Indigenous Spirituality: A Decolonial Perspective from the Tangkhul Nagas

Abstract

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, colonials introduced and imposed Christianity among the Tangkhul Nagas, resulting in a dualistic understanding of God and the God worlds. The colonial interpretation of spirituality often diverges from Indigenous spiritual practices. Considering this, I argue for decolonising Christian spirituality, in which attempts will be made to revisit colonial Christian spirituality and their perceptions of the traditional beliefs and practices of Tangkhul Nagas. This proposal for decolonising Christian spirituality seeks to reconstruct an interconnected view of Christian spirituality that brings together the divine, human, and natural worlds. To achieve this, the term “decolonise” or “decolonisation” is used as a methodology to emphasise the necessity of engaging in theological and historical analysis of precolonial Tangkhul Naga traditional beliefs and practises using oral traditions, such as folksong, folklore, and lived experiences, as opposed to relying solely on colonial sources, such as reports, letters, and findings.

Keywords

Indigenous spirituality decolonisation Christian spirituality Tangkhul Nagas

Introduction

This paper begins with the premise that colonialism has shaped the contemporary understanding of Christian spirituality and practises among Indigenous communities in Northeast India (NEI). They not only disregarded Āmeoyan, the Indigenous/traditional religion of the Tangkhul Nagas, but also discredited them using derogatory words and prohibition of its practises. The colonisers, such as American Baptist missionaries and British administrators and/or ethnographers, projected their faith as the “light” and their role as the “bringers of light” or “torch bearers,” perceiving themselves as bringing light to a group of people who were in the “dark” or who lived in “darkness.”¹ The immediate and long-term impact of such a civilising mission was the rejection of Āmeoyan and practices associated with it. This was done by imposing a colonial interpretation of Christianity that was culturally and denominationally biased, where there were intentional efforts to dichotomise the secular from the sacred worlds.

This reality, I argue, necessitates decolonisation of Christian spirituality by reconsidering and re-evaluating the colonial imposition of their religion and their perception of the Tangkhul-traditional religion.² It aims to achieve a dual decolonial task. First, it makes an effort to deconstruct the colonial constructs and misconceptions that undermined Āmeoyan and characterised Tangkhul Naga spirituality as “heathen” or “superstitious” practices. Second, and integrally connected, it argues for the decolonisation of Tangkhul-Christian spirituality through the reclamation of pre-colonial cosmological insights. The intent is not to revert to pre-Christian beliefs, but to critically reclaim them in a manner that questions the sacred-secular dichotomy created by colonial initiatives and encourages an integrated spirituality—one that, similar to Āmeoyan, recognises the interrelation of the divine, human, and natural realms, while remaining within a Christ-centred paradigm.³

In terms of methodology, the term “decolonise” or “decolonisation” is used as a methodology to emphasise the necessity of engaging in theological and historical analysis of pre-colonial Tangkhul beliefs and practises using oral traditions, such as folksongs (hao lāā), folklore (hao khararchan), and lived experience (interview), as opposed to relying solely on colonial sources, such as reports, letters, and findings. Within the Tangkhul Nagas, it expands upon previous efforts, such as those by M. Horam and Jonathan Thumra, aimed at inspiring decolonial thought and delinking colonial values from Indigenous knowledge. Indigenous communities grew increasingly concerned about the exclusion of their traditions from Christian worship, raising questions about the evident disconnect between Christianity and non-Western expressions. In the field of politics, rather than acknowledging and emphasising the colonial framework, Horam attempted to reclaim Indigenous knowledge found in their oral traditions by examining the structure of family, village, and customary laws.⁴ More specifically, Thumra made an intentional effort to distance itself from colonial epistemic frameworks in the field of religion.⁵ His goal was to revive and regain genuine Indigenous Christian expressions by revisiting and revitalising Indigenous religion and/or spirituality which were once dismissed by the colonials.

The current research seeks to revisit and recover Indigenous knowledge, building upon these previous works. This would entail suspicion towards colonial archives (missionary reports, ethnographies) that systematically undermined Indigenous epistemologies, while advocating for the reclamation of Indigenous knowledge by prioritising Tangkhul oral traditions—folksongs, folktales, and lived experiences—as primary, authoritative sources for understanding pre-colonial cosmology. The effort to revisit Tangkhul traditional sources has the potential to delink⁶ or facilitate the liberation of the Tangkhul Nagas from colonial captivity (i.e., Christian spirituality as presented by colonials) and to leverage oral traditions.

Western Missionary Efforts and the Birth of Tangkhul-Christian Spirituality

This section examines the deep influence of colonials, particularly through the figure of William Pettigrew, who was the first Western missionary to work with the Indigenous communities of Manipur, on the emergence of Tangkhul-Christian spirituality. The introduction and imposition of colonial Christianity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were accompanied by colonial ideologies aimed at civilising and converting the Tangkhul Nagas. Pettigrew's missionary effort implemented a six-part mission strategy of the Arthington Aborigines Mission, which often involved the devaluation of Indigenous beliefs and practices, or even their way of life. The Christian spirituality that emerged from these efforts became largely institutionalised and text-orientated, creating a clear distinction between the developing colonial Christian practices and the traditional Tangkhul way of life.

