Bawi System

The Bawi system () was an institution of slavery established under Lushai tribes. It remained in use in precolonial systems of chieftainship before being challenged by Christian mssionaries and political institutions such as the Mizo Union.

Etymology

Early British administrators used polyglot officials to extract terminology for the Lushai Tribes. Bawi was initially listed as a gendered noun known as ''bay-pa'' for male slaves and ''bay-nu'' for female slaves. When the missionaries of the Lushai Hills decided to create a roman alphabet as a written language of Duhlien, limitations of the representation of the tonal language led to transcription of the 'o' sound as an 'aw' sound making it spelt bawi instead of ''boi''. Furthermore, the word became widely used outside of a gendered context and was treated analogously to mean both slave and the institution of slavery itself.

There has been debate on the specific meaning of ''bawi'' due to the political implications of such definitions. Lorrain stated in ''Dictionary of the Lushai language'' that ''bawi'' translates to a slave, a bondman, a vassal or a serf. McCall subsequently comments in ''Lushai Chrysalis'' that the dictionary did not provide a deep study of the language, the definition of a slave was too antagonizing when most ''bawi'' were individuals dependent on their chief. T.H Lewin argues that the definition of slave is inapplicable regarding the ''bawi'' system, defining the institution as individuals who have lost the right of individual freedom of action. Shakespeare in ''Lushai-Kuki Clans'' defines ''bawi'' as persons who have taken refuge in the chief's house.

Characteristics

A ''bawi'' was only permitted to belong to a chief. Unlike Chin people and Thadou people, slaves under Lushai chiefs were not sold and treated as property. A ''bawi'' was permitted to move from one chief to another chief; chiefs would accept ''bawis'' in the interest of increasing their privilege and perceived power. A ''bawi'' was also permitted to get married. If two ''bawis'' get married, then by custom, they are to live with the chief for six years. After this period, the ''bawi'' couple will build their own house and will be known as an ''inhrang bawi'', meaning separate house ''bawi''. There were several types of ''bawi''.

''Inpuichhung bawi'' means an in-house slave or serf. They would become a bawi by being indebted to their chief during a crisis. This typically included extreme poverty, starvation, sickness, etc. A Majority of ''bawi'' of this type tended to be orphans, widows and other vulnerable individuals. Being unable to take care of themselves, these individuals operated in serfdom to their chief in return for shelter and food.''Inpuichhung bawi'' constituted the majority of ''bawis'' belonging to chiefs. They were considered part of the chief's household in return for food and shelter. They managed to hold privileges such as wearing the chief's ornaments and using his guns and weapons.

''Chemsen bawi'' means red knife ''bawi''. If an individual were to commit murder, then the victim's family held a right to kill the offender. The murderer had a right to take refuge in the chief's house. The murderer would cling to the foundation post of the chief's house, a practice known as ''lal sutpui pawm''. This act would bind a chief to protect the offender from the vengeance of the victim's relatives. This was provided on the basis the revenge seekers had not successfully injured the offender before he sought the foundation post. As the chief's subjects could not challenge him, this would guarantee the offender's protection from any retribution. A ''chemsem bawi'' in contrast to an ''inpuichhung bawi'' lived in a separate house and did not work for the chief directly. Their children would be considered ''bawis'', and the chief had the right to the marriage price of the daughters. The ''chemsem bawi'' would also lose the right to fatherhood of their children as the chief would assume parental role of the murderer's children.

''Tuklut bawi'' means promised to enter ''bawi''. This category pertains to individuals who surrendered during wartime or deserted their village to join a winning side. To safeguard their lives, they offered themselves to the chief. These ''bawis'' were relatively free and allowed to live in separate houses from the chief. They were permitted to be relieved of bawi status by paying the chief one mithun. According to the British administration, the workload of ''tuklut bawi'' was so light that most of them never paid their ransom for freedom.

