Comments on: CHAKMA TE HI TU TE NGE AN NIH?

By: Athana Chhangte

Athana Chhangte — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:41:56 +0000

1952 a Mizo District Council a lo pian khan Pu Medhia Chakma chu nominated member a lo ni vang tawh. 1948 District Advisory council inthlanaah pawh khan ram dang ni ni si khan vote an lo neih tir tawh a nh hmel. P&L Regional council ah pawh khan chakma pakhat tal an tling chho ve reng bawk.Kan hruaitu hmasa te khan chakma vote hi an lo it viau ni ngei tur a ni.

1972 a Chakma ADC/ ram pek hi Mizo Mipuite aiawhtu Mizo District Council leh P&L Regional council session in a pawmpui miah loh a ni.

He kan ram kan pi leh pute min rochun ram din nan hian Chakmate hian tha pakhat pawh an thawh lo. Mizorama Chakmate India sorkar-in India khua leh tui nihna pe mah se, keini Mizo hnam tan chuan foreigner an nihna a la bo chuangin ka hre lem lo.

Kan politician te hian thukhat vaw ngam se,Chakma vote hi it lo ngam se la. Ram leilung fate remtihna tel lova din Chakma ADC hi thiat turin Assembly ah tal hian pass teh se.

Report this comment

By: socialman

socialman — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:08:18 +0000

Kind attention Mr Chemtatrawta and Mr H Vangchhia to my response # 37.. I expect Mr Vangchhia who so passionately posted this article, and Mr Chemtatrawta who seems to be on a anti-Chakma mission on misual.com, to reply. I thank you in advance.

Report this comment

By: ramdevpachuau

ramdevpachuau — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:25:48 +0000

Tihian anmahni te hian inkawm khawmna atan lo hmang ve sela, a tha ve alawm

Report this comment

By: hltau

hltau — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:56:54 +0000

CDC soi takah chuan kan tet laiin PC, Pu Thena pawlten CDC thiahtur an buaipui a kawngte an zawh kha ka la hria, Party dang pahnih -in (hming chu soilo mai ang) deusawh zia kha !!! He issue hi chu a buaithlak i ngoi mai mai teh zawk ang u. Politics a kal sual tawh hi chuan 2050 ah pawh Mizoram hi chu ram changkang pawl chu kan ni a rin om lo.

Report this comment

By: Larma

Larma — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:43:18 +0000

Meanwhile ugly things are unfolding due to YMA’s illegal diktats against the minorities.
“NGOs, Political Parties and Evangelical Church of Maraland asked Central YMA to withdraw its decision to oppose delegation of more power to 3 Autonomous District Councils in south Mizoram and creation of Political Parties, Churches and Associations in the name of individual sub tribes. A resolution to this effect was passed in a joint meeting held today in M|P Office, Saiha. The resolution also described the decision taken by Central YMA as uncalled for which may undermind unity in diversity which exists among different Mizo tribes inhabiting territory of the State. The meeting was attended among others by leaders of M|P, MCHP, MSO, representatives of ECM, Congress, ZNP, MNF and MDF.” (Source: Zonet, 24 NOv 2012)

Report this comment

By: Larma

Larma — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:27:19 +0000

@ Mr. Socialman, I appreciate your point wise rebuttal.

Where is the Author of this post….? I am not surprised why he is in hiding after posting a pack of lies. I wonder what would be the future of Sane Mizo youths who are constantly being fed Lies by Taliban style writer like Mr. Lalthara.
Can somebody inform Mr. Lalthara to come and debate on Factual Ground.

Report this comment

By: socialman

socialman — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:08:02 +0000

Mr Lalthara’s article on Chakmas is not the “bible” and whatever he wrote on Chakmas are not “gospel truths”. By referring Chakmas as “Takam”, the Mizo IAS officer has shown his “class”. Certainly he wrote this article with “jaundiced eyes” towards the Chakma minorities of Mizoram. His targeted audience are the Mizos (so, he preferred writing about Chakmas in Mizo language), in particular the YMA and MZP. Not surprisingly, the purpose for which Lalthara wrote this article has been achieved: to target the Chakmas, by feeding untrue reports to the Mizo minds and sow hatred in their hearts.

I take this opportunity to demolish his charges.

First, by the term “Chakma”, Mr Lalthara has clubbed Chakmas of Mizoram and Chakmas of CHT (now in Bangladesh) together to prove that Chakma are foreigners or non-natives in Mizoram. Of course, all Chakmas in this world are not “natives of Mizoram”, and so is the case with the Mizos : all Mizos in this world are not “natives of Mizoram”.

