“Visualising Aos before Christianity” by MTBA: A Short Appreciation and a Critical Remark ~ Tiatemsü Longkumer Ph.D. Scholar, Dept. of Anthropology, NEHU

What is this Critical Remark and Appreciation About?

This critical remark and appreciation are about a video titled “Visualising Aos before Christianity,” which was put up on the 8th of November 2022 by Mokokchung Town Baptist Arogo (MTBA) on their YouTube channel. The video was part of an opening scene displayed during the ABAM SQC celebration at Impur.

This is not a critical remark on the video’s cinematography – it was, to say the least, “excellent.” The acting was “perfect” – needless to say; everyone did an outstanding job. This is also not a critical remark on the MTBA because they are not the primary perpetrator of this misrepresentation. Again, this is not a critical remark on the length of the video. The concept was well developed, and the message was loudly portrayed in the seven minutes video. The video has a professional-quality visual narration. This critical remark is instead on the correlation between the “title” of the video and what was portrayed—further criticizing the consequent appalling misrepresentation of headhunting and Aos before Christianity. This is also a critical remark on “Ao Christianity” rather than Christianity itself.

Christianity and Colonialism among the Aos

A popular narrative is still prevalent today, though told in different forms, that Aos were “savages,” but Christianity tamed us. This narrative is primarily heard in the church or by people strongly associated with “Ao Christianity.” However, this narrative is not accurate in any sense. Interestingly, E. W. Clark was not interested in educating the Ao Nagas to help us explore the intricacies of ourselves and the world around us. Clark’s motive for introducing education was so the Ao’s could learn languages and convert more people. This is where people often fail to understand the distinction between “Christianity” and “Colonialism.” Christianity was part of colonialism, but Christianity was not colonialism; similarly, colonialism was not Christianity but introduced Christianity. This is why the phrase “Christianity brought education” is incorrect; instead, it should be “Education was brought by Colonialism through the means of Christianity.” Many such incorrect statements can be resolved when we understand colonialism and Christianity and their relation and distinctions.

The colonizers and Christian missionaries said that the Ao Nagas were “savages” because the colonial administrators did not have the concept to understand the Aos, and Christianity could not understand what the Ao religion was. So, they just gave the blanket statement that the Aos were blood-thirsty headhunters and savages without a proper sense of moral and scientific conduct. Sadly, until today, the Ao Nagas, especially the Ao Christians, cannot rectify this view.

Headhunting: Not an Act of Warfare

In the video by MTBA, it is portrayed that the Aos were killing children and women, but that is not a correct representation of headhunting or Aos before Christianity. Since a Christian organization produces the video, presumably, the scene might be taken out from the Bible. In 1 Samuel 15: 3 (NIV), God of the Bible says, “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” The Aos, before Christianity, did not practice genocide.

Headhunting was not an essential part of Ao warfare. Why is it that in a village, only very few people had taken head? Why is it that among the very few head hunters, the highest number of head hunted in a village is only one person who might have taken 5 to 15 heads throughout his life? Headhunting among the Aos was part of a ritualistic process configuring society rather than an integral part of Ao warfare. Ultimately, all of us would wish that the world was perfect without acts of violence. However, in whatever century it may be and among whatever religion it may be, people have perpetuated acts of violence, which is the fact of life. Pre-Christian Aos and present-Christian Aos are not exceptional. Like headhunting, even though you might not have killed someone, an Ao Christian somewhere might have committed an act of violence that does not mean all Ao Christians are like that. Similarly, clubbing all pre-Christian Aos as headhunters is beyond wrong.

Conclusion: Christianizing Ourselves Again

During revivals and especially during the present SQC celebration, we, Aos, renounce our sins, but we forget to renounce the sins of the American missionaries who came to us. E. W. Clark had to move out of Molungkimong and form a new village Molungyimsen because he stubbornly could not obey the village laws. He resisted paying a certain amount of money to the village chief, which other villagers willingly did through different means. He could not enact the Christian moral standard of honesty and treating others as made in the image of God. Due to this, there were also differences among the Christians in Molungkimong, and not all Christians followed Clark to Molungyimsen. Clark and the other Christians were persecuted in Molungkimong simply because he broke village law lacking honesty and integrity. Mr. Haggard and Mr. Perrine, who worked among the Aos in Molungyimsen and later moved to Impur, treated the Ao Christians like an imbecile without any sense of moral living. Due to this, the Ao Christians in Molungymisen closed the church doors for some time. The history of Ao Christianity is replete with many such examples that we, the present Christians, should renounce rather than perpetuating their view by making them a “Saint.” Unless we Christians today can say “black as black” and “white as white,” all the church sermons, seminars, and revivals will not help us – Christianity among the Aos will instead become a mockery.

Through this video, we are perpetuating the same mistake (“sin” in Christian terms) that Mr. Clark, Mr. Haggard, and Mr. Perrine had committed. The mandate of Matthew 5:44-45 (NIV), which says, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven” is also a mandate not to mischaracterize someone different from you.

We Aos are not very good at taking criticism – and I think this is a sin running down from Clark, who could not contain his ego despite all the good things he had done. In this regard, through a small way, the response to this article will test the fruit of our Christianity. Will we respond like Clark and dismiss this article, or will we respond like Mr. Perrine and Mr. Haggard by treating them as an imbecile attempt? As a Christian, I would suggest that we should not take either way but come out of this shackle of our and let the Bible be our guide and God be our witness.

I wish you all a blessed year ahead as we celebrate 150 years of Christianity in our land.