The Arrival of Christianity among the Tangkhul Nagas

Colonial expansion and the emergence of Christianity occurred simultaneously among the Tangkhul Nagas.⁷ The colonials came with the belief that their way of life or culture was advanced and civilised, while they viewed the Indigenous way of life as backward and uncivilised.⁸ The colonial societies, or their way of life, were used as a benchmark to measure the progress of the “other”, or Indigenous communities and their cultures, which are often depicted in their writings as backward or uncivilised.⁹ This colonial projection created a negative image of the colonised world. Along with this ideology, Western missionaries came with a strong sense of urgency to spread colonial Christianity to those who had not yet heard it, as commanded in Matthew 28:16–20.¹⁰ These individuals or groups in question view their role as bringer of light or torchbearer. They view themselves as messengers who have travelled from a distant world, sacrificing the comforts of their purportedly civilised homeland.

In the Tangkhul Naga context, Pettigrew saw himself as a harbinger of light.¹¹ This Christianity is inextricably linked to the proselytising efforts in Ukhrul, the home of the Tangkhul Nagas, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He was born on the 5^th of January in 1869 in Edinburgh, Scotland. It is said that he grew up in a God-fearing Anglican household with three other siblings, where attending weekly Bible camps was encouraged.¹² In one of these Bible camps, he learnt about Adoniram Judson, one of the first Protestant missionaries to Burma, whose life story inspired Pettigrew to become a missionary.¹³ Here, it is worth noting that Judson's approach to missionary work was characterised by a dual framework, in which he regarded missionary work as a vocation requiring full-time commitment and pursued his missionary efforts with the intention of serving as a denominational missionary.¹⁴ When Pettigrew served as a missionary, he adopted a similar perspective of missionary work. Upon completing his studies at Livingstone College, he continued his education in missionary work at the Arthington Aborigines Training School.¹⁵ The Arthington Aborigines Mission (AAM), established and financed by Robert Arthington, had oversight for the organisation and execution of this programme.¹⁶

The Arthington Aborigines Mission Strategy and Its Influence

In this section, I argue that Pettigrew's approach to missionary work was shaped by his AAM training, which eventually shaped Tangkhul-Christian spirituality. A careful examination of his mission work suggests that he employed a missionary strategy that closely resembled the strategy of AAM. With that note, I suggest that we examine AAM's mission approach to better understand this development and how it affected the understanding of Tangkhul-Christian spirituality.

According to Lal Dena, the Arthington's missionary strategy included six components. First, they used a global survey to identify “unreached areas.” These are regions where the message of the Christian gospel has not yet been disseminated. Second, they shortly begin initiatives to distribute the Bible in areas identified as inaccessible or unreached, focusing specifically on the books of John and Luke-Acts in the language of the target community. The goal was for the people to hear the Word of God in their own language or dialect. Third, efforts were made to teach ten or twelve people how to read the Bible. Prior to sharing the gospel with the greater community, they intended to effectively train a small number of people. Fourth, an Indigenous community was encouraged to evangelise another. New Christians were expected to spread the gospel throughout their communities. Fifth, all Indigenous communities and other communities were encouraged to reach out to nonbelievers (“heathen”). Upon the conversion of a group of people, their community was introduced to the Christian gospel, and they would encourage them to engage in the evangelisation of another Indigenous community or village. Finally, these Indigenous communities were to be visited or discipled until the establishment of a church among them.¹⁷ This may mean organising follow-up meetings and an annual gathering where mission work and progress reports are read aloud in a community gathering.

Missionary Work and the Emergence of Tangkhul-Christian Spirituality

This missionary approach employed by Pettigrew exemplifies how the various elements of AAM's mission strategy were adopted and implemented among the Tangkhul Nagas. Prior to commencing his missionary work in these purportedly unreached areas, he first surveyed the Tangkhul-inhabited lands. Pettigrew, in one of his letters, writes:

Friends will be glad to hear that the Government have given me permission to remain in the country, on condition that our Missionary enterprise is confined to the [Tangkhul] Hill Country, lying N.E. of the valley of Manipur. I am leaving today (Jan. 7th), on a visit to that country, to see what prospect there is of opening up work there.¹⁸

He began his missionary work in Ukhrul, one of the claimed “unreached areas” of the Western missionaries, in 1896, after conducting a survey and recognising the potential for mission work.¹⁹ This is the implementation of the first component of AAM's mission strategy. He began by starting a school. In his early reports, Pettigrew characterised their beliefs as “uncivilized,” “demon worshippers,” and “superstitious.”²⁰ As a result, the primary goal of introducing Western education was to civilise them by providing literacy skills that would allow them to understand and use biblical texts. After sharing the gospel with the students, he hoped that they would abandon Āmeoyan, adopt colonial Christianity, and spread it to other villages/communities. However, as he could only speak Manipuri, he struggled to communicate with them in the Tangkhul language. Pettigrew states, “We feel it, therefore, important to learn their…language, and this has been part of the daily routine. By the end of the rains, it is hoped there will be sufficient known to enable us to go and preach the gospel to the villages around.”²¹ As a result, he first initiated the translation of the Gospel of John into the Manipuri language, which was published in 1896.²² This undertaking was facilitated by his pre-existing knowledge of the language. In the following years, he also translated the Gospel of Luke (1898) and the Acts of the Apostles (1901) into Manipuri.²³ Similarly, after years of learning Tangkhul, he translated and published the following three books: John in 1904²⁴ and Luke and Acts in 1905.²⁵ The implementation of the second phase of AAM's mission strategy is now underway.

