Traditional name Zou against Conventional names

Traditional Name 'Zou' Against Conventional Names

Before the Zou society evolved into clan-based organization and segmentation, historical records referred them as Zou, Yo, and Cho.(1) The Pong Chronicle (80 – 1474 AD) recorded that the Pong kingdom has 10 states and 99 districts of which the Zo Province was the 9th state, and the Zo province has 4 districts – Khansei, Kathe-meitei, Kalay and Khampat while Khampat was the district center of the state.(2) In 862 AD, Fan-Cho a diplomat of the Tang dynasty of China, mentioned a Kingdom in the Chindwin Valley 'whose Princes and Chiefs were called Shou (Zo).'(3) Much later, Fr. Vincent Sangermano recorded in 1783; Howard Malcolm in 1839; Henry Yule in 1855, and so on. Therefore, the single syllabic term Zo, Zou, Zhou, Chou, Shou, Yo, Jo, Yaw, Shu, etc., without any prefix or suffix, is certainly the etymological root of the word.

The term “Zo/Zou” was the first written word and the original term used by historians, scholars and writers. The original word has gone several ordeals and definitions, and even almost got lost in the minds and memoirs of the people themselves, who introduced conventional names such as Zomi, Mizo, Laizo, Zotung, Zophei, Zokhua, etc. or derogatory terms such as Chin, Kuki, Lushai, etc. All these are but a connotation of their habitation in relation to their original name. There is not a single essence or necessity to either prefix or suffix the original term. Before they have been given derogatory names by their neighbors, all these people are one and the same people born by the same progenitor – Pu Zou. This has been substantiated by the fact that written records before these confusing names appeared to have recorded them as Yo, Zo, Yaw, Yao, Zau, Chou, Shou, etc. There must be a purpose of God that He forbade all Zou descendants to totally elude from their original name and their progenitor. At this juncture, it may be relevant to briefly describe Pu Sing Khaw Khai’s remark on the Zou people:

The Yos (Zo/Zou) are most unique in the sense of the name they bear and the culture they practice in reflection of the ancient Zo tradition. Their origin myth points back to times immemorial. No proper study has yet been made as to why the generic Yo as spelt in former literature was applied to them. Yo families are today living in north-east of Tedim town, in Tonzang township, in Kale-Kabaw valley, and also in Manipur state, India.(4)

The term Zou has geographical as well as genealogical connotations. Pu T. Gougin opined, “The word Zomi comes from the word ‘Zo’ which means hill…. ‘mi’ means man in the Zomi language. Hence the word Zomi means highlanders… one who dwells on the hillside having the same bearing in manner and custom etc., for ages together.”(5) Another theory stated that Pu Hanghil and his colleague from Chimnuoi founded a new village site called Baljang in the hillside, and those people living in that village came to be known as the Zou people (Zote).(6) But, these speculations could not be held accountable given the fact that the Zou people have settled in different topographies and geographical locations. Chimnuoi was inhabited just a couple centuries ago after they left Khampat kingdom, and there were so many Zou settlements contemporary to the Chimnuoi settlement. Dr. Lam Khan Piang made it clear to the meaning of Zou thus:

Some scholars try to explain the meaning of the name ‘Zo.’ There are two main views regarding the meaning of Zo. One group drawing from local usage considers that the name implies a ‘hilly, deep forest.’ It is however difficult to ascertain whether the deep forest translate into the usage of Zogam/Zoram (Zoland). In other words, it is a mood point as to how this name gets sedimented: is it because the Zo people are living in the deep forest or do they become Zo people after they settled within it as the term ‘Zo’ means ‘deep forest’ in their language. But some of the native scholars argued that before they settled in the hilly deep forest also, they already called themselves Zo. They cited the Khampat settlement in the plian Kabu valley as an example. This group believes that Zo is the progenitor, as the Zo people were always identified with the name of their ancestor.(7)

Of the many fictional names, we will deal with the four most prominent names of the Zou people, viz. Chin, Kuki, Mizo and Zomi. While the first two are derogatory terms given by their indecorous neighbors, the last two are but another example of how different less honest leaders wanted to divide and rule their geographically, dialectally or politically isolated Zou people from the mainstream Zou people. They have called themselves with various conventional names based on geographical or dialectal isolation, but they belong to one ancestor having the same culture, tradition, folklores, and ancient history.

1. Chin:

This is a name given to the Zou people of Chin Hills in Burma. It could either be a Burmese corruption of the Chinese ‘Jin’ or ‘Yen’ meaning ‘man’ or Burmese word ‘Khyan’ which means ‘basket.’(8) Perhaps the Burmese called the people Chin or Khyan because they were always found carrying basket on their back for various purposes. In this regard, Carry and Tuck wrote thus: “Those of the Kuki tribes which we designate as ‘Chins’ do not recognize that name, which is said to be a Burmese corruption of the Chinese ‘Jin,’ or ‘Yen,’ meaning ‘man.’ The Northern Chins call themselves Yo, the Tashons, Haka, and more southern tribes Lai, while the Chins of Lower Burma give their name as Shu.”(9) S. Thangkhangin was clear about it:

They were identified as ‘man with basket’ by the Burmese. The question is ‘will the Zoumi (Zou people) be very cheap to be called as people of basket.’ Are the Zoumi the only people who could carry basket?” Recently the Burmese wanted to justify the word ‘Chin’ by giving a ‘comrade.’ The Burmese never called the Zoumis (Zou people) ‘comrade’ in their history in the true sense of the term. Comrade is a special term for friend applied to those who believe in Maraism (Marxism?). While exploiting mercilessly and threatening their own existence on the surface of the earth, the Burmese did not have even moral right to call the Zou people ‘comrade.’(10)

The second phase of the Chin movement came with the formation of the Chin National Union in 1933. Since then, the Chin movement gained momentum under the Union of Burma. However, the Burman politicians disregarded the principles of Panglong Agreement, and the Chins were denied of their movement when the Union of Burma gained independence from the British in January 04, 1948. On February 20, 1948, over 5000 Chins from all over the Chin Hills (Chinland) held unprecedented gathering at Falam town and proclaimed in their unity and determination to be free from traditional feudal administrative system, and adopted a democratic system of governance which later became the Chin National Day.(11)