Second, the IAS officer failed to highlight the transfer of Chakma inhabited Demagiri and neighbouring areas (which were part of Chakma kingdom) to South Lushai Hills in Assam in 1898. As the Chief Commissioner of Assam Mr W E Ward in his letter No. 149-P dated the 17th July 1897 written to the Government of India stated, “The station of Demagiri is not situated within the present area of the South Lushai Hills. It is topographically within the area of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. But, under Sir Charles Eliott’s [Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal] orders, passed in 1892, it was declared that, for administrative purposes, Demagiri should be considered to be part and parcel of the South Lushai Hills” (See, Sir Robert Reid, History of the Frontier Areas Bordering on Assam 1883-1941, p 40 ) This proposal of the Chief Commissioner of Assam was accepted by the Government of India on 27th January 1898 and finally, the South Lushai Hills together with Demagiri & neigbhouring areas was placed under the administration of Assam by a proclamation of the Government dated 1st April 1898. As a result, the Chakma raja of CHT “had to forego some of his land and subjects, who had been inhabiting beyond the river Thega Khal.” (SP Talukdar, “Chakmas – Life and Struggle”) The Chakmas became the natural citizens of the Lushai Hills, present day Mizoram.

Third, Mr Lalthara sought to give the impression that the Chakmas from CHT illegally entered into Mizoram and they were unwelcome. On the contrary, the Chakmas of CHT were imported by the Mizos and the Assam government as boatmen or forest-labour to help the Lushai hills/Assam government to generate revenue. As Mr P Chakraborty (Mizoram Judicial Service) who was Principal Secretary, Law and Judicial, Mizoram govt as of 01.06.2012 points out, “To prevent the flow of timbers from the Lushai Hills to Bengal through Karnaphuli, which had so long been resulting a 100% credit or revenue to Bengal in deprivation of the legitimate royalty to the Lushai Hills in Assam, Chakmas across the river used to be imported as boatmen and forest-labour, who later continued to settle in the Lushai Hills either along the river-side or on the low foot-hills in these areas.” (Read, “Chakma in Mizoram- A Great Leap in Transition”) Therefore, Chakmas were not unwelcome as portrayed, rather they boosted the Lushai hills’ economy even during the British era.

Fourth, the IAS officer stated that taxes were imposed on Chakmas as “non-natives”. But he failed to mention that the Govt of Assam had declared imposition of taxes or stump duty on Chakmas as illegal. As Mr P Chakraborty (Mizoram Judicial Service officer) writes, “….It has been mentioned in these Standing Orders that the Commissioner of Hill Division, Govt of Assam held that the payment of stamp duty by Chakmas and Tripuris was illegal under the provisions by the notification no. 1541-F9(a) dated 10.4.1930 as amended by the notification no. 2962-F(a) dated 29.7.1930 which had provided for payment of stamp-duty by non-natives of the district. All these suffice to indicate that the Chakmas particularly in the South Lushai Hills, were not unwelcome at all and were rather given certain status.” (See, Chakma in Mizoram- A Great Leap in Transition”)

Fifth, it is surprising that Lalthara being an IAS officer seems to be completely ignorant about India’s Partition of 1947 and consequences thereafter, affecting the whole of India, including Assam and Bengal provinces.

Finally, the population growth of Chakmas in Mizoram which he suggested are totally unreliable as pointed out by me elsewhere in misual.com ( I am ready to debate on this, separately).

Report this comment

By: Sangpuiipa

Sangpuiipa — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:46:03 +0000

Ka vaw hawt e.

Report this comment

By: Chemtatrawta

Chemtatrawta — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:32:24 +0000

Takam han tih mai hi awmzia pakhatmah Mizo tawngah hian a awm lova. Vai, sap, tuikuk, takam hi hmanlai atanga kan pipute’n an lo hman fo thin a ni a, a hman tlak em em a ni. Kumpinu tih pawh company lam dik loh vang ania, tihdik tir tumin rilru zau Sap ho chuan an bei lo, rilru zim Takam ho hian engnge maw an huat ve em em aw??

Report this comment

By: Larma

Larma — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:05:57 +0000

@Chemtatrawta, even after knowing the context and connotation of Racist reference of Chakmas as TAKAM you are still deliberate on your intentional usage. It would be futile to expect anything better from a Racist like you. I can only feel pity for you. After you have exhausted all your half baked information and tirade of abuses against the Chakmas it is natural for people like you to avoid debate and denigrate the Budhist Chakma Minority with 2 liners. Believe me, the more violence people like you unleash against the minorities the sooner you will become looser.

Report this comment