''Sal'' in a literal meaning pertains to slavery. A ''sal'' was a person who was captured during a raid. Unlike other ''bawis'', a ''sal'' is the personal property of the captors. They would be exchanged for goods, such as guns. A ''sal'' would typically be marriageable women or children from defeated tribes. The ''sal'' category was unique in that anybody had the right to own one, as opposed to all other categories of ''bawi'' being strictly limited to the chief. A ''sal'' could secure their freedom by paying whatever their captor demanded of them.

History

During British rule the administration maintained the ''bawi'' institution. The British were reluctant to label the institution as slavery and hesitant to intervene. Their approach saw a policy of indirect rule through the existing political structure of Mizo chieftainship. Previous rights of the chiefs were extinguished, such as the right to order capital punishment, the right to seize the property of subjects leaving their village for another chief, the right to tax foreigners trading in the hills, and the right to enact inheritance of chieftainship without British approval. While other rights, such as taxation and appointments of elders and ministers, remained. Under the British, without any raiding and inter-tribal wars and a new standardized justice system, the categories of ''chemsem bawi'', ''tuklut bawi'' and ''sal'' became obsolete. Most missionaries also did not interfere in the bawi institution and believed that converting the Lushai Hills would lead to a growth in public moral consciousness that would allow the system to wither itself.

Peter Fraser, a missionary doctor in the Lushai Hills, raised concerns over the permittance of the bawi institution among the chieftains. Fraser worked with chiefs such as Khawvelthanga of Muabuang who converted to Christianity in supporting his endeavours. Fraser began his campaign by spending his own money in ransoming the freedom of as many bawis as he could. The chiefs were happy with the flow of cash but began to oppose Fraser's efforts when more and more bawis contacted Fraser to free them. The traditional economy of Lushai chiefdoms heavily relied on manpower and labour distribution and functioned as markers of prestige for chiefs. Freed bawis spread the news of Fraser's deeds and led to an increase in bawis seeking liberation. Facing opposition from chiefs encouraged Fraser to convince his local administration to attempt to abolish the bawi system on the basis that slavery had been banned by law in all British colonies including the British Raj. Fraser embarked on a political campaign to abolish the bawi system in the Lushai Hills. To Fraser, the continuation of the Bawi system went against the British abolishment of slavery in 1833. The bawis freed by Fraser lived in hostels built by Fraser to provide shelter. In return, the freed bawis assisted Fraser in his missionary efforts of preaching, coolie duties and forming a choir and band known as ''Krawss Sipai'' in 1911.

Fraser established testimonies of the free Bawis that stated they were slaves, bonded for generations, and held a desire to be free. Fraser used this to convince Rev. D.E Jones that the bawi system was a hurdle in proselytizing the Lushai Hills into Christianity. Rev Jones subsequently published an issue in the Monthly treasury as a sign of support for Fraser's struggle and his initiative in ransoming bawis from the chiefs. In a meeting with superintendent H.W.G. Cole, the two missionaries were told that the issue needed a consensus from all missionaries.
Many Christian missionaries did not share his views initially. With Fraser's encouragement, the missionaries took up investigations and discussions and often held merits to Fraser's perspective on the system.

F.W Savidge later wrote regarding his changed perspective of the bawi system:

J.H Lorraine corroborated the view stating that:

D.E Jones undertook an extensive and deep investigation of the issue, commenting that:

However, the missionaries hesitated to support Fraser as they viewed him as scrupulous. In any chance, a potential misstep would reflect on their missionary efforts and the Bawis under the system. The missionaries, such as Jones, advocated for a slow and gradual abolition with the administration's efforts. However, Fraser rebuked and considered the abolishment of the Bawi system an urgent issue to resolve.

