ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
-A A +A

Clans, Tribes and Unions of Tribes

Nomenclature of North East India

Pauthang Haokip (pauthanghaokip@yahoo.co.in) is with the Centre for Linguistics, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

The people of North East India are often identified by the outside world on the basis of the nomenclature associated with their clans, tribes and union of tribes. Yet, contrary to popular belief, this notion of “oneness” asserted by people embracing a particular nomenclature does not imply a common language or culture. Far from tribal or ethnic identity corresponding to linguistic or cultural identity, this notion of oneness arises out of a shared history or common political aspirations.

North East India is one of the most diverse regions of the world in terms of ethnolinguistic diversity, which is reflected in the vast nomenclature of the region. For the purpose of our present exposition, the nomenclature of the people of North East India may be broadly categorised in three hierarchical levels.

The highest level is where a union of tribes comes together under a larger nomenclature, often loosely termed an ethnic group. Second is the community of clans, which together form the tribal nomenclature. The lowest level is where a group of families comes together under a single clan. In most parts of the hill states of North East India, a person’s identity is determined by their membership within these three nomenclature levels. While a person’s membership in their clan is well defined by their family lineage, there is no such well-defined criterion or set of criteria for one’s membership in a tribe or ethnic group. A common language and culture, often considered the strongest determinants of “oneness,” do not really matter for one’s membership in a tribe or ethnic group.

A northeasterner is known to the outside world by their ethnic nomenclature, by their tribal nomenclature at the regional or state level, and by that of their clan at the local or village level. A person of north-eastern origin may thus have to answer the questions, “are you a Naga,  Kuki, or Khasi?” when outside their state, “are you an Ao, Thadou, or Kom?” when outside their village (within their state), and “are you a Jamir, Haokip, or Sailo?” when outside their clan’s territory. For a very long time, an identity narrative has been built along the lines of tribal or ethnic membership, signalling that the people embracing a particular tribe or ethnic group are “one people.”

The remainder of this article is devoted to explaining the notion of “oneness” that the people of the North East often refer to when they say that “they are one tribe or one ethnic group.” Contrary to the general understanding, this article argues that the notion of “oneness” may not necessarily imply a common language or culture. In other words, there is no one-to-one correspondence between tribal and ethnic identity on the one hand and linguistic or cultural identity on the other. Thus, cultural and linguistic oneness is not the necessary determinant for one’s membership within a tribe or ethnic group. If indeed a common language and culture are the necessary criteria for one’s membership within a group, the Nagas would have been divided into three or more ethnic nomenclatures, and the Kukis, Chins, Mizos, and Zomis would have been united under a single nomenclature.

Colonial Influences

When the British colonial administrators came in contact with the hill people of the North East for the first time, they had to depend on the plainsmen, who had already been under their control, to designate the hill people of the unadministered areas. So, the British administrators first designated the hill people of the North East into (larger) groups on the basis of geographical location. Thus, the designation “Naga” was given to the various hill people occupying the northern hill ranges between the Brahmaputra and Chindwin rivers on both sides of the Indo–Myanmar border. The designation “Kuki” was given to the various tribes inhabiting an area from the Naga Hills in the north down into the Sandowary district of Burma (Myanmar) in the south; from the Myittha river in the east, almost to the Bay of Bengal in the west; the vast mountainous region from the Jaintia and Naga Hills in the north, besides the Manipur Valley and the small settlements in the Cachar plains and Sylhet. Similarly, the designation “Kachari” was given to the various tribes such as the Bodos living in a lower part of Assam, along the basin of the Brahmaputra and the Dimasas living in the North Cachar Hills (Dima Hasao) district of southern Assam, etc. After the entire north-eastern region was brought under their control, and after having gained a better knowledge of the people, the British administrators further segregated the different groups into their respective tribes or clans. Thus, many of the tribe names we find today in publications by colonial writers are not indigenous names; rather they are either Assamese or Bengali names, and often carry derogatory meanings.