As opposed to the beliefs of Āmeoyan, Pettigrew introduced them to a colonial missionary conception of God who forgives sin and promises new life even after death.²⁶ Tangkhul Nagas were drawn to this aspect of the Christian faith, as well as some aspects of discontent with their traditional religion. Despite claims of the existence of a divinity who embodies both transcendence and immanence, Sashinungla Pongen asserts that in Naga culture there is no concept of a forgiving god.²⁷ This reality instilled a sense of fear and a degree of religious dedication. As such, Western missionaries, such as Pettigrew, described God as “the only Being that has always existed, and He is the Creator and Preserver of all things.”²⁸ Such a view of God was expressed with Jesus Christ as the central figure. As a community that is claimed to be living in darkness, they would offer the following: “We must believe in Christ, must turn from our sins to love and obey Him, and must try to be like Him.”²⁹

Such teachings also emphasise the imperative nature of baptism for every follower of colonial Christianity.³⁰ As Jesus commanded, new believers are expected to publicly declare their faith in him through baptism, invoking the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As a result, twelve boys from his school were baptised while he worked with the Tangkhul Nagas, thus completing the third component of the mission strategy.³¹ In the following year, the first Baptist church in Manipur was planted.³² After completing the first three components of the mission strategy, believers were encouraged to engage in evangelistic efforts within and beyond the Tangkhul community. This allowed him to complete the fourth and fifth phases of the mission strategy, which required outreach to other Indigenous communities and one another. Pettigrew initiated the formation of church associations as a follow-up to the establishment of the church and its subsequent growth.³³ This was the final component of their mission approach. In 1926, various church associations were formed for the purposes of functionality and shared use of skills and resources.³⁴ The objective of these church associations would be to arrange spiritual conferences every three years to nurture the spirituality of the church members.

The Tangkhul-Christian spirituality that emerged as a result of this mission strategy is typically institutionalised, text-based, and linked to church and church association-related activities. This did not happen organically; it was a direct result of colonial intervention. There is a lot of evidence: Pettigrew's clear prohibition of thisam phanit (festival of the dead) broke an important ritual connection between the living and the dead (Kazeiram);³⁵ this is also apparent in the prohibition of the Tangkhul Nagas or early converts from consuming khor, their traditional rice beer and primary source of nutrition.³⁶ The emphasis on translating the gospel of John and Luke-Acts changed the way people learnt about biblical texts. Instead of relying on oral traditions like folk songs and the wisdom of elders, they started using a fixed, imported text. For example, “prayer” changed from being said at riverbanks (kong) or fields (lui) to church altars; “worship” changed from seasonal, agricultural festivals like Luira Phanit to Sunday services; and “community gathering” changed from being centred on the village events to the church or church association. Raleng said that the rituals that used to connect them to the land and their spirits have faded away.³⁷ Instead, many people now feel that spirituality is confined to the church building. This made a clear split between the “spiritual” (church, Bible study, prayer meeting) and the “secular” (farming, community disputes, environmental care). This was a split that was not present in the integrated fabric of Āmeoyan.

Moreover, these ostensibly spiritual activities, such as Bible reading or devotion, praying/intercession, evangelizing/witnessing, attending church/worship, abstaining from so-called “worldly affairs,” and so on, are limited to church activities/events.³⁸ As a result of colonial disregard of Indigenous culture, such Christian spirituality tends to distance itself from the culture, traditional heritage, and social issues of the people. This corroborates what Renthy Keitzar said about other Indigenous communities in NEI: “The message of the Gospel [from the Western missionaries] has not gone deep into the cultural life of tribal Christianity; it is not rooted firmly in the tribal soil…”³⁹ It also failed to connect with the context and experience of the people. Keitzar further argues that “it is still a xerox-copy of American Baptist Christianity, or a duplicate of western Presbyterianism or a carbon-copy of the charismatic movement of Pentecostalism, or even a replica of Roman Catholics of pre-Vatican II.”⁴⁰

This is the current state of Baptist churches of the Tangkhul Nagas. For instance, Pettigrew prohibited the observance of the festival of the dead, also known as thisam phanit, due to its perceived “superstitious” and “ignorant” nature.⁴¹ Consequently, most traditional festivals that were forbidden by colonials have long since vanished, and the locals have become indifferent to their own traditional religion or culture. As the following section will demonstrate, however, the Tangkhul Nagas had a profound understanding of their God and God worlds, which has implications for the contemporary practise of Christian spirituality, particularly their tendency to separate the sacred and the secular.

The Colonial Filter

The AAM strategy and Pettigrew's implementation cannot be understood without considering the colonial ideology and culture from which it emerged, especially among the Tangkhul Nagas. This culture was perceived hierarchically: civilised (Euro-Americans), saveable but “backward” (new converts), and irredeemably “heathen” (Indigenous/traditional religion). This framework served as a hermeneutic filter for Christian doctrine and how that belief is presented to the targeted community. The doctrines of sin, judgement, and a sovereign, law-giving God were exaggerated to discredit and replace Indigenous ways of life.⁴² On the other hand, ideologies about incarnation, divine indwelling, and God's presence in creation were downplayed, dismissed, or left vague in a theological perspective or in their writings. The rejection of Indigenous Gods and spirits and the coining of the Christian God name Vairvarā for the Tangkhul Christians or early converts (which will be covered in the following section) are the best examples of this.⁴³

