The resurgence of the “Hao” identity among the Tangkhul people of Manipur, India, reflects a complex interplay of cultural revival, historical interactions with the Meitei, and tensions with the broader Naga ethnic framework. This article analyse the historical and cultural significance of the Hao identity, its adoption by the Meitei, the cultural exchange practice of the Hao Macha Loisang, the motivations behind its resurgence, and its implications for the Tangkhul’s Naga identity.
Drawing on historical records, ethnographic studies, and contemporary discourse, the article argues that the Hao identity is a decolonial effort to reclaim pre-colonial heritage, shaped by collaborative Meitei-Tangkhul relations, but it generates tensions with Naga nationalism’s emphasis on unity. Despite conflicts, many Tangkhuls navigate dual identities, highlighting the fluidity of ethnic identity in Northeast India’s contested socio-political discourse.
Introduction
The Tangkhul, a Tibeto-Burman ethnic group primarily residing in Ukhrul and Kamjong districts of Manipur, India, and parts of Somra tracts in Myanmar, are a significant component of the Naga ethnopolitical framework. Renowned for their cultural heritage, including distinctive textiles, music, and festivals like Luira Phanit, the Tangkhul have navigated profound transformations since the late 19th century due to British colonialism, Christian missionary activity, and the rise of Naga nationalism.
Recently, some Tangkhul intellectuals and cultural advocates have revived the term “Hao” to denote their indigenous identity, a term rooted in their pre-colonial history and also used by the Meitei. This resurgence raises critical questions about the motivations behind adopting the Hao identity, its historical significance, and its compatibility with the Naga identity, particularly in the context of the Naga nationalist movement’s push for a unified “Nagalim.” This article explores the Hao identity’s origins, its use by the Meitei, the Hao Macha Loisang practice, the reasons for its revival, and the tensions and reconciliations with the Naga identity, situating the discussion within the broader ethnic politics of Northeast India.
Who Are the Hao People?
The Hao people, a subgroup of the Lai people originating from Koubru Peak, are integral to Meitei history. As the Meiteis migrated to the valley, the Lei-Hao or Lei-Hou, meaning “people who stayed back” in Meiteilon, remained in the surrounding hills, known as Chingburoi or hill dwellers. This distinction, supported by Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen’s research and Naoriya Phullo’s revivalist teachings, as well as ancient Puyas, highlights a shared ancestral heritage, affirming the Lei-Hao’s enduring role as the native people of the hills.
As per Meitei traditions, the people who remained in the hills are known as Lei-hou mee or Lei-hao mee, broadly categorized as Hao-mee. The term “Hao” signifies the original and oldest inhabitants, recognized as the first people of the region. Hao-mee, in simple term signifies the Oldest people.
Meanwhile, the term “Hao,” meaning “people” or “community” in the Tangkhul language, was historically a self-referential term used by the Tangkhul before the colonial imposition of the “Naga” label. Residing primarily in Manipur’s hill districts and parts of Myanmar (where they are known as Somra or Eastern Tangkhul), the Tangkhul traditionally organized their society around clans, practicing sustainable agriculture and adhering to the “Kameo” belief system, an animistic religion centered on spirit worship without a formalized deity (Downs 1971). British ethnographers, such as J.H. Hutton, classified the Tangkhul as Nagas, grouping diverse hill tribes for administrative and ethnographic purposes (Hutton 1921).
The term “Hao” also distinguished non-Christian Tangkhuls, termed “Haomi,” from those who converted to Christianity following the arrival of Baptist missionary Rev. William Pettigrew in 1895, with over 90 percent of Tangkhuls adopting Christianity by the mid-20th century (Zeliang 2005). Cultural markers such as “Hao-laa” (Tangkhul folk songs), the Haora shawl, festivals like Luira Phanit, and the Haofa dog breed anchor the Hao identity in pre-colonial heritage, reflecting a distinct Tangkhul cultural ethos. Unlike other Naga tribes, the Tangkhul maintained historical trade and matrimonial ties with the Meitei, shaping their cultural practices and positioning them uniquely within the Naga framework (Singh 2002).
Why Do Some Tangkhul Call Themselves Hao?
The resurgence of the Hao identity among some Tangkhuls reflects a deliberate effort to reconnect with their pre-colonial cultural heritage, driven by multiple factors:
Cultural Revival and Decolonization
The arrival of Rev. William Pettigrew in 1895 catalyzed widespread Christian conversion, with over 90 percent of Tangkhuls adopting Christianity by the mid-20th century, marginalizing Kameo rituals and traditional practices. The Hao identity emphasizes indigenous elements such as Hao-laa, traditional weaving, and festivals like Luira Phanit, serving as a decolonial response to missionary and colonial influences. This revival aligns with broader indigenous movements in Northeast India to reclaim pre-colonial cultural narratives.
