Johnkhudo
In all societies that have come under the sway of colonialism in the past, the perception constructed by those colonized against the perceived colonizers in the post-colonialism is always tended to be negative. Any one who shows dedication to the former colonizers which fashioned “all that was good and living within us” is often ostracized by the larger mainstream intellectuals who saw itself in the vanguard of decolonization. Imbued by the ideals in abstract of the constructed ethnocentrisms, they attempt to discourse that the indigenous, unpolluted and virgin culture would have been more exotic had it not been deflowered by the curious and overzealous colonizers. They, however, unfortunately failed to see it through the picture of ‘mixed blessing’. This is wrong point of the commissar of culture in all former colonized societies.
In this light the “attempt to critique the discourse on the alleged’ culture of headhunting’ among the early Nagas” by one Tezeno Thong in his/her discourse on “Debunking the myth of headhunting” published in The Morung Express on 24th Oct. ’06 (Tuesday) edition on the column ‘People,Life,Etc.” is a piece of an interesting reading not in the light of erudite discourse but in his/her failure to throw light on what really surrounds on the alleged culture of headhunting. The writer fit into kind of vanguard of decolonization that is unwilling to countenance the fact that the British Raj in India and its impact on the Nagas as it is today was not an unbroken record of evil.
I find no disagreement in his/her attempt to “present plausible alternatives or counter-narratives on why our forefathers chose to establish their settlement on hilltops” as he/she puts it, for it is a free disposition of any writer although it may not go down well with other intellectuals. But what I disagree with the writer’s discourse is that while he/she attempts to deconstruct and belie colonial myths by constructing counter-narratives and reconstructing Nagas’ traditional narratives, as the writer puts it, to clear the wrong portrait projected by the colonizers, he/she tendentiously attempts to discourse that Nagas were not headhunters and that the portrayal of the Nagas as “fierce headhunters” was interjected by the colonizers. Here, I disagree; the writer has failed to admit that headhunting was once an institutionalized cultural form amongst Nagas which has social-religious sanction and importance attached in the actual act of head-taking for the head-getter in term of social position and prestige, and benefits believed to accrue from the preserved heads.
The writer is right and I agree with when he/she suggests that everything the colonizers or foreign writers portrayed about the Nagas relating to the alleged widespread and deeply entrenched practices of headhunting must not be taken in or imbibed as to be the truth portrayal of the practice. But what Tezenlo Thong could have done to do justice but unfortunately failed to do in his/her attempt to deconstruct the myth of headhunting is the inability to accept the fact that headhunting did really widely prevailed amongst Nagas and link his counter-narratives to this fact.
Again the writer’s attempt to “suggest and delineate some alternative reasons on why the Nagas chose to situate their settlement on hilltops” by de-linking from the alleged headhunting practices and instead basing it on geographical reason, climatic condition and cultural reason appears to be too shoal and deliberate rejection of the fact. While these may be part of reasons to his/her discourse but it could not be the whole reasons. More plausible reasons on why our forefathers prefer to select their settlement on hilltops were the given fact of constant warfare and avid headhunting.
There cannot be denial that there was widespread headhunting and constant feuds amongst villages of even same tribe. Until recently, for the Nagas, village was a basic social unit than the tribe or now what we call pan-Naga movement. Headhunting, the practice of removing and preserving heads which arises in some cultures from a belief in the existence of a more or less material soul matter on which all life depends, has been practiced worldwide. In Europe the practice survived until the early 20th century in the Balkan Peninsula. The complete head was taken by Montenegrins as late as 1912. In the British Isles the practice continued approximately to the end of the Middle Ages in Ireland and the Scottish marches.
The tribes of Southern Seas (Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan) abandoned headhunting only at the beginning of the 20th century. In parts of Micronesia, in Melanesia, the Aboriginal Australians, and in New Zealand headhunting was widely practiced until 19th century. In Afghanistan the Kfirtn (now Nurestan) practiced headhunting till the end of 19th century. In Myanmar and in Nigeria the practice of headhunting was not different. The Nagas are no exception as we have accounts from stories, folklore, folktales and evidence of artifacts (spears) captured or exchanged during peace pact to end hostility between feuding villages. Besides there are accounts of reconciliation feast between feuding villages, and even as lately as in our present generation there are reconciliations offer in Christian spirit by the former feuding villages for past wrong committed. Widespread headhunting prevailed among Nagas until pax Britannica sway its influence on the Naga Hills. In areas where there less affected by the British administration it continued unabated, and in areas where affected directly under British administration headhunting continued in a sublimated form.
The historical tag that Nagas were once Headhunters is nothing to be shelved away or construct counter-narrative that Nagas did not practice headhunting or allege that it was portrayal painted by the colonizers or foreign writers. While we do accept today that Headhunting practice is savage, aggressive, wild and primitive and that we are happy that the culture is now gone and no longer practiced, the fact that Nagas were once headhunters is a history that has be accepted.
In this perspective it is my attempt to throw light on that while the Naga intellectuals must today deconstruct the wrong portrayal painted by the foreign on alleged headhunting or on culture, tradition and custom of the Nagas they must retain the fact, not disown, and construct our own narratives to put the our past in a better perspective.
