Are We Demoratics?

Every adult Chin has witnessed the fragmentation of our society religiously, socially, and politically, which is not necessary signs of undemocratic in nature. On the other hand, the existence of diverse opinions and ideas are an essential component of a healthy democratic society. In other words, the question on the topic addressed to the process, not the essence of such existence. Traditionally, although our fathers claimed to be choosing democratic societal administrative system evidenced by the declaration of the abolition of the western style feudalism during the Falam Conference in 1947, the ideological trend of societal leadership among our people is still in a transitional period, and its evolution being stagnantly cornered by the oppressive military dictatorship by the Burmese military regime. In the process of transforming our society toward a modern enlightened living community, our people, especially younger generation, are being challenged by today’s questions ofmodern democratic principles. Whenever and wherever one is involved, this question, one way or the other, applied to its respective social contract.

Democracy, although not a perfect system, is the best so far we human society reached along the progress of social evolution, which we can assume, the Chin people prefer over all other options available at hand. However, reflecting the recent social movement, we can also assume, in many areas, our people have acted against the basic underlining fundamental principles of democracy for which we claimed to be standing for, and willing to pay the price, so, victimizing our own potentiality, like a soldier shooting his own shoes. During the “Band Age” of human history, might was power, in other word- the best hunter ruled all the time, and in chieftainship society relationship determined everything at the will of the chief. In those ages, collective decisions were made at the will of the strongest or of the chief whether it violates or victimizes the will of the majority. Although part of such decision making characteristic still plays certain rule in modern democratic society,especially to civilized society, individuals’ volitional choices is assumed to make the best decision for the common good of all. As it says “individual choice,” those individuals in decision making position must have essential basic rational capacity to judge objectively if the collective decision would serve the best interest of all concerned people.

The western thinkers, having overcome all the process of the pains of being in a melting pot, say “nationalism is a threat to democracy,” therefore, categorized many of such nationalist political underground networks under “terrorism” when such group practice violence means to achieve their political goal whether to coerce their own people or against the standing government. Whatever the western, especially the U.S., says is their own national interest, not necessarily true or applicable to all political contexts around the globe. However, there are, in every society, certain substantial factors; lets say necessary social political evils that are threats to democracy or to the proper and healthy progress of human social evolution. Some say, ignorant or illiteracy is a treat, but not necessary. Of course, if one is to make a decision or be part of decision making process, he or she must know what should be the best for all the concerned people to whom his/her decision is going tohave impact upon, even to the surrounding nature, while lacking the essential rational capacity could result with the opposite of his or her expected outcome.

There are two social factors, out of many, that have caused our people’s collective decision making process staled: the undemocratic leadership philosophy, and the tribal mindset which are intertwined historically. To have these two things passed, our people have been paying the price, of course. As last known to all of us, our tribal leadership, since before the British rule, was chieftainship where the blood relationship played a major role and followed by head hunting skills, numbers of children, and property possession, etc. At its own time, lets say, it was appropriate within particular set. Some, if not many, still follow their traditional leadership model, such as in Jordan, Saudi Arabia where the hierarchical kings rule. And in some other places, today, those royal lines are set aside from active societal decision makings but continue to keep them in honor of their ancestry, such as in England, Thailand, etc. In Chin society, the bloodline of the chieftains no longeroccupy special place in the role of societal decision making and its negative impact has become minimal. One of the biggest obstacles our people face today is not the royal line or caste oriented social division, but, as there were no single chief who ruled the whole Chin territory, the segmented tribal settings that severely divides the Chins politically, socially, and psychologically.

