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.