An Open Letter to Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma: Why Seed a Separatist Agenda of Nationhood?

Your recent speeches in Maryland and Indianapolis have stirred intense conversation and, frankly, deep concern among many of us. The seemingly divergent messages you delivered raise profound questions about your vision for Mizoram and the wider Zo community. While your address in Maryland hinted at a possible reunification of the Zo people within India, your speech at the Chin Evangelical Baptist Church (CEBC) event in Indianapolis appeared to take a starkly different path—one that leans toward a separatist agenda.

In Maryland, on September 2, you spoke of the Zo Reunification Organisation (ZORO) movement of 1988 and proposed the possibility of uniting the Zo people of India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh under Indian governance. Your words suggested a vision of integration within India’s framework: “The main objective of the ZORO movement in 1988 was Zo-Reunification within India. Can the ‘Zo’ people in India, Burma, and Bangladesh today aspire to be reunited under India?” You acknowledged that while challenging, this goal might not be “so far-fetched” given today’s geopolitical landscape. You went so far as to say you “eagerly await the day and time” when this question could be answered, aligning with a vision that India could provide a shared home for the Zo people.

Just two days later, however, in Indianapolis, your message took on a different tone. Addressing a gathering of Chin-Kuki-Mizo individuals, you stated:

“As I approach the end of my speech, I want to let everyone here know that the primary reason I accepted the invitation to visit the United States is to seek a path toward unity for all of us. We are one people—brothers and sisters—and we cannot afford to be divided or apart from one another. I want us to have the conviction and confidence that one day, through the strength of God, who made us a nation, we will rise together under one leadership to achieve our destiny of nationhood. While a country may have borders, a true nation transcends such limitations. We have been unjustly divided, forced to exist under three different governments in three different countries, and this is something we can never accept.”

These words diverge from the hope of reunification under India, suggesting instead that the Chin-Kuki-Zo people should “rise together under one leadership” and transcend the borders of the three countries. This language implies dissatisfaction with the current arrangement and could easily be interpreted as a call for independent nationhood—a separate identity that overrides India’s sovereignty. Your statements, as an elected Indian Chief Minister, carry weight, and they have left many wondering about your ultimate intentions.

Your Indianapolis address has prompted a series of questions that deserve transparent answers, especially given the sensitivity of the matters at hand.

1. Mizoram is a part of India. What do you mean by “rise together under one leadership to achieve our destiny of nationhood”? Do you consider India as the nation, or are you envisioning a separate nation for the Chin-Kuki-Zo people?

As the Chief Minister of Mizoram, you represent the interests of a state within the Indian Union. Yet, in Indianapolis, your language seemed to transcend this identity, implying an aspiration for nationhood that could exist apart from India. Such ambiguity leaves us questioning whether you see Mizoram and its people as an integral part of India or if you are pushing for an entirely separate entity. This ambiguity demands clarification, as it challenges the very definition of nationhood within the Indian framework.

2. You speak about being “forced to exist under three governments in three different countries,” and that “this is something we can never accept.” You are the Chief Minister of an Indian state. Do you not accept Mizoram’s place as part of India? Which part of this reality is “forced”?

Your Indianapolis speech suggested that the Chin-Kuki-Zo people’s existence under the Indian, Myanmar, and Bangladeshi governments is “forced” upon them. Such language raises questions about your acceptance of Indian sovereignty, especially when you hold one of the highest offices in the Indian government structure. If you view your own position as Chief Minister as “forced,” this could be interpreted as a fundamental disavowal of India’s constitutional arrangement. Do you truly believe that Mizoram’s relationship with India is somehow illegitimate or unnatural?

3. You were speaking at the CEBC event in Indianapolis to a largely American audience, many of whom are U.S. citizens. Why would the Chief Minister of an Indian state be addressing American citizens on the topic of nationhood for the Chin-Kuki-Zo people and their “forced” existence within India? Do you perceive your role as CM as an act of imposition by the Indian government?

The setting of your speech was also striking. Addressing American citizens on the subject of Chin-Kuki-Zo nationhood—and suggesting that Mizoram’s status within India is forced—raises ethical questions about the appropriateness of the message and audience. Why promote a vision that seemingly questions India’s territorial integrity to an American audience, especially when many attendees have adopted the United States as their homeland? Is this a reflection of your official role, or does it represent a more personal agenda that runs counter to India’s national interests?

4. How do you envision the U.S. assisting in this idea of nationhood that you mentioned? Why would you, as the Chief Minister of an Indian state, seek to promote a separatist and divisive agenda?

The implications of your statements are profound. The Chief Minister of an Indian state, urging a foreign audience to consider a unified Chin-Kuki-Zo nation, is bound to be seen as controversial. Given your official capacity, it is difficult to interpret this as anything other than an appeal for international support in pursuing distinct Chin-Kuki-Zo nationhood. Why would a sitting CM seek to garner foreign support for a vision that could destabilize the very country you are part of? This question is critical, as it addresses not only your role as a leader but also the potential impact of your statements on India’s diplomatic and internal stability.

The real question here is what changed between your speeches in Maryland and Indianapolis. In Maryland, you spoke of a possible reunification under India for the Zo people across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, invoking the spirit of the ZORO movement of 1988. Your words seemed to suggest hope that India could provide a unified home for the Chin-Kuki-Zo tribes, a future where the Zo people could be together within the framework of Indian unity.

But in Indianapolis, just two days later, your tone changed significantly. You described the Chin-Kuki-Zo people as “forced to exist under three different governments in three different countries,” going on to state that “this is something we can never accept.” You called for unity under “one leadership” to achieve the Zo people’s “destiny of nationhood,” words that raise doubts about whether you still envision India as part of that future.

This abrupt shift in your message leaves us with serious questions. Why did the language change from a vision of reunification within India to one that suggests dissatisfaction with the current borders? Are you calling for integration within India, or are you advocating for a separate Chin-Kuki-Zo nation that disregards the Indian state you currently lead?

Your team is focusing on the Maryland speech, with its call for Chin-Kuki-Zo reunification under India, while sidestepping the more controversial statements made in Indianapolis. Focusing exclusively on the Maryland speech may be an attempt to anchor your message in themes of Indian unity and historical roots, sidestepping the divisive tone expressed in Indianapolis. This selective focus may be intended to avoid public scrutiny or backlash, especially from those who may interpret your Indianapolis statements as leaning toward a separatist agenda.

Yet, this approach of ignoring Indianapolis raises credibility issues. For the sake of transparency and to maintain public trust, it may be wiser to address the questions arising from both speeches. Ignoring Indianapolis entirely could fuel further speculation and create the impression of a carefully managed narrative rather than an honest dialogue about your vision for the Zo people’s future.

Chief Minister Lalduhoma, your words have left us with more questions than answers. The striking difference between your statements in Maryland and Indianapolis has raised concerns about the consistency of your message, especially given your influential role within India. While the Chin-Kuki-Zo people have a rich cultural identity and a historical narrative deserving of respect, any discussion about their future should align with the principles of India’s sovereignty.

Your role as Mizoram’s Chief Minister places you at the heart of India’s democratic fabric. We hope that you can clarify your stance on these critical issues and address the questions your Indianapolis speech has raised. As you know, leadership demands transparency, and your intentions must be made clear to the people of Mizoram and all Indian citizens.