Scheduled Tribes Status

After India’s independence, the Constitution, with the aim of reducing the number of linguistic minorities and also to protect, promote, and develop these minorities, formally recognised the people of the North East as belonging to various Scheduled Tribes (STs), so that the smaller and marginalised communities are not deprived the fruits of independence. The Indian Constitution does not spell out any specific criteria, but simply says that the STs are specified by the President of India after consultation with the governor. According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the criterion—while not spelt out in legislation—“is well established,” and includes an indication of “primitive” traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, “shyness of connect” with the community at large, and “backwardness.” As Cristina-Ioana Dragomir (2017) observes, because of the highly-tangible benefits such as political representation, reserved seats in schools, and government jobs, the number of STs has expanded from 225 in 1960 to 700 today (with overlapping communities in more than one state). Because of these broad criteria, some communities such Mate, Hanghal, Sukte, and Chongthu tribes in Manipur have been demanding an ST1 status for sometime now. But, their demands are not based on linguistic and cultural grounds: the Mates and Chong speak the same language as the Thadous, the Suktes speak the same language as the Paites, and the Hanghals speak the same language as the Zous. However, the glamour of inclusion in the ST list is such that even a larger, and much-advanced community such as the Manipuris, have been aspiring for the ST status. So, who deserves the status of a ST in the North East is not so dependent on a community language or culture. Rather, people pick up on small differences that exist amongst them in terms of dialect, region or local interest, and accordingly, a demand for separate tribal status is made.

There are communities that are not recognised as STs but deserve to be accorded this status not only because of their economic backwardness but also on account of their cultural and linguistic distinctiveness. These communities are often listed as “unclassified” or simply as clans or “sub-tribes” within a tribe. For example, in the Dwarband subdivision of Cachar district of Barak Valley, a particular community known as the Saihriem or Farhriem has not been included in the ST list because of their low number; their language is spoken by around 1,000 members. According to the chronology of the tribe, Saihriem is believed to be one of the clans of the Hmar tribe. But they speak a language that is not mutually intelligible with Hmar. On the contrary, despite their people speaking mutually intelligible dialects, Thadou, Paite, Vaiphei, in Manipur are listed as separate tribes. There are several Old Kuki tribes in Tripura that on the surface seem similar and speak languages that are closely related to each other. This includes Bong, Bongcher, Korbong, etc. Our current understanding is that they speak different Tibeto–Burman languages of the Kuki–Chin subgroup. These tribes are not recognised as STs simply because their numbers are far less than other tribes of the region.

Many of the tribe’s names given by the colonial administrators are now replaced with more favourable traditional names. For example, the people formerly known as Lushai are now called Mizo, “Lakher” have become Mara, “Mikir” have become Karbi, “Plain Miri” are now Mising, and the “Chulikata,” are now Idu. Certain nomenclature such as Kachari is out of use and found mostly in colonial writings, but other group names, such as Kuki and Naga, have gained new meanings. In the case of the former, the number of tribes is on the decrease, while in the case of the latter, more tribes have been added over a period of time.

Naga Tribes

The different tribes of the North East, which are now included under the term “Naga,” are not a unified race in terms of language and culture. In the 19th century, British writers used the term Naga for the tribes in the hills to the south-east and east of Sibsagar. As the British power extended further into the hill regions, the term Naga was gradually extended to denominate more tribes as far as Manipur, and as far as the India–Myanmar border in the east, even beyond the upper Chindwin Valley (Marrison 1967: 12). It was not until recent times that any of the tribes called themselves Naga, or claimed that they were one group. Our current knowledge of the languages of the Naga tribes is that they are very diverse, so as to form a coherent subgroup. Burling (2003) even goes to say that the languages of the Naga tribes may be divided into three or more subgroups within the Tibeto–Burman family. Marrison (1967: 15), who worked extensively on the Naga languages, claimed that “they are not homogeneous, either in race, culture or language. However, they live in a continuous belt of hills between the Brahmaputra plain and Chindwin.

Before the British occupied the Naga region, the Nagas used to identify themselves by the name of the village (Wettstein 2012). It was only after the arrival of the British that the term “Naga” was used to designate the people of the Naga region. Wettstein discusses how the term Naga was not a unifying force during the colonial rule and pointed out two major factors that are the turning points for the awakening of a collective identity. The first was their experience during World War I, in which around 2,000 Nagas were recruited by the British and taken to Europe, where they were designated with tasks such as building roads in France. It was following this that the Nagas became conscious of a greater political context.

A second factor was the British withdrawal from South Asia and subsequent modern state formation in the region, which brought awareness among the Nagas that only as a united people would they have a chance to withstand the newly-forming Indian and Burman nation. This shows that the Nagas are not a homogeneous group, and the only thing that united them is their past history and future aspirations. In recent times, new sub-nomenclatures within the Naga group have been formed. These include “Chakhesang” by combining Chakri, Kheza, and Sangtam and “Zeliangrong” from Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei. It may be noted that the tribes who aligned themselves under “Chakhesang” and “Zeliangrong” have not done so with the intention of breaking away from the Naga fold, but as a strategy to strengthen their own politico–linguistic unity within the ambit of the larger Naga umbrella. Thus, the Naga nomenclature not only expanded to include other neighbouring tribes in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, but also all religious and cultural institutions through a deliberate attempt. Organisations and churches have been named by placing the term Naga before them, as in, Naga Hoho, Naga Baptist Church, Lotha Baptist Church, Ao Baptist Church, Anal Naga Taangpi, Lamgang Naga National Council, Anal Naga Baptist, and Chiru Naga Baptist Church.

