INTRODUCTION:

The state (Canton/unit) of Mizoram attained its full-fledged statehood in 1986. After having a 20 years crisis with the Union of India (from 1966-1986), leaders of the Mizo (people of Mizoram) political movement decided to be the 23^rdstates among the union of India. Since then, different tribes of Mizoram have been demanding to the government to make special arrangements for their political autonomy and a stronger authority. Among these tribes are the Bru, Hmar, Paite, Chakma, Lai and Mara; and among them, the activities of the Bru tribe were the causes of most ethnic tension and conflict which involve killing an innocent young boy in 2009.

The total population of Mizoram as per 2011 census is 1,097,206¹ in which there are 11,941 Bru registered voters in Mizoram Electoral Roll belonging to Six relief Camps in Tripura². But the numbers of Bru voters has been increased on April 2019 to 12,081³ which means that there is around 2 per cent of Bru population in Mizoram. However, different sources claim different numbers of Bru in Mizoram as well as in North East India. Some sources claim that there are around 30,000 – 35,000 Bru in Six Relief camps in Tripura⁴. Therefore, the matters of this article revolve around 20,000 – 30,000 Bru in North East India; and it must be remembered that the word ‘Bru’ and ‘Reang’ are being used interchangeably which denotes the same Bru community.

Method of data collection:

The research approach is a qualitative one. Both primary and secondary data were collected during the research work. Primary data were taken through observation and interview, whereas secondary data were collected from governmental records like gazette, assembly proceedings, state archives, books, articles, newspaper, magazines and journals etc., and other offline and online media related sources. An interview and observation were conducted in North East India, especially in Mizoram and in Tripura during October to December 2015.

Phases of Tensions and Conflict:

The Bru issue in North East India in general and Mizoram, in particular, was started from the formation of the Bru National Union (BNU) in 1994.

The first action that triggered tension between Mizo and Bru was the formation of the Reang Democratic Convention Party (RDCP) and Bru National Union (BNU); and the revision of the list of electoral roll in 1994-95 by the Government of Mizoram which apparently deleted several Bru names who later claimed that they were the original inhabitant of Mizoram. The Bru National Union (BNU) held its conference at Saipuilui Village on 23^rd and 24^th September 1997 demanding Autonomous District Council (ADC). The demand made by the BNU was strongly opposed by the Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP - Mizo Student body) of Mamit District in their meeting at Rengdil on 14^th October 1997. In replying the demand of the BNU, the MZP stated that –

“If the Reangs wanted to divide or disintegrate Mizoram further, it would be better that they go away. The resolution demanding Autonomous District Council (ADC) could not be accepted by MZP. If the Reang go ahead with their plan, the MZP was ready to fight against such a demand. Mizoram is the only land Mizos have and it could not be lost to foreigners or other communities”⁵.

The MZP meeting seem to threaten some Bru families at Rengdil village in which on the next day i.e., 15^thOctober the first-ever Bru fled in Mizoram due to ethnic tension was began; over 200 Bru comprising of around 87 families fled their home to North Tripura where they expected to have shelter and security⁶.

The Government of Mizoram and Government of Tripura had talks on this issue at Damcherra (Tripura-Mizoram border) in which the Government of Mizoram had agreed to take back all the 300 refugees from 22^ndOctober, 1997⁷. The main causes of this fled/migration were still unclear, even the news reported that it may be the strong statement made by the MZP of Mamit headquarter against the demand of the BNU on 14^th October 1997. But unexpectedly, on 23^rd October news regarding the killing of Lalzawmliana, an employee of Mizoram Forest Department was heard all over Mizoram which later identified that the incident took place on 21^stOctober, 1997 at Damparengpui Tiger Reserve Forest.

Therefore, the Government’s decision to repatriate 300 Bru refugees was unable to carry out due to the 21^st December incident. Two other persons who associate Lalzawmliana namely – Ngaihawma and Jutendro were also missing, and on the 24^thOctober, 1997 the Central Young Mizo Association (CYMA-largest civil society organisation in Mizoram) President T. Sangkunga and over a hundred volunteers leave for Mamit district to search these missing two persons⁸. Due to this incident, some angry Mizo youths burnt down several Bru houses in Mamit district and the national news reported an ethnic clash between Mizo and Bru.

