‘Cinnuai’ as he spelt it. Carey and Tuck, however, spelt ‘Chin
Nwe’(1896: 127). The Chins lived together in ‘Chin Nwe’ for a certain period. But they
split into tribal groups because of ‘their struggle against each other for political
supremacy’ (Sing Kho Khai 1984: 41). Economics may have been the compelling reason,
because ‘Chin Nwe’, a rather small, hilly region, could not provide enough land for the
self-sufficient agriculturally-oriented economic system of peasant society. Thus, one
group made their new settlement in ‘Lai-lung’, located in the present township of Falam,
and eventually became the ‘Laimi tribe’ (Z. Sakhong 1983: 5). Another group who first
settled in ‘Locom’ eventually became the Mizo tribe who now populate part of Mizoram
State in India. From ‘Chin Nwe’ some groups moved up to the north, and they are now
known as ‘Zomi’, meaning northern people, or highlanders. Prior to these settlements,
there is no historical evidence that differentiates the Chin into the Liami, Mizo and Zomi
tribes, etc. Only the national name of ‘Chin’ is represented in the records. Until that time,
there were no such tribal names as Asho, Chó, Khuami, Laimi, Mizo and Zomi. B. S.
Carey, who knew very well the Biblical story of the fall of mankind, [13] described ‘Chin
Nwe’ as ‘the Chin Garden of Eden’, which indicated ‘before the fall came upon the Chin
people’, to use the symbolic term (Carey and Tuck 1896: 127).

Some Chin tribes, however, did not move to the hills but remained in the Chindwin
Valley, especially in remote areas like the Gankaw Valley and the Kale-Kabaw Valley of
Upper Chindwin. They are still called today by their original name but with suffixes like
Chin-pun, Chin-me, etc., because of their old-fashioned tattooed faces. Asho groups, as
mentioned earlier, split away from the main groups even before they moved to Upper
Chindwin. They first lived in the Pandaung Hills and then scattered around the Irrawaddy
Delta, Pegu Yoma, Arakan Yoma; some of the Asho tribe even reached the Chittagong
Hill Tracks in what is now Bangladesh (Lian Uk 1968: 7). In Arakan and Chittagong they
are still known by their old name, ‘Khyeng’.

The Chin Split into Tribal Groups and Tual Communities

Historical evidence shows that the Chin were known by no other name than CHIN
until they made their settlement in ‘Chin Nwe’. However, after they were expelled from
their original homeland, the Kale Valley in Upper Chindwin, by the flood as oral
traditions recounts – or conquered by the Shan as modern scholars have suggested – the
Chin split into different tribal groups speaking different dialects, with different tribal
names.

Undoubtedly, a vast majority of the Chin people moved over to the hill regions of
present Chin State in Burma, Mizoram and Manipur States in India, and the Chittagong
Hill Tracks in Bangladesh. But some groups, as mentioned, remained in their original
homeland of the Chindwin Valley and later scattered into such areas as the Sagaing,
Maqwi, Pakukko and Irrawaddy divisions of present Burma.

Linguistically, according to the 1904 Linguistic Survey of India, the Chin dialects
are divided into four major groups: Northern, Central, Old Kuki and Southern.

1. The Northern Group: Thado, Kamhau, Sokte (Sukte), Siyin (Sizang), Ralte, Paite.
2. The Central Group: Tashon (Tlaisun), Lai, Lakher (Mara), Lushai (Mizo), Bangjogi
(Bawmzo), Pankhu.

The Old-Kuki Group: Rangkhol, Kolren, Kom, Purum, Hmar, Cha (Chakma).
The Southern Group: Chin-me, Chin-bok, Chin-pun, Khyang (Asho), M’ro (Khuami),
Shendus (Yindu), and Welaung (Grierson 1904: 67).

Scholars generally agree that there are six major tribal groups of the Chin, namely
the 1) Asho, 2) Chó or Sho, 3) Khuami or M’ro, 4) Laimi, 5) Mizo (Lushai) and 6) Zomi
(Vumson 1986: 40).

