Mizo as a Link Language

Definition
Before I proceed, I consider it imperative to provide a clear definition of the two terms employed in this paper - ‘Mizo’ and ‘link language’.

What is Mizo? And who is Mizo? ‘Mizo’ as a political term is a recent invention carrying a dual meaning. It is a nomenclature adopted by a major group of Chin-Kuki-Mizo/Zomi tribes as a common name, especially by the inhabitants of Mizoram who named the State after the name of the tribe. Mizoram literally means Mizoland. Some translate ‘Mizo’ (mi=men, zo=hill/mountain/high altitude) to mean ‘Highlanders’ which conveys a ‘locative’ meaning, namely people from the hills and not the plains. Others believe that ‘Mizo’ means the people of Zo/Jou or Zo nation, descendants of Zo lineage with ancient roots. The debate is unlikely to end in years to come as the term assumes new meaning and purpose with every change in political contours.

‘Mizo’ is also a given-name of one of the major Zo dialects. The use of ‘Mizo’ as name of a dialect is also of recent origin as no such dialect existed in the past as we now called a ‘Mizo language’. The dialect was originally called ‘Duhlian’ and was generally used by the inhabitants in Central Chin hills especially in Hualngo (Wheno) dominated area. When the Lusei tribe who spoke this dialect especially the Sailo clan moved westward in a more organized group and settled in Champhai area, especially at a confederate village called Selesih, Duhlian became more prominent. As the Lusei chiefs extended their suzerainty and established themselves as the sole ruler in the present Mizoram which they named Lushai Hills after their tribe, Duhlian evolved rapidly into a richer and more embracing dialect, and came to be called Lusei language and officially remained so till 1972 when the ‘Lushai vernacular’ was changed into ‘Mizo vernacular’ for political expediency and ethnic inclusivity. In 1974 Mizoram Official Language Act was passed by the Mizoram Legislative Assembly but was implemented only in August 1987 when the Government issued notification declaring Mizo as the official language of the State.

As such, Duhlian, Lusei (Lushai) and Mizo are interchangeable trio except for the people of Mizoram who, by law, have only one official language namely MIZO. ‘Their’s not to make reply, Their’s not to reason why’ as Alfred Lord Tennyson said in the The Charge of the Light Brigade.

And what is link language? Though I have yet to come across a proper or formal definition of the term ‘link language’, it basically means two things to me. One, a classic language like Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and others from which roots many languages branched out. For example, Romance languages such as French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish were the offshoots of Latin, their link language. In other words, Latin is their root language like Sanskrit is for many languages. I am not going to use the term ‘Mizo’ in this sense.

Two, a link language is a popular language amongst the many kindred languages which is well understood and spoken by a sizeable population and has become a lingua franca not because of its oldness and deep roots but for its popularity, commonalty and usefulness. For example, English has become a global link language including in India despite the 22 national and regional official languages listed in Schedule 8 of the Indian Constitution. One amongst the list, namely Hindi is India’s principal national (official) language and to a great extent a link language in the sub-continent but its writ hardly travels beyond the borders whereas English has become in effect our national link and official language and the international link language of India. I am using the term ‘Mizo’ in that sense. Personally and for long term considerations, I prefer to call it ‘Zo-trong’ (Zo-language) as it is more historically encompassing and fits dexterously into the language of ethnic nationalism, cultural oneness and devotion.

