Introduction
The creation account in Genesis 1 expounded that humankind is created in the image of
God, man and woman. God created man and woman to help each other for purposeful
living and mutual co-existence. No society is without either man or woman, and
tribal society is no exception.
There
is no doubt that man and woman has biological differences that shaped different
responsibilities according to the gender. However, these differences, through
the ages mingled with culture and tradition, formed subjugation and
subordination of one gender by the other; and gender issue (sexism, lineage, patriarchy,
etc.) becomes the major themes in contextual theology. Therefore, new anthropology
of partnership between men and women is the need of the day in almost every
society, particularly in tribal society.
Man and Woman in Tribal Society
Since all of us, at this stage, are
aware of the detriment of women and the benefit of men in the tribal society, the
paper will not go in detail to every nook and corner relating to man and women
in the society. Rather, attempt will be given to summarize the trend of
co-existence between both sexes in the tribal society.
The position of men and women in tribal
society, as in the other community, is not equal. Quoting K. Thanzauva in
regard to this,
The
weakness of tribal community lies in the relationship on men and women in which
women being regarded as subordinate to men, and have been oppressed and derived
of opportunities. This should have been transformed by the power of the gospel
when the tribal people embraced Christianity, but the relationship seems to be
basically remaining unchanged.[1]
V.V. Thomas, positioning men and women
in their traditional roles from subaltern perspective, expounded that, women
are mothers, wives, daughters-in-law, etc. in the domestic domain. Their work
is seen as supplementary and subsidiary.
Men are fathers and husbands, considered as the producers and head of
the households. The work of men is seen as more important and productive within
the household and community. This viewpoint makes women as passive recipients
and not actor themselves.[2]
The contribution of women, in the tribal
society, is located in the household economy and remains unacknowledged and
invisible. Meanwhile, the development, even in a wider sense, is focused
primarily of men. These summed up the relationship between men and women in
tribal society, both before and after accepting the gospel, in almost all
realms; socially, politically, economically and religiously.
Following points are some of the
assumptions concerning the existential position of men and women in the tribal
society.
i.
Family and society is patriarchal in nature among the tribal – rule of male
members. Majority of decision making body comprised of men. The voice of women
member cannot be compared with her larger male counterpart.
ii.
Women are responsible for taking care of all domestic works which is not
considered as work while she also has to work for production. No domestic work
for men, that means he had his leisure time while women work very hard for
family.
iii.
Almost all the tribal communities in NE India practiced male-linage except
Khasi, Garo and Jaintia in Meghalaya who practiced matrilineal but the society
is still patriarchal. The good thing is that their condition is comparatively
better that those who are under complete patriarchy, which is also seen among
the Ao Naga tribe, according to Mary Head Clark, a pioneer missionary.[3]
iv.
The customary law gave preferential option to men for the right of inheritance
and ownership; men are usually favored as long as they are in the bloodline.
But here we have a question to the family who has no male heir.
v.
Both men and women worked for production for family, but men manipulated
resources. Although marriage is submission, sharing and sacrifice (3s) for each
other, husband controlled wife herself and her production.
vi.
Men has wider outreach in the society, while the social universe of women is
restricted that affects their mobility
vii.
Women are not given equal treatment as men in the church especially in NE
Indian tribal church. Pertaining to discipleship of equals, even if few
selected are ordained (e.g. Rev. Dr. R.L. Hnuni of BCM), it cannot be taken as
granted at large. Ordination and other ministerial practices are deprived of women.
Only men can apply for ordination in the church. This rejection diverge the
concept of Old Testament ‘Qahal’ and New Testament ‘Ekklesia’.
viii.
At the basic level, gender refers to power relationship. The power relationship
of men and women is not equal and made complex by various mentioned social
inequalities. The interplay of gender relationships through those entire social
inequalities has contributed to differential status of men and women.[4]
A Search of a New Anthropology of
Partnership
Taking the context of men and women
in the tribal society, equal partnership and being humanity in co-existence
must be realized with praxis. If the search had been launch, the society will
surely profit along the way, even before reaching the ideal state of partnership
anthropology. V.V. Thomas convincingly blurts out the wound of gender disparity
and how to heal, and searching for new anthropology of partnership. He
explicated that,
The
socio-cultural division that exists between men and women has taken deep roots
not only in the psyche but also in society. The result was that men and women
arrive with different notions of self-worth and identify. To bring about
changes in their position, men and women must overcome several psychological
and religious barriers that they are locked in and change the mindsets of
several actors in their lives. A whole range of actors and relationships comes
into focus to understand the ideology and dynamics in gender.[5]
The tribal society faced challenges
and aspiration that cannot go unattended. The tribal traditions and costumes,
in some way, have put tribal human-hood to dire situations. The church and the
society failed to equalize men and women by restricting full involvement.
