Chieftainship abolished: Murlen

INTRODUCTION:

On the 9th of October 1950, the then Chin Affairs Council proclaimed the 20th of February 1948, Chin National Day. From that time onward, February 20th of every year became the National Day of the Chin People. Thus, February 20th is not only regarded as a memorable day, it is promulgated the national day.
This kind of proclamation calls for in-depth study and thorough analysis of the case. It is an affair of the whole nation and a challenge to every Chin. So let us examine the matter exhaustively.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE

About Chin National Day, some argue that it's not only the 20th of February 1948, that is so important, but also the 20th of February 1918 and 1940. For on those two days, certain memorable events for the uplift of the Chin people took place, too. Even without the 20th of February 1948, February 20th could still be a landmark in Chin history. Among those who hold this view, the statement of Mindat Zuzin (alias Ke Khui Sing) might be most explicit.. In Chin National Day Golden Jubilee Magazine, he writes: "… On the 2 0th of February 1918, the Chin Education Uplift Society was formed at Maymyo (now Pyn-Oo-Lwin) , and groundwork for the Chin people started.... On the 2 0th of February 1940, British rulers (Mcracken, the Commissioner of Magwe Division; Naylor, the Deputy Commissioner of Falam; and Poo Nyo, the Superintendent of Kanpetlet) attended a mass meeting at Kanpetlet. When those British officials turned down the demand of the people, the Chin Hills
Union Organization, led by Vawmtu Mawng, and the masses numbering about 1,000 reacted in outrage, and the three officials fled in terror…" (Chin National Day: Golden Jubilee Commemorative Magazine, p. 70. Translated from Burmese by the author). In that same Magazine, Robert Siang Lian wrote an article on the Chin National Day, but did not mention the 20th of February, 1918 at all. It might be that he did not deem it worth mentioning, or did not accept it as one of the days which brought about the Chin National Day. Also, unlike Mindat Zuzin, who put the year of the episode at Kanpetlet 1940, Robert Siang Lian recorded it as 1938, not 1940. Moreover, according to Siang Lian, the number of the members who attended the meeting was "about 300 members of the Chin Hills Union Organization, …and about 300 government servants …(altogether about 600)," and not 1,000 (cf. Chin National Day: op. cit, English Section, p. 24). Note that according to Siang
Lian, there was no ordinary working class, i.e., the masses who attended the meeting, but in Zuzin's record the masses
numbered about 1,000.