It will be pertinent to quote Vumson, author of ZO HISTORY (With an introduction to Zo culture, economy, religion and their status as an ethnic minority in India, Burma and Bangladesh) thus: “Of all Zo dialects, the Lusei or Duhlian dialect is the most widely spoken. It is the common language in West Zoram, and it is spoken by almost all Zo people in Manipur and the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Hualngo and Lusei dialects are the same. It was said the Sailo chief Lallula encouraged use of the Duhlian dialect by all his subjects, and since then it has been used successfully as a common language by the Lusei. Today more than half of the Zo people use the Lusei dialect. Haka or Lai, Falam or Laizo, and Tedim or Paihte dialects are very similar to the Lusei dialect- so much so that in conversing each group uses its own dialect. The best example is seen in Tahan where all Zo tribes live together as neghbours. Therefore, if there should be a common language for the Zo people, the Lusei dialect is the ultimate choice” (p. 20-21). My friend, the late Dr. Vumson Suantak (1937-2005), a Sizang (Siyin) by tribe from Tedim Township in Chin State who did not speak Duhlian once told me over telephone from Maryland (USA) that he had to learn Lusei dialect as he wanted to read and enjoy my Zoram Khawvel serials and that this dialect was the only dialect linking the Zo people from all corners of Zoram khawvel (the world of Zo people).

Background
The exact population of the Zo descent (Zo hnahthlak) now spreading over in the north-east India, westerly Chin and Rakhine States and Sagaing Division of Myanmar and Chittagong Hill Tracts (now Chittagong Division) of Bangladesh is not known due to various reasons including the remoteness of some parts of the region and the constant churning of ethnic political cauldron where every imaginable tribe or community has at one time or the other claimed and fought for a separate identity and in the process got swallowed up by the more aggressive and organized groups from outside their parent community. For example, a sizeable community from the Zo ethnic group had already declared themselves Naga for political expediency and sheer survival. Linguistic maps change with the change of political contours.

When the Linguistic Survey of India was conducted by the British Raj between 1894 and 1928 under the direction of G. A. Grierson, the Zo group was classified as Tibeto-Burman Family: Kuki-Chin & Burma Groups’ under Volume III Part III. Therein, their total number was estimated at between 600, 000 - 1,000,000 which included 240,637 Meiteis. As per B. Lalthangliana’s ‘Mizo Chanchin’, the Tibeto-Burman groups recorded in 1901 census were: Tibetan 235,229; Himalayan 190,585; North Assam 41,731; Bodo 594,411; Naga 247,780; Kachin 125,585; Kuki-Chin 624, 149; Burmese 7,498, 794. A Memorandum submitted by the Mizo Union to His Majesty’s Government in 1947 after the Lakhipur Conference in November, 1946 put the population (based on 1941 Census) at around 5 lakhs. J.T.Vanlalngheta puts at “about ten lakhs of people” excluding those akin tribes living in areas other than Mizoram who speak Mizo dialect. Vumson puts at about 2.5 million covering a contiguous region of about 60,000 square miles. Laltluangliana Khiangte places at 2.6 million. Taking into consideration of biological growth factor alone, it may be safe to put this linguistic group at between 3-5 million, one of the largest dialect groups on earth like the Hmongs (Miao in China). And perhaps the most active in manufacturing books, magazines and newspapers. Mizoram alone produces between 150-200 new books annually.

It is interesting to note that when the marathon linguistic survey was conducted in the 1900s, the researchers could identify as many as 43 different Zo dialect groups using their respective dialects. While this being so, Pastor Vanchhunga wrote his rather biased book in 1915 called ‘Lusei leh a vela hnam dangte chanchin’ (History of the Lushais and their neighboring tribes) published only in 1955 and also his jaw-cracking article ‘Lusei Chanchin’ (History of the Lushais) at Kristian Tlangau (October 1916 issue) in which he peremptorily claimed that “We know 46 Lusei clans.. but in this Lusei land, 40 dialects had already been perished, and now dialects like Ralte, Pawi and Paite, though not yet vanishing, are on the brink of being disappeared.” Obviously, he let the ruling Lusei tribe subsumed all the Zo ethnic tribes under its fold and consigned their dialects to oblivion in the ‘Lusei land’. Thankfully, this was not the case outside their rule.

