Lemwang Chuhwanglim
Researcher and Activist
There is no question that Naga society has had a patriarchal social system since time immemorial. However, even in such a patriarchal society, people were not born carrying warriors, kings and queens in a carrier (even though they honored the warriors, kings, and queens in the village). If there were such a tradition of carrying honored people in any of the Naga tribes, then it could not be denied that the practice of hoisting great men and women in the Naga society emerged from within the Naga society rather than an alien idea or culture.
Before one reads this entire article, one can easily understand the meaning of the title, The Misinterpreted Gospel in the Naga Society, by observing the picture of the first American missionary carried by a man during their missionary journey in the Naga society; on the other hand the caption below the picture “MEM SAHIB IN HER “PULL-MAN”, itself, may give a quick indication to the title of the article. (For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘Mem Sahib’ it means wife or female elite in Hindi, it is not a Naga dialect.)
The Gospel which came in 1872 (V.K.Nuh. 2006) gradually spread to different parts of the places inhabited by Naga and is found to be the misinterpreted Gospel. It is the misinterpreted Gospel because the ideology of the American Baptist missionaries, along with the Gospel, hegemonized the innocence of the pre-Christianity Naga indigenous people based on Western ideas of “orientalism”. Edward Said describes such orientalism of the late eighteenth century as a Western style of restructuring, dominating, and having authority over the orient (Said. 1079). Put another way, externally imposed ideas about another culture with no legitimate authority, only assumptions fortified by a sense of superiority. Referring to Said in his description of orientalism, the American Baptist missionaries orientalized the Gospel upon the indigenous Naga people according to the Western concept of power and hegemonic ideology in such a way that the Gospel was a means to serve the preacher as someone who brings good news to indigenous people. This Gospel inevitably is in contrast to the true meaning of the Gospel which means the Good News.
The same Gospel from the era of the picture above remains in the Naga society, yesterday and today. Many Christian church leaders in the Naga society maintain the ‘Mam/Sir Sahib’(which I term elite male/female) Gospel that expects followers to carry the goods of any preacher in times of any Gospel tour, church visits, inter-church activities, and so on. The continuity of such a Gospel contrasts the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The basic theology in the Gospel of Jesus Christ begins from cleaning and washing the feet of the disciples mentioned in the Gospel of John 13:4f-5 “So he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him” (The Holy Bible NIV. 1948).This passage vividly conveys the metaphor that the shepherd’s humility to serve the sheep is the primal goal and objective. A missionary or any church leader is not to be carried by the sheep.
One cannot blame the naïve Nagas who, in their innocence, accepted such a Gospel during those days when seeing a white man was akin to seeing the ultimate decision maker of their lives, both before and after death. Having this naïve and pure mind, the words of the white missionaries to “be saved” were accepted as the ultimate authority. Taking advantage of such naiveté of the early Naga people, the white missionaries raided the Gospel against Naga culture. The culture and traditions of the indigenous Naga people began to suffer and some Naga even ostracized their own culture and traditions as a result. It was not because the Gospel was literally against the Naga culture, but the Gospel was interpreted in such a way that was against Naga culture and way of life. Richard Niebuhr offers a significant study of “Christ against culture” in which Christians consider Christ as the Lordship of everything and the Gospel is interpreted as abandoning the world and loving Christ (Niebuhr, 1956). Such a concept of obliterating the world and loving Christ was misinterpreted among the Naga indigenous people to leave their early culture and accept Christ. Anyone who follows the early culture was considered against the Gospel. Having a similar understanding of the Gospel, American Baptist missionaries threatened many Naga indigenous people to abandon many cultural and traditional practices. Comparatively speaking, very little was done by the white missionaries, but even more annihilation of culture was done by the Naga evangelists, missionaries and church leaders by using what I call a “copy paste (American Baptist mission) strategy”.
The Gospel, directly and indirectly, teaches to value names of anything in this world, but not to degrade and manipulate people by tagging exotic names which, actually, do not belong to anyone. It is instead the Gospel to save people from oppression – not to oppress people in speech and deed. Oppression does not meanonly a physical subjugation, but also by words. The American Baptist missionaries called Nagas a few incredible names which, whether by a missionary or not, should not be used to describe anyone. They called Nagas barbaric, uncivilized, wild people with savage oratory mannerisms, savage costumes, savage styles of worship, demon worshipers, heathens with annoying habits, and so on (M.M. Clark. 1978). Farid Esack referred to a similar kind of oppression as apartheid – a white ruling state (Esack, 1998) – when the whites oppressed the blacks in the context of Africa. Although the issue between the Naga people and the American Baptist missionaries was not as much about skin color such as between the African and the white westerner, it did utilize the system of the Gospel according to the white man/woman being imposed upon the brown-skinned people. I call this the apartheid Gospel (oppressive Gospel) in relation to the context of the Nagas. Regardless of what any missionary from any developed or developing society may have said (or continues to say, in some form), freedom of speech is not to indoctrinate any indigenous people in any society and cannot be used to hegemonize any indigenous people with any exotic names which do not belong to any of the inside members. A believer (Christian) missionary cannot codify an unbeliever (Non-Christian) as a less privileged being, for the Gospel says all men and women are equal before Him.
Civilization in the Naga society was already there before the American Baptist missionaries visited Nagaland. The amazing architecture, culture, and houses built artistically according to the Naga culture have proven the existence of an early civilization among the Naga society. If civilization did not take place among the Nagas, or if it appeared uncivilized when the American missionaries arrived, the white missionaries would not be carried in a creatively made Pull-man. Like Antonio Gramsci says, society is inherently educational and every social activity is an intrinsic part of philosophy or vis-à-vis (Adamson, 1980). Naga indigenous people were inherently educated in a different level. Philosophy, wisdom and knowledge were parts of the social activities and that is why indigenous Naga are not too far from the other educated and indigenous people in the developed/developing world, yesterday and today.
Having said about the misleading, misused and misinterpreted Gospel in the Naga society, it is inevitable for every Naga to acknowledge the white missionaries for introducing scho ols, medical service and other vocational institutions in the Naga society, which are some of the most continuing basic needs in the modern Naga society. To see the positive side of the white missionaries who made memorable contributions to the Naga, one can agree with V.K. Nuh that despite the opposition from the Indian Government against the missionaries, the white missionaries have contributed a good amount to the Nagas.
Today, any Naga intellectuals must play a vital role to streamline the misinterpreted Gospel into a more contextualized enculturation between the Gospel and Naga culture and traditions, as well as the way in which the Gospel interacts with the Naga culture. Enculturation means a meeting point of religion and culture in the form of a dialectical approach rather than religious oppression of culture or religion relegating culture. Accordingly, Naga intellectuals can rethink, reframe, redefine and reinterpret the early American version of the Gospel to more fully contextualize the Gospel in the Naga society. Hence, one should avoid misinterpreting this article as to revive some non-contextual aspects of the Naga culture such as headhunting, preserving human skulls at home, or even hanging an enemy’s hair in a basket during cultural dances and festivals.