Since then, the Government of Mizoram have been trying to re-initiate the repatriation process but the Bru made several demands to the Government which hampered the repatriation process. The decision regarding the demand of Reang Refugees Committee (RRC) was taken on 4^th November, 1997 at the Cabinet Meeting in Aizawl headed by the officiating/in charge of Chief Minister J. Lalsangzuala in which the Government of Mizoram rejected all the demand made by the RRC except security and relief to the people affected by the recent incident which will be taken up for consideration in the phased manner⁹.

However, in 1998, many incidents like arson, kidnapping, extortion and ambush took place within Mamit district but fortunately, there was no homicide activity till 2009. The Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF – formed sometime along with BNU) was commonly accused as responsible for committing several crimes on several occasions like extortion of money from two Mizo women on 3^rdMarch 1998; the attack on Mizoram police near Tuipuibari on 27^th March 1997; issuance of notice to pay tax which was addressed to VCP Zawlnuam; issued of quit Mizoram notice to their community etc.,¹⁰. On the opposite, there were allegations made by the Bru against Mizo in which the Mizo police personnel along with the YMA and MZP members raped 27 Bru women, killed 35 Bru, kidnapped 8 Bru and destroyed 28 Temples/Mandirs.

Nevertheless, all of these allegations seems false because the Home Minister said that it was investigated upon and there was no such kind of incident. The then State Chief Minister of Mizoram Lal Thanhawla on July 1998 said that the Bru do not have any Temple or Mandir as claimed by them in which it is impossible to destroy 28 Temples/Mandirs, but some houses were burnt by the Mizo youth in retaliation for the killing of Lalzawmliana (21^st December incident) in which the police took action and arrested 39 persons and registered cases¹¹.

In 2005, after prolonged negotiations, the Government of Mizoram and Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was likely to restore peace and harmony between the Mizo and Bru community. In the meantime, the Government of Mizoram following the agreement of MoU with the BNLF decided to re-initiate the formal repatriation process and the first task of it is the preparation of the so-called ‘Road Map’ which was completed in 2009. Although there were some minor issues regarding repatriation which already started from the very beginning in 1997, serious and formal repatriation was only initiated by the Government of Mizoram in 2009.

Thereby, to address the displaced person problem in Tripura, a Mizoram Bru Displaced Peoples Forum (MBDPF) was established sometime around 2008 with Elvis Chorkhy as its President, A. Sawibunga as its General Secretary. Under the guidance and initiatives of the MBDPF, a series of bilateral (between Mizoram government and MBDPF), as well as tripartite (between Mizoram government and MBDPF on the one hand; and Tripura government and Union government on the other) talks, was held for the repatriation of the displaced Bru in Tripura¹². But unfortunately, the incident at Bungṭhuam village altered the already talks processions following the discontentment among the Mizo civil societies against the Government of Mizoram. The Mizo NGOs’ Coordination Committee comprising of the YMA, MZP, Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl (MHIP-women association) and Mizoram Upa Pawl (MUP-elder citizen association) decided to opposed repatriation and said –

“Refugees should not be taken back unless and until Brus shun violence”¹³.

It is the civil society who gives direction to the Government in terms of repatriation and resettlement of the Bru in Mizoram. There are 1277 families comprising 6749 Bru people repatriated till the last batch/phase out of around 30,000 – 35,000 refugees in the Camps¹⁴. As far as there was no single-family repatriated in the last batch (2015), the civil societies believed that the Bru people choose permanent settlement in Tripura. The civil societies in 2015 also opposed the order of Election Commission of India to conduct a summary revision of electoral roll at Tripura Bru Camps¹⁵.

In the initial stage of implementing MoU, the Government of Mizoram intended to placed 500 Bru families at different villages, namely, Tuipuibari, Damparengpui, Tuirum, Bunghmun and Rengdil; 300 families will be placed at Thaidawr and Zamuang village while Tumpanglui village will accommodate 400 Bru families. The government intentions were opposed by the Joint civil societies of Mizoram, and again on 29^th January 2006, these Joint civil societies drafted a memorandum and submitted to the then Chief Minister of the State. The memorandum expressed that –

“The State government intends to group the Brus of not less than 300 families in one village according to the wishes of the Brus. However, this can cause demographic imbalances and we are strongly against this as we feel that this can jeopardise the security of Mizo people and the peace of the state as a whole”¹⁶.