Contact was made with both of them by phone on the 17th of February 2004 to find out the reasons for the discrepancies between the two versions of the affair. Both of them affirmed that they have written evidences to document their respective claims. After three days, (that is, on the 20th of February 2004), Mindat Zuzin included the two events of February 20, 1918 and 1940, in his Chin National Day speech, emphasizing their importance once again.. That same night, Mindat Zuzin was asked if he had written documents to prove that the Chin Education Uplift Society was formed on the 20th of February 1918 at Maymyo. His answer was negative, but he did mention the fact that on that day the Chin Education Uplift Society (one of the leaders was Vawmtu Mawng) made a protest against the decision of the British authorities to rescind the teaching of Burmese language in Chinland.
In light of the above ambiguous and somewhat contradicting assertions, it became clear that regarding the origin of Chin National Day, the statement of Vawmtu Mawng, the vice chairman of the Chin Education Uplift Society which was founded in February 1918, and the chairman of the Chin Hills Union Organization that had direct confrontation with the British authorities in 1940, is most reliable and authentic. Moreover, it may not be wrong to say that Vawmtu Mawng was a key figure who championed the promulgation of the Chin National Day. On the 20th of February 1951, at 10:00 am, Vawmtu Mawng delivered a speech on Chin National Day at Mindat. In his message he mentioned briefly the years 1918 and 1940 in connection with their resistance against the English, but did not elaborate on the incidents of February 20, 1918 and 1940, nor include them in the factors that brought about Chin National
Day. Below is a short excerpt from his message:
"The Southern Chins, in particular, had always been joining hands with the Burmese revolutionaries and fighting against the British rulers over the education system in 1918, over religion in 1927, and over administration in 1935" (Chin National Day: op. cit, Burmese Section, p. 60. Translated from Burmese by the author) As seen above, Vawmtu Mawng did not even mention on which date or month of 1918 the Chin Education Uplift was formed. Neither did he mention the year 1940. However, in that same message, he did declare in the clearest terms that the event on 20th February 1948 was the true cause for the birth of Chin National Day:
"A general meeting was held in Falam and was attended by about 5,000 representatives of the Chin people. Among several proposals, proposal number four, which was put forward on the 20th of February 1948 was the main factor that gave birth to Chin National Day (Chin National Day: op. cit, Burmese Section, p. 65.)" Therefore, only Vawmtu Mawng's statement, which was that the decision made on the 20th
February 1948, was the primary and sole cause of the founding of the Chin National Day, is reasonable and acceptable. It is, quite obvious that the statement of Vawmtu Mawng is most definite and worth analyzing with regard to how Chin National Day came into being.
On the other hand, the claims of others that both February 20th of 1918 and of 1940 needs to
be taken into account for the birth of Chin National Day appears to be just an attempt to vindicate
the designation of February 20th as Chin National Day. In fact, if one gives much importance to the incident at Kanpetlet on the 20th of February 1940, in which the interests of Vawmtu Mawng's group and the British's collided, the rebellion of the Sim tribe and the Hakas in 1917 against the British, as well as the resistances of the Sizin, Kamhau, and Tlaisun, etc., during the invasion of Chinland by the British troops count, too. Ignoring these incidents while emphasizing the activities of Vawmtu Mawng and party to the
extent of making it the foundation of Chin National Day is tantamount to doing injustice to history. It also means groping for pretexts that the 20th of February 1948, is not the only day that bred Chin National Day. Moreover, the protest made in 1918 was to say "no" to the decision of the Bristish government to replace the teaching of Burmese in Chinland with the teaching of the Chin language. That means Vawmtu Mawng's Chin Education Uplift Society prefers teaching Burmese to Chin language in Chinland. So, can we, the Chins, praise the protest which was made to deny the teaching of Chin language in the Chin schools? May it never be!
There are two reasons that February 20, 1948, is regarded as a glorious day for the Chins. One is that on that day the first congress of the representatives of the entire Chin Hills was successfully held. Concerning this Robert Siang Lian writes:
"[20th February, 1948] is a landmark in the history of Chin Hills because it was the first time that all the Chins were able to hold the general meeting and achieved national unity among themselves. So, 20th February is an historic and meaningful day for the Chins, because all the Chins were able to achieve national solidarity on this very day." (Robert Siang Lian, Chin National Day and National Unity, CND, GJC Magazine, p. 26). The date inside the brackets is the author’s addition.
When Siang Lian said, "It is a landmark in the history of Chin Hills because it was the first time that all the Chins were able to hold the general meeting and achieve national unity among themselves," he seems to emphasize the unity they achieved more than the reason they achieved that unity, or the purpose of having that unity. This view of Siang Lian is shared by many others, too.
If one glorifies the 20th of February 1948, on the grounds that the first Chin congress was held and national unity was achieved on that day, and overlooks or ignores the cause of such event, it is disagreeable because it could suggest that any unity attained even for a mean purpose could be glorified. This is unacceptable simply because when people unite to do something wrong, that unity, in itself, is already wrong. The act of unifying to do wrong things cannot be appreciated or valued. So, in the final analysis, without knowing the reason for achieving unity on February 20th, one cannot conclude that this day is either glorious or honorable. It is, indeed, a landmark in Chin history, but this fact does not necessarily qualify it as honorable or glorious.
In other words, if we honor February 20th just because it is the day that national unity was attained, we may be taking the matter too lightly. However, if we commemorate February 20th because unity was achieved for an honorable cause, the day deserves hailing. The reason it happened is more important than what happened and how it happened.