The second phase of the Chin movement in Burma started in 1964 when the Chin National Organization went underground to overthrow the military junta and restore democracy. Twenty-four years later, the Chin National Front was formed on March 20, 1988 to regain self-determination right of the Chin people and to restore democracy and federalism in the Union of Burma.(12) The organization got momentum when the Chin students join the organization after the Burmese military junta brutally crushed the Democratic Revolution of August 08, 1988 commonly known to the people as the “Four Eights Democracy Revolution.” The CNF is forming alliance with other democratic forces. Currently, the CNF is led by its president Pu Thomas Thang No, and its vice President is Pu Zing Cung.(13)

2. Kuki:

This was another derogatory name given to the Zou people living on the north-west of Burma, the north-east of India, and Bangladesh by the outsiders. The term Kuki is said to have been derived from the Baluchistan word ‘Kuchi’ which means ‘nomadic’ or ‘wandering.’ Some said that this name was given by the Bengalis and the Assamese to the people living in the north-east of India, the north-west of Burma and Bangladesh. The earliest book written in English, using this name appeared in the ‘Asiatic Research Vol. VII’ form the pen of Surgeon McCrea, dated 24th January, 1799.(14) S. Thangkhangin quoted the earliest book written in English, using the name ‘Kuki’ appeared in 1792.(15) This book, as he quoted, was written in 1869 entitled “The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein with Comparative vocabularies of the hill dialects" by Capt. T.H. Lewin, Deputy Commissioner of Hill Tracts.(16) It does not matter whoever first used it, but S. Thangkhangin stated that the word Kuki was supposed to be given by the Bengalis.(17) Perhaps the Bengalis found them culturally ‘unsophisticated,’ because Kuki literally means ‘wild hill people.’ When the British annexed the Zou country, they continued to use the term ‘Kuki’ because it suited their colonial designs and policy.(18) In course of time, the term Kuki was cherished and marginalized to dialectal denomination, which in turn became unpalatable to the larger Zou people.

3. Mizo/Lushai:

The name Lushai, spelt ‘Luchye,’ first corps up in the Cachar Reports bout 1850.(19) Capt. T.H. Lewin was one of the outsiders who tried to use both Lushai and Kuki interchangeably and spelled loosely when he said, "The Lhoosai, commonly called the Kookies, are a powerful and independent people, who touch upon the borders of the Chittagong Hill Tracts."(20) He further suggested a fine theory that needs the attention of researchers by saying, “The people of Bhootan, who are of undoubted Thibetan origin, call themselves Lhotsa. Can this bear any affinity ot ‘Lhoosai?’"(21) The term Lusei, some feel, means 'head-hunter' or 'head-cutter' (lu = head, sei = to shoot or cut). Others suggest it means literally 'long-head' (lu = head, sei = long). It is form earlier times when the Luseis, male or female, kept long hair, knotting them into a big ball on the head, which appeared long.(22) Whatever the case it may be, the term Lushai, as we know so far, was also a name designated to a person based on the person’s appearance, and it is not the the Zou people’s ancestor.

The word Mizo was a recently adopted nomenclature of the Zou people. The Zou people of the Lushai hills were called Lushai. It was on the 9th April 1946, that the Mizo Union was founded at Muallungthu conference.(23) The primary objective of the Mizo, according to Pu S. Thangkhangin, was to bring all the Zou people who were called by different names under one nomenclature and to set up an independent state of the Zoumi who were living in the Indo-Burma borderland, when the British left the country. But this never came true.(24) He further stated that under the banner of the Mizo Union, the Zou ethnic groups fought unitedly for the abolition of chieftaincy and integration of the Zoumi into one administrative unit. When this movement gained momentum, the government of India gave a bourgeois concession, a Lushai Hill District under the Sixth Schedule of Indian constitution, to the Mizo leaders. To this bourgeois concession the Mizo Union leaders satisfied fully.... Those who did not enjoy the fruit of their hard-bitten movement for integration began to feel ashamed to call themselves Mizo.(25)

4. Zomi:

The word Zomi was the latest of all the conventional names that we gave to ourselves. It was first as a religious organization that aimed at consolidating all the Zou people of the Chin Hills State under one banner. The Baptist convention held in 1953 at Saikah village in Thantlang Township unanimously adopted, on the recommendation by the constitution drafting committee, Zomi to be the national title for the new Baptist organization. Hence Zomi Baptist Convention.(26)

The second phase of the Zomi movement kicks off as a political and national movement. The Zomi National Congress (ZNC) took its birth in a humble hamlet called Daizang in Churachandpur, South District, Manipur, India, on the 21st January, 1972. Pu T. Gougin took the first step and along with his trusted friends established Zomi National Congress in the year 1972 in Daijang. He was the First President and Pu Thangkhangin Ngaite became its first General Secretary.(27) This was a far reaching movement in that it was well responded and accepted across the Zou inhabited area – India, Burma and Bangladesh. The movement waned down in the 1980s for a reason unknown to the public. The movement it is still functioning under a slightly different name called Zo/Zou Re-unification Organization (ZORO) with its backbone in Mizoram. R. Thangmawia is currently the president of the Zo Re-Unification Organisation (ZORO).(28)

The third phase of the Zomi movement came with the local turmoil between the Thadous and the Paites (Zomi and Kuki: One and the same stock…one origin(29) ) on June 24, 1997(30) to October 1, 1998.(31) The Zomi Revolutionary Organization (ZRO) was formed in 1993 and its armed wing, the Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA), was formed in 1997 following an escalation of ethnic violence between the Kukis and Paites in the Churachandpur district of Manipur.(32) The Zomi Council was formed as a result of the escalation of the aforesaid ethnic violence. Apparently, the current Zomi movement was founded to address only the other side of the so called Zomi-Kuki conflict which means the Zomi movement has been downsizing its constituent membership. Thus, the definitions of Zomi at the time of its inception and that of today have vast differences in terms of essence, nature and boundary.