Helped by ignorance about their own rights and lack of means to oppose, when the British imposed their administrative system, the Chins did not resist whoever ruled them. Likewise, during the earlier period after independence, although there was a democratic system of general election, the exercise of individuals’ volitional choice was minimal, while being influenced by pre-conditioned social structure. The worse came when the military controlled the whole process of societal decision making. The social and tribal settings of the Chin people throughout those periods remained unchanged, and as a result the social interaction of the people for social cultural, commercial, or politics remained insignificant. Therefore, the traditionally and historically deposited mental settings of the people uncompromised that underlines the basic understanding of “who we are.” Threatened by historical nightmares and hindered by the internal psychological walls, although our people superficiallyand politically declare we all are “one people”, the level of acceptance still remain low to have unanimous flow of movement as one people when individuals’ volitional choice access to such rights to choose and participate in a collective decision. Negatively, such psychological insecurity imposed a defensive stance within a smaller tribe not to accept a leader from other tribe or not embrace an idea brought up by other tribes. As a result, social political alliances become more segmented that hinders a collective unanimous action when such movement is historically demanded to meet the end good of all. Secondly, as mentioned above, the undemocratic leadership philosophy or traditional tribal leadership concept still plays a major role in most of, if not all, the minds the of Chin people. Traditionally, although still partially true in many areas, leadership was relationship-blood relationship to the chief determined the major portion of decision makings of particular tribal set, followed by strength of family, property possession and contribution to the chief. Although not necessarily to the chief but to one’s own blood relationship, such mental deposition still occupy the minds of many of contemporary generation that play an obstacle role to elect and follow an effective and outcome oriented leaders of the society whether the leaders belong to one’s own tribe or not, making the basic fundamental principles of democratic leadership vulnerable at the hand of extremism and segmentation.

Keeping in mind the above mentioned social factors, throughout the process of democratizing the Chin society, if one’s top priority is national consensus and unity, one should pay enough attention to the importance of the Chin people’s social political behaviors generated by such traditionally deposited mental stances. Undermining people’s belief system structured by such mental deposition has caused civic disengagement when such collective action is required as an essential instrument to maneuver the flow of social movement toward the collective end goal. Here comes the challenge of today’s generation, to rationally jump out of the traditional “boxes” and collectively move toward the common end goal without bypassing required procedural justice whole eliminating the traditional social political evils. For one cannot defeat gangsters by practicing means of gangsters, or have peace and freedom at the expense of peace and freedom.

March 11, 2006.

Religion and Politics in Chin Society

Religion and Politics in Chin Society

(Just for reflection)> >Oct 2005.
Posted at chinland@yahoogroup s.com >

It has been an old hot debate and never ending argument among the western > >politicians, religious leaders, social activists, etc. whether the > >government and the religion sectors are over-entangled in dealing public > >issues? Should the Ten Commandments posted in public squares, such as at the court house, school, etc., be removed? Should the teaching of the evolution theory or the Bible in school be stopped? Should the government releases the > >public tax money to the religious organization for social and human > >services? Should the religious college student be allowed to use public tax money for their studies as student loans and grants? Should the religious leaders talk about who would be the best candidate to lead the nation? Should the government regulate the religious organizations' activities, such as fund raising, public gathering, the content of their messages, etc? But in the Chin society, as an immature society, so far, for the Chin social political and religious leaders it is not a hot issue yet. > > Now, we see around the world, the Islam believers are more and more dedicated to their secular and national cause, more young men and women engaged in nationalist activities in the name of their god. When any humiliating things happens, such as the Danish cartoon that portrays Muhammad bomb tied on his head ready to go for suicide bombing and in reacting the catholic Pope's quotation on a medieval quote, that all Muslim nations, both government as well as public, reacted in one voice. In any Muslim country, even where the most secular political system is practiced comparatively, the underlining political and social principles are rooted from the principles laid down in the Koran. Turning back to the Chin society, where are the moralist religious leaders, pastors, and teachers who would speak out to prevent the decaying moral derail of our people? Where is the pulpit where the gospel of social justice is preached? Where is the school where the naked moral truth is taught?> Where is the school where the truth aught, the truth that sets students free, free from fear, free to speak their minds, free to unveil the social truth in the society, free to exercise their freedom? > >> >> >> >Talking all these issues would take us forever, but for the sake of public > >awareness, let me pinpoint a few things, that could generate destructive > >social evils to the society due to the religious or political movement of > >the contemporary generation. In any public meeting and gathering, mostly, > >as far as my knowledge is concerned, the Chin people used to begin with > >word of prayer. That would be taken as the political and social actors' > >regard to our national religion. However, in the real world, many times, > >the political movement astray from the basic underlining principles > >of the Christianity. On the other hand, the segmentation of the religious > >organizations, the church politics and lack of moral inputs sometimes > >generated social disorder and fragmentation of the social units of the > >society, dividing loved ones and dearest and nearest, which obviously is contradictory to the biblical teaching.> >> >> >> >As a result of the influence of the modern Christianity, and as part of the > >Burmese military regime's rule, the Chin people's > >traditional value system had been left out without a proper replacement or > >transition to the modern Christian society that left many in the middle of > >wondering in search of the moral truth of the Chin people's moral identity. > >Hence, many, as granted, have taken foreign value and social norms trying to > >integrate with their own self impost rationalization. So now, we, the Chin > >people are in danger of loosing the intrinsic moral quality of our group > >moral trend. Speaking straight forward, we are in need of moral awakening > >to reframe and pre-condition our own moral path as a respectable and > >honorable group of people. Who will stand for that mission? > >> >> >> >If our religious leaders keep going neglecting the negative impact of their > >religious activities, many segments of the society would be fragmented into > >sets of cultists, anti social segments, and socially unproductive toward the > >solidarity and enhancement of the social and moral quality of our people. For people, without sound moral guidance are like a building without any guaranteed foundation that would swing along as the win blows. > >For example, while honoring the western life style, wearing of red-neck-tie > >and suit on every Sunday morning, if a preacher stands against or neglects > >his or her own people's tradition values and culture, he or she would be > >contributing toward the drowning of the Chin people's propriety, and > >diminishing the social capital in stead of promoting it. Compared to the > >Biblical Israelites, any religious leaders abandoning his or her own traditional and socio cultural heritages would be unbiblical, where the religion of the Israelites were always in support of the Israel people's national integrity and solidarity.> >> >> >> >On the other hand, the politicians and social actors are to be aware of > >going astray from the moral trend of our people while hunting and exploring > >the world's social and political opportunity to promote the cause of the > >Chin people. Traditionally, the Chin people had high quality of moral > >principles when promoting one's self interest and in dealing with others' interest and property. Its amazing that the jungle warriors of our people, since long centuries ago, have had a unique war principles which is comparable to the international human rights norms declared as a set of war rules: 1) not to kill women and children, not to kill disabled, not to kill prisoner of war, etc. In this modern age, many politicians and social actors might not have a chance to meet and talk and learn from our elderly ones who had been trained in such manner of moral dignity. However, while calming to promote the Chin national interest, if one immorally acts against the Chin people's collective and commonly accepted underlining moral principles, at the end, he or she will find out that he or she is destroying the foundation of our people, not building, whether he or she works in the field of religion (Christian) or politics. > > Therefore, for the politicians, relisous leaders, and social activists, it is important to follow the underlining moral principles of our national religion, Christianity, as well as our secular collective moral norms, and give respect and place for such values and protect it as an essential nerve the foundation of our society. So that, without moral contradiction, all segments of the society work together for the collective good of the society, promoting the happiness of every individual in the society, and collectively preventing the great disruption to the Chin society. > >