These theological concepts could have been connected with Tangkhul Naga views about immanent kameo (spirits) and Indigenous Gods who are involved in their day-to-day affairs. However, as it was dismissed, such efforts were not made. Instead, they introduced and imposed their God by way of coining it and implementing their practices surrounding its beliefs. The “God” depicted by the Western missionaries was not the full God of the Gospels, but rather a colonial representation of the Christian God: the Almighty God whose primary task was to replace, not interact with, the Indigenous way of life and their spiritual ecology. The prohibition of festivals and food habits, such as thisam phanit or consumption of khor, and their substitution with text- and church-centred activities solidified this theology, conveying the notion that God was encountered solely in the linguistically translated text and the institutional context of the church, rather than in the fields, seasons, or communal rituals of the Tangkhul Nagas. This was a way of teaching that aimed to break down and control cultures, which was in line with the colonial strategy, both to dismantle and control.

Re-Examining Āmeoyan in the Context of Colonial Influence

This section discusses the pre-colonial spiritual practices of the Āmeoyan, taking into account the impact of civilising missions. The contemporary name for the Christian God, Varivarā, originated from a linguistic miscommunication with Pettigrew, replacing Indigenous God names. It reconstructs the nuanced precolonial cosmology, including the Creator Āmeoa, the heavenly God, Zingwungleng and the God/Ruler of the dead, Kokto. Nature, community, and everyday life are all intertwined in this cosmology, which provides a holistic spirituality that makes no distinction between the sacred and the secular. This section argues that decolonising Tangkhul-Christian spirituality requires a critical return to features of Āmeoyan, as opposed to forced colonial interpretations.

Colonial Misinterpretation and the Genesis of Varivarā

The current Tangkhul Christianity has undergone considerable colonisation, particularly in relation to its spirituality. Many Tangkhul church leaders, ministers, and theologians take a critical stance towards constructively engaging with Āmeoyan, but they uncritically preserve colonial values in their faith practises.⁴⁴ This view requires reconsideration and further examination to accurately represent Āmeoyan and its spiritual practices. I suggest we begin by discussing the colonial intrusion of introducing their God and how the people came to view Āmeoyan through colonial eyes.

The present-day Tangkhul church/community commonly uses the term “Varivarā” to refer to their Christian God, both within the context of their religious practises and beyond. The evidence of this practice can be observed in ecclesiastical documents, including Tangkhul hymnals and the Scriptures.⁴⁵ Tangkhul Nagas employs Varivarā in conjunction with God names that have a colonial overtone, such as Kasā Ākhavā Varivarā (God, the Creator/Master) and Kasā Ākhavā Āvā Varivarā (God, the Father/Creator). I argue, however, that the Tangkhul Nagas lack criticality regarding the usage of the term Varivarā, which originated from a colonial mistranslation and came to signify a specifically colonial-Baptist conception of the Christian God, and they were introduced to an interpretation of an omnipotent Father God and King, shaped by colonial and denominational lenses.

My conversation with the elders suggests that a considerable number of them are unaware of the oral tradition surrounding the origins and imposition of their God names.⁴⁶ The following oral tradition shows the circumstances and miscommunication that led to the coining of the Tangkhul-Christian God name:

During his mission work, Pettigrew engaged in a dialogue with the residents of Ukhrul village, seeking to elicit information pertaining to a Tangkhul term or concept characterised by its inherent constancy and resistance to change. He was informed that the term “vari-varā” was used by them to denote a diverse array of avian species and other things/beings of the natural world, thereby implying the constancy of nature and its everlasting qualities. Subsequently, Pettigrew postulated that the creator of vari-varā is Varivarā, an all-powerful Creator, by endeavouring to establish a correlation with the tribal-Indigenous beliefs and adhering to the denotative interpretation of the term. Over time, the individual started to incorporate this terminology into various aspects of their religious discourse, including sermons, translation efforts, hymns, and other related ecclesial activities.⁴⁷

Over time, through the influence of Pettigrew's teachings, the Tangkhul Nagas were converted to Christianity; they also began to use Varivarā and other adapted forms of God names to allude to their Christian God. They, along with other Naga communities, were introduced to “an omnipotent Father God and King, ruling his people and his creation, transcendent and judging.”⁴⁸ Today, the contemporary Tangkhul church/community, including recent Indigenous writers, uses the term Varivarā in a number of contexts without due consideration of its etymology or without being critical of the imposition of their Christian God names.⁴⁹ Tangkhul Christians are commonly referred to as Vareshi/bing, a term that denotes their adherence to Varivarā. However, it is noteworthy to observe that the exact terms Varivarā and Vareshi/bing did not exist before the colonials. Instead, they had a distinct set of beliefs that were sustainable in terms of principality and shared striking similarities with Christianity. In addition, their traditional religion included a nuanced view of spirituality in which social and religious practises were interwoven.

