Type and enter

Sunday, October 21, 2012

critical-34


widespread that the Mara church worship service without drums could be compared to a dish of food without salt in it.

1.      Mara Slavery System
The author wants to look at the controversy over the slavery system because it has a connection with the gospel and culture in the Mara context. In order to have a clear perspective of the controversy, a review of the historical development of slavery in the Mara society is necessary. There were two kinds of slaves – the captive slaves, those who were taken against their will during the inter-tribal wars; the other slaves were non-captive slaves who entered the chief’s house at their own will to be the slaves of the chief. There were three types of the non-captive
slaves. The first type are criminals like murderers who took refuge in the chief house to escape vengeance; the second type are called those who deserted the losing side in war and joined the victor by promising to become slaves with all their descendants; the last are those who had been driven because of poverty, sickness or distress to take refuge in the chief’s house to be slaves.  It was as a result of the last type of slavery that the controversy arose.



1.1.The Colonial view of the Mara slave system
Out of the three types of slavery mentioned above, the British government recognized only the last type of slaves. The main reason for supporting this system was the administrators like Major Cole saw the Mara slave system as beneficial both to the slaves and the chiefs. Customarily, the slaves were well treated and in return they had to give all they could to the chiefs and worked for the chiefs. To get freedom the slave’s family or the slave had to pay Rs. 40/- or an equavelent for ransom. It was at that time a large sum of money that an ordinary family could not afford. This system of slavery was fundamental to the economic sustenance of the chiefs. Therefore, British administrators advocated the Mara slave system and saw it as benevolent and suited to the Mara social-cultural context.

1.2.Missionary view
On the other hand, the Missionaries recognized that the slavery system in the Mara society was real slavery, but they preferred to keep quiet. As the proverb goes, ‘Actions speak louder than words’. They did redeem some of the slaves out of their oppressive positions with their own money.  Despite their sympathy for the slaves, the early Missionaries dared not complain about the Mara slavery system to the colonial administrators. Peter Fraser came to Lushai Hills on 9th December, 1908 and saw the slavery system as against the Bible’s teachings (Exod. 20:3-7; Ezk. 3:7-21) and the British Law under the influence of Pax Britannica. He raised the question of why the slavery system still existed in which was under the administration of Pax Britannica. He pointed out that the British government prohibited slave trade in 1807 and in 1833 ruled that all slaves should be set free.

Unfortunately the way he interpreted the Bible is not available but it can be imagined that his hermeneutical circle takes up the Ten Commandments and he seemed to identify the hardened hearts of the Egyptian people with the colonial administrators and the Mara chiefs. He studied the slavery system and configured seven points which clearly disclosed the injustice of the socio-cultural structure which his friend Major Cole defended for the sake of administration. According to Peter Fraser,
‘That the ‘seih’ system is a system under which British subjects in Lushai & Chins are deprived of their right to liberty and justice is evident from a perusal of the following statements of slaves, evangelists, chiefs, missionaries and others. Besides, bondage for life other evil features are seen: (1) The inhumane separation of a mother from her child (2) The separation of husband and wife (3) the separation of relatives (4) Intimidation, bodily hurt (5) Temptation to immorality, (6) Opposition to slaves becoming Christian (7) The selling and buying of people’.[1]

1.3.Mara Christian chiefs freed their slaves
Some of the chiefs became Christians and they saw that the slavery system was incompatible with Christianity. Therefore, set free all their slaves that they had inherited from past generations. The non-Christian chiefs felt that it was going to shake their chieftainship and it was against the Mara custom to release the slave without any ransom money.

1.4.Postcolonial Reading on Controversy and Changes
Resistant reading sees that the slavery was a source of structural injustice in the Mara society and was against the Bible and the British law, although it probably contributed benevolent things to the person concerned.

So, because they can do as they desire it is only ‘membership of the household’. Henceforth without calling it ‘slave price’ (sei mâh) it is to be called ‘payment for board of house hold members’ (chhokha man). So whoever wants to ransom


[1] Peter Fraser, Slavery on British Territory: Assam and Burma (Canarvon: W. Gwenlyn Evans & Son, 1913), 5. Hereafter cited as ‘Fraser, Slavery’.

No comments:

Post a Comment