![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Unrestrained consumption and a lack of a proper breeding ecosystem have depleted the variety and species count of mithun (Bos frontalis). Indigenous Kuki tribes have a unique relationship with mithun, reared in the semi-domestic countryside. For the Kuki community, a mithun is used during community festivals, as a bride price in marriages, to settle disputes, in land-deed covenants, and at death ceremonies. Mithun-human interrelationship lessens poverty, empowers community survival, guarantees the completion of critical cultural obligations, and maintains marital bonds in the Kuki community. The head of a mithun signifies solemnity and celebration in many cultural underpinnings. A white cock, a dog, a goat, a pig, and a mithun were sacrificial elements to appease the unseen spirits for good health and prosperity. While some Indigenous practices have faded with the arrival of Christianity, the cultural involvement of mithun persists to this date.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Christ University for providing access to articles through its library portals. A special thanks to Dr James Vungjangam Haokip, Assistant Professor, Sikkim University, Gangtok, India, for his input in translating Thadou-Kuki words into English.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Gangte, “The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis”
2. Hangshing, “Understanding the Politics of the Stateless Kukis: Was it by Choice?”.
3. Gangte, “The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis”
4. Grierson, “Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. III (Part III)”
5. Lunkim, “Traditional Kuki Chieftainship: It’s Evolution with Special Reference to.
Custom, Beliefs and Practices in Establishing a Village.”
6. Gangte, “Evolution of Kuki Chieftainship through Customary Laws – Its Modern.
Conceptuality.”
7. Kipgen, “Revisiting the ‘Military’: Role of som institution in the Anglo-Kuki War,” 211–.
233.
8. Sections, “The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, Sections (Citation1960),” 7.
9. Brosius et.al., “Ethnoecology: An Approach to Understanding Traditional Agricultural.
Knowledge,” 187–198.
10. Ali et.al., “Tribal Situation in North East India,” 141–148.
11. Oma, “Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals,”.
175–187.
12. Gough, “Healing the Earth within Us: Environmental Education as Cultural Criticism,”.
12–17.
13. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”
14. Tiwari, “Biodiversity”
15. Hurn, “Intersubjectivity,” 125–138.
16. Wang et.al., “Therapeutic uses of animal biles in traditional Chinese medicine: An.
ethnopharmacological, biophysical chemical and medicinal review,” 9952–9975.
17. Ibid., 9952–9975.
18. Hurn, “Why Look at Human-Animal Interactions? in Humans and Other Animals: Cross.
Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions.”
19. Keulartz et.al., “Changing Relationships with Non-human Animals in the Anthropocene .
- An Introduction,”1–24.
20. Oma, “Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals,”.
175–187.
21. Keulartz et.al., “Changing Relationships with Non-human Animals in the Anthropocene.
– An Introduction,”1–24.
22. Damian, “The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age”
23. Gahrton, “Green Parties, Green Future: From Local Groups to the International Stage”
24. Pritchard, “The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions.
of a Nilotic People.”
25. Rappaport, “Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations among a New Guinea.
People,” 17–30.
26. Rivers, “The Todas”
27. Walker, “On the origins, customs and changing lifestyle of the tribal community in the.
Nilgiris,” 1–11.
28. Shanklin, “Donegal’s Changing Traditions: An Ethnographic Study”
29. Kirksey et.al., “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography,” 545–576.
30. Blascovich et.al., “Presence of Human Friends and Pet Dogs as Moderators of.
Autonomic Responses to Stress in Women,” 582–589.
31. Blascovich et.al., “Presence of Human Friends and Pet Dogs as Moderators of.
Autonomic Responses to Stress in Women,” 582–589.
32. Friedmann et.al., ‘The Animal – Human Bond,’ 73–88.
33. Haokip, ‘Relevance of Thempu in Pastoral Ministry’
34. Haokip, “The Role of Oral Tradition with Special Reference to the Thadou-Kuki.
Society,” 62–75.
35. Bharracharyya et.al., “First Record Case of Seminal Vesiculitis in Mithun,” 38–39.
36. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”
37. Yadav et.al., “Mithun – An Animal of Indian Pride,” 32–36.
38. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”
39. Simoons et.al., “The Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Cultures, and.
History with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle.”
40. Dorji et.al., “Mithun (Bos frontalis): The neglected cattle species and their significance to.
ethnic communities in the Eastern Himalaya,” 1727–1738.
41. Bharracharyya et.al., “First Record Case of Seminal Vesiculitis in Mithun,” 38–39.
42. Blackburn, “Oral stories and culture areas: From Northeast India to Southwest China,”.
419–437.
43. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”
44. Simoons et.al., “The Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Cultures, and.
History with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle.”
45. Hangshing, “Understanding the Politics of the Stateless Kukis: Was it by Choice? in The.
Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture (ed. Haokip, T.).”
46. Chongloi, “Impact of Christianity on the Thadou-Kuki marriage,” 205–217.
47. Ibid., 205–217.
48. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”
49. Ibid.
50. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Paul Lelen Haokip
Paul Lelen Haokip is a PhD research scholar, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. He has authored four book namely, The Groaning for Peace (2016), The Joy of Being Myself (2018), Revelanve of Thempu in Pastoral Ministry (2020), Programme Your Self (2022) and published papers in Scopus Indexed Journals.
Maya M
Maya M is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. She earned her doctorate from the University of Kerala with the dissertation entitled, “Tribal Development and Participatory Approach in Kerala: Problems and Prospects.” She is a life member of Indian Sociological Society and Kerala Sociological Society.
D. Benjamin Haokip
D. Benjamin Haokip is a PhD research scholar at the Department of International Development, Governance and Inclusive Development, Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. His academic interests lie in education, armed conflict, conflict resolution and peace advocacy.