Vanchhunga’s morbid depiction of the impact of the Lusei rule as deadly a predator as man eating dinosaurs which swallowed up all other tribes along with their dialects might have been influenced by his total subservience to the ruling clan coupled with his desire to satisfy their ego in return for a favour. Most pioneer Mizo historians were believed to have suffered from similar debility and therefore tended to produce distorted and imbalanced history as dictated by the rulers which was not uncommon in other communities too. Positively taken, however, we should thank Vanchhunga for unconsciously giving us two contradicting scenarios, like the oracles of the three witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. One is the black-hole like nature of the Lusei rule which sucked in all other tribes including their dialects. The other picture witnessed by the Linguistic Survey of India was that other Zo dialects definitely survived outside their rule. The Survey covered more than 40 Zo dialects which disproved Vanchhunga’s equivocal statement. The release in October, 2012 of the first New Testament in Ralte dialect (presumed dead for decades) was the latest case in point.

However, by digging further into the hidden import of his chilling statement, we may perhaps find the key factor or factors that propelled Lusei dialect forward to become a link language in the Zo world as also the tenacity with which its speakers jealously hold it close to their chests from being challenged or harmed by other dialects even at the cost of appearing insular, intolerant, selfish and unaccommodating. This scenario is still in full display in Mizoram which perhaps explains the uneasiness and nervousness with which the Lusei speakers look at other Zo dialect speakers. Rightly or wrongly, they fear that the infiltration of other Zo dialects in the country will act as a contaminating agent to the Zo unity instead of sustaining and strengthening it.

Given the preponderant position the Lusei language holds and its sustaining and growing capacity as being a State language of Mizoram and a subject of study up to the University level, it is quite unlikely that any other Zo dialect will come even close to challenging its preponderancy. Conversely, guided encouragement, promotion, protection and preservation of other Zo dialects may be a boon and not a curse to the healthy growth of the Lusei language as the kindred dialects are perennial sources which feed the roots of the link language and any weakening or elimination of the sources will have a detrimental effect on its survival. In this connection, the far-sighted policy of India and its concern for the promotion and preservation of ethnic languages and dialects by re-organizing States on linguistic basis may be worth emulating. Language is the blood and vein of every community and nation. Therefore, excessive display of linguistic hegemony and chauvinism by any community over others is a myopic attitude that tends to produce negative response and does not pay in the long run. A link language has to play an accommodating role for its own long-term survival.

Determining factors
Granted the jeremiad pronouncement of Vanchhunga as partly true and partly false in the then Lushai Hills and even in present Mizoram, it will be worthwhile to study why the Lusei dialect from amongst the many other Zo dialects survived and prospered to become a link language of the Zo descents. Here, for the sake of brevity, I will give only two main factors among many that I consider especially important:

1. Unity factor
A study of the westward movement of the Zo descents from the Kabaw valley would indicate how various Zo dialects came to evolve as they moved in small batches from hill to hill, each group or clan speaking and developing a variety of kindred dialects. But none of these dialects came to be developed as fast as the Duhlian dialect which the Lusei tribe adopted as their own. The reason was not far to seek.

The Zo people were generically known as ‘Chin’ in Burma and the area they dominated as Chin Hills. From there, a large segment of them moved further west and those who came in contact with the Bengalis were called ‘Kuki’ by them though the Zo people called themselves after the name of their respective clan or tribe. About 300 years later, the Lusei group moved west and crossed into the present Mizoram in and about 1700 A.D. Eight Sailo chiefs struck a strategic deal and settled together at Selesih near Champhai. Their idea was to build a strong bulwark of defence against any onslaught of Pawi invasion which they believed was imminent. Their guiding principle was survival through unity. It was this language of unity which ushered in the rule of the Sailo clan in Mizoram till the advent of the British rule which recognized the geo-political reality, brought the area under one administrative control in the name of Lushai Hills and automatically recognized their dialect as official language of the area along with English, the link language of the entire British Empire covering a quarter of the earth’s space and comprising one fifth of its population.