Another motive for holding February 20, 1948, in great esteem is that "the rule of the hereditary chiefs" ended on that day. This aspect puts greater emphasis on the reason, and can be clearly seen in the message of Chin Affairs minister Vawmtu Mawng:
" On the 9th of October 1950, the Chin Affairs Council declared the 20th of February 1948, the Chin National Day not only because the Chins were freed from the yokes of blood-sucking hereditary chiefs who obstruct the development of the Chin people, but also because the rule by the elected Councilors was introduced on that day. "(Chin National Day: op. cit, Burmese Section, p. 66. Translated from Burmese by the author).
Here Vawmtu Mawng stated clearly the reason for attaining solidarity among the Chins.
According to him, the reason for designating February 20th as a glorious day is that on that day
(1) the system of hereditary chieftaincy was ended and (2) a new government system (the rule by
the elected Councilors) was introduced. Which country in the world has ever marked the day on which their old governing system changed as their national day? If an independence day is named 'national day', that is a different story. In that case we would call the day we attained independence from an alien nation our national day. After that we would be under no other nation’s rule. Only then should we celebrate
that day as our national day. The Singaporeans call their independence day (August 9) their national day. And it is reasonable and acceptable because they were governed by no other nation from that day forward. We, the Chins, did not call the day we attained independence from the British our national day. Because we do not now live freely, as our forefathers did at one time, the day cannot qualify as our "National Day."
Some may argue that our national day is not the day on which our forefathers' administrative system ended, but the day the British era chiefs ceased. The bottom line is that the Chin chiefs under the British ruled their subjects mostly in the same manner our forefathers ruled their ancient land. So, dismissing the British era chiefs soon after independence is tantamount to rejecting the governing system of our forefathers. Therefore, the day the British era chiefs ended was the day the administrative system of our forefathers (the invaluable part of our culture) became null and void. In short, the day of ending the governing system of a nation is not the same as the day of gaining independence by that nation. They are two separate things that have different significances. Therefore, February 20th, the day on which our forefathers' governing system was changed and discarded, is not worth calling "Chin National Day"; and naming it "the birthday of the
Chins (Lai Phun Suah Ni)," is meaningless; nay, it is ridiculous. Even if we recognize the 20th of February 1948, as the day the Chin people achieved national unity for the first time, we would rather call it "Chin Union Day" than national day.
It is usual that when a governing system of a country becomes obsolete, the populace or the government substitute it with a better system. Thus, if the day the governing system is changed is called the national day or the founding day of a nation, some countries would have more than ten nation founding days, for the longer the history of a nation, the more likely it is that that nation has had different kinds of governing systems. Vawmtu Mawng elucidated why he called the chiefs blood suckers and hinderers of the development of the Chin people, as shown below:
"Grain tribute: Each house had to pay half a bushel of maize, millet, etc., to the chief annually.
Labour: One member of each house had to work one to three days a year in the fields of the chief.
Meat tribute: Whenever a villager bagged an animal he had to give some specified portion to the
chief. To free them from those sufferings, 5,000 men who attended the February 20, 1948, conference at Falam voted in favor of eliminating the hereditary chieftaincy in the Chin Hills, and only 17 objected to the proposal." (Chin National Day: op. cit, p. 65. Italic is the author’s).
If one compares what Vawmtu Mawng enumerated as the sufferings of the Chins under their chiefs with the sufferings of other nations under their suppressive rulers, the sufferings of the Chins are not at all worse or more severe. Therefore, it is not proper or fair to call our chiefs blood suckers or obstructers of development. About development in those days, history tells us that the ignorance of the people as a whole and their isolation from the outside world for centuries, coupled with the British's unwillingness to educate them, are the main factors that hinder development.
To enable us to judge rightly how severely we suffered under our chiefs, we need to study the sufferings of others under their own rulers. We will not need to look at different peoples. Just a glimpse at God's chosen people, the Israelites, will be enough for us to see things in a proper perspective. . Setting aside the sufferings of the Israelites under alien kings, the hardships they endured under their own kings was not at all lighter than what the Chins suffered under their chiefs. Let us examine how Israelites should suffer under their kings, namely Saul, David, Solomon, etc., as foretold by the LORD.
"He (your king) will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your
menservants and your maidservants and your finest young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants." (1 Sam 8:10 -17).
And so the Israelites had their own kings for hundreds of years and endured untold hardships without grudging. They knew that to have their own land with their own kings was Chin History the way in which they could show the world that they were a sovereign, independent nation. To make the contrast more clear, let us compare the sufferings of the Israelites under their own kings to the sufferings of the Chins under our own rulers.
Did we do as much works for our chiefs as the Israelites did for their kings?
No. We work for our chiefs just one or two days in a year.
Did our chiefs ever use some of our daughters as their cooks and perfumers? Far from it. Our chiefs were never lustful. They kept a very high moral standard and they led exemplary lives.
Did our chiefs ever confiscate our best fields and gardens and give them to their servants just as the kings of Israel did? Not at all. Everyone had his own fields which could be passed on to his descendents.
Did our rulers ever force our sons to forge the arsenal for the warriors? Never. Every village had its own blacksmith who earned his living justly by working in his smithy.
Did our chiefs ever demand one tenth of our grain? Nay. Only half a bushel a year was demanded.