Popular observation is that there is equal status between men and women in the
tribal society. But in contrast to this, the trail of patriarchal-culture
persuasion has left marks on womenfolk.[6]
No one can deny this. Thus, beyond the present experiences and conditions, the
tribal society as a whole, must seek for ways by which the society could find
new anthropology of partnership that will fetched true Christian human rights.
Concerning tribal experiences
between men and women, Awala Longkumer raised two questions? How do we, as
theologians, respond to this situation? What kind of theology we want to
formulate to respond to such a complex and yet sensitive tribal society?[7]
A realistic theology, not just an ideal utopia which is abstract, is needed to
respond to the tribal reality which is appropriate to all societal members. To
answer the questions in the search for new anthropology of partnership, two
theological formulations will be highlighted.
Co-humanity - K.
Thanzauva
In his search for new human community,
K. Thanzauva envisioned ‘co-humanity’, taking Karl Barth’s concept of ‘image of
God’ in which image of God is to be found in the relationship of God and human
being, and man and woman rather than in the quality of human being. Co-humanity
here means to live together in mutual love, trust and friendship. Adam cannot
survive without Eve; this regards equal partnership of men and women.[8]
The traditional relationship of men and
women must be transformed by the power of the gospel into equal partnership of
men and women. The old pattern of relationship must be transformed to build a
new, just, participatory and harmonious society which will be free from
discrimination of any kind. For this task, the tribal society must identify the
biblical basis that affirms male and female as the image of God. In Christ, both
are incorporated into one body, the church.[9]
This is affirm by the concept of ekklesia with its characteristics of Pneumatic
democracy (I Cor. 12:12-13) and Messianic corporation (Gal. 3:28).
Community
of togetherness - Eyingbeni Lotha
Eyingbeni
Lotha, cited C.S. song who said, “It is suffering together, and loving
together. It is this togetherness that makes a community a community”. Lotha
continued, communitarian life is an ideal among tribals, but it becomes
authentic only when all aspects of life are live out ‘together’ by all. Male
chauvinism is a betrayal of a community. So, community transformation must be
characterized by a change in attitude, action, stereo-typing roles, customary
laws and unwritten expectations which are demeaning of women. This vision can
be reality with hope in Jesus Christ.[10]
Conclusion
A
just simple dream can be realistic vision, but only if one dares to attain it
with living hope. A vision for shalomic tribal society is not just abstract but
concrete utopia. Therefore, a search for new anthropology of partnership in
tribal society is a challenge for theologian, because this is what the tribal
society requires.
Image of God means that human being is
endowed with all that is necessary to enter into communion with God, and with
others, and to exercise responsible stewardship of the created world.[11] Hence, the difference in
ability/capacity of men and women are to be recognized as productive workforce.
Both of them must be located in wider institutional framework.[12]
This means equal partnership in the family, in the society, in the Church, and most
importantly in the heart. Thus, men and women are to be the stewards of the
world in togetherness with harmonious, peaceful co-existence, co-operation and
sharing.
[1] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community: Tribal
theology in the Making (Aizawl: Mizo Theological Conference, 1997), 192.
[2] V.V.
Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History: Theoretical
Tools, reprint (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2014), 93.
[3] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 195.
[4] V.V.
Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of
India: Issues and Challenges (Malapuram, Kerala: Focus India Trust, 2014),
137.
[5] V.V.
Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of
India…, 136-137.
[6]
Eyingbeni Lotha, “Community of Togetherness: Perspective in Doing Tribal Women
Theology,” in Tribal Theology: A Reader,
edited by Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat: TSC-ETC, 2003), 166.
[7] Awala
Longkumer, “Experience of the Tribal Women,” in Dalit-Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trend in Subaltern
Theologies, edited by James Massey & Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat:
TSC-ETC & New Delhi: CDS, 2007), 124.
[8] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 211.
[9] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 212.
[10]
Eyingbeni Lotha, Community of
Togetherness…, 178.
[11] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings (Bangalore: TPI, 2013),
98-99.
[12] V.V.
Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History…,
94.
[1] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community: Tribal
theology in the Making (Aizawl: Mizo Theological Conference, 1997), 192.
[2] V.V.
Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History: Theoretical
Tools, reprint (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2014), 93.
[3] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 195.
[4] V.V.
Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of
India: Issues and Challenges (Malapuram, Kerala: Focus India Trust, 2014),
137.
[5] V.V.
Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of
India…, 136-137.
[6]
Eyingbeni Lotha, “Community of Togetherness: Perspective in Doing Tribal Women
Theology,” in Tribal Theology: A Reader,
edited by Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat: TSC-ETC, 2003), 166.
[7] Awala
Longkumer, “Experience of the Tribal Women,” in Dalit-Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trend in Subaltern
Theologies, edited by James Massey & Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat:
TSC-ETC & New Delhi: CDS, 2007), 124.
[8] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 211.
[9] K.
Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 212.
[10]
Eyingbeni Lotha, Community of
Togetherness…, 178.
[11] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings (Bangalore: TPI, 2013),
98-99.
[12] V.V.
Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History…,
94.
Comments