Share
DIMAPUR — The Mao Council has expressed its inability to accept the recent verdict of the Tenyimi Peoples’ Organisation (TPO) Presidential Council on the long-standing Kezoltsa/Kozürü/Kazing land dispute, claiming that the judgement “did not adhere to the fundamental principle of Tenyimi customary laws and traditional practices”.
This came after the TPO Board of Arbitrators (BOA) pronounced its judgement on July 12, earmarking separate areas of the disputed forest land for each of the contesting parties -- Southern Angami Public Organisation (SAPO), Mao Council, and Maram Khullen village.
In a letter to the president of TPO, the Mao Council stated that the “original two contestants viz Mao Council and SAPO” had rejected the TPO/BOA 19/12/2022 verdict on the ground of disregard for “Tenyimi traditional laws and usages”, while opting for “Oath Taking”, but the recent judgement had “wilfully disregarded this vital aspect”, raising serious questions on the reason for the move.
The Mao Council claimed that the land dispute between Viswema village on one side and Punanamei and Pudunamei together on the other was settled when "Neni, son of Kopfujii of Pudunamei, took an oath before the four khels of Viswema on behalf of Maos (Punanamei and Pudunamei)” about 130-135 years ago, pronouncing the boundary landmarks.
Claiming that ‘the pronounced landmarks stand as the northern boundary of Maos, which includes Koziiri, lsii Mountain and Mao Dziiko’, it said the “oath was taken on the paddy field located about 300 metres from Nagaland Police Khuzama check post and near the National Highway bridge over the stream that flows down from Mitotsii”, and the spot was shown to the TPO team during the field visit in April this year.
‘The oral history of the above has been passed down over four generations and there was no dispute on the sworn boundaries till 1985 when the portion of Dziiko was made a matter of dispute,’ it claimed, adding that Koziirii forest became a disputed area only in 2000, when Viswema constructed a rest house purportedly to mark its boundary.
“Today, SAPO's claim over Mao Dziiko and Koziirii has gone beyond the sworn boundary landmarks,” it stated.
“Isii Mountain, on whose western hillside lies Mao Dziiko valley and straddled on the east by Koziirii/Kezoltsa/Kazing, has been apportioned to SAPO by the present judgement although it is within the Mao side of the boundary pronounced by ancestor Neni Kopfujii,” it added.
The Mao Council went on to state that an oath cannot be taken lightly and surrendering it is taboo for the Mao people.
“If the integrity of Neni Kopfujii's oath is questioned, the Mao people are ready to defend its truth and veracity by traditional oath,” it stated.
As for the southern part of Koziirii areas, the Mao Council said that the land dispute between Maopungdong and Maram Mathak Sagai (Bungnamai) was already settled by the Imperial Manipur Darbar in 1933 and subsequent oath sworn by the Maopungdong in 1969, followed by the laying of boulders/stone piles as boundary.
While maintaining that Maram Khullen made its claim of Koziirii only in 2016, the Mao Council argued that the standing boundary stones, as witnessed by the TPO/BOA, and other evidences are proof of the boundary between Maram Mathak Sagai (Bungnamai) and Maopungdong.
Claiming that the TPO’s recent judgement was not based on customs and traditions of the Tenyimi people, it said that “settlement of disputes as per the tradition and customs passed on down the generations necessarily culminates in oath taking when the parties are not satisfied with the proposals of the elders for resolution of dispute”.
Citing these reasons, the Mao Council said that it couldn’t accept the TPO's Presidential Council verdict.
It may be mentioned that the Ze Mnui (Yangkhullen) Village Authority had also condemned the TPO verdict, terming it as “biased”. It alleged that the judgement ignored the “land owner and stakeholder Ze Mnui (Yangkhullen) village” and also sidelined the Zeliangrong Baudi (Assam, Manipur and Nagaland).