|
Theft
Theft (rukru) was very rare in Mizo society. However,
theft of rice, clothes, guns, brass pots and domestic animals was treated as a
serious offence and was punishable by fine of a mithun, irrespective of the
price of the articles stolen.
Restitution of the property stolen was always insisted upon.
Theft of vegetables or eggs would be punishable only with salam, and other
thefts would attract fines upto twenty rupees. If someone stole and killed an
animal for eating the meat it was called phil. The punishment for such offence
was mostly the equivalent of the animal and in addition salam was payable.
Slaughtering or maiming another person's animals were treated
as an offence. If the slaughter was accidental, an animal of the same kind with
some additional articles or cash would be given to the owner. In case of an
intentional slaughter or maiming of another's animal, the punishment would be a
fine which could go upto a mithun or forty rupees.
Civil Dues
There were certain civil dues accepted by the Mizo society.
One such due was called Chawman. Often a person would provide food and
shelter to orphans or other persons requiring such help. The person would be
treated as a son or daughter of the family and their earnings also would go to
the family. The person giving shelter would be liable to pay the fine of his
ward if the latter was punished with a fine for an offence. He would also be
liable to pay the debt, if incurred by the ward. But if such a person left the
family he would have to pay a due called Chawman amounting to forty rupees to
his host to compensate for the expenses incurred for his board and lodge. Chawman
could not be claimed from one's children, grand children, brothers, sisters,
brothers-in-law, sons-in-law or any close blood relation. In a similar custom of
thatman if a person had helped a friend, he could claim a return help in case of
his distress. If the friend refused to help, he could demand thatman or
repayment of the amount with which he helped his friend.
There was a custom allowing separation of relatives,
intuithlar - when two relatives agreed to server all relationship with each
other, the two would not have any right or interest in each other which
otherwise would have existed or occurred of course, they could make it up again
with the revival of mutual rights and interest.
There was no regular system of incurring debt or professional
money lending, people sometimes borrowed money or rice from one another which
would be returned. There was no system of interest on loans.
There was a custom of sharing in cultivation or hunting. The
system was known as intawm. If two people shared a jhum, one of them was
regarded as the owner of the jhum. The owner would be liable to pay fathang to
the chief and dues to other village officials.
|