Lai Pastor pawl le MIlai Dingnak

Chin Pastors le Milai Dingnak (Chin Pastors & Social Justice)

Jan 15, 2007



Tuini, Jan 15, hi USA ahcun Martin Luther King Jr. Day tiah official holiday asi. Cozah zung hmuahhmuah an khar theh. USA ramah mimal hmin in official holiday hman mi pali lakah Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a tel ve. Santhar sanah Chin (Lai) mi pawl khalin Pastor le kawhhran hruaitu cathiam thatha kan nei vivo thlang. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in US ramah Pastor dinhmun ihsin midum pawl nekcep an tuarnak, diklonak do khalh in milai dingnak hrangah ziangvekin ziangtiang hna a rak tuan timi thlir phah in Laimi pastor pawl hin ziangvek tiang Milai dingnak (social justice) thu lamah hma an lak a mawi in Bible in ziangvekin a zirh timi tawiten khaikhawm hnik uhsi.

Martin Luther King Jr. cu Jan 15, 1929 ah a suak. A nauhak lai ahcun miphun thleidan awknak ruangah USA ramah midum le mirang tlawng pakhatah kai khawm a theihlo. A nauhak laiah Atlanta khua ih a ummi midum tlawngah ca a rak zir. Phunhra a awng hnu ah 1948 ah Morehouse College , midum tlawng thotho ihsin B.A. degree a rak ngah. Cuisin Corzer Theological Seminary, Pennsylvania ah Bible tlawng a rak kai. Bible tlawng ahcun mirang pawl thawn an kai tlangih an class ah student president ah an rak hril. 1951 ah B.D. degree a rak ngah. Cuisin scholarship a rak ngah ih Boston University ah PhD a rak zir zawm ih 1955 ah PhD a rak ngah. Cutawkah midum fala mawite, Coretta Scott a rak tongih nupi a thit hnu ah fapa pahnih le fanu pahnih te an nei. Martin Luther King Jr. cun a pa’I pastor tuannak kawhhran Ebenezer Baptist Church ah assistant pastor in a pa a thihtiang a rak tuan.