Distinction from the Naga Label
The “Naga” identity, a colonial construct, grouped diverse tribes for administrative convenience, often obscuring tribe-specific histories (Baruah 2005). Tangkhul intellectuals highlight their unique linguistic diversity and historical Meitei ties, using “Hao” to assert cultural specificity. This distinction is particularly significant given the Tangkhul’s contributions to Naga nationalism, which sometimes overshadow their distinct heritage.
Assertion of Historical Autonomy
The Hao identity, rooted in pre-colonial Meitei-Tangkhul alliances, represents an authentic self-understanding, emphasizing historical trade networks and shared festivals as evidence of autonomy (Singh 2002). This identity is not merely a label but a reflection of the interconnected histories and mutual respect shared by these groups. The historical trade networks between the Meitei and Tangkhul facilitated economic exchanges that strengthened their bonds and showcased their autonomy in managing resources and fostering cooperation. Additionally, shared festivals like the Meitei Lai Haraoba acted as cultural bridges, celebrating their unity and reinforcing their collective identity.
Response to Globalization and Modernity
Globalization, including migration to urban centers and exposure to global cultural influences, has prompted efforts to preserve Tangkhul heritage. Some Tangkhul Organizations promote festivals, traditional knowledge, and ecological practices, anchoring these efforts in the Hao identity as a bulwark against cultural erosion.
Reclamation of Meitei-Tangkhul Syncretism
The historical collaboration with the Meitei, exemplified by the Hao Macha Loisang, has inspired some Tangkhuls to reclaim the Hao identity as a symbol of cultural interconnectedness. This reclamation challenges the Naga identity’s exclusivity, emphasizing a broader regional identity that includes Meitei influences (Parratt 2005).
The Tangkhul community has been actively involved in the Federation of Haomee, which seeks to promote unity among the indigenous groups in Manipur. Tangkhul leaders and members have participated in numerous initiatives aimed at addressing collective concerns and preserving their shared cultural heritage.
Hao in Tangkhul Cultural Terminology
The term “Hao” permeates Tangkhul cultural terminology, reflecting its centrality to their identity and heritage. Several terms and symbols incorporating “Hao” are integral to Tangkhul society, each carrying specific cultural significance:
Hao mi
Meaning “Hao people” or “Tangkhul people,” Hao mi is a traditional self-referential term used to denote the Tangkhul community, particularly in pre-Christian contexts. It emphasizes collective identity and is often invoked in oral histories and cultural narratives.
Hao phee
Referring to a traditional Tangkhul shawl (also known as Luirim Kachon or Ruirum), Hao phee is a handwoven textile with intricate motifs symbolizing cultural pride. Historically gifted to Meiteis, it is a key element in Meitei weddings (Pham Konba), signifying Tangkhul-Meitei bonds (Singh 2002).
Hao-laa
Meaning “Hao song” or Tangkhul folk song (also known as kharar-laa), Hao-laa encompasses oral traditions that narrate Tangkhul history, spirituality, and social values. These songs are performed during festivals like Luira Phanit and are vital for cultural preservation.
Hao khamui
A traditional Tangkhul delicacy made from sticky rice, Hao khamui (sticky rice bread or cake) is prepared during festivals like Yerui and Khaikap, symbolizing community harmony. In Talui village, it was historically distributed to foster peace and unity.
Haofa
The Haofa, or Tangkhul Hui, is an indigenous dog breed reared by the Tangkhul, particularly in Phungcham village. Known for its gentleness, obedience, and hunting skills, Haofa has been a loyal companion for generations, used to track wild boar and small game. Facing extinction with an estimated 1,000 individuals in 2022, the breed has gained attention through the Phungcham Haofa Festival (first held in 2022) and its registration with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research-National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (ICAR-NBAGR). A statue unveiled in Ukhrul in 2023 underscores its cultural significance (Hindustan Times 2022; Ukhrul Times 2023).
These terms and symbols, embedded in Tangkhul language and practices, underscore the Hao identity’s role as a cultural anchor, connecting contemporary Tangkhuls to their pre-colonial roots and reinforcing their distinct heritage within the Naga framework.
- Also Read: Do you know Meetei worships Tangkhul women
The Meitei Use of “Hao” for the Tangkhul
The Meitei, historically referred to the Tangkhul as “Hao,” a term that encapsulated both cultural recognition and social distinction. Documented in Meitei chronicles like the Cheitharol Kumbaba, Tangkhul-Meitei interactions from the 15th to 18th centuries involved trade, matrimonial alliances, and shared cultural practices, such as the worship of Lainingthou Sanamahi during Luira Phanit, which paralleled Meitei Sanamahism (Parratt 2005). The Meitei adopted “Hao” from the Tangkhul’s self-identification to describe hill communities with distinct traditions, particularly their Kameo rituals, which resonated with Meitei indigenous beliefs (Singh 2002).