Dr. Vumkhohau, a Zo scholar and diplomat from Burma, in his profile of the ‘Burmese Frontier Man’ has affirmed that “we called ourselves Zomi from time immemorial.”(33) Dr. Vumson Suantak Ph.D. Zou scholar was of the opinion that Zou people have been given the name “Zou” because of their progenitor – Pu Zou.(34) Dr. Vumson Suantak also believed that names such as Kuki and Chin which originated as abuse names create misunderstanding between the abuser and the abused.(35) In his article entitled “Our People and our Language,” Dr. Tualchin Neihsial Ph.D. wrote, “Many scholars are of the opinion that Zou is the name of our common progenitor and that people who have descended from him called themselves “Zomis” by natural practice. Although the term is written variously like ‘Yo,’ ‘Zhou,’ ‘Jo’ and ‘Zao,’ yet there is every reason to believe that this terms have one and the same identity.”(36) The Zou people were known by outsiders as Kuki in Manipur, Nagaland and Assam; Chin in Burma and Lushai in Mizoram, Tripura and other Zou occupied areas. Carey and Tuck, in their book entitled The Chin Hills noted:

Without pretending to speak with authority on the subject, we think we may reasonably accept the theory that the Kukis of Manipur, the Lushais of Bengal and Assam, and the Chins originally lived in what we now know as Thibet and are of one and the same stock; their form of government, method of cultivation, manners and customs, beliefs and traditions all point to one origin.(37)

It is also because of this fact that scholars like Dr. Vum Kho Hau, Prof. Laldena, Dr. Vum Son, Dr. Tualchin Neihsial, Dr. H. Kamkhenthang, Dr. Mangkhosat Kipgen, Cap. Sing Khaw Khai, Dr. J. M. Paupu, Pu K. Zawla, Pu R. Vanlawma, B. Langthanliana, Dr. V. Lunghnema, Dr. Hawlngam Haokip, Pu L. S. Gangte, Pu T. Gougin, Pu Thang Khan Gin Ngaihte, Rev. S. Prim Vaiphei, Rev. Khup Za Go, Pu L. Keivom, Rev. S. T. Hau Go, Dr. Khen Za Sian, Prof. Thang Za Tuan, Rev. Sing Ling etc. concluded that ZO is the ancestor of the Zo people.(38) Now, Zou historians and scholars began to understand and accept that Zou is their original name. This renaissance will go a long way until all the Zou people come together and have a common vision, hope and aspiration. There will be a time when they will shun their imposed prefixes and suffixes and come under the dignified, yet long forgotten progenitor – Pu Zou.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

References: (This article has not been reviewed and edited yet)

1. Grierson, G.A., Linguistic survey of India Vol. III, Part 3, P.2

2. Kham, Kam Za...[et.al.] Naulak Innkuan Laibu AD 2003. P. 3

3. Fan-Cho, The Manshu: Book of southern barbarians.

4. Khai, Sing Khaw, Zo people and their culture: A historical, cultural study and critical analysis of Zo and its ethnic tribes, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1995, p.22-23

5. Gougin, T., The discovery of Zoland, Zomi Press: Zion Street, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1980, p.12

6. Sian, En Za, Teddim Innkuan Laibu,


7. Lam Khan Piang, L., The Process of Ethnification of the Zo People in Prism of the Zo People, (Lamka: Compiled, Edited and Published by Publication Board, 60th Zomi Nam Ni Celebration Committee, 2008) P.30

8. Gangte, L.S., Who are we? In search of identity, Imphal: Printed and published by the Kuki Chin Baptist Union at Kuki Baptist Press, 1986, p.46

9. Carry, Bertram S. and Tuck, H.N., The Chin Hills: A history of the people, our dealings with them, their customs and manners, and a gazetteer of their country, 1896 Vol. I, Rangoon: Printed by the Superintendent, Government Printing, Burma, 1896) P.3

10. S. Thangkhangin, Why Should We be Called Zoumi? In Search of Identity, (Imphal: Printed and published by the Kuki Chin Baptist Union at Kuki Baptist Press, 1986), P.59


11. See http://www.chinland.org/ Accessed on February 19, 2010

12. Ibid

13. Lian Uk, Suppression of the Chin National Movement for Federalism Under the Revolutionary Council and the Burma Socialist programme Party (1962-1988)

14. Mr. L.S. Gangte, Who are We? In Search of Identity, (Imphal: Printed and published by the Kuki Chin Baptist Union at Kuki Baptist Press, 1986), P.44

15. S. Thangkhangin, Why Should We be Called Zoumi? In Search of Identity, (Imphal: Printed and published by the Kuki Chin Baptist Union at Kuki Baptist Press, 1986), P.60

16. Capt. T.H. Lewin, The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein with Comparative vocabularies of the hill dialects, (Culcutta: Bengal Printing Company, Limited, 1869) P.98 The book said, “The Lhoosai, commonly called the Kookies, are a powerful and independent poeple, who touch upon the borders of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.”


17. S. Thangkhangin, Why Should We be Called Zoumi? In Search of Identity, (Imphal: Printed and published by the Kuki Chin Baptist Union at Kuki Baptist Press, 1986), P.60

18. Ibid. P.60

19. T. Gougin, The Discovery of Zoland, (Zomi Press: Zion Street, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1980) P.8

20. Capt. T.H. Lewin, The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein with Comparative vocabularies of the hill dialects, (Culcutta: Bengal Printing Company, Limited, 1869) P.98

21. Ibid. P.98

22. Col. Ved Prakash, Encyclopaedia Of North-east India, Volume 4, (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors (p) Ltd., 2007) P.1761

23. R. Vanlawma, Kan Ram leh Kei (My Country and I), Aizawl, 1972, P.88

24. S. Thangkhangin, Why Should We be Called Zoumi? In Search of Identity, (Imphal: Printed and published by the Kuki Chin Baptist Union at Kuki Baptist Press, 1986), P.60

25. Ibid. Pp. 61-62


26. Sing Khaw Khai, Zo People and Their Culture: A historical, cultural study and critical analysis of Zo and its ethnic tribes, (Churachandpur, Manipur: Published by Khampu Hatzaw, 1995) Pp.69-71

27. See http://daijang.blogspot.com/ Accessed on February 6, 2010. This blog was administered by T. Zamlunmang Zou.

28. See http://zolengthe.net/2010/03/06/zoro-held-an-informal-consultative-meeting-at-churachandpur/ Accessed on March 7, 2010

29. Carry, Bertram S. and H.N. Tuck, The Chin Hills: A History of the People, Our Dealings with Them, Their Customs and Manners, and a Gazetteer of their Country – Vol. I, (Rangoon: Printed by the Superintendent, Government Printing, Burma, 1896) P.2 It says, “Without pretending to speak with authority on the subject, we think we may reasonably accept the theory that the Kukis of Manipur, the Lushais of Bengal and Assam, and the Chins ooriginally lived in what we now know as Thibet and are of one and the same stock; their form of government, method of cultivation, manners and customs, beliefs and traditions all point to one origin.”

30. A Critical Analysis of The Kuki-Zomi Conflict: Chapter-I @ www.zogam.com Can be directly accessed at http://zogam.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6534&Itemid=32 Accessed on February 6, 2010

31. Final Peace Accord Between Zomis and Kukis (1st October 1998) @ www.zogam.com Can be directly accessed at http://zogam.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6319&Itemid=32 Accessed on February 6, 2010.