To emphasize the point further, let us briefly trace back the history of the Zo people. It is a common knowledge that one of the most important factors in ethnic nation making is the existence of a core community or what Anthony D. Smith called ‘dominant ethnie’ around which the emerging political community is shaped and revolved. In the Zo world too, potential dominant ethnies like Kamhaus, Thados, Sailos, Suktes, Zahaus etc came to appear in different pockets but none so played so successful a dominant role as the Sailos in integrating the areas under their suzerainty into a composite territory, culture and language. Their magic wand was unity which enabled them to weld disparate groups into a collective entity with a common language in a secured and demarcated homeland which eventually became Mizoram. Other core communities failed to make lasting impact mainly for lack of cohesion, farsightedness and wisdom. For example, about 60 per cent of the hill areas of Manipur had been under Kuki chieftainship but unlike the Sailos, they left only a trail of internal divisions which failed to attract even their direct blood brothers, not to speak of their kindred tribes.

2. Providential factor
The sub-heading at first glance may appear ecclesiastical but is it as rationale as calling a rock a stone. I am using it as I could not find a better comprehensive term.

On a soil prepared by the Sailo chiefs, the British colonizers stepped in followed closely by the missionaries. Initially, the British rulers introduced elementary education in Lushai dialect with Bengali script as they did in Assam, Tripura and Manipur. The farsighted missionaries however found it more appropriate to introduce a modified Roman script and came out with a new 24-letter alphabet based on the phonetic Hunterian system of orthography with only one diacritic mark which is still in use with all its shortcomings. With this came all school textbooks and gospel literatures in Lushai and wherever the gospel went out from Mizoram to the neighboring Zo inhabited areas in Burma, Manipur, Cachar Valley and North Cachar Hills, Assam, Tripura and Chittagong Hill Tracts, the Lushai language also followed. Not only preaching and singing, but all liturgical services and rites were done in Lushai, the sole language the indigenous evangelist-teachers and preachers employed as the vehicle of the gospel just as the Levites employed Hebrew and the Roman Catholic clergies invoked Latin. It was and still is the Gospel which spread Lushai language beyond their borders. One example was the donation and free distribution of used Lushai Bibles, hymn books, school textbooks and old magazines in the Chin Hills known as ‘Chanchinthra Dak’ (Gospel Mail/Post) launched by the YLA/YMA volunteers in 1946 and 1948 which had a tremendous impact on the spread of the Lushai language.

Language regulators
Language is not a ready-made God-given treasure or a free gift offered on a plate. It “is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication and a language is any specific example of such a system” (Wikepedia). Language is thought to have originated when early hominins started gradually changing their primate communication systems, acquiring the ability to form a theory of other minds and a shared intentionality. Humans acquired language through social interaction in early childhood. Languages evolve and diversify over time and the history of their evolution can be reconstructed by comparing modern languages with ancestral languages. Zo language is said to have been originated from Sino-Tibetan languages and then evolved through Tibeto-Burman languages. The Lusei language is one of the 40-odd offshoots of the Kuki-Chin-Burman languages and rose within a short span of time to an envious status of a link language. It does not take more than 50 years for the death of a language and the rise of a new language.

In order to maintain and sustain a link language, many countries have language academies to regulate standard languages by publishing prescriptive dictionaries. They are language regulatory bodies whose mandate is to maintain, as far as possible, linguistic purism while at the same time promote (and not impose) use of standard form of speaking and writing as prescribed from time to time. Of linguistic purism, George Thomas wrote: “Whereas a number of the puristically motivated language societies have assumed de facto responsibility for language cultivation, the decisions of the academies have often had the force of law… The first academy to deal expressly and exclusively with language matters was the Accademia della Crusca…Its orientation was essentially conservative, favoring a return to the Tuscan language as cultivated in the fourteenth century over the innovations of contemporary renaissance poets like Torquata Tasso…One of its first tasks- as with so many academies to follow-was to produce a large-scale prescriptive dictionary of Italian” (Linguistic purism, 1991 p.108).