A failure to establish a connection between the Tangkhul traditional Gods and the Christian God resulted from the tendency of colonials to prioritise their God over those of tribal-Indigenous communities. Moreover, any cultural practises connected to traditional religion or that include offering sacrifices to kameo, which means “spirits,” were forbidden.⁵⁰ Therefore, it took Tangkhul Nagas many years to engage in research about their traditional religion.⁵¹ While that may be the case, it does not indicate that they lacked distinct God names or a traditional religion. When referring to Indigenous sources, such as oral tradition, stories, and lived experiences, their traditional religion is found to be sustainable. It is observed that they had distinctive God names or a three-tiered understanding of their cosmos – the Creator, the God of the heavens, and the God/Ruler of the dead.⁵² Moreover, according to Yangkahao Vashum, their traditional religion does not make distinctions “between sacred and secular, spiritual and physical, and heavenly and earthly.”⁵³ This suggests a wholeness in their traditional beliefs and practices. This assertion will be demonstrated as we examine traditional deific appellations and their corresponding attributes, taking precautions against the possibility of colonial influence, especially when interacting with Tangkhul elders.

Pre-Colonial Beliefs and Practices: Āmeoa, Zingwungleng, and Kokto

The Tangkhul Nagas believed in a three-realm cosmology comprising Okathui (earth/world), Kazingram (heaven), and Kazeiram (land of the dead). Each of these realms was overseen or ruled over by a God. Āmeoa is the Creator of the earth, Zingwungleng is the God of the heavens, and Kokto is the God and ruler of the land of the dead. Their Indigenous spirituality and its practices centre on the interconnectedness of humans with these realms, along with the belief in kameo, which refers to deities or spirits (to be explored in further detail).

In the precolonial context, the divine appellation for the Creator is Āmeoa, who is also known as “Kasā ākhavā,” to denote the role and purpose of the Creator.⁵⁴ Āmeoa is believed to be the Creator of the natural world (i.e., okathui), encompassing humans, all living beings and the natural environment. During seasonal and harvest festivals, the precolonial Tangkhul Nagas would engage in ritualistic practises to invoke the blessings of Āmeoa.⁵⁵ It is also important to note that the rituals associated with Āmeoa are centred around the agricultural cycle of the Indigenous community.

There exist records of hao lāā, which refers to folksongs/poems, that indicate the precolonial practise of invoking Āmeoa for the purposes of progress, protection, and a prosperous harvest. This hao laa titled “Oh! Ameowo Manga Vameingasaklo” is documented as follows:

Oh! Ameowo Manga Vameingasaklo

Oh! Ameowo manga vameingasaklo (Oh! God grant us success)

Kumshat luishat machialo (Keep us safe from any calamity)

Heithei kachungkha khamilo (Bless us with a fruitful harvest)

Ngahonla kazayanggei (Let us eat the last year's produce.)⁵⁶

This folksong narrates a story of pre-colonial Tangkhul Nagas who appeal to Āmeoa for success, seek protection from natural disasters, and pray for blessings for abundant harvests in their agricultural efforts. This implies that they had faith in a God who would take an active role in their daily activities, including their agricultural tasks. In this context, those who believe in Āmeoa are commonly referred to as Āmeoyan, which can be referred to as their traditional religion.⁵⁷

In terms of the realm of the heavens, they believed in Zingwungleng, the God of heaven. The God in question is also known as “Kazingwui Awunga,” which literally translates to “King of Heavens”; this is a title denoting supremacy over the heavenly realm. This particular God name exhibits masculine connotations, suggesting a paternal and regal function.⁵⁸ However, in other Naga communities, it is observed that the “Divine” can be female, male or neuter and is therefore gender flexible…” and manifests in “different forms through the creations.”⁵⁹

In a hao lāā (folk song) and hao khararchan (folk story), Zingwungleng was found to be involved in everyday occurrences. In a hao lāā, the singer implores Zingwungleng to save a terminally ill individual whose family considered it premature for them to leave the earth. The line of the folk song in which the singer pleaded with Zingwungleng is stated as follows: “Iphao thirali Zingwungleng zangkhang mathotlu (Iphao is going to die, Zingwungleng come and raise him up).”⁶⁰ Raleng asserts that the song served as an appeal to their traditional God for the purpose of seeking the healing of the ailing individual.⁶¹ Similarly, in the folktale, Zingwungleng engages with the living things of both celestial and earthly domains. The traditional storyline can be summarised as follows:

Early in the morning, a bat squeals. In this story, unfortunately, the bat awoke too early. Its action disrupted the created order's regular and orderly function. This significantly disrupted the natural order of things. It elicits unnatural responses from other creatures, which ultimately led to a man's death. When this occurred, Zingwungleng enquired about the incident that led to the demise of a man. In this story, Zingwungleng interacts with the created beings and humankind, and he is portrayed as a divine being who serves justice to the created order.⁶²

In the folk song, Zingwungleng is portrayed as a divine being with the power to cure the terminally ill. Similarly, Zingwungleng is portrayed as a judicial figure in the folktale who can restore order to a state of disorder caused by a particular creature. In essence, this traditional God did not adopt a distant or uninvolved stance towards them.

The God or ruler of the dead is referred to as Kokto. He is commonly identified as “a guardian spirit” and is responsible for overseeing Kazeiram, the realm of the dead.⁶³ The common people held a sense of fear towards this God/ruler. The traditional religion of the Tangkhul Nagas contains the concept of an afterlife, according to which the soul of the deceased is believed to journey to Kazeiram, the realm of the dead.⁶⁴ Every departed soul, it is thought, would first encounter Kokto before joining Kazeiram.⁶⁵ The commonly held belief is that individuals continue to live the same life they did on earth, i.e., death is seen as stepping into the next life. As a result, it was common practise to bury a deceased person's possessions, tools, and weaponry alongside the body with the intention of using them in the next life. Even decades after the Tangkhul Nagas adopted Christianity, these practises persist.