Did our chiefs ever take away our best domestic animals? Never. Did our chiefs ever take our best servants? Never. They had their own servants who came to them voluntarily to become servants, and those who were captured for slaves.
Did our chiefs use their subjects likeslaves? No. When a man did a wrong thing he was judged fairly, according to the law of the land. The punishment was meted out fairly, in proportion to his wrongdoing. Moreover, whenever a man was judged, the chiefs never did it alone; he was always assisted by his councilors. Even the slaves were treated humanly and very leniently. Slaves were permitted to mix freely with members of their host family, as if they were legitimate members of the family. A slave could even marry his master's daughter and became his heir.
If this is true, why are we, the Chins, so resentful about having our own chiefs? Why can we not take pride in the days when we were under our own chiefs with quite a perfect governing system and quite a rich culture? As a matter of fact, the rejection of our own rulers shows that our magnificence has worn down, our noble-mindedness has frayed, and we are on our way to becoming a people of no status.
If we look at the history of Israel further, we see that they had no kings for more than 300 years, i.e., during the time the apostasy and oppression covered the whole land. As recorded in Judges 21:25, "In those days there was no king in Israel: every one did what was right in his own eyes." That period is called min-meh-naing- ngan in Burmese. In min-meh-naing- ngan people usually behave like beasts; there are no taboos of any sort. How fortunate we were to have chiefs (rulers) in the days of our forefathers so that our Chinland was never in the category of min-meh-naing- ngan.
Every governing system in the world has its advantage and disadvantage. Even so-called democracy has its advantages and disadvantages. So, to point out only the weaknesses of any governing system, including the chieftainship of the Chin people, to the extent of making it a dark age without considering its advantages is tantamount to doing injustice to the history of mankind. It also shows that we are vengeful people with ignoble mentality. We might regard our olden-day rulers as harsh and pitiless when, in fact, they carried disciplined judgment in one hand and mercy in the other. Therefore, they can be classed as expert rulers (chiefs) of their day. Our neighbors such as the Arakans, Indians, and Burmese had kings. We can read from history books that those kings, too, had shortcomings. The sufferings of the people under their kings might not be lighter than that of the Israelites, but those nations never celebrate the fall of
their kings and the end of their kingdoms. For instance, the Burmese do not mark the day on which their last king was taken prisoner as their national day. On the contrary, even today they long for their days of kuh-min-kuh- chin, kuh-`hi-kuh- nan. They are not ashamed of their kings and rulers. We, Chins, ought to be like them. We ought to follow their way of thinking in this regard. Even if the way of living and the system of government of our forefathers were not so advanced, they deserve our recognition and esteem. If we are ashamed of our parents, our ancestors and their lifestyle, and see only the weaknesses of our past rulers, and celebrate the day their rule ends as the founding day of our nation, there will not be a more degenerate and despicable people on earth than we are.
Lamentably, we often teach our young people to be happy when they ought not be happy, and inculcate in them a keenness to take pride in things for which they should not be proud. We instill in them hatred and contempt for our old chiefs as if they were despots. Thus, we create a Chin History complex situation in which it is difficult for our young people to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong, what is white and what is black. Some of our learned men are very fond of preaching and writing in condemnation of our old chiefs, but dare not utter a word or jot a line in despise for the alien rulers. Can we call such a deed gallantry? No. Can we call such writers men of insight? Nay. Can we call such people patriots? Not at all. They are just the bearers of pointed spears of grudge and hatred.
Truly speaking, the day on which the rule of the chiefs ended is the day the Chin governing system, which our forefathers had adopted for centuries, came to an end. Every clean-hearted man with deep insight will say that the old governing system of our forefathers is an invaluable part of our Chin culture.
Are we to say, then, that the system of hereditary chieftaincy should be continued up to this day? No. Are we to say that the wish of the majority on the 20th of February 1948, is to berelegated? Nay. Even today the wish of the Chin majority is to abolish the system of chieftaincy. If this is so, shall we disregard the wish of the majority? Not at all. There is no better thing than to introduce a new administrative system, according to the needs of the day, which will benefit the people. But the day on which the administrative system changed is not the national day of the country concerned. However good the new governing system may be, the day on which it is adopted should not, nay, cannot be called the national day of any country. One simple reason for this is that we have changed our governing systems not less than three times after 1948 (in 1962, 1974, and 1988). That would give us more than three national days already. It is absurd.
The uneasiness for the loss of our administration system does not mean, though, that it should be re-introduced; it only means that it ought not be condemned too utterly. Some would argue that even if February 20th is not called "Laiphun Suah Ni (the birthday/founding day of the Chins" it is still "Chin Phunpi Ni (great race day/national day)". To call it "Chin Phunpi Ni" would not be sensible for, we did not become a great race, or superior race, on that day; we were already a great race long before that fateful day. Some may say that we should continue to celebrate this February 20th since we, Chins, do not have other days for gathering together in unity. But celebrating February 20th will not enhance the forging of the Chin unity, for the concept of its use is already wrong. It is important to note that we can have unity
without February 20th. There is no tangible benefit for celebrating February 20th. The drawback of
commemorating February 20th far outweighs the benefit. It is sad if the 20th of February celebration is
the only way for the young Chins to meet one another and to renew their spirit of unity, for to
celebrate with merriment the day on which one part of our invaluable culture is buried implies that we
are still politically naïve and immature in our judgments.