This usage highlighted the Tangkhul’s role as valued partners in Manipur’s socio-cultural landscape, fostering a sense of interconnectedness. However, it also reflected a hierarchical distinction, as Meitei kings viewed hill tribes as peripheral allies, a dynamic that shaped Tangkhul-Meitei relations and informs the modern Hao identity’s emphasis on historical autonomy and collaboration (Parratt 2005). The term’s dual role as both a marker of partnership and distinction symbolizes the complex interplay of identity in pre-colonial Manipur.
The Hao Macha Loisang
A significant aspect of Tangkhul-Meitei historical interactions was the Hao Macha Loisang, a cultural exchange practice in which Tangkhul boys under 15 were invited to the Meitei royal court to serve as attendants. Documented in Meitei chronicles and oral traditions, this system, prominent during the 17th and 18th centuries under kings like Pamheiba (1709–1748), involved Tangkhul villages sending boys, known as Hao Macha (Hao children), to participate in royal activities such as ceremonies and household duties (Singh 2002).
The practice fostered mutual benefits: Tangkhul boys gained exposure to Meitei language, customs, and courtly traditions, enriching their cultural knowledge and facilitating Tangkhul-Meitei syncretism. In return, Meitei courts benefited from the boys’ contributions to royal functions, strengthening inter-community ties. The exposure to Meitei court life also enabled some Tangkhul boys to forge social networks that enhanced their villages’ standing in regional trade and diplomacy.
Does the Hao Identity Conflict with Naga Identity?
The adoption of the Hao identity intersects with the Naga identity, generating significant tensions but also opportunities for reconciliation. The Naga identity is both cultural and political, rooted in a shared history of resistance against colonial and post-colonial domination, particularly through the demand for a sovereign “Nagalim” encompassing Naga-inhabited areas in India and Myanmar. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), especially the Isak-Muivah faction (NSCN-IM), which includes prominent Tangkhul leadership, promotes a pan-Naga identity to advance this goal. The emphasis on “Hao” by some Tangkhuls complicates this unity, as outlined below.
Political Fragmentation
Naga nationalism relies on ethnic unity to legitimize the demand for Nagalim, as seen in the NSCN-IM’s 2015 Framework Agreement with India (Misra 2012). The Hao identity, emphasizing terms like Hao mi and Haofa, is perceived by some as undermining this collective project, particularly by NSCN-IM factions prioritizing cohesion.
Tangkhul scholars advocating Hao face criticism for weakening political leverage, especially given their influence in NSCN-IM (Thomas 2016). The Hao identity’s Meitei ties, such as the use of Hao phee in Meitei weddings, raise concerns about aligning with Manipur’s valley politics, which have opposed Naga territorial claims, as evidenced by Imphal protests in the early 2000s (Baruah 2005).
Inter-Tribal Tensions
Historical rivalries among Naga tribes exacerbate conflicts. The 2006 “quit notices” by the NSCN-Khaplang faction targeted Tangkhuls in Nagaland, accusing them of dominating NSCN-IM and questioning their Naga credentials due to Meitei ties, such as the Hao Macha Loisang (Baruah 2007). These notices caused violence and displacement, highlighting tensions between Nagaland-based tribes (e.g., Konyak, Sumi) and Manipur-based Tangkhuls, who number approximately 200,000 (Horam 1992). The Hao identity’s cultural markers, like Hao-laa and Haofa, are seen by some as asserting superiority, fueling mistrust.
Cultural vs. Political Priorities
The Naga identity’s political focus, embodied in the Naga Hoho and NSCN, overshadows tribe-specific expressions. The Hao identity’s emphasis on practices like Hao-laa and Hao khamui faces criticism from nationalists prioritizing a unified narrative (Iralu 2000). For instance, Luira Phanit, framed as Hao-centric by some Tangkhuls, sparks debates within Naga civil society about balancing diversity and unity, especially during peace talks (Thomas 2016). This shift has sparked debates within Naga civil society about the balance between cultural diversity and political unity, with some arguing that the Hao identity risks fragmenting the Naga movement at a critical juncture in peace talks with India.
Historical Narratives and Identity Authenticity
The Hao identity’s Meitei-influenced narrative, including terms like Hao phee, challenges Naga origin myths emphasizing hill-based ethnogenesis. Some view it as revisionist, given the Tangkhul’s role in NSCN-IM (Thomas 2016). Colonial records portraying Tangkhuls as closer to Meiteis fuel skepticism about their Naga commitment, evident in online debates among Naga youth (Hutton 1921).
