Kushemyimjong
Recently, at three public events in eastern Nagaland, both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of Nagaland spoke to the audience with a hint of sarcasm about the ongoing dispute over traditional attire among the eastern Naga tribes. Their remarks likely came after both Chang and Yimkhiung representatives sent a letter to the Commissioner of Nagaland, asking for action on the misappropriation of their shawls. While this issue might seem minor at first, it deserves serious attention. Naga traditional shawls are deeply meaningful, representing tradition, history, and personal identity. Each shawl stands as a symbol of a tribe’s resilience and memory.
The ongoing debate between the Chang and Yimkhiung communities over certain traditional shawls has led to many theories about who truly owns them. There is no clear way to prove ownership. Relying on colonial records is risky, as these often contain stereotypes, especially about the Nagas. Folklore is another source, but since it is passed down orally and lacks hard evidence, it can lead to endless debates. The reality is that when two or more tribes live close together, their cultures, histories, and artifacts often overlap, making it hard to draw clear lines. Despite the different stories fueling the current tension, one thing is clear – Chang and Yimkhiung have a long history of living side by side. It is unlikely that two tribes would claim the same shawl unless they shared ancestry or close ties.
So, what is the best way forward? One option is to consider a question that is quietly gaining attention – Can Chang Naga and Yimkhiung Naga become one tribe? Some find this idea uncomfortable, others think it is unrealistic, and many elders may see it as a threat to their identity. But this question is not about erasing culture or disrespecting heritage. Instead, it reflects a desire for unity, strength, and a future free from division. The Chakhesang tribe, formed from three ethnic groups (Chokri, Kheza, and Sangtam, now known as Pochury), and the Zeliangrong tribe, which brings together the Zeme, Liangmai, and Rongmei, show that such unity is possible. Another way forward is for leaders from both tribes to meet, discuss their differences and similarities, and find a compromise. Avoiding a solution will only make it harder to get Geographical Indication (GI) certification for their shawls, which is already at risk due to the ongoing dispute.
As mentioned earlier, traditional shawls are sacred in Naga society and hold ancestral memories. Still, it is important to recognize that a strong desire to protect tradition or identity can become a problem if it no longer benefits the people. Culture should protect dignity and strengthen the community. But if cultural boundaries turn into barriers, culture can become a prison instead of a source of pride. If tribal identity and its symbols are treated as untouchable, they may block the community’s progress. It is essential to ask whether preserving tribal identity truly benefits the people, or if it comes at their expense. This reflection is not a criticism of tradition, but a measure of collective maturity.
Is it realistic for Chang and Yimkhiung to become one tribe? If this means a formal merger, it is complicated. Tribes today are not just social groups; they have legal and administrative roles. Recognition, customs, representation, and institutions cannot change overnight. Forcing a merger would be risky and could cause division. Still, the conversation should continue. Even if a formal merger is hard, the idea behind it is important. Whether or not Chang and Yimkhiung unite in name, they must unite in purpose. Becoming one tribe is optional, but sharing a vision is essential now. Both groups can keep their identities while working together for a better future. Leaders need to be bold not just in words, but in building real institutions. True unity should show in joint civil society groups, student unions, business networks, education support, and a united stand against drugs and social problems. Demands for roads, institutions, and development should be made together. Brotherhood is good, but action matters more. The future will not wait for pride to settle. Now is the time to look past old boundaries – not to erase identity, but to strengthen the people. In the end, history will not judge how well divisions were kept, but whether the community built a future for its children.
The author can be reached through yimjongkushem83@gmail.com