Furthermore, the civil societies demanded that the Bru should not be repatriated until and unless the Bru militants stop violence activities inside Mizoram. They made it clear that –

“Unless the Bru Liberation Front of Mizoram stop terrorist activities like kidnapping and extortion of money inside Mizoram repatriation of Brus would only mean we are taking back underground militants”¹⁷.

According to the suggestions made by the Joint civil societies, the State Government started implementing the MoU and the first road map for repatriation was prepared and complete in 2009, but due to the incident at Bungṭhuam village, the repatriation could not proceed because of the protest against the repatriation. The civil societies insisted that if the government goes ahead with their plan of repatriation, they must use 1995 electoral roll to identify the original/genuine settlers of Mizoram so that only the legitimate voters of Mizoram could be repatriated. Accordingly, the Government of Mizoram and MBDPF work together to identify the genuine citizens of Mizoram.

Despite all the actions taken by the Government of Mizoram, the process of repatriation did not run smoothly as anticipated. One of the reasons behind all this phenomenon may be the antagonism between Bru leaders and Mizoram civil societies; another theory is that the Bru people loved the idea of ‘not being governed’ which hinder or retard the process of repatriation. The idea of ‘not being governed’ was professed by James C. Scott; who maintains that most people who migrated into the hills were fleeing the state. His central thesis is that over many centuries the peoples of Zomia (high landers in Southeast Asia ranging from China to North East India) have made a deliberate and reactive choice for a stateless existence. It entails that statelessness is not, as it is often depicted in national histories and ethnographies, some kind of primitive way of life, some folkloristic remnant of how our ancestors used to live, but a contemporary response in a direct dialogue with the state¹⁸. Likewise, as professed by Scott, the Bru in Mizoram and Tripura seems decided to flee away from the normal state apparatus (governed). Due to this fleeing away from the state, tensions and conflict between Mizo and Bru still persist till 2019.

Actions Taken by the Civil Societies during Social Tensions:

To prevent further tension and conflict between the Mizo and Bru in the western belt of Mizoram, the Mizo and Bru community need to establish good cooperation. During tension and conflict of 1997 and 2009, not all of the Bru people were afraid of the Mizo; likewise, not all the Mizo in the western part of Mizoram were afraid of the Bru people. In fact, although there were serious tensions and conflict between them, there are still some relation and cooperation in terms of business and economic activities.

Some minor economic activities like selling of Jhum (shifting cultivation/agricultural) products by the Bru to Mizo people; buying of domestic animals like pigs, dogs, goat, chicken etc., from the Bru people are still practised between them. But there were three times which hindered all these activities between them which were designed to prevent further tensions and conflict. This prevention technique was known by the people as the Non-intervention Programme that was designed by the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of Mizo societies¹⁹. The Joint Action Committee (JAC) comprising the YMA, MUP, MHIP, and MZP of Mizoram western villages initiated this programme in 2008. During this Process of Non-intervention, members of the JAC voluntarily checked the Tripura – Mizoram inter-state border villages whether if there is any connection, cooperation and communication between Mizo and Bru. Sometimes, these voluntary workers had to do their duty for the whole night.

The first Non-intervention programme was initiated within Zawlnuam village area in which the JAC consulted and insisted their neighbouring Bru villages, as well as Bru locality within Zawlnuam village not to intervene each other in all social, political, religious and economic activities. The Bru leaders of the concerned areas also agreed to this proposal and the programme was started on September 2008 which was mainly to prevent all possible threats and tensions to their society. During the operation of this programme, no Bru people intervene with the Mizo society, no Mizo people involve with any Bru activities; in short, there was no economic, social and political relation. Both the parties are detaching themselves from the other society. The first programme only lasted for a few months because it has to call off due to the sufferings of both the Mizo and Bru people, especially in terms of economic cooperation.