Intersection of Community, Nature, and Deity/Spirit

The presence of divine entities such as the Creator God, the Heavenly God, and the God/ruler of the dead/afterlife demonstrates the encompassing nature of the Tangkhul Naga traditional religion. However, their traditional religion was discarded without a full understanding of its underlying beliefs and practices. Indigenous spiritual practises of the Nagas are often dismissed as animistic⁶⁶ or worship of nature,⁶⁷ and are prone to oversimplification when colonials try to understand their belief system. The traditional religion of the Tangkhul Nagas has been the subject of disparaging remarks, with some contending that the use of philosophical language to describe their beliefs could create a misleading impression. For instance, Hodson argued that their beliefs are imprecise and unstable, lacking the systemic structure and coherence of contemporary synthetic frameworks.⁶⁸ But this simplistic perspective of their traditional religion is inaccurate. Tangkhul Nagas neither worshipped natural things nor adhered to animistic beliefs, but they revered the deity/spirit that inhabited it.⁶⁹

This brings us to their belief in kameo, or deities/spirits. Tangkhul Nagas firmly believed in the existence of several spirits known as kameo, which were associated with natural elements such as houses, rivers, mountains, etc. These spirits could be referred to as shim kameo (spirit of the house), kong kameo (spirit of the river), lui kameo (spirit of the field), ngalung kameo (spirit of the rock), kaphung kameo (spirit of the mountain), and so on.⁷⁰ These spirits can be male and female figures, and they are deeply connected with their day-to-day events. As the Tangkhul Nagas are an agricultural community, most of their festivals revolve around the agricultural calendar and are contingent on the blessings of their Gods and kameo for an abundant harvest.⁷¹ To prevent disaster, sacrifices were offered by individuals in their fields and by sharva (priest) or sharvawo (chief of priest or village king) on behalf of the community or village – and in doing so, the sacred gets interfaced with the secular.

In relation to this discussion, a notable characteristic of these divine entities was their belief in Phunghui Philava, the God/Goddess of wealth.⁷² The deity in question is recognised as the embodiment of prosperity and is characterised as a feminine entity.⁷³ It is believed that if Phunghui Philava walks through an agricultural field, that year's harvest will be bountiful. It is postulated that she possesses lengthy strands of hair. According to Ralengs and Zingkhai, during one particular season, a thirty-foot-long strand of her hair became entangled in a tree.⁷⁴ The tree has not been cut down to this day due to the belief that doing so would have detrimental repercussions. In their traditional worldview, the interaction of divine entities with nature and the human world was fundamental to their survival and well-being.⁷⁵ Further, the Indigenous community, whose livelihood relied on their produce from agriculture, commenced each seed sowing festival, commonly referred to as Luira Phanit, with supplication to Phunghui Philava, seeking safeguard against calamity and abundant crop production.⁷⁶

There are those who assume that these spirits are constantly searching for wrongdoers to punish and that they are responsible for any calamity or illness that befalls a person.⁷⁷ To propitiate these spirits, the sharva or sharvawo would perform a ritualistic offering of a chicken or animals, depending on the specific occasion. The priest assumed the duty and responsibility of performing sacrificial rituals to appease the spirits or beseech the Creator on behalf of the populace or the village.⁷⁸ They assumed the position of intermediary between humanity and the divine Creator. Although there is evidence of such practises, there were also practises of individual prayer or offering to the deities/spirits.⁷⁹ Prayer as a means of connecting with a higher power or as a sacrifice to deities/spirits was a prevalent practise, both individually and collectively.

In summary, the pre-colonial Tangkhul view of Gods and spirits was one of profound, contextual immanence. Their Gods and spirits were not distant powers; they were part of the everyday life of an agricultural community. People prayed to Āmeoa for a “fruitful harvest,” Zingwungleng to heal the sick, and kameo in fields, rivers, and homes to make sure everyone was healthy. This sense of spirituality was not just about theology; it was also about how it carried out in their day-to-day affairs. The sacred was shown in the acts of sowing, healing, and governing a community. The relationship between God/spirit, humans, and nature was two-way and interconnected with no part of life—economic, social, or ecological—that was closed off from spiritual engagement.

Decolonising Christian Spirituality

Arguing for Indigenous spirituality in NEI is to make the case for the decolonisation of Christian spirituality. In other Naga contexts, Lovely Awomi James suggests that Nagas have a “holistic view of reality” in which the divine, humanity, and nature are regarded as an integrated whole.⁸⁰ This is to confirm what K. Thanzauva stated: “The tribal concept of God-Human-World relationship is another transformational motif to be theologically rediscovered.”⁸¹ Such suggestions imply that the entirety of Indigenous existence is perceived as an interconnected system, with the divine entity functioning as the Creator responsible for the genesis of all entities, including humanity and the natural world.