32. See http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/manipur/terrorist_outfits/ZRA.htm Accessed on February 6, 2010

33. Dr. Vum Ko Hau, Profile of Burma Frontier Man, (Bundung, Indonesia, 1963) P. 214

34. Vumson Suantak, Zo History: With an Introduction to Zo Culture, Economy, Religion and Their Status as an Ethnic Minority in India, Burma and Bangladesh, Aizawl, Mizoram, 1987

35. Ibid P.6

36. Tualchin Neihsial, Our People and our Language, Siamsinpawlpi Annual Magazine, Silver Jubilee Issue, 1987, P.1

37. Carry, Bertram S. and H.N. Tuck, The Chin Hills: A History of the People, Our Dealings with Them, Their Customs and Manners, and a Gazetteer of their Country – Vol. I, (Rangoon: Printed by the Superintendent, Government Printing, Burma, 1896) P.2

38. See www.zogam.org Accessed on March 12, 2010

Zou History

Zou History

Introduction

Khai Minthang

The Zo/Zou people who have inhabited the no-man’s land since the intertestamental period were of Mongoloid by physical characteristics,1 Jewish by cultural and oral tradition,2 Tibeto-Burman by linguistic affinities,3 and have lived in the land of their own that lies to the East of Bangladesh, to the West of Burma, to the South of North-eastern India, and to the North of the Bay of Bengal. In course of time, the family-tree of the Zou people has spread quite a good number of branches and sub-branches to have come to the present era. The most recent division is based on dialectal variation which was preceded by clan division which was again preceded by their original progenitor – Pu Zou.

The Zo/Zou people can be classified into two categories – one pointing to the cave dwellers of the very ancient era, and the other pointing to the people who called themselves Zo/Zou in the present era because they are one and the same people who were all the descendants of Pu Zo/Zou. However, time and space has taken its own course to branch out the Zou people into various tribes based on dialectal or geographical isolations. Yet, the main root or the inner stem remained intact although the tree have spread its branches beginning form the lowest branch to the budding branch that is yet to spread out. All these branches, leaves, flowers and fruits have the same name, came from the same seed, have the same story, and thrive as one and the same tree even though they might make their own photosynthesis for their respective branches. But, they belong to one and the same origin. The author is trying to follow the main root and the inner stem of the Zou family tree because following all the branches, leaves, flowers and fruits in detail will only maximize the complexity and derail the train from the track.

Oral tradition maintained that Pu Zou begot three descendants - Songthu, Songza and Zahong from whom the Zou people traced their genealogy. But, who beget Pu Zou is a mystery. It is more than likely that there could be generation gap (Gap theory) between Pu Zou and the three people – Songthu, Songza and Zahong who were believed to be the forefathers of the Zou people. Pu Zou must have died in the cave and his descendants – the Zou people eventually came out of the mythological cave to an open and independent land which they called Zoland/Zouland.4 We don’t know for how long, what eras and how many times they lived in the caves.

But, where was Pu Zou born? Was he the Peking man? Was he a biological human being or just a legend? We never know, but can speculate that he was a biological human being because he has descendants. But, we do know that the ancestors of the Zou people once lived in and around the present Tibet, India, China and Burma borderlands before they begun their traceable civilization. But, this has to be substantiated by archeological discoveries and carbon dating of relics such as ornaments, tools and implements, etc. of the Zou people. Above all, the oral tradition of the Zou progenitors and that of the Israelite people added more sand to the crude oil which really made the mission so worthy to struggle for.

The origin of the term Zo/Zou is absolutely shrouded in myth and legend, and there is no concrete evidence on the term Zou. Could it be the 'Peking Man' or the 'Ch'iang' people? They can be both in the sense that the Peking man was the first man of the Mongoloid race, and the Ch’iang (Pronounced Khiang written Qiang in Chinese) people were believed to be the progenitors of the Tibeto-Burman linguistic group of people. The Ch’iang tribes, who were the ancestors of the Tibeto-Burmans, lived in the modern day Szechuan province and in the mountain ranges of Kansu and Shensi, in western China flourished around 2500 B.C. They inhabited the stripes of land between the sources of Yangtse and Wei Rivers during the Chou/Zhou dynasty (722 – 481 BCE).5 “The land has high and tangled wilderness of mountain ranges, the sources of great rivers such as the Brahmaputra, Yangtze, Mekong, and Salween. These rivers wander great distances through rugged upland as high as 3000 to 9000 feet, marshy plains and grassy valleys lunching their swift southward course. Anthropologists and historians agree that the ancestors of the Tibetan and related people including the Zo people were in this region” says Dr. Vumson Suantak.6 The Chinese records noted that this people were mountain dwellers originally living in the northwest of China two millennium BCE. Due to constant hostilities between the Chinese and the Ch’iang the latter were forced to take refuge in northeast Tibet. And during the Han dynasty the Ch’iang tribes appeared as Tanguts – a Tibetan Tribal Federation trying to prevent the Chinese from entering into Turkistan. They were defeated in 73 AD, and the Chinese drove them to the south which might probably be the ground for the Tibeto-Burman’s mass migration to the south.7 If they were the Ch’iang people, where and how did they pick up the name “Zo/Zou?” Could it be a man (or people) from the Zhou dynasty? Or, could it be Judah (Youtai in Chinese)? Or, could it be a person's name?

