Introduction

Tribal communities at the intersection of international Borderlands are straddled between nation-states, and the harsh realities of the border subjects them to difficult concrete conditions. An ontological crisis arising out of culturo-historical identity, belongingness to a geopolitical landscape, and state bounded citizenship manifest in challenging doxalogical asymmetries. However, this does not imply that they are people without a unique history nor one devoid of socio-cultural traditions. The concept of borders and territoriality delineated by nation-states starkly contrasts doxalogical experience, origin narratives, shared cosmologies, and communal histories of Borderland Tribes cutting across States-Nation. During my constant engagement with Tribal communities inhabiting the Borderlands, I struggled to comprehend viewpoints grounded on their perspective, and to submerged myself in the knowledge enterprise. My own positionality and epistemic privilege compounded the complexity of this endeavor as a fellow Tribal researcher operating within the domain of critical axiology. As I embarked on my quest for knowledge, I found myself confronted with a plethora of unanswered questions that extended much beyond the bounds of my sociological imagination. These questions included several considerations such as:

1. How can I conscientiously bridge the gap between the diverse realities experienced by the borderland tribes?
2. What methodological approaches can be employed to resonate with the cultural ethos of these tribes and uncover the underlying structures of their diverse ontologies?
3. What unique methodologies and frameworks do these tribes employ throughout their lifeworld to imbue value and meaning into their existence?
4. How can I respectfully engage with distinct beings while fostering a dialogical space conducive to mutual co-existence?

To address these complexities, I positioned myself as an empiricist engaged in empirical observation informed by ‘engaged observation’ (Bodhi and Jojo, 2019). My primary objective was to analyze the tensions caused by border delineations, understand the lived experience of living along an imagined boundary, and determine the meaning of the border in the context of people’s everyday lives.

This short article reflects my experiential and research-oriented journey with the Tribes inhabiting the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar borderland. It is not intended to present a generalized portrayal of borderland Tribes across diverse communities. Rather I have tried to critically examine the methodological complexities inherent in engaging with frontier Tribes, which, within the post-colonial context, have become identified as Border Tribes. In this endeavor, I deliberately steer my research approach in alignment with what Bodhi (2022) conceptualized as a “diversity – coexistence” framework instead of adopting a “universal-particular” frame of reference. The present framework, informed by the perspective and gaze of tribes within non-caste societies, provides a platform for theorizing from within, drawing upon tribal epistemologies deeply embedded within their contextual realities. Tripura (2023) ably pointed out that ‘any serious researcher involved with Tribes must first decolonize their mind in order to reject the universal-particular frame of reference and to adopt a context-specific frame of reference, and concurrently de-caste themselves within in order to look without, putting themselves on the path to decolonizing ethnography practices’ (:12). As such, it becomes imperative to view border tribes from the perspective of epistemological freedom.

Reflection on Tribal Epistemology(ies)

As a researcher exploring the complex fabric of life in borderlands, defined by its entanglement within the multifaceted realities of nation-states, my initial endeavor was to adopt research methodologies, tools, and techniques that resonated with the cultural ethos of the context – that of the border tribes. This approach could be framed within the purview of tribal epistemologies, encompassing their ways of knowing, sensing, tasting, and co-producing knowledge or what Bodhi (2022) called a “dialogical knowledge”. For Bodhi (2022:50‒51), ‘this knowledge is an act of engaging, conversation and reciprocity rather than defining, construction and controlling (…). This inter-epistemic dialogue speaks simultaneously to its own context and also to other dynamic context in a rational, dignified and self-respective manner.’ Xaxa (1999), in his seminal paper, posited that there remained a need to study tribal societies in their own right and to reverse the frame of reference i.e., from colonial and caste centric to tribal gaze or perspective from within. Echoing these methodological perspectives, the present research followed multiple methods of interactions with people living in the borderland. This includes what Tripura (2023) called ‘sitting around the fire’, ontological walk around the village, informal conversation and sharing narratives, conversation over delicious smoked-meat dinners and black tea, listening to the narratives of village elders among others.

Upon reaching the border village, the absence of any discernible demarcation signifying the international border dividing India and Myanmar prompted a perplexing question: Where does the border lie? Accompanied by the village chairman and several elders, I was guided through the village. They described the important sites and explained how the village is situated between two nation-states, India and Myanmar. As we approached the Indian Army outpost, located approximately 2 km from the main village, one of the elders gestured towards a solitary concrete pole positioned amidst the village grounds. This unassuming marker delineated the boundaries of two countries in opposing directions, serving as a tangible manifestation of the partition. Consequently, the imaginary international boundary line traverses the heart of Pangsha village. Adjacent to the inconspicuous concrete pole stands the outpost of the Assam Rifles, the paramilitary force responsible for safeguarding the Indo-Myanmar border. Most notably, there are no border police from Myanmar at all, and the only things remaining are crumbling buildings that are supposedly international commercial hubs but don’t actually have any active trade. This ontological walk around the village helped me familiarize with the morphology of the village structure.