Kuki–Chin–Mizo Tribes

Kuki, along with Chin and Mizo comprises an ethnic group known as Kuki–Chin–Mizo (KCM). Unlike the Nagas, the people included under KCM speak languages and dialects closely related to each other. The KCM people maintain a separate nomenclature depending on the region in which they live. The majority of the KCM people living in Manipur, Nagaland and Assam called themselves Kuki, those living in Mizoram called themselves Mizo and others living in Myanmar are loosely referred to as Chin. It may be noted that the term Chin is not widely accepted by the people, and it is beyond the scope of the present study to explore all the Chin groups of Myanmar.

In the linguistic literature on the KCM, the denomination Kuki–Chin is used as a convention of clubbing together the tribes living in both, Indian and Burman territories: Kuki on the Indian side of the border and Chin on the Burmese side. Grierson (1904: 1) viewed the denomination Kuki-Chin as purely a conventional one, and, admits that there is no proper name comprising all the tribes. He goes on to say that Meithei–Chin would be a better appellation, as the whole groups can be divided into two sub-groups, the Meitheis and the various tribes which are known under the names of Kuki and Chin. The KCM people residing in the Indian side of the border are simply referred as “Kuki” by the colonial administrative writers and this is the term which is commonly adopted by many social science scholars when dealing with the KCM people of the North East. Although many theories surround the origin of the term “Kuki,” the Assamese or Bengali version seems logical, which is the view adopted by the Linguistic Survey of India (LSI). According to the LSI, “Kuki is an Assamese or Bengali term, applied to various hill tribes, such as the Lusheis, Rangkhols, Thados, etc” (Grierson 1904: 1–2). Similarly, the term “Chin” is a Burmese word (pronounced as Khyang by the Burmese) applied to the tribes, who use titles such as Zo or Yo and Sho (Grierson 1904: 1–2).

Renouncing ‘Kuki’

Post India’s independence, the number of tribes, formerly included under the term “Kuki,” slowly and gradually started disowning the term Kuki in favour of more traditional names. The Lushais, who constitute the largest subgroup of the erstwhile Kukis, favoured “Mizo” for their language and “Mizoram” for their newly created state, which was carved out from the union of Assam in 1987. They believed that a new traditional nomenclature, Mizo, would have a better appeal to all clans within the tribes as opposed to the old colonial “Kuki.” Of course, this comes with a high price for the other smaller Kuki tribes, who, at the expense of the Lushai-speaking tribe, had to sacrifice their languages and dialects, as Duhlien, the standard variety of Lushai became the lingua franca throughout the states. Today, the Mizo language has penetrated into every home of the other cognate tribes, for whom it was not their mother tongue.

The trend to give up the colonial term Kuki was also followed by other KCM tribes in the neighbouring state of Manipur. Here, the change was in favour of “Zomi,” which differs from “Mizo” only by metathesis, but refers to the same people, and means “hill people.” In the southern district of Churanchandpur in Manipur, where most of the KCM tribes are represented, half a dozen of the erstwhile Kuki tribes aligned themselves under a new nomenclature, Zomi, which included Paite, Sukte, Simte, Vaiphei, Zou, and Hmar. However, Thadou, the largest KCM tribe, along with Gangte, refused to affiliate themselves under this new nomenclature, and chose to cling on to the old colonial term “Kuki” for reasons suiting their political interests.

Other “old Kuki” tribes of Manipur, namely, Aimol, Anal, Chiru, Chothe, Lamkang, Monsang, Kom, etc, did not form a new nomenclature. Rather, they realigned themselves under the term “Naga” with whom they share no linguistic affinity at all. Other Kuki–Chin speakers on the Myanmar side of the territory created new nomenclatures such as “Fallam.” The so-called “old Kuki” of southern Assam and adjoining areas of Tripura, separated from the Mizoram and Manipur hills, formed a new nomenclature called “Hallam.” These include Ranglong, Kaipeng, Molsom, Rangkhol, Koloi, Rupini, Bawngcher, Bawng, Saihmar, Sakachep, Thangkachep, Morsephang and Koloi (which is not a Kuki–Chin language but is included under Hallam). However, Darlong—the most dominant Kuki–Chin language of Tripura—along with Chorai, Bete and Saihriem, have not been included under this term. Based on field interviews with some Chorei elders, it was learnt that they had sent a representation to the meeting convened on behalf of the then-government of Tripura to recognise them under “Hallam.” The Chorei community resented against this classification in favour of the term “Kuki.”