For the Chin, the term ‘tribal group’ is a social group comprising numerous families,
clans or generations together with slaves, dependents or adopted strangers. In other
words, it is a group of the same people whose ancestors made their settlement in a certain
place together, after their common original homeland in the Kale Valley was destroyed.
The Laimi tribe, for instance, is made up of the descendents of the group who made their
settlement at Lai-lung, after being forced to leave the Kale Valley.

Thus, the term ‘tribe’ as a Chin concept does not refer to common ancestors or
common family ties but to a social group of the same ethnic nationality, who settled in a
certain place. As the names imply, the tribal groups among the Chin rather denote
geographical areas and the ownership of the land; for example, Asho means the plain
dwellers, Cho means southerners, Khuami may be translated as ‘the native people’, Laimi
means descendent of the Lai-lung or the ‘central people’, as Stevenson (1943) defines it,
Zomi or Mizo means the northern people, and so on. The tribal group therefore is not a
divisive term, it only denotes how the Chin are split into various groups, having lost their
original homeland of Chindwin.
 In the course of time, different tribal groups gradually developed their own tribal
dialects and identities, which in turn were integrated through the ritual systems of Khua-
hrum worship. Because of difficulties in communication between the different groups,
different local dialects and customs gradually developed. This level of group can be
called a sub-tribal group, or Tual community in Chin. The Tual community was usually
begun by the same family or clan, settling in the same village.

However, as the community became larger and newcomers increased, they would
also establish satellite settlements and villages, although they all shared the principle
Tual village when they worshiped their guardian god, called Khua-hrum. I shall discuss
further details of the nature of the Tual community in the next chapter. This kind of sub-
tribal group, or Tual community, was usually ruled by a single chief or the patriarch of
the clan and his descendents. The Lautu group of the Laimi tribe, for instance, was ruled
by the Lian Chin clan, who worshiped the Bawinu River as their guardian Khua-hrum.
The entire community of Lautu – some fifteen villages – shared the Tual of their principle
village Hnaring. Likewise, the Zophei group of the Laimi tribe, with more than twenty
villages shared the Tual worship of their principal village Leitak, and so on.

The significance of different Tual communities is that although they developed

their own local spoken dialect, they all used the same ‘mother tongue’ tribal dialect when
composing a song or epic. To give an example, among the Laimi tribe there are several
sub-tribal groups, such as the Zophei, Senthang, Lautu, etc. All these groups have their
own local spoken dialects; some are quite different from the main Lai dialect. But when
they composed traditional songs and epics, called Hla-do, Hla-pi and others, they all used
their mother dialect, the Lai dialect, and sang in it.

However, because of communication difficulties, feelings of close kinship between

tribal groups were no longer strong, sometimes replaced by Tual community-oriented
sub-tribal group or clan identities. Because of this, the British administrators adopted the
Tual community of sub-tribal groups as the basic structure for what they called the
‘Circle Administration’.

Concluding Remarks

Prior to British annexation in 1896, the Chins were independent people ruled by
their own traditional tribal and local chiefs called Ram-uk and Khua-bawi, respectively.
Surrounding kingdoms like Burman or Myanmar, Bengal and Assam (India) never
conquered the Chin people and their land, Chinram. As a result, Buddhism, Muslim and
Hinduism never reached the Chin. The Chin traditional religion was the only social
manifestation of people’s faith, which bound the community together.

Although all the tribes and villages followed the same pattern of belief systems,
the ritual practices in traditional Chin religion—called Khua-hrum worship—were very
much mutually exclusive, and could not serve to unite the entire Chin people under a
single religious institution. Thus, until the British occupation, the Chin society remained
in a tribal society and the people’s identification with each other was tribally exclusive,
and their common national identity remained to be searched.
 By the turn of twentieth century, however, Chin society was abruptly transformed
by powerful outside forces of change. The British conquered Chinram, and the Christian
missionaries followed the colonial powers and converted the people. Within this process
of change, the Chin people found themselves in the midst of multi-ethnic and multi-
religious environments, which they did not welcome.

They also realized that their country was not the central of the universe but a very
small part of a very big British Empire. After the colonial period, they found themselves
again being separated into three different countries—India, Burma, and Bangladesh—
without their consent. While West Chinram of present Mizoram State became part of
India, East Chinram of present Chin State joined the Union of Burma according to the
Panglong Agreement signed in 1947. The smaller part of Chinram became part of what
they then called East Pakistan, that is, present Bangladesh.