I could identify the spots where my fellow tribal members felt most at ease to engage in conversations, typically near the fireplace in the kitchen. Among the Naga tribes residing in villages, the kitchen fireplace serves as the customary spot for interacting with peers, neighbors, and guests or hosting small gatherings. Therefore, most of my discussions with individuals from border areas occurred while seated around the kitchen fire. This method, dubbed the “sitting around the fire” approach by Tripura (2023), entailed participants gathering around the fire for conversation. My engagements with the village chairman, elders, youth, and women unfolded around the warmth of the fire. The process facilitated my understanding of collective memory, as multiple individuals shared their narratives while warming themselves. For example, if one member faltered in recalling the sequence of events, another would step in to provide clarity. Such interactions often extended until mealtime. There is an age-old tradition among the Naga tribes wherein village elders impart folktales, songs, stories of their origin, and other cultural narratives to teenagers gathered around the fire. This practice ensures the transfer of tribal knowledge from generation to generation, thereby preserving these narratives intact. The same tradition resonated during my discussion in the border region, where the village elders graciously gave me permission to tell their tales to other tribes around the world.

Subjective Experience of Engaged Observation at the Border

The ontological framework underpinning my research primarily examines the fundamental infrastructure elements (such as roads, electricity, telecommunication, and housing) and the quotidian experiences of individuals residing in border regions. My initial impetus for delving into border areas stemmed from personal observations of goods from China and Southeast Asia, readily available in local village shops and retailers. These goods are commonly referred to in local parlance as “Moreh products”. However, my academic pursuit was propelled by a genuine curiosity to comprehend my own reality vis-à-vis the experiences of other Naga tribes who dwell in border areas. These Naga tribes consist of Tangkhul, Konyak, Khiamniungan, Yimkhiungs (Yimchunger), Moyon, Makuri, Lainong, and others. The scope of this research was confined to the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar borders situated within the states of Manipur and Nagaland (in India), as well as the Sagaing Region of Myanmar, which falls within the purview of the Naga Self-Administered Zone. It is interesting to note that Indo-Myanmar border spans approximately 1643 km and it is predominately inhabited by tribes (Nagas, Kukis, Chins, Mizos, among others). Unlike the heavily fortified borders between India and Pakistan or India and China, the Indo-Myanmar border remains largely unfenced. This porous and abstract boundary traverses numerous tribal villages, residential dwellings, agricultural lands (including paddy fields and shifting cultivation areas), grazing pastures, and community forests.

Prior to commencing my fieldwork in these border regions, I received counsel from peers, colleagues, well-wishers, and even Indian army officers. The prevailing sentiment was one of skepticism regarding the rationale behind conducting fieldwork in border areas characterized by various factors such as perpetual unrest, insurgency, multifaceted conflicts, challenging terrain, inadequate infrastructure, geographic isolation, and other challenges. However, these factors intensified my resolve to delve into the reality of border inhabitants. Since my upbringing and the experiences of border communities were comparable, I felt emotionally ready to face these truths. Despite not belonging to the tribes inhabiting the border region, I share the same ethnic identity as the Nagas.

The village of Longwa, situated in the Mon district of Nagaland, is often touted as the “last Indian village” and serves as a notable illustration of the border intricacies. Accessible by road, Longwa is a popular tourist destination renowned for the residence of the village chief (Angh). Notably, the imaginary international boundary pierced through the residence of Angh, creates a unique situation where Angh and his family dine in Myanmar but sleep in India. The traditional Konyak architecture of the Angh’s house underwent renovation, funded by the Member of Parliament Local Areas Development (MPLAD) initiative, resulting in a concrete structure with a tin roof adorned with traditional Konyak art and design. The inauguration of this revamped house by the governor of Nagaland in 2016 marked a significant development in the village’s landscape (Ziipao 2020). There is a symbolic representation of dual sovereignty within the Angh’s residence that draws tourist attention: the presence of two national flags painted – one representing India and the other Myanmar – adorning the entrance. This emblematic portrayal underscores the coexistence of two distinct nation-states within the confines of a single dwelling. Moreover, the provision of basic infrastructure and the proliferation of homestays and guest houses supported by state initiatives underscore Longwa’s positioning as a burgeoning tourist destination. This is indicative of an assertion of symbolic sovereign power.

