Type and enter

Sunday, October 21, 2012

critical-26


1.1.Social Evils
The above statement shows that the British government gave orders to maintain law and order and to do administrative justice among the Mara society. The Mara chiefs were not without blemish for some of them were cruel, corrupted and capricious, and persecuted and oppressed their subjects without any sympathy. These collections of orders seem sometimes to have arisen out of the contextual situations.
1)      No one is allowed to ill- treat, maltreat and loot others.
2)      Every village has to clear their respective roads.
3)      Every chief is a tax-collector in his village.
4)      All the chiefs must regularly attend the meetings.
5)      It is strictly prohibited to accuse someone as evil eye (ahri mokhao).
6)      The chief is curbed from confiscating and plundering belongings of the villagers.
7)      It is not legal to gang rape a reputedly loose woman by young men.
Due to the implications of these orders the lives of the poor and the oppressed people in the Mara community were much relieved. The advent of the British in this perspective was liberation for the oppressed people from the injustices done to them by the corrupted chiefs.

This is very notorious custom in the Mara society. The British government did justice by prohibiting this evil practice because young girls of poor families sometimes suffered this gang rape as they were helpless.

1.2.Decentralization of political power
With the advent and extension of British Empire to their border the Maras frequently encroached the British Empire by head hunting and looking the British subject. Reputation of such incident was intolerable to the British rulers and they were ultimately subjugated by the British in 1924 but no local self Government was constituted nor the political autonomy granted for the management of their local affair. Briefly, the British Superintendent and the Mara chiefs used to rule over the Mara people as virtual dictator. When Maraland was annexed and brought under the Indian British way, the homeland of the Maras was partitioned for administrative convenience- one part was annexed to the East Bengal province which after a gap of 20 years again included in the South Lushai (Mizo) Hills under the Assam province whereas a major portion went to Government of Burma (Myanmar). This is a historical fact and as a result a smaller portion of the Mara inhabitant area remained within the union of India today. Formerly the Maras and their frequent successful raids on their neighbouring tribes proved to be the powerful, mighty and brave warriors of those days. Colonel Phayre in a letter to the Government of India gave a very vivid picture of the warlike nature of the Maras. “I have known all the tribes personally except the Shindu [Maras] for many years. The Mara tribe has always been spoken of as powerful and as being much feared”.[1]

Indeed, before the annexation of the Maraland by the British, the lands belong to their respective chiefs. J. Shakespear, the British administrator introduced the process of decentralization of the political power of the Mara chiefs and the chiefdom. The policy seemed to be simple, if there are more chiefs, the powerful chiefs will lose their political power and therefore, J. Shakespear then drastically increased the number of chiefs from the existing for example 60 to 350 chiefs with the aim of decentralizing political power. With the decentralization of political power of the chiefs, the Superintendent of the Lushai Hills and Chin Hills became more powerful and the Mara chiefs had fewer powers.

The Superintendent had final authority in appointing and removing the chiefs, although most of the chiefs were appointed to their former positions. Moreover, lands were apportioned to the chief by the government in accordance with the ‘indirect administration’; lands were made over to persons who had no pretence to chieftainship under indigenous conditions. This again helped to lower the whole status of the Mara traditional chiefs.

The above remark clearly indicates that the British rulers had very vague knowledge about the Maras before the Maras were brought under their control. The reason is clear, it was because of their warlike natures which caused them difficulties in clearing with them.

1.3.Abolition of traditional rights of the Mara chiefs
Mara traditional chiefdom was often thought of in terms of the divine right theory. But now the divine right theory had been removed, superseded and supplanted by the British administration. Consequently, the following traditional rights of the Mara chief were also arbitrarily extinguished to meet the exigencies of the situation:
a)      Right to order capital punishment.
b)      Right to seize food stores and property of villagers, who wish to transfer their allegiance.
c)      Proprietary rights over lands, now arbitrarily reserved by the government in the interests of the public living in neighbouring areas in British India and in British Myanmar.


[1] A Mackenzil’s “The North East frontier of India” P-351.

No comments:

Post a Comment