SPECIAL SECTION The headhunting culture of the Nagas: reinterpreting the self Venusa Tinyi Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 83–98 | ISSN 2050-487X | www.southasianist.ed.ac.uk 2017 | The South Asianist 5 (1): 83-98 | pg. 83 Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 83-98 The headhunting culture of the Nagas: reinterpreting the self VENUSA TINYI, University of Hyderabad [email protected] 'Headhunting', as a term, was essentialised as the defining identity of the Nagas during the colonial period. Without rejecting the term per se, I endeavor to present an understanding of what headhunting culture means to Nagas and from the viewpoint of a native. In part I do so by analyzing the term 'headhunting' in the Chokri language of the Chakhesang tribe. Next I discuss this term in relation to the elitist culture of trophy hunting popular during the colonial period. I then proceed to explain head-hunting in relation to some core traditional values and beliefs of the Nagas, namely, equality, freedom and justice. Understanding the culture of headhunting from the perspective I tried to present here is likely to affect the way contemporary Naga groups perceive each other in a more positive manner. But not only that, it may also provide readers with insights as to why Nagas not only constantly question the superiority of others and the right of others to subjugate them but also struggle passionately to reclaim their fundamental rights to live as a free and equal people. Introduction It is a fact of history that Nagas practiced headhunting. What is unfortunate about this fact, however, is that it has come to be essentialised as the defining identity of the Nagas.1 1 The use of the terms 'headhunters' and 'headhunting' without italics in this paper is deliberate. Throughout this paper, I will use them interchangeably with warrior. Just as the term ‘Nagas’ has been accepted by us, as our ethnic identity though popularized by the colonizers, Nagas have by and large accepted this description of former headhunters. In this regard, I agree with Longkumer (2015: 60) who observes ‘that viable continuities exist between the colonial and postcolonial situation, and one must appreciate the way images [referring to headhunters and primitive], once deployed for colonialism’s purpose, continue to shape the current landscape as an attractive medium for tourism and identity in the global arena.’. He goes on to argue that such exotic images enables Nagas to forge a distinct national culture. 2017 | The South Asianist 5 (1): 83-98 | pg. 84 Nagas believed and practiced many other things but for reasons of their own, many colonial writers choose to overlook these and selected the headhunting culture as the essential representation of Naga identity.2 In this article, I will endeavor to present an understanding of what headhunting culture means to Nagas themselves, and from the view point of a native3. I then proceed to explain this culture in relation to some core traditional values and beliefs of Nagas. The discussion in this paper is expected to give some native insights from a contemporary Naga perspective about why we were the kind of people we were in the premodern time and also, to some extent, why we are the kind of people we are today. Analyzing the term 'headhunting' vis-à-vis 'trophy hunting' Let me begin with what is familiar to me. ‘Headhunter’, as a term, was not a self- referential expression and its equivalent meaning is difficult to find in the context of the Chakhesang Nagas. Similarly, Tezenlo Thong opines that Nagas never called or thought of themselves as headhunters (Thong, 2012b). However, there are some notable linguistic similarities between the use of the terms headhunting and animal hunting. The first is related to the use of the syllable ‘ga’ (kill) in the Chokri language spoken among the Chakhesang tribe.4 ‘Ga’, a suffix, is used to describe and qualify the act of killing animals (thi-ga) during animal hunting and the killing of ‘other people’ (mi-ga) during raids or wars.5 ‘Ga’ has no moral connotation or implication unlike ‘dothri’ (kill or murder) which usually comes with a moral judgment. There is yet another significant parallel between the two in Chokri: thiri-hu and thi-hu. While the former literally means ‘war-chase’, the latter means ‘animal-chase’. The common suffix for both the terms is ‘hu’, meaning chase. In this sense, the term ‘thiri-hu’ can be used very loosely to mean headhunting and ‘thi- hu’ to mean animal hunting. Derivatively, thirimi or thirimavemi may be seen as a translation of ‘headhunters’. While thirimi generally refers to a group of people armed for war, thirimavemi is very specific; only those warriors who succeeded in taking a head from another village are called ‘thirimavemi’. 