The less conspicuous border villages located within the Mon, Tuensang, Noklak, and Kiphire districts of Nagaland and the Sagaing Region of Myanmar also find themselves positioned along the borders of two distinct nation-states. For instance, Pangsha village, nestled amidst the international boundary, presents a logistical challenge as it remains inaccessible by jeep from the district headquarters. It is therefore necessary to use motorcycles to get to these border settlements. In a personal endeavor to elucidate this reality, I embarked on a motorcycle journey from Kohima to Pangsha village, spanning approximately 289 kilometers and requiring approximately 13 hours to reach the destination. Upon arriving at Pangsha in the evening, I struck up a conversation with the village chairman to express my curiosity about the lives of those who live along borders. I made it clear that I did not speak for any organisation or government agency. In hindsight, the village chairman expressed his apprehension, citing different instances where researchers and visitors had made promises that were never fulfilled, leaving him bewildered about the utility of their conversations and interviews. My intent in engaging with these communities was not to objectify, categorize, or classify them as my subjects of study but rather to foster a dialogical exchange to explore diverse realities. As such, I made a conscious effort to fully integrate myself into the environment when interacting with other tribe members from border regions. This approach facilitated a deeper understanding of the experiences of villagers residing in borderland communities, allowing for the alignment of their epistemologies with the research process. To put it simply, this meant giving people’s opinions more weight and highlighting viewpoints from the community, representing a research ethos that honors and takes into account their actual experiences.

 Community as a Border: Insights from the Study Area

Among the Naga tribes, each village has its distinct sense of boundary and territoriality. Commonly used boundary markers include rivers, grazing lands, mountain ranges, valleys, or erected monoliths, symbolizing the extent of each village’s territory. This practice is followed by the tribal groups. For example, the Ao, Angami, Lotha, Konyak, Khiamniungan, Poumai, and other tribes maintain a clear sense of boundary for their respective communities, despite existing within and across different nation-states in the contemporary geopolitical landscape. Historically, the Treaty of Yandaboo, signed in 1826 between the King of Ava and British East India Company was the first to arbitrarily demarcate the present Myanmar and Northeast India. Henceforth, during the colonial era, many Naga villages were either ruled by British India or Burma administration partially and some other Naga villages were categorized as excluded areas. This divide and rule gave birth to the politics of territoriality and arbitrary practice of colonial cartography as part of their imagination. Nevertheless, the social relationships and routines of the Naga tribes continued as usual, therefore there were no serious consequences on their territoriality.

Following the independence, India and Myanmar inherited the colonial legacy of arbitrary and imaginary boundary lines. There have been numerous attempts to negotiate the international boundary between the two countries, most notably in 1953 between the Prime Ministers of India and Myanmar. However, it was unsuccessful. It was not until the military regime of Myanmar that a boundary agreement was eventually signed with India on 10th March 1967. This agreement did not involve fencing, but it specified erecting a few symbolic pillars marking the border. The implications of this agreement are significant, as the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar boundary line cuts through the heart of many villages, leading to an escalation in (in)securitization of people (Ziipao, 2020). The mobility, social interactions, and day-to-day activities of people residing in borderland areas were significantly impacted by this circumstance, which resulted in multiple conflicts and the disintegration of conventional land and boundary systems. However, the draconian measure adopted by the Government of Myanmar in 2016 i.e., construction of barbed wire fencing along the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar border, led to intense protest from people, civil societies, insurgents and the Government of Nagaland. The construction of border fencing was put on moratorium post the series of protests and negotiation with the states. In a strong op-ed piece, Putchong Thai (2017) from Pangsha village writes,

The imaginary line that divides the Khiamniungan (Naga) as Indo-Myanmar Khiamniungan son’s and daughter’s was enough (…) Those mountains, my forefather’s named it as ‘Dan Kheng’ and I want to let the Govt. of India and Myanmar know that, Dan Kheng is not the limit of my forefather’s land. The people of Khiamniungan (Naga) still have more than 3500 acres of land besides DK, we don’t need visa to go to our own field; we will stand up for our land, for our right, for our will, and we won’t keep silent.[1]

Similar sentiment and strong assertion were also observed during my fieldwork in 2019. In the words of the village chairman of Pangsha, ‘We have been living here for generations without any border demarcation. With border fencing in place, how will our tribesmen commute and continue our shared space for grazing, collecting firewood, jhum fields, and most importantly our strong kith and kin relations across the borderland?’ (Ziipao, 2020:13). It is pertinent to note that for the tribes, land is the central component of their ontological framework. Bodhi and Ziipao (2019), for example, noted that land, from the tribal worldview, is dynamic, pulsating, processual, a living epistemological entity that defines, produces and reproduces an identity, a tribe, a language, a culture and a tribal ontology. When any agency or nation-state distorts or manipulates land in the form of boundary demarcation and territorialization, it can lead to ontocide.