CONCLUSION

It is good for the Chins to have a day which is worthy of celebration but if there is no such day, let it be. It is not proper to keep February 20th as our national day just for the sake of having a national day. If we are so inclined and determined to have such a national day, why don't we find a day in 1921 on which the decision to replace Burmese language with Chin language in the Chin Hills schools was made? If we decline to call the day on which the decision to teach Chin language in Chin schools our National Day, we have no other day, so far, that is fit to be called our national day.
On the other hand, the proposal made by some Chin leaders that December 4th should be the Chin National Day seems to be unconvincing and unacceptable. We were not told that any event deserving to be called a landmark in the history of Chins ever took place on that day. The other suggestion that the term Chin National Day should be changed to "Chin Special Division Day" or "Chin State Day" is also not reasonable and fitting, because gaining a political status of a Special Division or State is not worth hailing, in the first place, for a nation that had been living freely and under no foreign rule for centuries.
The fondest dream is to call our independence day "National Day." Nevertheless, we have not had such a day since the British came and conquered our land. Therefore,

1. If we still wish to mark February 20th as a memorable day, it might be more appropriate and meaningful to call it "Chin Union Day" instead of "Chin National Day.
2. The prudent study of the Chin history leads us to conclude that, so far, the day that deserves to be called "Chin National Day" is the day the decision was made to replace the teaching of alien languages in schools in Chinland with national (Chin) language.

EPILOGUE

There are some Chins who think that the Kawlte (Burmese) have always opposed our having National Day, and had attempted to abolish it by changing the term National to Union or People, etc. Moreover, they see as a stooge and henchman of the Kawlte any Chin who dares to question the worthiness of celebrating our National day on February 20, 1948.
To the best of my knowledge, the Kawlte never tried to change National with Union or People. However, they tried to change Chin National Day with Chin Special Division Day in 1966.
This is what I know about the Kawlte's involvement:
The security committee of Chin Hills (the chairman being Kawl) had a meeting on the 6th of January 1966 at Tedim High School. At that meeting the committee decided to change the term Chin National Day to Chin Special Division Day. This decision was reaffirmed at the meeting held on the 31st of January 1966 at No.1 Kaleymyo High School, and was endorsed by Party Supervisor Chairman Maj. Mynt Thein on the 19th of February 1966. However, this decision was turned down by the Revolutionary Council at Yangon (by the same Kawl leaders). The statement issued by the Revolutionary Council at Yangon on the 25th of November 1966 says, "Chin National Day is Chin National day (Chin Amyotha Nih di Chin Amyotha Nih ta hlin phit di)," and thus reaffirms the term Chin National Day. In other words, though some lower rank Kawlte tried to change Chin National Day with Chin Special Division Day, the higher authorities did not want to change it.
So, it is inaccurate to classify as a stooge or henchman of the Kawlte anyone who opposes the term Chin National Day, or the use of February 20th as the assigned date of commemoration. For instance, in 1956, Pu Za Hre Lian, the former Chin Affairs Minister, proposed to celebrate Chin National Day on the 4th of December instead of the 20th of February for his own reasons. But we know that he neither did it just to please the Kawlte nor was asked to do it.