When Zarzokioma (17 years old boy) of Bungṭhuam village was killed in 2009 by the alleged Bru Revolutionary Union (BRU), the whole western Mizo society was angered against all the Bru people. Immediately, the JAC has to re-initiate the Non-intervention Programme for the second time not only in Zawlnuam village but also in Kanhmun to Zawlpui Village areas covering around 15 villages. The second time programme began from 13^th Nov 2009 which was the date of Bungṭhuam incident and it lasted for one year. One interviewee told the researcher that there were some minor problems of implementing the programme because Mizo drunkards always tried to contact the Bru people seeking for a local liquor which was usually sold by the Bru people.

The third Non-intervention programme was triggered by the killing of one Bengali employee at Bungṭhuam Mizo agricultural field/farm in 2013. But due to several problems made by some Mizo businessmen, it was called off after only one month. During the third Non-intervention Programme all the transport from Zampui Hill Ranges of Tripura to Aizawl (capital of Mizoram) was blocked; to call off the programme, the JAC wait for a formal apology from the Young Bru Association (YBA) but formal apology never happened. Eventually, the JAC call off the Non-intervention due to strong pressure from the Mizo of Zampui Hill Ranges as well as from the Mizo businessman and farmers. Furthermore, the programme could not be implemented for a long period because the Mizo farmers could not find their desire cheap labour forces from the Bru people both in Tripura and Mizoram.

The process of ethnic conversion:

Apart from social tensions, unrest and instability, there are still connections between the Mizo and Bru. Whenever the civil society like YMA call for a collective community services like sweeping the road between two or more villages, cleaning cemetery, and any other public works etc., for the good of the society, regardless of what happens, some Bru also took part of it.

Based on the Mizo traditional practices, if there is a deceased in the village, all the man especially the unmarried gentleman voluntarily have to dig the burial ground for the deceased and in this work, some of the Bru gentlemen also help the Mizo which in turn increase their relationship status between them. Apart from that, another case which makes their relationship stronger is the consumption of liquor. Most of the Mizo respondent during the interview, especially from the elder used to say that the Bru wine is stronger and taste better than the Mizo product. In fact, there is neither barrier nor discrimination in drinking liquor with the Bru.

There are three important things that the researcher observe during field interview, they are – Buisu, Sandai and Saphun. The word ‘Buisu’ and ‘Sandai’ are the Bru term while the word ‘Saphun’ is a Mizo term. These three things have been practised by the Bru society till today; sometimes both the Mizo and Bru took part in it. But due to the poor condition of livelihood, all these ceremonies could not practice as it was done in their traditional society. These ceremonies and activities are an important way of living to make a truce to establish friendship and close relationship between Mizo and Bru.

Sandai is a ceremony to establish friendship between Mizo and Bru. Traditionally, it is practised only by the man to strengthen the relationship between Mizo and Bru. The word Sandai means ‘let us be a friend forever’. In the formal proceeding, both the parties (one Mizo and one Bru) invited all their relatives, fix the date for the ceremony and bring wine which is to be shared among them. At least one domestic animal is necessary to complete the ceremony; usually, pig blood is painted to their neck by Okchai (a Bru Priest). After that, the meat of domestic animal would be shared among both friends as well as to all their invitees. After the ceremony was completed, the two-man become a friend for the rest of their life. In many cases, this truce of friendship lasted not only one generation but also till the end of their third generation.

During the field visit, the researcher met one respondent from Kawrtethawveng village whose father made a truce of friendship (sandai) with one Bru gentleman in 1980s. Those Bru families who made Sandai with the Mizo were not afraid to stay in Mizoram even all their relatives leave Mizoram with fear of ethnic violence between Mizo and Bru²⁰. However, this kind of relationship is so rare that after ethnic tensions it was never heard in these regions.

Thereby, Sandai shows that the social relation between Mizo and Bru before the tension is very prosperous, in which both Mizo and Bru families had a close relationship. In other words, those Bru families who made a friendship truce (Sandai) with the Mizo before ethnic issue hardly migrates to Tripura in 1997 as well as in 2009 events. Those Bru families who still settle in Mizoram never face any problems whether it is an ethnic issue or any other with the Mizo.

