THE QUESTION OF INDIGENOUS POLITICAL IDENTITY & NOMENCLATURE ISSUES

    Mark Haokip
    By Mark Haokip

    THE QUESTION OF INDIGENOUS POLITICAL IDENTITY & NOMENCLATURE ISSUES

    Q. Pu Mark Haokip can you write a version of Zomi identity indigenous. Or what are your stands on Zomi identity?

    From Paul Xang Lun Langel

    Source: Zogam.Com Facebook Group
    ----------------------------------------------

    THE ANSWER: There can be no Zomi indigenous identity. It is only that our will has toured us to the area of our own choices for the search of satisfaction under compulsion.

    Before we go into the deep-seated point, I would like to explain the difference between "Political Identity and Nomenclature" so as to understand what is the exact status of gaining indigenous prestige in a world of difference.

    1. Nomenclature: it is the devising or choosing of names for things, especially in a science or other discipline. The body or system of names in a particular field. The term or terms applied to someone or something. It could be invented by any group or individual who thinks it is fit to be their clubbing name. Therefore, in similar to what you have asked, it is that Zomi is not yet fit to be a nomenclature, because it is under the nominating process. Until they achieve favorable geographical and political demarcation under the free political atmosphere. As a result, it is not a wise decision to make it blindly.

    2. Political Identity: Interest in the concept of identity has grown exponentially during the lastdecade or so within both the humanities and social sciences. Postmodern theoristsin the humanities have challenged traditional conceptions of identity by arguingthat the fixed subject of liberal humanistic thinking is an anachronism that should be replaced by a more flexible individual whose identity is fluid, contingent, andsocially constructed (Butler, 1990; Novotny 1998; Villancourt Rosenau, 1992;Young, 1997). Social scientists have also intensified their longstanding interest in the concept of identity in recent years (Jenkins 1996). Sociologists have ponderedand explored the tension between individual identity and the constraints of social structure (Giddens, 1991; Jenkins, 1996; Stryker 1980). Anthropologists haveexamined the cultural expression of identity, its meanings, and how it is maintainedat group boundaries (Barth, 1969; Cohen 1986). Social psychologists have focused on the multifaceted and situationally contingent nature of individual identity(Gergen, 1971; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Markus, 1977). They have alsoidentified social identity as a powerful ingredient in the development of ingroupbias and intergroup conflict (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &Wetherell, 1987).The discussion of identity has had less impact than might be expected, however, on the quantitative study of political behavior in general and on political psychology more specifically. Despite the recent emergence of identity politicsaround the world, researchers of political behavior have been slow to incorporatethe concept of identity into their empirical studies. This seems odd, given thatdemands for group respect and recognition are at the heart of new social movementsthat argue for the rights of women, religious minorities, diverse ethnic and racialgroups, and gays and lesbians (Taylor, 1994). Such movements cannot be explainedaway as a simple quest for material gain or tangible benefits, and they seem to callfor an explanation that incorporates the notion of identity (see also Monroe, Hankin,& Van Vechten, 2000).

    However, earning a political Identity isn't stand with forming the introduction of the new nomenclature. A political Identity which is globally accepted in the field of reclaiming sovereignty is basically dependent upon the expenses of blood and war against enemies to preserve and protection of one's ancestral land and dignity. Therefore, war philosophy has vastly represented the identifying process of a political Identity.

    For that reason, Political Identity title was identified and recognized based on the reality of how they preserve and protect their territory. In short, the people who had enjoyed Sovereignty and whose people shall be politically recognized as a nation and shall also be covered by the popular Linguistics Survey of India in area of British rules. Therefore, normal social formation of nomenclature cannot be simply termed as a Political Identity.

    As such is the difference, the under process nomenclature 'Zomi' cannot be term as indigenous identity within the demarcation of Political Identity. It cannot represent Kuki as a whole but represent itself as non-indigenous and alien people. It is actually a self-killing politics.

    In that event, Political Identity is, universally true that it is inseparable to the rights of political sovereignty, territory and linguistics identity; and that must be identified long before the Second World War by nations of the world. So, there's no escape route tally found in the area of the contemporary world of politics. In this manner, a political territory which had been delimited by linguistics demarcation under a political Identity cannot be represented by the newly fashioned nomenclature within its ambits. In such a manner, a political Identity is compulsorily the identity of the people living in the linguistically demarcated geographical landmark. And as such, the nomenclature 'Zomi' or 'Zo' are totally failed in the empirical context of international political disciplines.

    Thank you,

    By Mark Haokip
    Dated: June 6, 2019