Explanation About ZO - By :Jeffrey Pum Lian Pau

                                                    Explanation About ZO - By :Jeffrey Pum Lian Pau


I’d like to respond to Rev. Eddie Hang’s letter to you in regards to Chin-Zomi issue, to give you a better perspective. First of all, I have no shred of interest in the internal conflicts of the Baptist church. Having said that, however, I’m greatly disturbed to see the religious activities of the Baptist church in Chin State (Since Christianity arrived) gradually progressed to the use of religion as a means to achieve ethnology - political goals, both within and without the church. Second, I’d like to address some subtle false assumptions that underpin the whole thesis of Rev. Eddie Hang and of the so called “Zomi Movement” as a whole. For the sake of brevity, I’ll address only three, among others.

Linguistic false assumption

One of the major factors that caused confusion and division is semantic. For instance, what does “Zomi” mean? Who are included in “Zomi”? Is the written form “Zomi” grammatically correct to describe a particular people? Since its inception in 1953, the term “Zomi” has been used for religious and political ends.



It’s never been used to describe a particular ethnic group. When Rev. Hau Go formed Zomi Baptist Convention he never intended “Zomi” to mean an ethnic identity as many now falsely assumed. It would be enlightening to hear “from the horse’s mouth” as an adage goes. He said, ““The Tedim people call themselves ZO, the Lushais MIZO, In Hakha, ZOTUNG, ZOPHEI, ZOKHUA. In Gangaw area ZO is pronounced as YAW, in Mindat, JO or CHO, and in Paletwa KHOMI. In Prome, Thayetmyo, Sandoway, and Bassein areas they call themselves A-SHO.

So I am convinced that in spite of slight variations this ZO is our original historical national name” ( Sing Khaw Khai, “Zo People and their Culture” 1995, p.69). Considering the foregoing, it is obvious that Rev. Hau Go used the term “Zomi” to unite people for religious purpose, and not as endorsement or validation of ethnic identity. To him, “ Zo” was our true ethnic identity.

Besides its political nature, the term is also a linguistic oxymoron. For instance, in Zo and Tedim languages “mi” means, a person or a people ( It can be used for both singular and collective noun).
You don’t say,
a Karen, “Karenmi” (Karenperson/people), 
a Kachin “Kachinmi (Kachinperson/people),
a Zo “Zomi (Zomiperson/people), etc.
You simply say,
a Karen “Karen”,  
a Kachin “Kachin”,  
a Zo “Zo”, and so on. 
Zomi means “Zo people” or  “Zo person/individual.”  To say  “Zomi people” is disingenuous – bordering on linguistic idiocy. 

It is a linguistic misnomer. Even Rev. Eddie Hang did not say “Zomi people.”
The term “Zo” is unique in the sense that it is an inclusive term. It can mean different things and can be used in a variety of word forms. For instance, it can be used as a singular ethnic identity (e.g. I’m a Zo). It can also be used as a plural noun (e.g. “We are Zo or we are Zo people). Further, it can be used as an adjective (e.g. “Zo inn, Zo puan, Zo vok, Zo thau, Zo ngeina, Zo mi, etc.).


The term “Zomi” is a compound word of “Zo” (ethnic/national identity) and “mi” (person or people). Each on its own is a noun. But when used concurrently, one (“mi”) is a noun, and the other (“Zo”) becomes the adjective (the modifier of “mi” or people). Anyone with basic grammar understands that you never combine the noun and adjective together. And therefore, the written form of “Zomi” is grammatically incorrect. It should be written as “Zo mi” for the grammatical reason I’ve just mentioned. Many of the political and ethnic misunderstanding among the people living in Tedim and Tonzang townships stemmed from this incorrect used, especially in the written form ( no difference verbally), of the term.

In short, those who are using the term incorrectly, whether through intentional ulterior motive or downright ignorance, are the ones causing misunderstanding and disunity.
I think Rev. Hau Go committed a linguistic/grammatical cardinal sin of epic proportion. And today, we are paying a steep price in terms of unity both social and political. Had he used the correct linguistic morphology, I bet our situation in terms of unity would be much better than today. Even though I think Rev. Hau Go erred (his use of “Zomi” for religious ends has now been misconstrued as endorsement of an ethnic identity), I cannot blame him entirely for the sole reason that there has not been a standardized prescriptive grammar in Zo (and Tedim) language until today (Note: Philip Thang Lian Mang’s doctoral dissertation entitled “ A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo Language” Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 2013, has not been widely circulated).

Legal false assumption

Apart from a linguistic/grammatical misnomer, the term “Zomi” has not come out of its legal fiction. In the last 100 years, there have been four Censuses (1931, 1973, 1983, 2014) and in any of these, the ethnic “Zomi” is legally nonexistent. There is only the ethnic Zo which has been recognized by the British colonial government as well as successive Burmese governments up to now. But that apparently did not deter some people to manufacture a new ethnic identity (Zomi) for personal and political gains. It’s unlikely they will succeed. But anyone is free to live in his or her own utopia.

Political false assumption

Rev. Eddie Hang alluded to a politic-free era when our forefathers were able to work together. It’s naive to surmise the notion that there ever was an epoch in Chin land history where politic was absence. In reality, however, the genesis and the very designation of “Zomi Baptist Convention” did not escape an aura of politics and linguistic jujitsu.
Further, there is assumption that the interest of people living in Tedim and Tonzang townships will be served best by unification in the recently manufactured ethnic name “Zomi.” The assertion that “we are Zomi(s) simply because we the people concerned call ourselves Zomi(s),” is disingenuous. In fact, it has no historical root. Our ancestors called themselves “Zo”, not “Zomi” which is superfluous as demonstrated above.

Interestingly, “Zomi” has now become a political entity in spite of its lack of historical and legal justification. The political leadership in this respect is indeed laudable. But what they have in passionate commitment, they lack in foresight. Their motive to unite all the people under the newly invented ethnic name “Zomi,” whose languages do not need to translate to be understood among each other, is admirable. However, there seems to be a lack of appreciation for the potential ramification if and when “Zomi” obtains legal recognition. Some people seem to think legal recognition of “Zomi” is going to be the elixir for the political maladies facing our people today. I’m afraid the result will be exactly the opposite. If and when “Zomi” obtains legal recognition it will automatically become a separate and different ethnic group with Zo people (Zo mi ).

By then the gap would have become too great to bridge and almost irreconcilable.
So, what’s the solution? I think the solution is for us to go back to our original-historical name – Zo. We are all Zo people (Zo mi, not Zomi). Zo is an inclusive name. Even though the ethnic Zo people now still maintain and perpetuate our progenitor’s name, the name “Zo” is not exclusively theirs. It belongs to all of us. Unity is achievable if we are true to our historical root. Historical revisionism and willful or downright ignorance of history will not serve anyone’s interest.

In sum, the written form “Zomi” is incorrect. It’s a misnomer. It should be written as
“Zo mi” (Zo people). If we just use “Zo mi” (Zo people) many of the problems would just disappear. The usage of the incorrect written form stemmed from the lack of standardized prescriptive grammar in Zo language and the result of linguistic/grammatical shortcoming of
Rev. Hau Go who first incorrectly used “Zomi” in written form for religious and political purposes.

“Zomi” is not a legal entity. And since its inception the term has never been free of both religious and political overtone. It has never been a term for ethnic/national identity.
Regardless of our religious and political predisposition, I believe we are all brothers and sisters under the common denominator – Zo. Thus, a Zo la (Zo song) recorded our homogeneity this way:


(a) Ei teng khawl khawm a tuam om lo
Van nuai ci peuh khul aa piang
Tun sung khat pan piang hi ngeingei ee.

(b) Tun sung khat pan piang hi ngeingei ee
Suah pih sanggam, laigui zom te hi ngeingei ee...

Translation:

(a) We are all together and no one is a stranger
Everyone under the sky is born in a cave
And of one mother indeed.

(b) Indeed, we are born of one mother
And we all are brothers and sisters (siblings).



Written by- Jeffrey Pau (New Zealand)