Primary agent of change, as I have argued elsewhere, [14] was modern political
systems represented by British colonial power and its successors—namely, independent
India and Burma. The political development, of course, was the only agent with necessary
power to force change. In tribal society, ‘distinction cannot easily be made between
religious, social, cultural and political elements’ (Downs 1994: 4). Anything that effects
one aspect of life can strongly affect every aspect of life. In fact, ‘tribal society can only
be maintained through traditional instruments of integration, if they remain in
fundamental isolation from other societies’ (ibid.). When centuries-old isolationism in
Chinram was broken up by the British colonial power, the traditional way of maintaining
the tribal group’s identity was no longer effective, and the process of de-tribalization had
begun.

The process of de-tribalization could be a dangerous moment because that process

could either become what Frederick Downs called the process of “dehumanization,” or a
process of what Swedish scholar Eric Ringmar called a “formative moment”(1995: 145).
If the process became a process of dehumanization, that is, ‘to rob them of their essential
life of the people’s soul’, as Down puts it, then the existence of tribal peoples could
really be endanger. There are many examples, according to Dawns, in the Americas,
Africa, other parts of Asia and India where many tribal peoples extinct to exist.   On the
other hand, the process of de-tribalization could become a “formative moment” if the
people could find any other alternative, instead of seeking ‘to revitalize the old culture’
(Downs 1994: 24).

The process of de-tribalization in Chin society became a process of “formative

moment”, that is—at a time in which new meaning became available and people suddenly
were able to identify themselves with something meaningful. It was Christianity, which
provided the Chin people the new meanings and symbols within this process of
“formative moment”, but without ‘a complete break with the past’ (ibid.). Christianity
indeed helped the Chin people—no longer as a divided tribal groups, but as the entire
nationality of Chin ethnicity—to maintain their identity, and Christianity itself became a
new creating-force of national identity for the Chin people within this “formative”
process of powerful changes.
 However, in order to understand this “formative” process of the Chin response to
the new religious challenge and how did they become Christians, it is not enough to
investigate purely institutional development of the Chin churches. It is important to see
gradual shift from traditional Chin religion to Christianity as an integrating factor in the
development of Chin self-awareness from the Chin local perspective, and then analyze
how the local stories that people tell about their society and about the past, especially
events personified in ancestors and other historic figures. Through such stories, both
small and large, personal and collective, the Chin people do much of their “identity
work” together. In other words, such ‘stories hold history and identity together’ (White
1995: 5).

The most prominent and frequently repeated local stories are, of course, about the
moment of first confrontation with colonial power and the Christian mission, and
subsequent conversion to Christianity. The stories of conversion are repeatedly told and
retold, often in narrative accounts as writings, songs, sermons, and speeches passed on
during such occasions as religious feasts, celebrations, and worship services. These are
times when people engage in exchange practices that define social and political relations.
Although the wars against British annexation (1872-1896), the Anglo-Chin War (1917-
1919), the Second World War and Japanese invasion (1939-1945), and the Independence
of Burma (1948) are also significant junctures in temporal consciousness, the events of
Christian conversion are uniquely important in the organization of a socio-historical
memory.

In present Chin society, telling dramatic versions of the conversion stories has
become almost a ritual practice during Sunday worship services and the annual Local and
Association meetings called Civui, where villages and communities commonly gather to
recall the past. Narratives of shared experience and history do not simply represent
identity and emotion, they even constitute them. In other words, histories told and
remembered by those who inherit them are discourses of identity, just as identity is
inevitably a discourse of history. Thus, ‘history teaching’, as Appleby claims, ‘is identity
formation’ (1998: 1-14). Especially for the people who live in communities transformed
by powerful outside forces, the common perception of a threat to their existence as well
as the narrative accounts of socio-religio-cultural contact with the outside world had
created identity through the idiom of shared history. However, just as history is never
finished, neither is identity. It is continually refashioned as people make cultural meaning
out of shifting social and political circumstances. In present Chinram, it is Christianity
that provides a means of preserving and promoting the self-awareness of Chin identity
through its theological concepts and ideology and its ecclesiastical structure, and the Chin
people are gradually adjusted to Christianity through an accelerated religious change in
their society.