The administration did not agree with Fraser's position. H.W.G Cole argued in a view shared by bureaucrats and administrators that the bawi system provided for the sustenance of many poor and destitute who took shelter with the well-to-do chiefs in return for a lifetime of service. To abolish the system would abandon the welfare of the needy in society. Fraser was also friends with the chancellor of Exchequer Lloyd George, who would later become the prime minister of Britain. Fraser mentioned this friendship in passing to H.W.G Cole that Lloyd George would assist him in compensating the chiefs. H.W.G Cole in protest published an article in the newspaper, ''Mizo leh Vai Chanchin Bu'', stating that the bawi system is not a form of slavery but closer to a 'membership of the house'. The administration preferred indirect rule through the chiefs and preferred not to agitate them by taking away a fundamental institution of chieftainship. British administrators cited John Shakespear's views on the ''inpuichhung bawi'' as a system of protecting the poor and destitute.

Shakespear's position was to modify the system without deprecating the status and prestige of the chiefs. In this sense, the British administration did not want to abolish the Bawi system nor consider it a form of slavery, as Fraser claimed.

The arrival of mautam famine impacted Fraser's campaign concerning the bawi system. One of the reasons chiefs opposed freeing of bawis was due to the importance of conserving labour during the hard times of famine. Many villagers pre-emptively bound themselves to the chief in anticipation of the famine upon the flowering of bamboo. As the British response to the 1911 mautam famine was well prepared, many individuals desired to be freed of their bawi status by Fraser. Fraser also could not convert the bawis to Christianity based on the orders of their chiefs, who were in charge of the decisions concerning the bawis.

Fraser was supported by Mary Winchester, the kidnapping victim of the Lushais that sanctioned the Lushai Expedition. Mary Innes Howie continued to fight for the abolition of the Bawi system and helped raise the issue to the British parliament. She wrote to the undersecretary in 1913 to inform them of her personal experience among the Lushais. She argued against John Shakespear's interpretation of the system and outlined that if it were not for the Lushai Expedition she would have been placed into serfdom of the chiefs herself. Mary Innes Howie would establish the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Society in the United Kingdom. Reverend Peter Fraser would join the society alongside many other forward-looking missionaries and liberal Englishmen. Mary Innes Howie also challenged the Assam government's decision to bar Fraser to return to the Lushai Hills. The government issues a response stating that:

Furthermore, the British administration offered an ultimatum to Fraser to cease his efforts and campaign against the Bawi system and stick to missionary work or leave the Lushai Hills. Upon refusal to sign, H.W.G Cole expelled Fraser from the Lushai Hills.

Fraser would return to the Lushai Hills with permission from the British government before being expelled from the British Raj on resumption of his campaign. Fraser's exit saw the issue resolved with progressive measures. The Bawi system was modified as follows:

In 1927, the Assam government substituted the term Bawi with ''chhungte'' or ''awmpui'' which means inmates of the house. With this, the institution of the bawi system ceased in 1927. Upon British departure from the Indian subcontinent, half of the population in Mizoram would be Christian. In the remaining villages following Lushai animism, the Bawi system would continue to unofficially exist. Many of the freed bawis fell victim to economic exploitation and poverty upon release. These freed bawis would become supporters of the abolition of chieftainship act. Christian missionaries accommodated the freed bawis while others would begin migrations to other areas of Mizoram. Nag argues that the abolishment of Chieftainship in 1954 led to the dissolution of Mizo chieftainship, hence truly ending the Bawi system along with it as it relied on chiefs to facilitate the social order. The Mizo Union functioned on the principles of the Indian National Congress at the time, which held anti-monarchist and chiefly rule and institutions. This bid was popular with many individuals who saw the institution becoming outdated. Furthermore, the peaceful abolishment of both institutions proved the British administration wrong in their rationale to maintain it out of peacekeeping concerns.

See also

*Mizo Chieftainship
*H.W.G. Cole

References

Sources

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

{{Lushai frontier

19th century in Mizoram
20th century in Mizoram
History of Mizoram
1910s in Mizoram
Slavery in India
Human rights abuses in India