There are many language academies which offered yeoman services to linguistic protectionism by producing useful prescriptive dictionaries. One example is the autonomous Royal Institute of Thailand established in 1933 which is most widely known for its work in language planning and regulation, and for its many publications, particularly the prescriptive Royal Institute Dictionary which has been intermittently revised and reprinted. When I was in Rangoon (1986-89) I used to visit Bangkok frequently during which my friend the late Jimmy L. Chhangte (Nghaka) and I spent many precious hours together discussing Mizo literature. On one of the occasions, while watching the Thai television, I asked him why their newscasters never mixed English words in their script. He told me that the Royal Institute of Thailand had given the Thai equivalent of every new terminology and circulated the same for uniform use to all Government establishments, educational institutions and all branches of the media and therefore, they did not need to borrow foreign terms.

Myanmar also has Myanmar Language Commission (Myan-ma-za Aphweh) with 17 members and Myanmar-English Dictionary Work Committee with 12 members who first published Myanmar-English Dictionary in 1993 and also Transcription System for Romanization of Burmese. It may be noted that the first ever English-Burmese Dictionary was compiled by Adoniram Judson but the work was interrupted by his death in 1850 and the unfinished portion was completed by missionary E. A. Steven. “Every dictionary and grammar written in Burma in the last two centuries has been based on the ones originally created by Judson” (en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Adoniram Judson). This work was further taken up by Rangoon University under the aegis of the Burma Research Society and brought out 5 volumes, each 80 large format pages but was left incomplete.

There is no official language regulatory authority in Mizoram unless we regard The Mizo Language Committee set up under the Mizoram Publication Board Bill, 1993. The tasks of producing prescriptive dictionaries so far have been undertaken by individuals. A Grammar and Dictionary of the Lushai Language prepared by the pioneer missionaries J.H.Lorrain and F.W.Savidge between January 1894 and April 1897 was first published by the Assam Government in 1898. The authors specifically called the language ‘Dulien Dilect’ and the Lushai-English Dictionary occupied 168 pages whereas the English-Lushai portion occupied only 110 pages. This was followed by J.H. Lorrain’s masterpiece Dictionary of Lushai Language in 1940 which is till to-day the most referred dictionary in the Zo world. The next Lushai-English dictionary I came across was J.T. Vanlalngheta’s The Concise Learner’s Dictionary of MIZO published in 2010. English-Lushai Dictionary brought out by J.F.Laldailova on July 4, 1969 was followed by a more reliable and comprehensive English-Mizo Dictionary by Lalropara Pachuau in 2005. Mizo-Mizo dictionary entitled Mizo Tawng Dictionary by Remkunga came out in 1992 followed by Zotawng Dictionary by Colney Brothers (R.K. Ngurchhawna, Rev. Z.T. Sangkhuma & Upa Lalzuia Colney) in 1997. James Dokhuma also brought out a very rare and useful compilation of idioms and phrases entitled Tawng Un Hrilhfiahna in 1987 and later revised editions in abridged format under the same title came out in 2004 & 2007. Pi Ralluaii Chhangte’s work entitled Mizo Tawng Chikna (2001), an in-depth analysis of Mizo language, is the first scholarly examination of Mizo language from linguistics angle. There could be many more works and publications on Mizo dictionary and grammar but I included only those in my collection. The list therefore be taken as indicative only. I have intentionally skipped Bible dictionaries and references which are extremely useful, like for example, Revd Chuauthuama’s scholarly 1282-page Zotawng Bible Dictionary (2011) for the sake of brevity.

While perusing Mizo-Mizo and Mizo-English dictionaries, one glaring tendency I noticed invariably in their works has been to limit their collection to the confines of J.H.Lorrain’s dictionary even though he himself admitted that he omitted many words because he lost several slips as rats had either nibbled away or stolen to their burrows. On a random but careful perusal, many pages stare at you like a child with missing teeth but we do not seem to have noticed the gaping holes. The reason may be (a) that we are too lazy to train our eyes to notice them; (b) that we are too easily satisfied with his (Lorrain’s) collection and (c) that our knowledge of Mizo words is confined only to Lusei/Duhlian dialect and we have no further capacity to expand our linguistic abilities and parameters. The last point is the price we pay for neglecting other Zo ethnic dialects and other languages. It is a suicidal policy in the long run.