Kum 1954 ihsin Dexter Avenue Baptist Church , Montgomery , Alabama ah pastor a tuan thawk. Pastor a tuan phah in “Advancement of Colored People” timi pawlkom member a rak lut. 1955 ihsi thawk in US ramih midum pawl nautatnak pawl do in midum pawl milai canpual hrang sualin hotu a rak tuan thawk. Mipi tampi hnenah hmun dangdangah feh in thu a rak sim. 1955 ihsin US cozah hnenah duhlonak an langternak (sandahpiahnak) ah ni 382 a rei. December 21, 1956 ah US Supreme Court in “midum le mirang thlei dan awknak (segregation) dan kha constitution thawn a kalh aw” tiah an rak phuang suak. (“US constitution cun “All men are created equal” ti asinan nunau, mi farah le midum pawl cun hril awknak ‘national election’ ah vote an rak thla thei lo, midum le mirang tlawng hmunkhatah an kai tlang thei lo, bus le rawldawr pawl khalah midum le mirang bus pakhat le dawr pakhat to tlang theih asilo. Midum pawl cu mirang pawl sal an rak si ruangah mirang pawlin an rak ten ruangah an thleidannak a rak si.) Cutin duhlonak an langter laiah Martin Luther King Jr. cu hotu a rak si ruangah mirang pawlin a innah bomb an puah, hronak a tong, palik in an kai, thawngah an tlak, cutincing cun midum pawl hotu dinhmunah a lar so vivo. 1957 ah Southern Christian Leadership Conference ah hotu ah an rak hril. Himi pawlkom hin milai canpual, dingnak hrang sual dingah dinmi asi. Kum 1957 le 1968 karlakah Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. hin peng 6 milion (6 million miles) tluk khual a rak tlawngih voi 25,000 tluk thu a rak sim. Mipi punlunnak, diklonak le midum nekcepnak do in tawn khawmnak hmun kipah a feh ih thu a sim vivo. Cumi can lai lakah cabu (5) panga le cahram ziangmawzat a ngan fawn. Birmingham , Alabama ah mipi punlunnak le duhlonak langternak arak hoha tikah mi 250,000 tluk Washington DC tiang an feh ih cutawk ah a thusim mi “I have a dream” (Mang ka nei asi) timi a rak sim. President Lyndon B. Johnson in president a ngahnak ding hrangah campaign a rak tuahsak fawn. Voikul (20) lenglo kaih a tuar ih voili lenglo velh a tuar, upatnak laksawng pali a ngah, Time Magazine in kum 1963 Man of the Year ah an hril. Midum pawl hotu lawng si loin leitlun khawmualtin ih upattlak mi dinhmun tiang a rak thleng. A kum 35 a kim tikah Martin Luther King Jr. cu Nobel Peave Prize dawng tu hmuahhmuah lakah kum no bik si in upatnak laksawng pek a rak si. Noble Peace Prize na ngah asi ti an sim ve ten, a sum ngah ding mi $ 54, 124 cu “milai canpual mi zapi in zalen zetin an hmuh thei nak ding (Civil Rights movement) hrangah ka thawh ding asi” tiah apuang cih. Pastor asi ih a liam ciamco lo. April 4, 1968, Memphis, Tennesse state ih hnawmhlawn hnatuantu pawlin milai canpual an hmuh theinak ding hrang duhlonak a cozah hnen langter dingin an timtuah rero lai, a umnak Motel room baranda ah a ding lai kha an thah ih a nunnak in leitlun a suahsan ta.


Laimi pastor, kawhhran upa, le zumtu pawlin thu ruah ding mi a um:

Kan ram a that lo tikah ram uktu pawlin kan milesa, kan miphun nunphung, laidan, nuntuzia, senpi thuthlung pawl kenkawh thei dingin zalennak le hmanrua zianghman an nei lo. Cutikah a zalen bikmi umsun cu biaknak lam asi. Cun khatlamah ramleng khalah Pathian zangfahnak in Pathian thu zir mi thawng siar in laimi Bible zir rero le zir zo mi kan nei. Zumtu pawlin ram le mipi pawl milai canpual zalennak hrangah ziangvek tiang tuanvo kan nei ih ziangtluk in thazang kan pe aw ding?