People who live near borders view nation-state borders as an abstract concept that is frequently seen as the result of state imagination. On the ground, borders are imagined in relation to the respective communities, villages, and tribes, delineated according to customary practices and ancestral traditions. This demarcation of boundaries does not necessarily lead to land fragmentation or the division of tribes or villages; instead, it upholds communal principles deeply embedded within the framework of fraternity and synchronizing with the natural environment. Therefore, it appears to be difficult to conceptualize borders exclusively via the prism of the state’s imagination or within the framework of the nation-state, particularly concerning domains such as livelihoods, social relations, and traditional practices. Primarily, the subsistence patterns of tribal communities are deeply rooted in agricultural practices and related activities. Firstly, their territories, encompassing paddy fields, shifting cultivation lands (jhum), grazing lands, forests, mountains, hunting grounds, drinking water sources, rivers, and other resources, often extend far beyond the geographical boundaries of their village settlements. Secondly, people in such tribal villages traverse borders freely, maintaining kinship relations, sharing resources, and preserving their stories of origin. The third aspect concerns traditional institutions and customary laws. For example, the Angh (chief) of Longwa village hold ritual authority over clusters of villages across the border. However, movement, social connections, festivals, ritual observance, and religious affairs were severely constrained due to the installation of international boundary lines and growing securitization, causing major disruptions in day-to-day living.

Conclusion

In hindsight, my research experience regarding borders aligns with many context-based practices advocated by other tribal intellectuals (Xaxa, 1999; Bodhi, 2019; Akhup, 2024; Tripura, 2023). This entails that the self (researcher) in the research is part and parcel of the context. Each context has its own approach and epistemology (Bodhi, 2019). My deliberate endeavor was to explore ontologies rather than approaching the study with preconceived notions about borderland tribes. Within this framework, a space for contextualization emerges, wherein the researcher becomes immersed in the context’s epistemology, generating its modes of engagement, experiences, interpretations, and meaning-making processes. This was imperative since I was trying to take in perspective from within. It is interesting to highlight that endemic social realities cannot be unraveled using data quantification in the study of borders and borderland communities. In contrast, it is only through contextualization that one can present the persistent issue and complex social reality of border fencing initiated by the nation-states creating many conflicts. From the domain of lived experience of people living in the border, there is actually no border and the border as imagined by the states is an idea. Since the states implemented securitization and international border fencing, events have happened and are still happening. This engenders significant discord and fractures community cohesion, territoriality, belongingness, and identity.

 

Acknowledgment

I thank the Tribal Intellectual Collective India for providing academic leadership, and I sincerely appreciate the enriching discussions with bodhi s.r. which significantly contributed to the refinement of this paper.

End Notes

[1] Retrieved from https://easternmirrornagaland.com/pangsha-villagers-and-the-indo-myanmar-border-fencing/  (accessed on 14 February 2024).

References

• Bodhi S R. (2020). Epistemology of the Peripheralized: A Decolonial-Historical Approach. Nagpur: New Vehicle Production.
• Bodhi, S R. (2022a). The Decolonial-Historical Approach in Social Sciences Research: Its Methodological Contours’. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective. India 6: 1–12.
• Bodhi, SR and Jojo, B. (2019). The Problematics of Tribal Integration: Voices From India’s Alternative Center. Hyderabad: The Shared Mirror Publishing House.
• Bodhi, SR and Ziipao, RR. (2019). Land, Words and Resilient Cultures: The Ontological Basis of Tribal Identity. Tribal Intellectual Collective India.
• Akhup, A. (2022). Social work research through tribal/adivasi people’s lens: observations from academic engagement.  Social. Work Education Practice. 7: 30–44.
• Tripura, B. (2023). ‘Decolonizing Ethnography and Tribes in India: Toward an Alternative Methodology’. Front. Polit. Sci. 5: 1-15. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1047276
• Xaxa, V. (1999). ‘Transformation of Tribes in India: Terms of Discourse’. Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (24): 1519-1524.
• Ziipao, RR. (2020). ‘Frontier Tribes and Nation States: Infrastructural Intersection at the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar Borderland’. Asian Ethnicity. 23 (3): 587-607.

Have you like this article?