Traditional establishment of a Naga village

K Daimai
Contd from previous issue
Young men (in unison): “We are from [Name of Village].”
Priest: “What do you bring?”
Young men: “We bring good and noble human lineage, prosperity, and a blameless mithun.”
Priest: “If so, proceed and enter.”
Upon satisfactory responses, the priest led the entry into the village, followed by the young men pulling the Mithun and then the rest of the community. Each person touched the necklace in reverence. Once inside, the male members of the community gathered at the central space and gave out ritual howls—vocal expressions that, in Naga tradition, convey varied meanings such as victory, mourning, or celebration. In this context, the howling signified triumph and rightful occupation of the land.
Fourth Step: Ignition of the Sacred Fire
Following the ritual entry, the priest—now officially recognized as the Chief—ignited the first fire within the village. This act was of paramount importance, as only the Chief and his descendants held the exclusive right to create and maintain the village’s sacred fire. It was forbidden to bring fire from external sources. This fire symbolized both spiritual purity and political sovereignty.
Subsequently, the Chief also had the responsibility to dig or assign a water source for communal use, further affirming his role as custodian of both land and life. In this process, he formally became the Owner and Chief of the village.
At the central location of the village, the blameless Mithun brought during the dedication rites was then sacrificed. The site of this sacrifice became the village shrine, serving as a permanent place for future communal offerings. A small pit was again dug at this shrine where cooked beef, ground ginger, and rice beer were buried as offerings to Mother Earth.
The priest then pronounced the Second Sancti- fication Prayer:
“O Lord Almighty, Creator of the Universe, as we now dwell upon this land, grant that my people may be strong like Biuliang (a species of sturdy bamboo), may our numbers multiply as Gainiam (an expansive thatch grass), may food grains overflow without scarcity, and may our lives be long and prosperous.”
With this concluding prayer, the process of village establishment was deemed complete. The individual who had undertaken all responsibilities—at great personal and spiritual risk—was formally acknowledged as the Chief and Founder of the village. This title was not conferred nor appointed, but earned through devotion, ritual duty, and sacrificial leadership.
The Hereditary Chief: Customary Institution and Cultural Pillar
The role of the village chief in Naga society is a hereditary institution deeply intertwined with identity, history, customs, and the socio-economic life of the community. It is an inalienable component of tribal governance and spiritual legitimacy. The Chief not only owns the land and resources of the village but embodies its continuity and cultural heritage.
Traditionally, the rites of village establishment were believed to be spiritually perilous. Mistakes in performance could lead to mis- fortune or even the death of the officiant. As elders often recount, “the work of founding a new village was an act in exchange for one’s life.” Hence, the entire process was carried out with the utmost reverence, caution, and sacred intention.
Given the magnitude of responsibility and risk undertaken, any attempt to abolish or invalidate the hereditary chief’s rights is viewed as a direct threat to tribal identity and autonomy. The erosion of this institution would not only signify the loss of cultural and historical continuity but would also imply the dispossession of communal land and the disintegration of social order.
Policy Critique: The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Village Chief’s Rights) Act, 1967
The enactment of the Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Village Chief’s Rights) Act, 1967, is viewed with deep concern among the tribal communities, particularly the Nagas. The Act seeks to abolish the hereditary rights of tribal village chiefs; and establish a uniform land tenure system.
Both objectives are fundamentally at odds with the customary law and traditional institutions of the Naga people. The implementation of such legis- lation risks generating significant social and political conflict, particularly between hill and valley communities. It is therefore strongly recommended that the Act be repealed in the interest of preserving cultural integrity, ensuring peaceful coexistence, and maintaining historical justice.