In the Tangkhul Naga context, there exists a perceived interconnectedness of a three-tiered understanding of the cosmos, comprising the okathui, kazingram, and kazeiram. In this understanding, there are those who argue that humans do not have access to Āmeoa (God of okathui) and Zingwungleng (God of kazingram) but have access to kazeiram, the world of the dead.⁸² But I would suggest that such arguments are influenced by colonialism and their postulation of a dualistic or two-tiered conception of the pre-colonial worlds of the Nagas. Eaton discusses the concept of a hierarchical structure wherein the upper tier is inhabited by the supreme deity and the lower tier by a number of lesser deities.⁸³ This colonial conception of the traditional religion of the Indigenous communities holds a dualistic understanding of the God-human relationship.⁸⁴ In other words, they asserted that precolonial Nagas held a transcendent view of God in which the divine (sacred) is viewed as distinct from the created order (secular). Nagas were believed to be constantly in communication with lower-tier deities/spirits, but upper-tier supreme beings were thought to have no interaction with humankind or the natural world. But Tangkhul Nagas prayed or related to their Gods for help in daily struggles, disputes, and important events. Individuals also offer sacrifices to deities/spirits to appease them and avert potential misfortune, which speaks of the divine entities in an involved sense. Within the framework of traditional religion, the divine-human-natural world relationship is conceptualised as a reciprocal relationship between the divine, humans, and the natural world. This relationship is characterised by the efforts of humans to establish a connection with the divine and natural world for personal and communal purposes and the divine's response to both humans and the natural world, indicating their interconnectedness.

In recent times, and in this field of study, scholarly efforts have been directed towards examining the ways in which Christianity engages with traditional religions across the world. There are those who exhibit a sense of unease towards these advancements, whereas others demonstrate a greater degree of appreciation towards them. For instance, Paul G. Hiebert, R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tiénou suggest that traditional or folk religion gives people “a sense of meaning by answering the existential questions of everyday life, and by providing the living a sense of place and worth in their society and world” in a number of contexts around the world.⁸⁵ They consider it a worthwhile task to analyse so that Christians can respond in accordance with the Bible. Their concern is summed up in the question, “How should missionaries and church leaders respond to the persistence of old beliefs and practices long after people have become Christian?”⁸⁶ The concern expressed is related to the potential syncretism that could pose a threat to the Christian gospel. Therefore, the argument is made in favour of implementing critical contextualisation in a dual approach. This involves conducting a phenomenological examination of the “beliefs and practises” of the people to comprehend them from their perspective, as well as evaluating the beliefs and practises of the people against “biblical truth and tests of reality.”⁸⁷ While they appreciate the Western missionaries who brought the gospel to the context of Indigenous communities, they are either uncritical of colonial values and practises or have failed to consider the possibility that their interpretation of biblical views may be denominationally or culturally biased. However, there are many, like Harold W. Turner, who acknowledge that when the colonisers first met the Indigenous communities, they were unable to understand the Maoris’ traditional religion.⁸⁸ A significant disparity exists between the colonial perspective on Indigenous religion and the Indigenous communities’ perception of their traditional religion. One hundred years following the colonial era's engagement with the Indigenous communities, it has been found that their traditional belief was imbued with a profound perception of the sacred or divine, featuring “highly developed specialists in theology, a splendid sense of time and grand historic depth.”⁸⁹ Additionally, Turner outlines six key features of traditional-primal religion: (i) they are akin to nature; (ii) they recognise the presence of spiritual power or realms; (iv) they have a relationship with the deity or spirit; (v) they believe in life after death; and (vi) there is no separation between “the physical and the spiritual” worlds.⁹⁰ In these features, he sees parallels between the Christian faith and traditional religion. While he is sympathetic of the Western missionaries, he is also optimistic about a constructive engagement between Christianity and traditional religion.⁹¹

In the context of Tangkhul Nagas, Jonathan Thumra attempted to lay out the distinctive features of the traditional religion in the latter half of the twentieth century.⁹² He was able to ascertain that prior to the arrival of Euro-Americans, tribal-Indigenous communities held a distinctive set of beliefs. These included a belief in a Supreme Being who served as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, as well as in both malevolent and benevolent spirits.⁹³ Additionally, they believed in the existence of mana, which was considered a form of force or power that could be found in various objects such as stones, trees, or plants. They engage in fetishism for everyday events, they uphold all kinds of taboos, they practise totemism, they believe in omens and divination, they engage in magic, they believe in the evil eye – a being with malevolent power or presence – they had religious leaders like priests, healers, mediums, witches and sorcerers, and they held onto the belief that there is life after death.⁹⁴ The distinctive features of traditional religion lend support to the notion that such beliefs are primarily sustainable. Thumra acknowledges that a particular aspect of the traditional religion bears resemblance to Christianity, specifically the concept of an afterlife, while also maintaining its distinctive characteristics.⁹⁵ Both traditions held the belief in the continuation of existence beyond physical death. In traditional religion, this entails the continuation of one's earthly existence in the afterlife. Conversely, within Christianity, death is not regarded as the ultimate cessation of life.

In terms of praxis, firstly, engaging in decolonising Christian spirituality would necessitate a theological and historical examination (as attempted in this paper) into how Western missionaries introduced their God and spirituality and how they perceived traditional religion and its practices. It has been suggested that they introduced a dualistic notion of their God as well as the tribal-Indigenous God, resulting in a tendency to distinguish the sacred from the secular. However, our research indicated that the tribal-Indigenous community held an integrated view of God and the relationship between the God world and the human and natural worlds, i.e., their three-tiered worlds are not detached from each other. The distinction between Christianity and traditional religion is largely attributable to the person and works of Jesus Christ. The disparity, or divergence, according to Thumra, can be attributed to the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ.⁹⁶ As stated previously, the crux rests in the divine entity that grants forgiveness, with Jesus Christ serving as an intermediary. The reconciling of the perceived dichotomy between the sacred and secular can be found in the redemptive nature and actions of Jesus Christ.