As stated above, the reason to replace Kuki by Mizo in Mizoram was purely due to the preference for a more traditional nomenclature over the colonial name. However, this was not a major cause of concern in Manipur. One of the major causes of disowning the term Kuki was due to the mistrust and misunderstanding among the KCM tribes (Haokip 2011). The Old Kukis joined the Naga National Movement, which was gaining momentum at the time. The Old Kukis of southern Assam and in the adjoining hills of Tripura felt that they should have a separate nomenclature, different from that of Mizoram and Manipur. This led to the formation of “Hallam.” The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956, which was aimed at reducing linguistic minorities in the state, did not work well among the Kuki tribes in Manipur because, under the act, each dialect group chose to be considered a separate tribe (GoI 1956). Thus, the constitutional provisions in the form of job reservation and other economic benefits of STs further divided the already-divided KCM group in Manipur. The translation of the Bible into their respective languages and dialects became the most valuable piece of literature to assert their tribal status. Vumson, a retired government officer of Myanmar, campaigned for a common nomenclature, “Zo,” for all the KCM tribes spread across India, Myanmar and Bangladesh, but this movement never actualised.

Language Politics

Unlike the terms “Naga” and “Kuki,” under which a group of tribes come together to form a union of tribes for a political cause, such a union of tribes does not exist in the plains of Assam and Tripura. Rather, each has political demands separate from the other. Here, the narrative for political demands is often along linguistic lines. Assam in particular—which houses, major linguistic groups such as Assamese and Bengali, as well as other tribal languages belonging to the Bodo–Garo subgroup—is the centre of linguistic unrest in the region. The Sylheti-speaking Bengalis of the Barak Valley had protested against the decision of the Government of Assam to make Assamese the official language of the state. The decision of the government was opposed tooth and nail by the Bengalis, which led to the killing of 11 people by state police forces on 19 May 1961 in Silchar. This incident forced the Government of Assam to withdraw its decision, and Bengali was given official status in the three districts of the Barak Valley: Cachar, Hilakandi and Karimganj.

A similar language agitation was launched by the Bodos against the state government’s decision of declaring Assamese as the official language of the state. The Bodos felt that the act will undermine their language and culture, and thus demanded the Roman script for their writing system. The Bodos under the banner of the Bodo Sahitya Sabha also demanded that Bodo language be made the medium of instruction at the primary level in all Bodo-dominated areas of Assam. With the government unwilling to cede to the demands of the Bodos, the language agitation intensified with months of strikes and boycotts in all the Bodo-dominated regions. Later, when the movement turned violent, the police had to resort to firing in which 15 Bodo youth were killed by the police forces. Gupta (2016) describes how under the threat of arrest and detention, the Bodo leaders were forced to accept the Devanagari script. Ultimately, the Bodo language movement was suppressed by the inclusion of Bodo in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and through institution of the Bodoland Territorial Council.

The Dimasas, inhabiting the North Cachar Hills of southern Assam, have been fighting for greater autonomy for their people through demands for a separate state. The demand of the Dimasas was suppressed by granting them a linguistically-based district called Dima Hasao (formerly known as North Cachar). The demand for a separate state along linguistic lines was also echoed in other parts of the North East: the Garos of the Garo Hill district of Meghalaya have made similar demands.

The Kokboroks, a major tribe of Tripura, have been demanding extra-constitutional safeguards to protect their lands at the hands of the Bengalis who had come and settled in the state in large numbers after India’s independence. It may be noted that Tripura was once a princely state with an overwhelming number of people speaking Kokborok as their mother tongue. Today, the Kokborok people are reduced to a linguistic minority in their own homeland.