The word Saphun is a Mizo term which means a clan or tribe conversion into another ethnic group or society. Saphun and proselyte are used for the same meaning, having the same essence but the translation may not exactly be the same; proselyte simple definition is that a person who has converted from one opinion, religion, or party to another while the essence of Saphun means a transformation of all ways of life detaching his/herself from old practices of life including social, political, religion or economic. In simple terms, proselyte is used in religious matters whereas Saphun in Mizo society uses not only in religious matter but also in every way of life. Anyhow, Saphun is a ceremony, a ritual which links with religion, custom, tradition, social practices.

The system of Saphun is very old in which it was practised in ancient Judea land of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Damascus and Jerusalem. According to the Christian Bible, if any tribe or clan wanted to merge with Juda society, or if one wanted to live like Juda or behave like them he had to follow all the religious, social and traditional norms of Juda in order to convert himself as a Juda. In fact, he has to follow all Judaism, and he must reject all his birthright about his ethnic norms and traditions. Therefore, conversion from one ethnic identity to another has been practised in the land of Judea, in which, some converted persons perceived the work of God as a marvel – “Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God”²¹.

Similarly, according to Mizo traditional practices, if anyone belonging to other ethnic groups wanted to merge himself into a Mizo society, he must follow all the necessary norms and ceremony as prescribed by the person/family to which he would merge into²². After the completion of Saphun ceremony, he is now likely to be a Mizo or should be considered as a Mizo, he can use a Mizo name as his name as well as for his children and all his next generation would automatically become from a Mizo family.

As time passes, the norms and practices of Saphun in Mizo society gradually change in order to the wishes of the performer. According to the modern practices of Mizo society, there are some formal ceremonies to complete this ritual. The first one is that both the party, whether it is between Mizo and Bru, or Mizo and any other ethnic groups, had to agree on it²³. Secondly, they fix the date to perform all necessary functions and; thirdly the man who is going to merge himself into Mizo society has to bring a domestic animal for dinner on the fixed date. Anyhow, there is no fix in the quantity and quality of the domestic animal but depends on the will of the performer. By the time they perform the function, both the party invite all their relatives for witnesses and dine with them. After the ceremony was completed one should follow all the religious and social norms, the procedure of the Mizo society and he can also inherit the surname to which he was merging into it.

Generally, in the case of Mizo and Bru relation, only the Bru has the privilege to convert into a Mizo society, but a Mizo who converts into a Bru society is never heard. This conversion process is very common before the ethnic tension in which there is an average of three cases in each western village. Like Sandai (friendship pact), a Bru Saphun families live a secure and peaceful life even after the ethnic tension broke up. For instance, in 1997 and 2009 issues, these Saphun families hardly migrate and they told their relatives as well as their neighbour that they would not migrate to Tripura because they considered themselves as a Mizo. Even the Mizo in the western Mizoram regarded and treated them as their fellow Mizo people. There are no problems between them in terms of ethnic or any other issues because they were now both belong to one ethnic group which is ‘Mizo’.

CONCLUSION:

To summarize the article, the main objectives and goal of the research are to find out the causes of ethnic tension and conflict, conflict resolution and ethnic conversion in Mizoram. To find out all these issues, field observation and an interview were conducted at Rengdil, Zawlnuam, Bungṭhuam, Mamit, Pathiantlang, Zamuang, Saikhawthlir, Kawrtethawveng, Bawngva and Uria Chora villages (the word ‘Chora’ translate to ‘village’ in Bru tongue).

Tension began from 1994, and got worse on October 1997, and ease a little in 2005 with the signing of MoU but it refresh in 2009 due to Bungṭhuam incident. Saphun and Sandai are the two important tools of ethnic conversion between Mizo and Bru. Now, it is difficult to identify the Bru only by their names, physical appearances, and dialect because of their ethnic conversion and a close tie with the civil societies of Mizoram.

The Bru issue is now settled in an agreement between Government of India, Government of Tripura, Government of Mizoram and Bru Representative Organizations. The agreement was signed on 16^th January 2020. This agreement settles the erstwhile issues, especially ethnic tension and conflict between Mizo and Bru people in North East India²⁴.