One idea I have been working on for more than a decade is to prepare a few volumes of ZO DICTIONARY based on the link language which we now call Mizo or Zo-trong. The Dictionary will incorporate appropriate words carefully collected and selected from various ethnic Zo dialects, many of which are on the verge of death and need revitalization. Words and expressions that are absent in one dialect but available in another kindred dialects will supplement and complement each other and help in preserving, sustaining and expanding Zo language. This will further enrich Zo-trong and literature.

Along with this, it is necessary to undertake Cultural Mapping on a grand scale to record the cultural history of Zo ethnic groups including their dialects in the pattern of linguistic survey done in 1900s. We had on voluntary basis conducted a preliminary survey in 2011 on a few selected Old Kuki villages belonging to Hmar ethnic group in Manipur and Tripura to have an idea of the magnitude of the tasks involved, including manpower and funding requirements. Our findings are traumatic and challenging: traumatic because we encountered language deaths everywhere; and challenging, because we heard repeated clarion calls for its resuscitation. The tragic part is when the local governments, not wishing to have minority languages, have tried to promote language death and not vice versa. It is like a proverbial story of a fence eating the crops. The position of Mizoram in this regard is nebulous, bordering on linguistic chauvinism and linguicide.

I will conclude with the words of an Israeli linguist Ghil’ad Zuckermann, Professor of Linguistics and Endangered Languages at the University of Adelaide who works with language revival: “Language reclamation will become increasingly relevant as people seek to recover their cultural autonomy, empower their spiritual and intellectual sovereignty, and improve wellbeing. There are various ethical, aesthetic and utilitarian benefits of language revival- for example, historical justice, diversity and employability, respectively” (Stop, revive and survive, The Australian Higher Education, June 6, 2012). ‘Mizo’ as a link language has an important role to play in this regard for its very own long-term growth and survival.

(June 21, 2013, Delhi)

References:

1 A Seminar paper prepared by L.Keivom for the two-day National Seminar on Mizo Language: Contemporary Challenges and Prospects (organized by the Department of Mizo, Pachhunga University Constituent College, Mizoram University, Aizawl and Central YMA and sponsored by the Central Institute of Indian Languages (Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India) from 18-19 July, 2013 at Central YMA Hall, Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl.
2 G.A.Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India Vol III Part III, 1904 Reprint 1967 p.2-3.
3 B.Lalthangliana, India, Burma & Bangladesh-a MIZO CHANCHIN, 2001 p. 147
4 Memorandum submitted to His Majesty’s Government, Government of India and its Constituent Assembly through the Advisory Sub-Committee by the Mizo Union on 26. 4. 1947 at Aijal.
5 J.T.Vanlalngheta., The Concise Learner’s Dictionary of Mizo, 2010
6 Vumson., Zo History p.7
7 Seven Sisters Post, NE Lit Review. Frontipieace-Mizo Literature, Opening the door by Laltluangliana Khiangte. Nelitreview.blogspot.in/2012/02 frontispiece-mizo-literature-opening.html
8 Keivom, L., Zoram Khawvel-4, 1997 p.234-235. “Lushei..hnam 46 kan hria…Lushei ram chhungah hian tawng 40 lai a ral ta, tuna (i) Ralte (ii) Pawi (iii) Paite tawng a la ral meuh lo. Mahse, tunah an ral mek a ni.” Also see B. Lalthangliana’s ‘Mizo Literature’ (1993, p.213-215) for further analysis of the mentioned book.
9 Lalthangliana, B., India, Burma leh Bangladesh-a MIZO KOHHRANTE, 2007 p. 358-362; Rev. Zairema, I NI MIN PEK, 2009 p.251-254; Robuanga, KA KHUALZIN p.74-75 etc.
10 E.Ulrich Kratz, Southeast Asian Languages and literatures: A Bibliographic Guide to Burmese, Cambodian, Javanese, Malay, Minangkakau, Thai and Vietnamese, 1996, p.61
11 Lalthangliana, B., Mizo Lieterature, 1993 p.102-103