The term Zou has geographical as well as genealogical connotations. Pu T. Gougin opined, “The word Zomi comes from the word ‘Zo’ which means hill…. ‘mi’ means man in the Zomi language. Hence the word Zomi means highlanders… one who dwells on the hillside having the same bearing in manner and custom etc., for ages together.”8 Another theory stated that Pu Hanghil and his colleague from Chimnuoi founded a new village site called Baljang in the hillside, and those people living in that village came to be known as the Zou people (Zote).9 But, these speculations could not be held accountable given the fact that the Zou people have settled in different topographies and geographical locations. Chimnuoi was inhabited just a couple centuries ago after they left Khampat kingdom, and there were so many Zou settlements contemporary to the Chimnuoi settlement. Before the Zou society evolved into clans-base organization and segmentation, historical records referred them as Yaw, Jo, Chou, and Zhou. The Pong Chronicle (80 – 1474 AD) recorded that it has 10 states and 99 districts of which the Zo Province was the 9th state, and the Zo province has 4 districts – Khansei, Kathe-meitei, Kalay and Khampat while Khampat was the district center of the state.10 In 862 AD, Fan Ch’o Hao a Chinese historian has used the term Yo in his book Manchu. Much later, Fr. Vincent Sangermano recorded in 1783; Howard Malcolm in 1839; Henry Yule in 1855, and so on. Therefore, the single syllabic term Zo, Zou, Zhou, Chou, Shou, Yo, Jo, Yaw, Shu, etc., without any prefix or suffix, is certainly the right word for the people. It is also because of this fact that scholars like Dr. Vum Kho Hau, Prof. Laldena, Dr. Vum Son, Dr. Tualchin Neihsial, Dr. H. Kamkhenthang, Dr. Mangkhosat Kipgen, Cap. Sing Khaw Khai, Dr. J. M. Paupu, Pu K. Zawla, Pu R. Vanlawma, B. Langthanliana, Dr. V. Lunghnema, Dr. Hawlngam Haokip, Pu L. S. Gangte, Pu T. Gougin, Pu Thang Khan Gin Ngaihte, Rev. S. Prim Vaiphei, Rev. Khup Za Go, Pu L. Keivom, Rev. S. T. Hau Go, Dr. Khen Za Sian, Prof. Thang Za Tuan, Rev. Sing Ling etc. concluded that ZO is the ancestor of the Zo people.11 The Zou people were known by others as Kuki in Manipur, Nagaland and Assam; Chin in Burma and Lushai in Mizoram, Tripura and other Zou occupied areas. Carey and Tuck, in their book entitled The Chin Hills noted, “Without pretending to speak with authority on the subject, we think we may reasonably accept the theory that the Kukis of Manipur, the Lushais of Bengal and Assam, and the Chins originally lived in what we now know as Thibet and are of one and the same stock; their form of government, method of cultivation, manners and customs, beliefs and traditions all point to one origin.”12

In the beginning human beings were hunters and food gatherers.13 It is a mode of subsistence in which all food is obtained from wild resources without any reliance on domesticated plants or animals. This has been the dominant means of subsistence for 99.5 percent of the 2.5 million years of human existence.14 Early human dwellings as pointed out by archaeological evidences started in caves. Cave dwellers date generally from the Stone Age period known as the Paleolithic, which began as early as 2.5 million years ago. Caves are natural shelters, offering shade and protection from wind, rain, and snow.15 The Zou people were no exception. This could have been true of the Zou people as well because one post-cave dwelling song of the Zou people goes:

Eiteng khawlkhawm, atuom umlou

Vannuoi chiteng Khul a pieng,

Tunsung khat a pieng hi ngeingei e.

Tunsung khat a pieng hi ngeingei e,

Suohpi-sanggam laugui zawng khawm hi ngeingei (hang) ee.16

Free translation:

We, who gathered together here, are not aliens,

Everyone under the sun is born at khuul (a Cave),

Truly (we were) born of a single mother,

Truly (we were) born of a single mother,

Surely brothers and sister we are, being joined together by a naval cord.

The most irrefutable and common belief of the origin of the Zou people is a mythological cave which is pronounced by different dialectal groups as Khuul, Sinlung, Chhinlung, Tsinlung, Chingnunghut, etc. The mythological cave theory goes into two directions – one pointing to the Zhoukuodian or Choukoutien cave,17 and the other pointing to the caves along the foot of the Himalayan mountain range. But, where is the 'Mythological Cave' located? Could it be the 'Zhoukoudian Cave' of the 'Peking Man' or the caves along the foot of the eastern Himalayan mountain range? The first one dated back to several thousand years ago and the second one dated to around 400 years before the Common Era (CE) or the Anno Domini (AD)? If there are sufficient archeological evidences to substantiate the first theory, the origin of the Zou people is as old as the Peking man. But, if there are no had evidences to substantiate the first theory, it is more than likely that the Zou people might have taken shelter in the caves along the foot of the Himalayan mountain range for the fear of their enemies. Although there are no hard evidences to this claim, almost all oral traditions, genealogical roots, folklores do not stretch beyond the foot of the Himalayan mountain ranges. David N. Keightley recorded thus:

Historical evidence to trace the movements of other Tibeto-Burman peoples now found in southwest China, northern Burma, Assam, Nepal, and northern India seems almost wholly lacking. Certainly the arrival of Tibeto-Burmans in those regions must have occurred many centuries ago (if we are right in assuming that they came in from the north). There are some inscriptional remains of the language of the Pyu kingdom which preceded the Burmese, but they are too fragmentary to permit precise conclusions about the language, except that it was certainly Tibeto-Burman. Shafer (1943) compared the language with Karen, which is not implausible on geographical grounds, since the Karens are farther south than the other Tibeto-Burman peoples of Burma and are the only ones found in the plains, but proof seems impossible at present. The evidence he presents could as well be used to show a relation to Kuki-Chin, a group of tribal languages in the western borderlands between Burma and India. Benedict (1972:10) suggests rather a connection with Nung, which in turn is said to stand between Burmese/Lo-lo and Kachin.18

Here, David N. Keightley made a sharp distinction between the Pyu Burmese and the Tibeto-Burman peoples. While the Tibeto-Burman live in the Northern Burma, the Pyu kingdom had its capital in the central part of Burma, at Ava. The Zou people didn’t share anything in common with the king of Ava, and no Pyu culture and tradition have penetrated to the Zou people. They called the king “Kawl mangpa” which literally means the “lord of Ava,” but not “Kawl Lengpa” which would mean the “King of Ava.” They considered and addressed him as lord, not a king. Not all the Tibeto-Burman people might share a common ancestor although they might be under the Tibeto-Burman family of languages. The Pyu people have a script of their own customized from the Pali, Sanskrit, Mon, etc. in addition to the script of their neighboring people.

The cultural practices and the oral tradition of the Zou people dated back to time immemorial. The proximity of the Zou people’s cultural practices and oral traditions with that of the Israelite cultural practices and traditions strongly convinced me to believe that they might have been in one way or the other related to the Lost Tribe of Israel. Cross cultural communication in terms of marriage, trade and commerce, etc. might have contributed to the phenomenon. They were tribal federation known as the Tanguts who made alliance in various aspects of their lives – domestic, military, inter and intra community services.19 Such a cross cultural communication might have assimilated and cross-breed the Zou people with their neighboring tribes and communities such as the Hmong, Miao, Lolo, Yao, Yi, Tai, etc. people who were mountain dwellers of the eastern Himalayan mountain range during the Intertestamental Period. If they were not Israel, or have no connections with Israel, who would have imparted their Israelite culture and tradition, given the fact that they were totally isolated from the rest of the world? They were around 4000 miles away from the origin of the tradition that they practiced since time immemorial. The Zou people have been practicing these cultural practices and oral traditions since time immemorial. Some of the many traditional/ritual chants used in various sacrifices and in other sacred matters where the name of Manasia or Manase is used are:

Those above and those below, go away, flee, We the children of Manasia are coming…. Manmasi, you came crossing seas and rivers. You came through hills and mountains. You came through all this to the Land of Strangers.... We observed the Sikpui feast, crossing over the Red Sea, running dry before us. And the walking enemies of mine, the riding foes of mine were swallowed by the sea in their thousands. We were led by the fire at night and by cloud in the day.20

One early missionary among the Shinlung (Zou people) is quoted as having said “You look like the descendants of the Jews... But your faces are not like the Jews, you look a bit different. But you have the same way of doing things.... You are nearer to them than we white people... Your way of living, custom, cultures are like it is said in the Bible. In the Bible it's written - do this, don't do this. These are already taught by your ancestors. There are no other people like you in the world.”21

The entry of the British imperial colonists in the 17th Century A.D. brought a wind of change in the lives and practices of the Zou people. History was re-written, culture was transitioned, and religious practices have been transformed by the advent of the Westerner civilization. The Zou people who fought against each other on the basis of dialectal differences and geographical isolations; marauding each other, blood shedding against each other, head hunting each other as a game have been administered under one government. T. Gougin has rightly noted thus:

Many English people especially those with whom the Zomi came in contact did try their best to know something of the Zomis. Had they not attempted to record something of everything of Zomis in their day to day reports, including the Gazetteers of Lushai Hills, Chin Hills Gazetteer and Manipur where the Zomi settled and lived for centuries, most probably nothing could have been known about the Zomis of the past. Hence all those English explorers who first attempted to record something of the Zomis deserved my unfeigned admiration even though we cannot accept their records in total. But, for want of an authentic record one has to depend on the record put down by the English administrators.22

On the other hand, the schism was broadened with the coming of the British imperial colonialists who ruled the Zou people according to their geographical habitations and their dialectal variations. They knew that the Zou people were one and the same people, but sliced their land into various administrative units based on hills and mountain ranges such as Chin Hills, Lushai Hills, Chitagong hills tracts, Cachar Hills, etc. for their administrative tranquility. Furthermore, they were denied of their right to govern themselves when their neighboring countries were given the opportunity to govern themselves from the yoke of the British colonial rule. The Zou people who were animistic from time immemorial have never been attached to such religious fundamentalism although these religions have come to them from time to time. They have their own history, culture, folklores, folksongs, traditions, customs, and rites and rituals that fully sufficed the definition of the indigenous people. Yet, they have been deprived of their rights, their land sliced manifold, and their history, culture, folklores, folksongs, traditions, customs, and rites and rituals have been neglected intentionally.

The result of intentional negligence is that their rights and freedoms have been curtailed, their history and culture neglected, and their dreams shattered by their respective governments. Even a child could see and tell that the Zou people are distinct and unique in their physical appearance and history, their cultural and traditional heritages, and their religious rites and rituals. The Zou people have manifested this truth by a stiff resistance against British colonial expedition, but their resistance was brutally put down. Even worse, their land was sliced and given to three independent countries before they leave their colonies. They eventually left their colonies and put the dreams and hopes of the once friendly people into harm’s way. The future of the Zou labor corps who helped them in the First World War in France, and who fought against the Japanese invasion in the Second World War have been intentionally betrayed. They left the destiny of their allies to the hand of their colonies, who, as a matter of fact, will never willingly yield an inch of the sliced land to the right owners anymore. The Zou people demanded their land be given back to them. But, instead of paying attention to their demands they have been tortured, persecuted and driven out of their land. This worse scenario can be seen among the Zou people of Burma who have fled their land and take refuge in more than 30 countries of the world. They have been stranded between life and death in their neighboring countries before they are officially accepted as refugees. Many people died before they were officially accepted, and many more will parish as I write their story now. There are more than one million Zou refugees around the world, and many more are expected in times to come.

The first wave of the huge tsunami was followed by another wave of enlightenment. The Zou people began to hear the Good News that their sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ. Although they were surrounded on all sides by people of different faiths – Communism to the North, Hinduism to the West, Islam to the Southwest and Buddhism to the East, they have only been impacted by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This could be partly because of the fact that the Old Testament history and traditions have so many similarities with that of the Zou people; and partly because the Gospel bearers brought some elements of modernism with them. They might have thought that they were fully satisfied with their religious practices before the fullness of time has come.23 Pu Thawngpau has rightly put:

Pisei pusei lungmawlte’n ana theiphah lou;

Mallam huikhi hing laang in, aban banin hing seem in.

Tu’n ei khangthate lai a, paa namtui bangin,

Ahing zelta lailung sunga.

Bang paa namtui adiei, Mallam huikhi’n ahing sem?

Bethlehem bawnginn paa namtui ahi.

Khum pa namtui luttheina di’n na sinlai dawngkot nahon le,

Na mawna puonbang sawpsieng diing.24

Free translation:

Unknown to the uncivilized progenitors;

The Northern breeze came along, and blows one after another.

Like a sweet aroma to the new generation of ours,

It has impacted the core of the heart.

What a sweet aroma, the Northern breeze has blown?

It’s the sweet aroma of the Bethlehem’s manger.

If you open the door of the core of your heart to let the sweet aroma in,

Your sins will be washed away.

The wave of the Gospel hit their land and impacted entirely in terms of their social, economic, political and religious practices. The Gospel bearers brought the Gospel with their culture. They might not essentially impart their culture but, the Zou people received their culture in addition to the Gospel. Eventually, the Western culture set a deep root in their land. The wave of the Gospel swept their land and saw a seed of Western socio-cultural practices. As a result, new systems of education, literature, social values, economy, politics and religion have been set up in the lives and land of the Zou people.

In due course of time, dialectal Bible translation brought chaos and confusion among the Zou Christians to an extent that nobody can heal. Division in terms of tribal recognition, dialectal accent, church denomination, clan-based, family based, status and profession based, etc. are rampant, giving a very bad signal to progress and development. Should they have not accepted such divisions, there could have been a way for them to tell the world that they are one and the same people who have their own land, history, culture and tradition.