Pastor pawlin mahle kiangkap cio ah dik lo nakin, thuphan pernak, kan miphun le kan misa pawlin Chin mi sinak ruangah nekcepnak an tuarnak, Christian kan sinak ruangah nekcepnak an tuarnak, cozah hnatuan thatha ngah thei lo dingin thleidannak an tawnnak, thangthar no nawn pawlin hnamdang lakah cazirnak le hnatuan nakah siseh rualran zetin canpual an hmuh ve lo nak, senpi vangtlang bungrua (public resource) pawl hmandan le zem awk dan thu ah laimi kan si ruangah kan milesa in an hmuh lole an sun phah mi pawl, kan umnak in le kan hnatuannak ah laimi sinak ruangah nekcepnak an tawn mi pawl, laimi sinak ruangah dik lo zetin kan mipi pawl neihmi bungrua le sumsaw laksak an tuarnak, ramsung milesa pawl mithmaisia le tih le khur ding khawp in mai ramsungah tihmi a neih mi pawl, thinlung zinfe ko riahsiatnak le nekcepnak an tuar mi pawl, dik lo zetin farah tete kan milesa pawlin sumpai liamkuan an tawn mipawl, kumpi hnenah a lak in ngah theih mi senpi bungrua khal sumpai hnawhthuh pek a tul ringring nak, kan tele fa pawlin kan calai le thuanthu an zir thei lonak, aw! Sim cawk ding asilo. Kan ram pastor pawl, cu pawl cu kan zoh liam men ding maw? Thlacamnak in Pathian hnenah kan thlen lawng si loin kan tuah thei mi sungah ausuah pi ngam kan um maw? Thuthlunghlun san lai ih Prophet pawl cun siangpahrang pawl dik lo nak pawl cu thihtih loin hmaiton rori hmanin an rak sim theu. Rev. Martin Luther King jr. cun a miphun pi pawl dik lo zetin nekcep an tuar mi zoh men hnakin a nunnak kha cemral sawn khal a hril sawn asi. USA asi ih kawlram thawn a bang aw lo ti tla kan um men thei. Midum pawl dinhmun cu a dang lam asi ti tu kan um men thei. Thih cio cio, nunnak pakhat hloh ciocio ah midum maw misen kut in maw nunnak pakhat hloh thotho asi. A natdan a bang aw aw.

Asilole, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. vekin, cozah kumpi thiltha lo a tuah mi do in duhlonak langter ngam ding cu a harsa kan ti asile kan mah laimi le laimi lakah dik lo zetin simsiat awknak, tuahsiat awknak, phiar awknak, relsiat awknak, hrin le hram in huat awknak, dik lo nak, ei ruknak, hrawhhrawlnak, thatlonak pawl do ding talin a ding ngam pastor an um maw? Diklonak, sualnak in kan miphun lai miphun thinlung mizia a siat cuahco mi hi do ngamut pastor an um maw? Asilole eiruknak in le mi farah le midang mitthli tlater tahratin kan kawhhran member pakhatkhat in thawhlawm rak thawh sehla lungawi sopar ten thlawsuah kan rak pe thei ding maw? Kan ram a farah nak hin kan miphun a siatsuah lo, kan miphun dingnak le diknak mizia a hlo asile ziangtihman in tuah that theih asi nawn lo dingih kan miphun ih porh awknak kan neih mi kan man a hlo thluh ding. Zirhtu, pastor le biaknak hruaitu pawlin tuanvo tumpi an nei nan ti cio lo maw? Kan kiang kan kap, kan kawhhran, kan umnak khua, kan peng kan ram ah farah nauta nekcep nak le dik loin thu lairelnak pawl hi kan pastor pawlin an zoh men thei ding maw si?

Cuvekin kan ram le mipi pawlin an tuar laiah, kan ramah zumtu mi malte, milion hman kim lo lakah kawhhran member cuh aw aw in siseh, lamtang tuah aw tahratin maw, thuneihnak sete cuh aw in maw, ‘o’ le ‘aw’ tivek thu ah eltai aw tahratin maw, mimal el tai awknak, huat awknak ruangah zumtu tefa vangnau lungawinak kan siatsuah lai ding maw? Huat awknak karhzai ter tu, thatnak duhsak awknak ruang si loin relsiat le thangsiat awknak, thuphan puh awknak, thuanthu tha lo midang thinna ter tu hmang tahratin thusia fah awknak, sual cituh tu le zumtu thinlung thenthek awknak mailai thusia (social evils) pawl do ngam dingin a ding ngam tu pastor teh an um maw?



