Mizoram CM Lalduhoma's US speeches sow a separatist agenda

In Indianapolis, Lalduhoma’s call for the Zo people to achieve nationhood’ through unity and one leadership’ has prompted concerns about whether he envisions India as part of that future.

Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma's recent speeches in the U.S., delivered in Maryland and Indianapolis, have sparked considerable discourse and concern, prompting questions about his vision for Mizoram and the broader Zo community. The contrasting tones of these addresses-one suggesting the potential for reunification within India and the other hinting at an independent nationhood for the Chin-Kuki-Zo people-have created ambiguity and sparked critical discussions around the future of the Zo people within the Indian framework.

In Maryland, Lalduhoma spoke of the Zo Reunification Organisation (ZORO) movement, founded in 1988, and referenced the idea of uniting the Zo people across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh under India's governance. The Chief Minister's words portrayed a vision rooted in integration within India, suggesting a possible future where the Zo people could find a unified home within India's borders. Describing this reunification as challenging yet plausible within today's geopolitical environment, Lalduhoma's statements implied hope that India might one day serve as a singular homeland for the Chin-Kuki-Zo people.

However, the tone of his Indianapolis address just two days later took a notably different direction. Speaking to a predominantly Chin-Kuki-Mizo audience, he emphasised unity beyond borders, declaring that "a true nation transcends such limitations." The Chief Minister lamented the forced division of the Zo people under the governance of three separate nations-India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh-and called for a shared destiny of "nationhood" under "one leadership." His language hinted at dissatisfaction with the current arrangements, which some have interpreted as an inclination toward an independent Zo identity that exists beyond India's boundaries.

These differing statements raise critical questions: