Thursday, 22 November 2018

Introduction to Christian Theologies in India- Tribal Theology-2

SHARE
Tribal Theology

Broadly speaking there are two different kinds of tribals in India: Adivasis (the tribals from the plains) and tribals from north-east India hills. Adivasis had some kind of contact with the prevalent religion – Hinduism, however there was very little contact between tribals from north-east India. The north-east India hill tribes with the exception of a few are all Christian converts. Christianity provided them with access to education and modernization.

United Nation Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities puts forth a working definition of indigenous/ tribal people: ‘Indigenous communities, people and nations, are those which having an historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generation their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institution and legal system’.[1]

The tribal communities in north-east India are represented by three major racial groups: (i) the Sino-Tibetan communities who began to move into the region as early as the third millennium BC; the Boro-Bodo tribes in the Brahmaputra Valley and other tribal groups in Arunachal Pradesh trace back their origin to that early migration; (ii) the Siamese section of the Mongoloids migrated around eighth century BC, and later the Thai tribes entered the region, established the Ahom kingdom, and ruled over Assam; the Kuki-Chin tribes also came and settled in the southern region; (iii) a large number of northern tribals – the Mundaris, Hos, Santalis, Oraons, Gonds, and others were brought to Assam by the Britishers to work in tea estates.
Major tribes in north-east India are: Austro-Asiatic (Khasis, Jaintias); Bodo (Dimasa, Boro, Kachari, Rabha, Garo, Ghutia, and Tripuri); Dravidian (Dom and Kvivartas); Indo-Burmese (Nagas); Indo-Tibetan (Miri, Mishmi, Nishi, Akhas, Apatani, Adi, Monpa, Nocte, Wancho, Tangsa); Kuki-Lushai (Mizo, Hmar, Halam, Thadou, Ralte, Paiti, Pawi, Lakher, Riang); Chin-Kuki (Moriang, Phadang, Mikirs, Amri); and Indo-Aryan and Shan-Tai (Assamese, Ahom, Khamti, Phakial, Aitonia).[2]

Indigenous/Tribal theology is a newcomer and this emerging theology among the alienated and marginalized minorities may be called ‘Indigenous peoples or tribal theology.’ It is a people’s theology born out of the experiences of injustice and exploitation in the context of their assertion for right and identity. It is also a liberation and resistance theology.[3] It attempts to express Christian faith in the context of the socio-cultural, religious, traditional, and liturgical through pattern of the indigenous people. It uses the experiences of oppressions, and hardships; traditional stories, myths, symbols, dances, songs, and their connectedness to land and environment as sources of doing theology. Minz and Longchar explains tribal theology in the following words: In terms of doing theology, the point of departure of the tribal theology from other contextual theologies is that the tribal theology seeks liberation from the perspective of ‘space.’ In their search for liberation, the issue of space is central and crucial in doing
theology. A peculiar character of tribal world view is that the tribal people’s culture, religion, spirituality, and even the Supreme Being cannot be conceived without ‘creation/land’ or ‘space.’
Humans always understand themselves as ‘an integral part of creation/land and not apart from it.’[4]
Tribal theologizing, therefore, has to interact with these if it has to become relevant contextual theology. The question of justice, identity, and human dignity therefore is crucial for tribal theology.

Tribal Christology
For reasons unknown there is so little written on Christology from the north-east Indian tribal perspective. Shohe opines that the strand of Christianity that was preached to the tribals in north-east India too has its influence on its Christological formulations. These were more from pietistic influence.[5] Probably that explains the death of Christological formulations from the north-east India tribal context.[6] Here we present some of the available Christological formulations from a Naga perspective.[7]
Vashum argues that vision of tribal/indigenous theology is to become a self-theologizing community. Such an effort needs moving beyond the existing norms of Christian theologizing. He uses local/ indigenous cultural categories to construct a Christology of culture and liberation.

He proposes Jesus as the Rooster. Every society identifies a special or sacred animal/bird that symbolizes their identity. For the Naga’s, Rooster is a sacred animal/ bird. As a community Nagas have had various observances and ceremonies. Animals/birds were often used as sacrificial offerings. Of all these, the rooster was by far the most valued sacrificial object. It was regarded as something that possessed the right qualities for being a sacrifice: purity, aesthetic beauty, and physical charm. “A rooster is decorated with beautiful ornaments from head to toe. He not only looks gorgeous, he also appears very gracious at the same time.” It is also considered one of the most alert, intelligent and humble creature. Humility was an important trait, a blameless rooster was often chosen for sacrifice.[8]

Rooster Sacrifice for Human Protection
Rooster sacrifice was conducted for restoring wellness and harmony among individuals or community. When an individual was sick, the family members of the sick would invite the khanong (Tangkul Naga) – the medical practitioner to conduct a sacrificial ceremony (Tanula – soulcalling ceremony among the Ao Nagas). A blameless rooster is taken to the outskirts of the village, it is then tossed up into the air and released into the jungle by the medical practitioner while reciting these words:  “Take this rooster instead of [the suffering individual] and release the soul immediately.” It is expected that the rooster would not return back to the village, which was considered a good omen. The sick would then recover. But if it returns back then it is understood that the sick would never recover from the illness.[9]