REFERENCES:

1. Mizoram Population 2011-2018 Census. (2018, May 8). Retrieved April 3, 2019, from https://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/mizoram.html

2. AIR News 31 March, A. (2019, March 31). Tripura Bru Relief Camp-a awm mek Bru-te'n Lok Sabha inthlanpuia vote an thlak theih nan Mizoram chhungah Special Polling Station 15 bun a ni dawn. Aizawl, Mizoram, India.

3. AIR News 7 April, A. (2019, April 7). Tripura Relief Camp 6-a Bru voter 12,081 te'n vote an thlak theihna tura Kanhmun a Special polling station siam chu ruah leh thlipuiin a tihchhiat avangin ruahmanna siam danglam a ni. Aizawl, Mizoram, India.

4. Tripathi, R. Why 32,000 Bru tribals from Mizoram were stuck in Tripura for 21 years. Dated (2018, July 5). Retrieved April 8, 2019. Available from The Indian Express: URL: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/why-32000-bru-tribals-from-mizoram-were-stuck-in-tripura-for-21-years-5246144/

5. Bhattacharya, J. Report: Ramification of Conflicts in Tripura and Mizoram. Refugee Watch. (2012, June-December 30&40 : 57.

6. Over 250 Reangs fled Mizoram. (1997, October 21). Highlander, p. 1.

7. Mizoram agrees to take back Reang refugees their homes. (1997, October 21). Highlander, p. 1.

8. Lalzawmliana buried in Aizawl. (1997, October 24). Highlander, p. 2.

9. Mizoram Reject Reang Demands. (1997, November 4). Highlander, p. 1.

10. 3001 Tuikuk returned but to go back to Tripura. (1998, July 23). Highlander, p. 2.

11. Reangs should co-exist with other citizens. (1998, July 18-31). Frontline, p. 12.

12. Bhattacharya, R. Controversial Bru Issue: Brus of Mizoram in Tripura (1997-2010). Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi. 2011.

13. Fresh Exodus Deepens Bru Crisis. (2009, November 19). The Sentinel, p. 14.

14. Lalṭhazuala, R. (2015, Auhust 25). Information Under RTI Act 2015: No.J. 11027/1/2015-HM (BRU)/RTI. RTI sought by Lalengkima regarding Bru repatriation to the Home Department, Government of Mizoram. Aizawl, Mizoram, India: SPIO & Deputy Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Home Department.

15. (2015). State Level Core Committee of Mizoram Government. Aizawl: Government of Mizoram.

16. Govt-NGOs clash over Bru repatriation. (2006, January 30). Highlander, p. 2.

17. Govt-NGOs clash over Bru repatriation. (2006, January 30). Highlander, p. 2.

18. Scott, J. C. The Art of Not Being Governed - An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 2011.

19. Malsawma, M. J. (2015, October 15). Non-Intervention Programme. (Lalengkima, Interviewer).

20. Chhuantea, M. (2015, October 18). Bru transformation by Sandai. (Lalengkima, Interviewer).

21. Acts Chapter 2 verses 9 - 12. In King James’ The Holy Bible. 1611.

22. Government of Mizoram. (2006, May 16). Mizo Hnam Dan (Mizo Customary Law). Mizoram Gazette Extra Ordinary No. Vol. XXXIV Aizawl Wednesday 6.4.2005 Chaitra 16, S.E. 1927 Issue No 66. Aizawl.

23. Government of Mizoram. (2006, May 16). Mizo Hnam Dan (Mizo Customary Law). Mizoram Gazette Extra Ordinary No. Vol. XXXIV Aizawl Wednesday 6.4.2005 Chaitra 16, S.E. 1927 Issue No 66. Aizawl.

24. Agreement between Government of India, Government of Tripura, Government of Mizoram and Bru Representative Organizations signed on 16^th January 2020 with the Presence of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Chief Minister of Mizoram Zoramthanga, and Chief Minister of Tripura Biplap Kumar Deb.

Received on 10.08.2020 Modified on 12.09.2020

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(4):365-370.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00058.3