Second, arguing for decolonising Christian spirituality is not a return to traditional religious practises, nor is it an attempt to completely eradicate the colonial conception of Christian spirituality. However, this would necessitate the correction of misconceptions regarding traditional God names and God worlds, as well as the clarification of widespread misinformation about traditional beliefs and practices in colonial records and findings. While the colonials introduced a dualistic framework for understanding God and God worlds, using anthropocentric, hierarchical, and patriarchal language,⁹⁷ the traditional religion had a high view of God and God worlds where the human and natural worlds were integrated; and while they were a patriarchal society with patriarchal connotations of divinities, they had a strong presence and acceptance of feminine divinities or spirits. Moreover, as an agricultural community which relied on their divinities and nature, their religious practise of offering sacrifices aimed to exist in harmony with them.⁹⁸ In other words, the Indigenous spirituality of the Indigenous community is deeply rooted in the natural world. This link is shown in how people treat their land and forest, the kameo/spirit which resides in them is revered.⁹⁹

Third, having made the rectifications, the primary objective for decolonising Christian spirituality is to initiate a thought process – and its application – of Christian spirituality within the Tangkhul Naga context in an integrated manner or commence theological discourse in an embodied sense. For instance, in a broader Asian context, Pui-lan Kwok proposes that theologising should be interconnected with both reflection and action, instead of solely participating in intellectual discourse.¹⁰⁰ Furthermore, given that Christian communities exist within the framework of various communities, the process of theological reflection must also involve active engagement with the secular world. This would mean considering the changing and growing reality of the Tangkhul Nagas calls for a reimagining of robust spirituality that can effectively address not only matters pertaining to the sacred world, but also those concerning the secular world, where several Tangkhul Nagas reside and experience life. It may imply, as Shimreingam L. Shimray proposed, that the church, while it tends to be asocial or apolitical, should take religion to the world.¹⁰¹ The current Tangkhul context demands that “it is the church that should actively involve itself in restoring humanity and religious values that are the focus of Jesus when he said, ‘the thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.’”¹⁰²

Finally, while there may exist differences in the context of Christian expressions, I would further suggest that this culturally distinctive manifestation of the interconnection between the divine, human, and natural worlds bears resemblance to the biblical portrayal of the divine interacting with the human and natural worlds. It is critical to differentiate between the comprehensive scope of Christian doctrine/beliefs and the specific focus of colonial missionary practice.¹⁰³ Missionary presentation of Christian faith does affirm the incarnational mystery of God in Christ (John 1:14); however, the missionary approach to the Tangkhul Nagas, viewed through a civilising lens, predominantly highlighted God's transcendence, holiness, and judicial role. Baptists teachings, as documented, centred on God as “the only Being that has always existed…the Creator and Preserver,” whose principal demand was to “turn from our sins.”¹⁰⁴ This framing, although doctrinally rooted in Christianity, was articulated in dialectical opposition to Āmeoyan, portraying the Indigenous worldview as “superstitious” and “demon worship.” As a result, the relational and involved aspects of the Christian God—God as intimately present in creation, suffering with humanity, and working through the Spirit in community—were overshadowed by a narrative of divine authority and human submission. The outcome was not the elimination of incarnational doctrine, but rather its effective overshadowing by a hierarchical, transcendent model that aligned with colonial power structures and intentionally disrupted the Tangkhul integrated cosmos.

Conclusion

This research demonstrates that colonial missionary activity among the Tangkhul Nagas consisted of two interrelated impositions: the dismissal and misrepresentation of Indigenous spirituality, and the advancement of a culturally conditioned, institution-bound form of Christian practice that disassociated the sacred from the secular. A decolonial approach necessitates both corrective historical work and constructive theological reimagining. Given the contemporary Tangkhul Naga's reluctance or propensity to engage in secular issues, the outcome of such colonial teaching is deemed problematic. They appear to have adopted a conception of Christian spirituality that is limited to church and church-related activities, or a community that is reluctant to engage with social issues. As we revisited Tangkhul traditional religion and their views about God and spirit realms, we noticed that they have a nuanced view of religion/spirituality in which the divine, human, and natural worlds are interconnected. This perspective on spirituality not only corrects an erroneous projection of spirituality but also offers a robust understanding of Christian spirituality. While this may be true, the incorporation of the traditional Tangkhul religion's beliefs and practises in modern society may present certain challenges. Achieving a complete disassociation of colonial values from the beliefs and practises of the Tangkhul Nagas may not be an easy undertaking. However, given that the Tangkhul Nagas tend to distinguish secular from sacred activities/events, it is important to work towards undoing the colonial imposition of a dualistic, culturally, and denominationally prejudiced spirituality. Subsequently, the task at hand would entail the church engaging in historical and theological rectification that were ill-conceived, projected, and understood by the colonials, as well as providing a more nuanced view of spirituality that does not limit itself to only church compound and church association-related activities. However, the purpose and intentional effort should be to address the concerns and challenges that individuals face in terms of secular issues and thereby bridge the sacred and secular divide.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Taimaya Ragui

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Taimaya Ragui is an Indigenous researcher-theologian from Ukhrul, India. He is the Academic Lead of The Shepherd's Academy of Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life. His current research explores Indigenous knowledge, decolonial studies, and digital theology, with a particular focus on Indigenous communities in Northeast India.