 
********************
References:
(This article, specificaly the references, have not been revised and edited as of now)
1 Tualchin Neihsial, Interview Dr. Tualchin Niehsial - Part II, Tuesday, 07 October 2008 12:53, www.zomilibrary.com Accessed on January 29, 2010
2 Dr. Shalva Weil "Lost Israelites from North-East India: Re-Traditionalisation and Conversion among the Shinlung from the Indo-Burmese Borderlands", The Anthropologist, Vol. 6, No. 3: 219-233, 2004
3 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibeto-Burman_languages Accessed on March 12, 2010
4 Haochinthong, Zou Sung Kivaihawmna (Administration Among the Zou Tribes), (Lamka: M/S Express Printing Press, Manipur, India, 1988), P. 36
5 See http://www.siamsinpawlpi.org/ Accessed on January 30, 2010
6 Vumson Suantak, Zo History in Prism of the Zo People, (Lamka: Publication Board, 60th Zomi Nam Ni Celebration Committee, 2008) Pp.
7 Vumson Suantak, Zo History: With an Introduction to Zo Culture, Economy, Religion and Their Status as an Ethnic Minority in India, Burma and Bangladesh, Aizawl, Mizoram, 1987, Pp.27-28
8 T. Gougin, The Discovery of Zoland, (Zomi Press: Zion Street, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1980) P.12
9 En Za Sian, Teddim Innkuan Laibu,
10 Kam Za Kham et.al. Naulak Innkuan Laibu AD 2003. P. 3
11 See www.zogam.org Accessed on March 12, 2010
12 Carry, Bertram S. and H.N. Tuck, The Chin Hills: A History of the People, Our Dealings with Them, Their Customs and Manners, and a Gazetteer of their Country – Vol. I, (Rangoon: Printed by the Superintendent, Government Printing, Burma, 1896) P.2
13 Jamaluddin Md. Jahi, Kadaruddin Aiyub, Kadir Arifin and Azahan Awang, Human Habitat and Environmental Change: From Cave Dwellings to Megacities, European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X Vol.32 No.3 (2009), pp.381-390, © EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009, http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_32_3_09.pdf, Accessed on February 3, 2010
14Answers.com The World’s Leading Q&A site @ http://www.answers.com/topic/hunting-and-gathering-1. February 3, 2010
15 Jamaluddin Md. Jahi, Kadaruddin Aiyub, Kadir Arifin and Azahan Awang, Human Habitat and Environmental Change: From Cave Dwellings to Megacities, European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X Vol.32 No.3 (2009), pp.381-390, © EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009, http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_32_3_09.pdf, Accessed on February 3, 2010
16 G. Zamzachin, Paite Tanchin, Paite History, (Imphal: Tongvom Press, 1992), Pp. 2-3
17 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhoukoudian Accessed on March 12, 2010
18 David N. Keightley, The Origins of Chinese Civilization, (London: University of California Press, 1983)
19 Kamkhosoi, The Impact of the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the Zou people of Manipur in India, An M.Th Thesis, Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary, Seoul, Korea, 2000, p.10
20 Tudor Parfitt and Emanuela Trevisan Semi, Judaising Movements: Studies in the Margins of Judaism, (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002) P. 32
21 Ibid P. 34
22 T. Gougin, The Discovery of Zoland, (Zomi Press: Zion Street, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1980) P.23
23 Galatians 4:4
24 Pasian Labupi, Manipur Gam Presbyterian Church, Zomi Colony, Churachandpur, 1995

The Zou Script

The Zou Script

Oral tradition maintained that the Zou people once have had their own written script in olden days. Emperor Shih Huang-di (First Sovereign Qin Emperor - Chinese: 秦始皇帝; Qing Shih Huang-di) defeated the Warring States (Seven Kingdoms) and became the first emperor of China in 221 BC, until his death in 210 BC. Between the period of 213 and 206 BC, the Hundred Schools of Thought were pruned and legalism survived. Beginning in 213 BCE, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of Thought — except those from Li Si's own school of philosophy known as legalism — were subject to book burning. It was during that period that the Zou script was confiscated and burned down by the Chinese emperor Shih Huang-di, who enslaved them to build a certain portion of the Great Wall of China. Another tradition maintained that the Zou script that was written on a leather scroll. The leather scroll that was inserted on the inner-roof of a house felled down on the muddy wastewater. The leather decomposed and later was eaten by a dog. The third tradition maintained that the Zou script was written on leather and a bark. The first one was written on leather, and the last written on a bark. Unfortunately, a hungry dog ate the leather on which the script was written, and the script written on the bark was burned. Quite ridiculous, yet the late Rev. Khup Za Go said “The Zo script was eaten up by a hungry dog” in his book entitled Christianity in Chinland. The story goes such that the only script that they have was written on a piece of animal skin and there was only one person taking care of it. The person who took care of the script traveled to another place on foot, with his dog. It apparently was a hot and sunny day. He passed by a creek and stripped off his load and went down the creek to get a sip of it. Then, the saddest story ever told happened there - The script was eaten up by his hungry dog.

One must be very clear of the Zou culture that gives derogatory names such as dog, jackal, wolf, tiger-man, etc. to someone they hate or someone who is foreign to them. This is true even today. This could be found in one of the Zou folklores which says, “Nidang in la Kawl Mangpa zi’n ka um ee; Tunla tunla ngahsanu nau ka ching ee.” (I was once the queen/wife of the lord of Ava; Now, I am baby-sitting the she-jackal’s child). This is also true with the Chinese culture who called their neighboring Yao tribes ‘Wild dog or jackal.” This might have been true with the incident of the lost script. So, if this was true, the Zou script might have been confiscated by their enemies. The event of the lost script was followed by a Dark Age in Zou history where they didn’t have time to rewrite the script. Barbarism because of staying in the caves for long times could possibly contribute to the lost script. Dr. David Vumlallian Zou opined, “In traditional Zou society, the knowledge of script (If at all it existed) would have been confined to a small section of the people like the village priest or the tribal chieftain.” The lost script has become legends and myths to the Zou people now. Whatever the case it might have been, I am reminded of Sing Khaw Khai’s words, “In fact, legends and myths are not the creation of memories, but are the reminiscence of the past experiences.” Therefore, it would be safe to conclude that there was the Zou script in ancient times.

The second generation of the Zou script came in multiple forms - the Pau Cin Hau’s script in 1902, Dr. Khuplam’s script in 1949, and the Siahzathang’s script in 1952. These three scripts were invented by Zou natives based on their revelation of the last script. It did not get any popularity mainly because of the fact that the Zou people of that time were uncivilized, and don’t really bother if or not they have any script.