For the purification of the whole community too rooster was used as a sacrificial object. Genna, is the purification ceremony practiced by the Nagas. The medical practitioner along with the members of the village would move to the outskirts of the village and toss up the rooster into the
air and release the same to the jungle while asking the Sacred Being’s blessings upon the community. The “releasing” of the rooster meant its imminent death.[10] The whole purpose of the ceremony was the purification of the village from all kinds of evil and protection from future epidemics and calamities. Rooster was also a mythic figure that was responsible for persuading
the Sacred Being to provide sunlight to the world thereby maintaining the duration of day and night.[11]

Jesus and the Rooster

Vashum uses rooster as a representative of Jesus and begins with rooster and looks unto Jesus’ sacrifice as a relational aspect from the scripture. He says, In the sacrifice of the rooster and the death of Jesus Christ, the underlying significance is that both the rooster and Jesus died so that the people might live. There are, of course, limitations in the use of the rooster as the representative of Jesus Christ. While, the rooster sacrifice is temporary and significance is limited to the particular community on whose behalf the sacrifice is made, the death of Jesus Christ is permanent and has universal appeal. However, notwithstanding the limitations, there is a great deal of significance attached to the vicarious suffering of the rooster and Jesus on whose behalf they both sacrificed their lives.[12]

Jesus, the Elder Brother
Vashum, offers another metaphor – the Elder Brother to explain the significance of Jesus. He says, “…the Gospel writers describe the status of Jesus as being the ‘firstborn son’ (cf. Lk. 2:7; Mt. 1:25). As firstborn son, ‘he constituted not only the continuation of the family but also the
continuity and permanence of Israel’s covenant relationship with God.”[13]
He further says: “Jesus Christ is truly an ‘elder brother’ whose life demonstrated the qualities that were expected of an elder brother. Jesus is the elder brother par excellence, for in him the desires and expectations of an elder brother came into its fulfilment.”[14]

Jesus, the Ancestor
Vashum offers yet another metaphor in speaking of Christ – the Ancestor. He writes, The ancestor and the elder brother exercised a critical role of being mediators. The elder brother being the eldest son in the family was charged with religious duties including offering sacrifices to the Supreme Being on behalf of the family. On the death of the father the eldest was expected to carry out all family ceremonies and sacrifices. On the other hand, the ancestor played a mediating role between the spiritual world and the living.[15]
He further writes,
‘In the worldview of the tribals, the notion of the community, encompassed not only the living but also the dead and the spiritual beings; the ancestors were an integral part of the community. Additionally, as a life giving source in the sense that through the ancestors generations of human societies have come to exist, the ancestors were closer to the Source.[16]

He also writes, “In adapting the role of Jesus to the tribal cultural context, one can substitute Jesus as the Ancestor who represents the mystery of the invisible God.”[17]






[1] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/unpfii-sessions-2.html
[2] Wati Longchar, “Tribes in Northeast India,” in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of South Asian Christianity, ed. Roger E. Hedlund (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012), 698
[3] Wati Longchar, “Tribal Theology: Development, Issues and Challenges,” Journal of Tribal Studies XVII, no. 1 (January-June 2012): 2.

[4] Niraml Minz and Wati Longchar, “Tribal Christian Theology/Theologizing,” in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of South Asian  Christianity, ed. Roger E. Hedlund (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012), 695
[5] Hukato N. Shohe, “Imaging Christ from Tribal Perspective,” in Tribal Voice, ed. V. Anshely Sumi (Dimapur: Aloino Centre, 2007), 31.
[6] L. H. Lalpekhlua, Contextual Christology: A Tribal Perspective (Delhi: ISPCK, 2007)
[7] Visakuolie Vakha, “Jesus Christ in Tribal Theology: A Critique,” in Perspectives : Current Issues in Theological Thinking, ed. Akheto Sumi (Mokokchung: Jongshinokdang Trust, CTC, 2002), 64-81; A. Wati Longchar, “Jesus Christ in Tribal Theology: A Critique - A Response,” Journal of Tribal Studies VII, no. 2 (July-December 2003): 249-89.
[8] Dr. Yangkahao Vashum teaches indigenous/tribal theology at Eastern Theological College, Jorhat
[9] Yangkahao Vashum, “Emerging Vision of Indigenous/Tribal Theology,” in Dalit - Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trends in Subaltern Theologies, ed. James Massey and Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat & New Delhi: Tribal Study Centre/Women Study Centre & Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2007), 40-1.
[10] Ibid., 42.
[11] Ibid., 43.
[12] Ibid., 43.
[13] Yangkahao Vashum, “Jesus Christ as the Ancestor and Elder Brother: Constructing a Relevant Indigenous/Tribal Christology of North East India,” in Tribal Theology: A Reader, ed. Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat, Assam: Tribal Study Centre, ETC, 2008), 21-2.
[14] Ibid., 30.
[15] Ibid., 30-31.
[16] Ibid., 31.
[17] Ibid., 31-32.
SHARE

Author: verified_user