The Meitheis have been using the Bengali script for a very long time. The Meitheis felt that the Bengali script was not an indigenous script and wanted to revive Meitei Mayek (Meitei script). However, the transition was not without violence. Towards the final stage of the transition, there was a three-month-long agitation, which resulted in the burning down of the state central library, the railway booking centre, four government offices, and many trucks loaded with essential items. With the recommendation by the Manipur University, the government decided to introduce Meitei Mayek in Classes 1 and 2 from 2005. Prior to this, the Manipur government had attempted to impose Manipuri as the official language of the state, a decision which was vehemently opposed by the hill tribes. It may be noted that Manipur had been reeling from a severe law and order problem for over a decade. While the Meitheis were demanding protection of the state’s territory, the Kukis and Nagas were demanding the separation of the state: Kukiland for the Kukis and Greater Nagalim for the Nagas. The ultimate result of the major linguistic movements, which held state governments to ransom by paralysing the state machinery, was that governments gave in only to the demands of the majority communities, but the voices of the small and marginalised communities continue to be neglected.

Religious Minorities

In a very diverse region, such as the North East, where sociocultural diversity existed for a very long time, it is not strange to find a linguistic scenario where the religious minority of one faith assimilates to the language of the majority community of another faith. This is exactly what has occurred among the Muslim minorities in Manipur. The Muslims who constitute 8.4% of the total religious population (GoI 2011) entered Manipur from the neighbouring state of Assam as workforce. Many of them later married Manipuri women who were Hindus. After a period of time, the children born from such unions grew up speaking Manipuri, which eventually became their mother tongue. This linguistic assimilation brought about some kind of linguistic consolidation between the two communities. However, despite this linguistic consolidation, the Manipuri community, in order to maintain their separate religious identity, have designated them as “Pangal” which basically means Manipuri-speaking Muslims.

In sharp contrast to the example given above, there is also another scenario in which the indigenous tribes belonging to the Kuki–Chin community have developed a racial and religious link with the geographically and culturally-distinct Jewish community. In the recent years, a certain section of the Kuki–Chin speakers in Manipur and Mizoram have converted to Judaism. The Kuki–Chin people have been claiming that they belong to Manasseh (one of the lost tribes of Israel). New converts are being taught Hebrew in their respective synagogues in Churachandpur district and elsewhere in Manipur. In the recent years, 2,000–3,000 converts have entered Israel seeking religious asylum, and this number is likely to go up in the coming years. Some “social reformers” have been trying to expand this Jewish identity to other neighbouring Naga tribes such as Konyak, Sangtham, Chang, etc, of Nagaland and some Kachinic tribes of Myanmar. Some of these Naga tribes of Nagaland and the Kachinic tribes have also been attending a joint cultural festival held in the Churachandpur district of Manipur for a few years, where the cultural identity around Jewish roots is emphasised.

Language–Tribe Paradox

There is a general tendency to assume that every tribe has a language. Tribe and language are often used interchangeably in the discourse of the common people and in the literature dealing with the people of the North East. The reason is that many of the tribes’ names that appeared in the writings of the colonial administrators are also the names by which their languages are known. For example, the Ao tribe speaks Ao, the Dimasa tribe speaks Dimasa, the Bodo tribe speaks Bodo, and so on. But, this correspondence is not true in all cases. There are many instances where the name of a tribe and its language do not correspond to each other. In other words, on the one hand, people belonging to a particular tribe may speak different, mutually unintelligible languages, while on the other, people speaking mutually intelligible languages may belong to different tribes. For example, the people belonging to a tribe known as Thangkhul in Manipur speak different, mutually unintelligible languages, but call their tribe and their language Thangkhul. On the contrary, the Thadous, Pates, Vaipheis, Simtes and Zous speak mutually intelligible languages, but are separate tribes (Haokip 2011). Another example where a tribe and language do not correspond with each other comes from Arunachal Pradesh. Post and Burling (2017) report that the Koro and Hruso Aka people speak mutually unintelligible languages, but are understood as belonging to the same tribe, while the people of Padam and Mising tribes, which are separate tribes, can sometimes converse easily with each other. This creates a lot of confusion in the classification of languages of the North East because one-to-one correspondence between tribe and language is not always the case. Thus, a distinction between the two needs to be drawn when dealing with the people of the North East. The term “tribe” is a colonial construct and often has a pejorative connotations such as savage, uncivilised, wild, and so on.

