Before the year 1832, the Nagas were never disturbed by any foreign power, except the Thai invasion in 1228. It appeared that they crossed the Naga territory to enter Assam. While the Ahoms, the descendants of the ethnic Thai people, settled in most part of present-day Assam, portions of it had always belonged to the Naga people. This fact is undeniable: the existence of the Naga traditional boundary within Assam can be materially supported, in addition to the fact that there was the payment of a Naga Khat money to the Naga chiefs until 1962 by the Assam Government.
When the British first appeared and intruded into the Naga homeland in 1832, it was, first of all, because they felt the need to open up a direct passage of communication between Assam and Manipur. According to Alexander Mackenzie, a British administrator and historian, majority of their expeditions were designed to bring their officers safely in and out of the Angami country. In other words, their primary intent did not seem to be one of conquering the Naga people or annexing their lands. The second reason of their entry into Naga-land was to persuade the Naga chiefs and their tribes to stop the periodic raids and plunders on the British subjects in Assam. With this in mind, the British government directed E.R. Crange, the Sub-Commissioner at Nagaon, to make survey. But since he could not successfully stop the raids, the British government sent its Military expeditions to the southern part of the Naga Hills from 1839-1850 with a goal of establishing their control over certain Naga areas. As a result, there were intermittent warfare between the British and the Naga people, which lasted for 48 years.
Wherever the British conducted their expeditions and made uninvited explorations into the Naga areas, they were met with strong resistance. In 1847, for example, Dr. Brown carried out an extensive tour of exploration in the Rengma area, which resulted in a battle between the Rengmas and the British troops. As for the Lothas, they were brought under the control of the British fairly easily, but not without the death of Captain Butler and some British subjects between 1841 and 1878.
Among the many Naga battles with the British, perhaps the one that occurred in the eastern Angami area (now renamed as Chakhesang area) stands out as a glaring example. The Kikrüma people challenged the British army to a fight when the latter entered into their territory on February 8, 1851. Not to be cowed down, the British army led by Captain Vincent accepted the challenge and both the parties fought valiantly with each other into the latter part of March. Because of the warlike situation all over the Angami-inhabited areas at that time, the British were unable to set up even a single outpost in the heart of the Angami territory from 1832 to 1879 (Sir Robert Reid).
Of course, there is no denying the fact that the Naga villages in the western Nagaland were brought under the administrative control of the British, with its headquarter in Kohima. But strictly speaking, even the Angami territory had never been really conquered by the British, let alone other Naga-inhabited areas of present-day Nagaland. Only the Nagas’ periodic raids on the British subjects in the plains were stopped and certain villages were forced to surrender. But as a people, the Nagas had never surrendered, whether officially or unofficially, to the British people at any point in history. The sovereign republic system of every Naga village, which was somewhat like the city-states of ancient Greece, made that impossible. Put it another way, there was never an en masse surrender or a written record of it to prove otherwise. Although our Naga country was not a nation in the sense the Europeans would understand nation-state, the Nagas continued to govern themselves according to their own customary laws, and every village continued to remain free and independent as in ancient times.
Knowing the wild nature of the Nagas very well, the British also chose to adopt a Non-Interference Policy in the Naga Hills from February 20, 1852 to 1865. Regarding this issue, Lord Dalhousie, Governor General, stated: “This policy was entirely discussed … to take their hills and establish our sovereignty over the savage inhabitants, but possession could bring no profit to us and would be as costly as it would be unproductive.” The British government, therefore, ordered for the withdrawal of their troops from the Naga Hills on political and economic reasons.
It was only after 1865 when the Naga hostilities intensified that the British became more militarily aggressive again. To be fair, the unabated Naga raids on British subjects in Assam might have caused the British government to come up with a new policy at this time, since they seemed clearly intent to subdue the Naga Hills by establishing a new administration zone in 1866 at Chumukedima, with John Gregory as the Deputy Commissioner. In other words, sometime between 1866 and 1918, the Colonial Power seemed to have adopted a policy of dividing the western half of the Naga homeland, just as they did to the eastern half as evident in the Treaty of Yandabo, which was signed between the British and the Burmese on February 24, 1862.
But the fact that the British started to arbitrarily draw demarcations, or boundary lines by setting up wooden or stone pillars on mounds of soil, within our contiguous homeland without our consent as land-owners speaks loudly of their deceptive mind and illegal action. Yet, they would justify their actions saying that they were only doing these demarcations for the purpose of their own “administrative convenience,” when in reality they seemed to be operating with a hidden intent to claim our land as part of their extended territory.
Obviously, the Nagas had never given up the ownership right of their homeland to the British. That this was true can be illustrated from a real incident. When a British officer once asked Lhurükhrie of Dapfütsuma Khel as to how big the land of the Kewhima people was, he pointed to the west, the north, and the east. Next, pointing to a thickly forested area on the south-west, adjoining Puliebadze, he said as if that was a “no man’s land” (in Angami language, “Terhuomiara, tekhu-thengoba,” meaning, ghosts’ territory, habitat of tigers and monkeys). So, it was as if the British could have that “no man’s land” for themselves if they wanted to. Thus, both the Nagas and the British had no doubt as to who was the real owner of the land.
Now then, let’s ask ourselves some unresolved questions: On what basis could the British government claim that the Naga homeland legally became theirs, which they could give away to anyone they wanted? Or, why have the political and bureaucratic class of the Nagas failed to raise any voice against the arbitrary and illegal actions of the British government till today? If we Nagas have known for a fact that our land has always been ours, why do we stop short of asserting our rights through a proper legal channel? Why do we continue to remain quiet as if we have even lost all our rights to fight in the International Court of Justice and therefore we must learn to accept the arbitrary drawing of demarcations of our homeland by foreigners?
Even if the British government cannot undo her mistakes, a legal victory at the highest level will affirm the fact that the rights of the Nagas had been infringed upon and left unresolved.
Mazie Nakhro