Mitigating Factors
Dual Identity
Many Tangkhuls navigate both Hao and Naga identities, using “Hao” for cultural specificity (e.g., Hao-laa, Haofa) and “Naga” for political advocacy. They participate in Naga festivals like the Hornbill Festival and organizations like the Naga Hoho, balancing cultural pride with solidarity (Thomas 2016).
Localized Context
The Hao identity is a cultural revival effort in Ukhrul and the diaspora, not a rejection of Naga identity. Initiatives documenting Hao phee and Haofa focus on heritage preservation, collaborating with Naga bodies like the Naga Students’ Federation (Zeliang 2005).
Shared Challenges
Land disputes with Kukis and cultural erosion from globalization foster solidarity. The 1990s Kuki-Naga conflicts united Tangkhuls with other Nagas, reinforcing a shared identity (Baruah 2005). Projects like the Naga Heritage Village, featuring Hao phee, integrate Tangkhul contributions (Thomas 2016).
Institutional Support for Diversity
The Naga Hoho and Forum for Naga Reconciliation recognize tribal diversity, facilitating dialogues on the Hao identity. The 2010 Naga Concordant emphasized respect for tribal identities, providing a platform for Tangkhuls to integrate Hao (Misra 2012).
Historical Precedents for Coexistence
The Tangkhul’s role as mediators in the Hao Macha Loisang equips them to balance identities, advocating for a pluralistic Naga identity (Parratt 2005). Leaders cite this history to promote coexistence.
The Politics of Ethnic Identity
The Hao-Naga dichotomy reflects post-colonial identity dynamics in Northeast India. The Naga identity, a colonial construct, grouped diverse tribes for governance (Baruah 2007), while missionary activity marginalized practices like Kameo (Downs 1971). The Hao identity, expressed through terms like Hao mi and Haofa, is a decolonial effort to reclaim cultural agency, emphasizing Tangkhul heritage and Meitei ties. However, it risks alienating Naga nationalists prioritizing unity. This mirrors challenges faced by other Naga tribes, like the Ao and Angami, who assert distinct identities. The Tangkhul case highlights the fluidity of ethnic identities, negotiated through historical memory and contemporary politics.
Conclusion
The Hao identity among the Tangkhul is a cultural reclamation of their pre-colonial heritage, expressed through linguistic terms like Hao phee, Hao-laa, and the Haofa dog breed, and shaped by Meitei collaborations, including the Meitei use of “Hao” and the Hao Macha Loisang. Its resurgence reflects decolonial efforts to preserve indigenous practices, driven by cultural revival, distinction from the Naga label, and responses to globalization.
Tensions with the Naga identity arise from political fragmentation, inter-tribal rivalries, and cultural priorities, but dual identity, localized efforts, shared challenges, institutional support, and historical precedents enable navigation of both identities. This fluidity represents the dynamic nature of ethnic identity in Northeast India. Future research could explore other Naga tribes’ identity dynamics and Meitei-hill tribe relations.
References:
- Baruah, Sanjib. 2005. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Baruah, Sanjib. 2007. “Postfrontier Blues: Toward a New Policy Framework for Northeast India.” Journal of Asian Studies 66 (2): 431–459.
- Downs, Frederick S. 1971. The Mighty Works of God: A Brief History of the Council of Baptist Churches in Northeast India. Gauhati: Christian Literature Centre.
- Hindustan Times. 2022. “Manipur’s Indigenous Dog Haofa to Be Registered at ICAR-NBAGR Soon.” December 10, 2022. https://www.hindustantimes.com. Horam, M. 1992. The Naga Insurgency: The Last Thirty Years. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
- Hutton, J.H. 1921. The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes. London: Macmillan.
- Iralu, Kaka D. 2000. The Naga Saga: A Historical Account of the Indo-Naga War. Kohima: Kaka D. Iralu.
- Misra, Udayon. 2012. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
- Parratt, Saroj N. 2005. The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur: The Cheitharol Kumbaba. London: Routledge.
- Singh, K.S. 2002. People of India: Manipur. New Delhi: Anthropological Survey of India.
- Thomas, John. 2016. Evangelising the Nation: Religion and the Formation of Naga Political Identity. New Delhi: Routledge.
- Ukhrul Times. 2023. “Ukhrul: Historic Tangkhul Dog Breed Haofa Statue Unveiled.” December 1, 2023. https://ukhrultimes.com.
- Zeliang, Lucy. 2005. Christianity and Change in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
Photo Credit – Wonder Place via Facebook
(C) Naorem Mohen
The writer can be reached at X @laimacha
Editor | Signpost News