In the Chin Hills of Burma, Pau Cin Hau claimed to have been revealed a script which he called Tual Lai (Local script). “The Pau Cin Hau script is the ecclesiastical script of the Laipian religious tradition, which developed in the Chin Hills region at the turn of the 20th century. The script is named after Pau Cin Hau (1859–1948), a ‘Sukte’ (Tedim) Chin, who founded the Laipian tradition and developed the script in order to convey his teachings” says Anshuman Pandey who made a research on the Pau Cin Hau’s script. The revised alphabet consists of 21 consonants, and the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew was printed in this script in 1931.

In Manipur, Dr. Khuplam Milui Lenthang claimed to have been revealed a script by YHWH for the Chikim people (Chikim is an abbreviated form used by some Zou writers to denote the Chin, Kuki and Mizo ethnic groups). Although he had been struggling to rewrite the lost script since 1949, his hard work on the script got paid off in 1967. He was quoted to have said that after a profound prayer to YHWH and deep meditation on the Scripture, he got the revelation of the lost script. His script called “Bulpizem” has 32 characters and numerals 1 to 10. He sent his Bulpizem to Mr. Lal Thanhawla the then Chief Minister of Mizoram for further research.

In Manipur, M. Siahzathang Zou claimed to have discovered the old Zou Lai (Zou script) in his father’s diary book. If this was true, where did Siahzathang’s father get the script? He further developed the original 25 characters of the alphabet into the present form of 27 characters with numerals 1 to 10 in 1952. The Manipur State Kala Academy has twice honored the achievements of M. Siahzathang Zou both in 1976 and in 1991. The United Zomi Organization adopted the M. Siahzathang’s system of writing as the Zou script in 1976 at its General Assembly held at Tuaitengphai. This system of writing gained momentum among the Zou students of the 1970s for the first time that was followed by gradual decline in the late 1980s. It has been resurrected again in the late 1990s when the Zou Literature Society became functional again. The ZLS had their sub-committee named Zou Laimal Saipawl who brought out mimeographed copies of Zoulai Sinna (Zoulai Self-instructor) in 1999. Furthermore, the Zolai Simpat Bu (Zou Primary Book) was released on October 10, 2009 at the Zoumunnuom Community Hall, Churachandpur, Manipur, by the then Education minister of Manipur L. Jayantakumar Singh.

The third generation of the Zou script began with the formation of International Phonetic Association. In 1886, a group of French and British language teachers, led by the French linguist Paul Passy, formed what would come to be known (from 1897 onwards) as the International Phonetic Association. The original alphabet was based on a spelling reform for English known as the Romic alphabet, but in order to make it usable for other languages, the values of the symbols were allowed to vary from language to language. It was only after the IPA formation that the missionaries in Zou inhabited areas begin to introduce new scripts for the Zou people, at different period and region.

In Mizoram, this dialect (Duhlian dialect of the politically dominant Lusei clan) received a further boost when Christian missionaries arrived in 1894, namely, Rev. F.W. Savidge and Rev. J.H. Lorrain, who reduced the language into writing, using a simple and effective phonetic Hunterian system of Roman script. In the Chin Hills, Rev. JH Cope introduced Kamhaw dialect into writing in 1910.

********************

References:

1. Ren Changhong, Raise and Fall of Qin Dynasty, Singapore: Asiapac Books Pte Ltd, 2000 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars Accessed on February 24, 2010

2. Dr. Shalva Weil "Lost Israelites from North-East India: Re-Traditionalisation and Conversion among the Shinlung from the Indo-Burmese Borderlands", The Anthropologist, Vol. 6, No. 3: 219-233, 2004

3. C. Thang Za Tuan, “Zomite’ Sang Lai Pilna Masawnna Zia”, in ZOLUS Journal, No. 2, 1997. p. 28

4. Tualchin Neihsial, “The Paite And Its Literature”, in Siamsinte’ Thu Manpha Vol I, 1995 p. 29,

5. Khup Za Go, Christianity in Chinland, (Guwahati: Christian Literature Centre, 1985)

6. Samuel R. Clarke, Among the Tribes in South-west China, (China Inland Mission, London: Morgan & Scott, Ltd., 1911), P. 19, 115

7. David Vumlallian, The Idea of Church Archieve and Literature Ministry: A study of the historical literary consciousness of the Zou people with special reference to the role of the church in JCA Golden Jubilee Souvenir, 1953 – 2003, Zomi Colony, Churachandpur, 2004, P.76

8. Green , Census of India, 1931, Vol. XI, Part – I. Report, P. 217. It reads thus: “In 1902 I had another dream. I this dream I saw an Englishman who appeared to me to be divine. He wanted me to learn lessons, taught by means of stones in the shape of letters, which put together formed a book. I tried to learn the same and eventually succeeded and my eyes opened.

“When I got up from sleep my passion for learning and teaching the symbols and sounds of alphabet was so great that I could not sleep either day or night until I had written them on paper. Though the Deputy Commissioner of Chin Hills advised me to have my invention printed I was not satisfied with it and revised it more than once – the third and last revision being carried out in 1931.”

9. Anshuman Pandey, Preliminary Proposal to Encode the Pau Cin Hau Script in ISO/IEC 10646 See http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n3781.pdf Accessed on March 7, 2010

10. Census of India 1931, Vol. I, Part I, P.194

11. Jamkhogin Lhungdim, “Research Odyssey on Chikim’s Lost Script”, in Eastern Panorama, Vol V, No. 11, Sept, 1997, edited by Dr. K. K. Jhunjhunwala, Hill Publications (P), Ltd., Saraighat Offset Press, Guwahati.

12. Sutzalian Tonsing, Lai Mangsakte (The Lost Scripts). See http://www.scribd.com/The-Lost-Scripts/d/3852507 for details. Accessed on February 19, 2010

13. David Vumlallian Zou, “The Idea of Church Archieve and Literature Ministry: A study of the historical literary consciousness of the Zou people with special reference to the role of the church” in Jou Christian Association Golden Jubilee Souvenir, Churachandpur, Manipur, 2004. P.75

14. See www.zolengthe.net for details at http://zolengthe.net/2009/10/11/zolai-simpat-bu-hong-zsf-general-conference/ Accessed on February 19, 2010. The Chief guest was quoted to have said that he, having had the privilege to inaugurate the Zou script that has been put into hard copy, will take every measure to ensure that the Zoulai Simpat Bu which was meant to be studied as a vernacular subject up to the fifth grade, be included in the syllabus up to tenth grade.

15. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, (Published by The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1999), Pp. 194–196

16. C. Lalremruata, Director, Zo Indigenous Forum, www.zoindigenous.blogspot.com, Accessed on January 29, 2010

17. Khup Za Go, Christianity in Chinland, (Guwahati: Christian Literature Centre, 1985)