2 Among others, the two important reasons worth noting in the context of this paper are (1) the urge of colonial writers to construct the notion of the ‘exotic others’ to satisfy the imagination of their readers in their home-countries and (2) the necessity of maintaining and justifying their colonial notion of power relations based on civilizational superiority. For a detailed criticism of stereotyping Nagas as headhunters, see Thong (2012b). 3 In general, views expressed in this paper reflect a local view from the perspective of the Chakhesang tribe, the tribal community I belong to. However, care has been taken throughout the paper to ensure that the context of discussion will make it clear if I am writing from the perspective of a Naga in general or from the perspective of a Chakhesang, in particular. It may be noted that the Chakhesang tribe is one of the recognized tribes in Nagaland state. It is constituted by three main linguistic groups, namely, Chokri, Khuza/Kheza and Zamai. Some Chakhesang villages also contain Sema/Sumi speaking people. 4 Chokri is my mother tongue and the spoken language at home. 5 It is important to note that no Naga tribe has the practice of taking heads from within the same village. So, headhunting was expected only on people belonging to other villages or to non-Nagas. 2017 | The South Asianist 5 (1): 83-98 | pg. 85 Having discussed the meanings in Chokri, I however doubt that the colonial writers were aware of these linguistic connotations and accordingly decided to use the term ‘headhunting’ for the custom of cutting heads during raids and wars. On the contrary, it is highly possible that the employment of these terms by them was influenced, at least partially, by an elitist component of popular, colonial culture back then, that of trophy hunting.6 Trophy hunting in Africa and the Indian subcontinents – then colonies of European powers - had become a fashionable recreational and sportive activity variously engaged in by colonial officers during their spare time. To cite just one instance; it is being recorded that King George V, after being enthroned in 1911, bagged 39 tigers, 18 rhinoceros and 4 bears in Nepal in one of his hunting trips along with his retinue in 1911.7 The general practice of trophy hunting was to kill wild animals, not for their meat, but for pleasure and prestige and to keep selected parts of killed animals such as heads, teeth, tasks and horns as souvenirs. The selected parts of animals were generally displayed as trophies in a special room called ‘trophy room’ or ‘game room’ in which the weaponry of the hunters were also normally displayed. Animal trophies also of course served to represent the courage, skill and success of the hunters. With this colonial European culture of trophy hunting at the back of our mind, it is not difficult to understand why colonial writers described the Naga custom of head-taking in wars and raids as headhunting. For instance, one colonial writer stated, ‘When the enemy is caught unprepared, they rushed upon them with great ferocity, and tearing off the scalps of all those who fall victims to their rage, they carry home those strange trophies of their triumph.’ (Robinson 1969: 538: emphasis mine). A. W. Davis reported in the Census of India (1891), ‘In the front verandah are collected all the trophies of war and of the chase, from a man's skull down to a monkey's, most of them black with the smoke and dust of years’ (Davis 1969: 399: emphasis mine).8 It is interesting to note that Davis used the term ‘chase’ here, a term I have used earlier in the context of giving literal 6 According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), the term ‘trophy hunting’ is used to refer [animal] hunting that is … ‘usually (but not necessarily) undertaken by hunters from outside the local area (often from countries other than where the hunt occurs)’; see IUCN SSC Guiding principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives. Ver. 1.0. IUCN, Gland. P.2. (https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ssc_guiding_principles_on_trophy_hunting_ver1_09aug2012.p df: accessed on 24/04/2017). Synonymously, trophy hunters are also referred to as sport hunters or safari hunters in the contemporary time. Trophy hunting was practiced by kings and great hunters on the Indian soil since at least the medieval time, much before the advent of colonial raj. 7 The details of this event was recorded by Baron Hardinge, who was the then Governor-General of India (1910-1916), in the Historical record of the Imperial visit to India, 1911, (pp.231-233) and the same was published by John Murray for the Government of India in London, 1914. 8 In the same book, edited by Elwin, few others also freely used the term trophies to describe the heads/skulls preserved by the Nagas in their writing of the Nagas; they are, Lieutenant-Colonel R.