Wikipedia

Draft:Bawi system

The Bawi system was an institution of slavery established under Lushai tribes. It remained in use in precolonial systems of chieftainship before being challenged by Christian Missionaries and political institutions such as the Mizo Union.

Etymology

edit

Early British administrators used polyglot officials to extract terminology the the Lushai Tribes. Bawi was initially listed as a gendered noun known as bay-pa for male slaves and bay-nu for female slaves. When the missionaries of the Lushai Hills decided to create a roman alphabet as a written language of Duhlien, limitations of the representation of the tonal language led to transcription of the 'o' sound as an 'aw' sound making it spelt bawi instead of boi. Furthermore, the word became widely used outside of a gendered context and was treated analogously to mean both slave and the institution of slavery itself.[1]

There has been debate on the specific meaning of bawi due to the political implications of such definitions. Lorrain stated in Dictionary of the Lushai language that bawi translates to a slave, a bondman, a vassal or a serf.[2] McCall subsequently comments in Lushai Chrysalis that the dictionary did not provide a deep study of the language, the definition of a slave was too antagonizing when most bawi were individuals dependent on their chief.[3] T.H Lewin argues that the definition of slave is inapplicable regarding the bawi system, defining the institution as individuals who have lost the right of individual freedom of action.[4][5] Shakespeare in Lushai-Kuki Clans defines bawi as persons who have taken refuge in the chief's house.[6]

Characteristics

edit

A bawi was only permitted to belong to a chief. Unlike Chin people and Thadou people, slaves under Lushai chiefs were not sold and treated as property. A bawi was permitted to move from one chief to another chief; chiefs would accept bawis in the interest of increasing their privilege and perceived power. A bawi was also permitted to get married. If two bawis get married, then by custom, they are to live with the chief for six years. After this period, the bawi couple will build their own house and will be known as a inhrang bawi, meaning separate house bawi.[7][8] There were several types of bawi.

Inpuichhung bawi means an in-house slave or serf. They would become a bawi by being indebted to their chief during a crisis. This typically included extreme poverty, starvation, sickness, etc. A Majority of bawi of this type tended to be orphans, widows and other vulnerable individuals. Being unable to take care of themselves, these individuals operated in serfdom to their chief in return for shelter and food.[9]Inpuichhung bawi constituted the majority of bawis belonging to chiefs. They were considered part of the chief's household in return for food and shelter.[8] They managed to hold privileges such as wearing the chief's ornaments and using his guns and weapons.[10]

Chemsen bawi means red knife bawi.[3][11] If an individual were to commit murder, then the victim's family held a right to kill the offender. The murderer had a right to take refuge in the chief's house. The murderer would cling to the foundation post of the chief's house, a practice known as lal sutpui pawm. This act would bind a chief to protect the offender from the vengeance of the victim's relatives.[12][8] This was provided on the basis the revenge seekers had not successfully injured the offender before he sought the foundation post. As the chief's subjects could not challenge him, this would guarantee the offender's protection from any retribution.[13] A chemsem bawi in contrast to an inpuichhung bawi lived in a separate house and did not work for the chief directly. Their children would be considered bawis, and the chief had the right to the marriage price of the daughters.[14] The chemsem bawi would also lose the right to fatherhood of their children as the chief would assume parental role of the murderer's children.[15]

Tuklut bawi means promised to enter bawi. This category pertains to individuals who surrendered during wartime or deserted their village to join a winning side.[16] To safeguard their lives, they offered themselves to the chief.[14] These bawis were relatively free and allowed to live in separate houses from the chief. They were permitted to be relieved of bawi status by paying the chief one mithun.[15] According to the British administration, the workload of tuklut bawi was so light that most of them never paid their ransom for freedom.[16]

Sal in a literal meaning pertains to slavery. A sal was a person who was captured during a raid.[17] Unlike other bawis, a sal is the personal property of the captors. They would be exchanged for goods, such as guns. A sal would typically be marriageable women or children from defeated tribes.[18] The sal category was unique in that anybody had the the right to own one, as opposed to all other categories of bawi being strictly limited to the chief. A sal could secure their freedom by paying whatever their captor demanded of them.[17]

History

edit

During British rule the administration maintained the bawi institution. The British were reluctant to label the institution as slavery and hesitant to intervene.[19] Their approach saw a policy of indirect rule through the existing political structure of Mizo chieftainship. Previous rights of the chiefs were extinguished, such as the right to order capital punishment, the right to seize the property of subjects leaving their village for another chief, the right to tax foreigners trading in the hills, and the right to enact inheritance of chieftainship without British approval. While other rights, such as taxation and appointments of elders and ministers, remained.[20] Under the British, without any raiding and inter-tribal wars and a new standardized justice system, the categories of chemsem bawi, tuklut bawi and sal became obsolete. Most missionaries also did not interfere in the bawi institution and believed that converting the Lushai Hills would lead to a growth in public moral consciousness that would allow the system to wither itself.[19][21]



References

edit
  1. ^ Chatterjee 2006, p. 287.
  2. ^ Lorrain & Savidge 1898, p. 63.
  3. ^ a b McCall 1977, p. 121.
  4. ^ Lewin 1874, p. 80.
  5. ^ Vanlaldika 2014, p. 134.
  6. ^ Shakespear 1912, p. XXI.
  7. ^ Shakespear 1912, p. 46.
  8. ^ a b c Samuelson 1991, p. 92.
  9. ^ Vanlaldika 2014, p. 125.
  10. ^ Shakespear 1912, p. 47.
  11. ^ Shakespear 1912, p. 48.
  12. ^ Prasad 2006, p. 17.
  13. ^ Vanlaldika 2014, p. 137.
  14. ^ a b Vanlaldika 2014, p. 138.
  15. ^ a b Samuelson 1991, p. 93.
  16. ^ a b Shakespear 1912, p. 49.
  17. ^ a b Vanlaldika 2014, p. 139.
  18. ^ Shakespear 1912, p. 50.
  19. ^ a b Zorema 2007, p. 73.
  20. ^ Zorema 2007, p. 63.
  21. ^ Lloyd 1991, p. 161.

Sources

edit
  • Baite, Mary Nengneichong (2010–2011). "The Instiution of Slavery in the Chin Society". Proceedings of Indian History Congress. 71 (1): 794–904. JSTOR 44147548. Retrieved 12 November 2024.
  • Chatterjee, Indrani (2006). "Slavery, Semantics, and the Sound of Silence". In Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (eds.). Slavery and South Asian History. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 285-315.
  • Chatterjee, Suhas (1995). Mizo Chiefs and the chiefdom. New Delhi: M D Publicatgions PVT LTD. ISBN 81-85880-72-7.
  • McCall, Anthony G. (1977) [1949]. Lushai Chrysalis. Calcutta: Firma KLM Private.
  • Samuelson, Rami Sena (1991). The Mizo people: Cultural analysis of life in a Mizo village in the 1890's. San Francisco: University of San Francisco. p. 90.
  • Vanlaldika, Andrew H. (2014). Social Stratification in Mizo Society. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. ISBN 978-81-8324-475-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bawi_system&oldid=1258162511"