Zumtu pawlin teh, kan umnak pastor pakhatkhat in cuvekin diklonak le sualnak an do ngam tikah kan dinpi ngam ding maw? Dunglam ah raltha zetin sual do dingin kan dinpi ngam ding maw? Sual le dik lonak do hi satan hnatuan vekin kan zoh men ding maw? Kan kawhhran cio ah teh milai dingnak (social justice) hrangah ziangtluk kan ding ngam? Zumtu le pastor pawl hnatuan asilo ti ah kan dunglet kan hawisan thei ding maw? Kan umnak khawsungah nunau pakhat cu pawngsual le kaihhrem a tong tikah kutsih in kan zoh men thei ding maw? Kan kiangkap ah mitha lo pawl ruangah harsatnak a tong tu, a tap rero tu, nunau le mi farah, nauhak te pawl teh kutsih in kan zoh men ding maw? Samaritan mitha pa vek pastor laimi in kan nei ve maw? Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. vekin dingnak le diknak hrangah a ding ngam tu pastor hi kan ram mipi in kan va tul ve ti uh law. Kan ram mipi pawl tuarnak, ramsung ramlengah, mithli tla le ninghang in a ummi, nunau nauhak, pitar puter ziangzat an um ti hi the kan pastor le kawhhran hruaitu pawl hin an ruat dah maw? Kan laimi sung lala ah dik lo zetin mi ziangzat mithli tlakter mi an um?

Zumtu pawl, kan ram hin khristian sakhuanak kum zakhat kan kim zo, pulpit par ihsin a hram thawk ih zirhnak (elementary teaching of the Gospel) lawng hi kan aupi rero lai ding maw? Kan ramsung milai pehtlaih awknak tintian ah Bibible in a simmi diknak le dingnak thutak hi ausuahpi a cu thlang lo maw? Kan ram sungah miphun sinak, len le farahnak, hrin le hram ruangah thleidan awknak pawl do dingah zumtu pawl hin ziangtal tuanvo kan nei ve maw? A fate bikah kanmai tawppi kawm ihsin a suak rero mi awkam pawl hin dingnak le diknak auaw a suapi maw? Diklonak, eiruknak, thatlonak pawl do dingin kan innsang ihsin thawh cio a cu thlang lo maw? Kan ram kumpi uknak hnuai ah siseh ramleng ramtinah dinhmun that lo ruangah siseh diklonak le thusia pawlin kan mipi thinlung a siatsuah cuahco mi, tilian vekin a fen rero mi hi teh kan ram zumtu pawl lakah raltha zetin a do ngam tu ding an um lo maw si?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. cun, Thuthlunghlun san lai ih prophet pawl bangin USA ram uktu pawl le mirang pawl tuah diklonak, miphun thleidannak, milai canpual nekcep awknak pawl cu a do. Anihcun Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama ah PhD degree thawn nuamnung zetin pastor tuan men hnakin a nunnak cu a miphunpi, midum pawlin zelennak le rualran ten milai canpual an cen ve theinak ding hrangah pek hi aman sawn ti ah a ruat ih a nunnak a rak thap ngam ruangah US ramah midum le mirang thleidan awknak cozahdan pawl cu siatbal asi ih midum le mirang pawl cu bus pakhat, rawldawr pakhat, tlawng pakhat ah canpual bangrep ten an to tlang thei. Cucu Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in mang in a rak man ih a mang man mi hrangah nunak a rak pek, “ Nikhatkhat nini ahcun mirang le midum pawl bus pakhat sungah, tlawng pakhat ah le rawldawr pakhat ah rualpi vekin an to tlang lai ding asi” tiah mang a rak man ih a thihcilh mi cu tuini USA ramah a cang taktak asi.

Laimi zumtu, pastor, le kawhhran hruaitu pawl, leitlun thuanthu in kan ram le miphun hi tilian bang in a fen rero laiah tisia in kan miphun sinak dingnak le diknak hi fen hlo tahratin kan miphun a siatsuah lo nak ding hrangah kan zate’n tuanvo kan nei asi! Zo a ding ngam ding?




Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. thu laknak: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html