North East is home to hundreds of languages belonging to the Indo–Aryan, Austro–Asiatic and Tibeto–Burman families. In addition to these major language families, the North East is also home to the Tai languages2 which belong to the Tai-Kadai family spoken in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as contact languages such as Nagamese3 in Nagaland and Arunachal Hindi in Arunachal Pradesh. Languages such as Assamese and Bengali, whose speakers number over a million, along with Nepali, Rajbongshi, and Bishnupriya belong to the Indo–Aryan family, while Khasi and Jaintia belong to the Austro–Asiatic family. An overwhelming number of languages and dialects spoken by the people of the North East belong to the Tibeto–Burman family. The Tibeto–Burman family is further divided into various subgroups: Bodo–Garo (which includes Bodo, Garo, Dimasa, Kokborok, etc), Kuki–Chin (Mizo, Hmar, Thadou, Paite, Hrangkhol, etc), and Naga (Ao, Angami, Chang, Selma, Sangtham, Tangkhul, Rongmei, etc). Meithei and Karbi, formerly included under the Kuki–Chin subgroup, are now considered separate from Kuki–Chin. Some tribes speaking different Tibeto–Burman languages also live in neighbouring states. For example, the Tshangla speakers are settled in Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet. Tangkhul and the various Kuki–Chin languages such as Thadou, Sukte, Zou, and Vaiphei are spoken in Manipur and also in Myanmar.

Conclusions

The notion of oneness differs from region to region. In two north-eastern states, Nagaland and Manipur, the notion of oneness has been often political in nature, while in Assam and Tripura, the notion of oneness is often built along linguistic lines.

Over a period of time, various nomenclatures have been infused into the minds of the people and have gained wider acceptance. On account of the existing sociopolitical situation of the region, these nomenclatures appear quite frequently in the news for one reason or the other. In many parts of the North East, demands and strikes are often staged under the banner of various nomenclatures. Politicians and the like often exploit them to create a feeling of “us” versus the “other.” Often their success depends on how well they are able to exploit nomenclature “politics” for their own political gains. Thus the narrative built around nomenclature in North East India, often gives the impression that persons grouped within a particular nomenclature are one homogeneous people. This misconceived notion of “oneness” when people say that certain communities are “one people,” has been contested to reveal that not all communities are one in terms of culture or language, which are often considered the strongest determinants for asserting oneness.

Notes

1 These tribes are not yet included in the Scheduled Tribe list. But, the Tribal Research Institute Manipur has listed them under “Any Kuki tribes” (GoM 2018).

2 Grierson (1904: 59) included the Tai languages in a family that he called Siamese–Chinese. Nowadays Tai is grouped together with the Kam languages of China as the Kam–Tai family, and at a higher level with the Kadai languages to form a macro-family called Tai–Kadai (Morey 2005: 7).

3 Nagamese is a pidginised form of Assamese spoken in Nagaland.

References

Burling, Robbins (2003); “The Tibeto-Burman Languages of Northeastern India,” The Sino–Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood and Randy J LaPolla (eds), London: Routledge, pp 169–91.

Dragomir, Cristina-Ioana (2017): “Scheduled Tribe Status: The Need for Clarification,” India in Transition, Center for the Advanced Study of India, https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/iit/cristinaioanadragomir.

GoI (1956): “The Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956,” No 63 of 1956, Government of India.

— (2011): “Manipur Religious Census,” Census of India, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, http://www.census2011.co.in/data/religion/state/14-manipur.html.

GoM (2018): “Tribes of Manipur,” Tribal Research Institute, Government of Manipur, http://www.trimanipur.res.in/Masters/Title.aspx?ref=tribes_of_manipur.

Grierson, G A (1904 [reprint 2005]): Linguistic Survey of India: Specimens of the Kuki–Chin and Burma Groups, Vol 3, Part 3, Delhi: Low Price Publications.

Gupta, Susmita Sen (2016): “Language as a Catalyst to Identity Assertion among the Tribes of North East India,” Journal of Socialomics, Vol 5, No 3, pp 2–5.

Haokip, Pauthang (2011): “The Languages of Manipur: A Case Study of the Kuki-Chin,” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, Vol 34, No 1, pp 85–118.

Marrison, Geoffrey Edward (1967): “The Classification of the Naga Languages of North-East India, Vol 1,” PhD thesis, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Morey, Stephen (2005): The Tai Languages of Assam: A Grammar and Texts, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

Post, Mark W and Robbins Burling (2017): “The Tibeto–Burman Languages of Northeast India,” The Sino–Tibetan Languages, 2nd ed, Graham Thurgood and Randy J LaPolla (eds),London: Routledge, pp 249–78.

Wettstein, Marion (2012): “Origin and Migration Myths in the Rhetoric of Naga Independence and Collective Identity,” Origin and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas, Stuart Blackburn and Toni Huber (eds), Leiden: Brill, pp 213–38.

Updated On : 31st Aug, 2018

Comments

(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top