It remained in use in precolonial systems of chieftainship before being challenged by Christian mssionaries and political institutions such as the Mizo Union.
Furthermore, the word became widely used outside of a gendered context and was treated analogously to mean both slave and the institution of slavery itself.
Lorrain stated in Dictionary of the Lushai language that bawi translates to a slave, a bondman, a vassal or a serf.
[2] McCall subsequently comments in Lushai Chrysalis that the dictionary did not provide a deep study of the language, the definition of a slave was too antagonizing when most bawi were individuals dependent on their chief.
Most missionaries also did not interfere in the bawi institution and believed that converting the Lushai Hills would lead to a growth in public moral consciousness that would allow the system to wither itself.
[19][21] Peter Fraser, a missionary doctor in the Lushai Hills, raised concerns over the permittance of the bawi institution among the chieftains.
The traditional economy of Lushai chiefdoms heavily relied on manpower and labour distribution and functioned as markers of prestige for chiefs.
In return, the freed bawis assisted Fraser in his missionary efforts of preaching, coolie duties and forming a choir and band known as Krawss Sipai in 1911.
Rev Jones subsequently published an issue in the Monthly treasury as a sign of support for Fraser's struggle and his initiative in ransoming bawis from the chiefs.
The fact that many go back to the chiefs is no argument for its permanence.However, the missionaries hesitated to support Fraser as they viewed him as scrupulous.
H.W.G Cole argued in a view shared by bureaucrats and administrators that the bawi system provided for the sustenance of many poor and destitute who took shelter with the well-to-do chiefs in return for a lifetime of service.
[29] H.W.G Cole in protest published an article in the newspaper, Mizo leh Vai Chanchin Bu, stating that the bawi system is not a form of slavery but closer to a 'membership of the house'.
British administrators cited John Shakespear's views on the inpuichhung bawi as a system of protecting the poor and destitute.
In this sense, the British administration did not want to abolish the Bawi system nor consider it a form of slavery, as Fraser claimed.
One of the reasons chiefs opposed freeing of bawis was due to the importance of conserving labour during the hard times of famine.
As the British response to the 1911 mautam famine was well prepared, many individuals desired to be freed of their bawi status by Fraser.
Mary Innes Howie continued to fight for the abolition of the Bawi system and helped raise the issue to the British parliament.
She argued against John Shakespear's interpretation of the system and outlined that if it were not for the Lushai Expedition she would have been placed into serfdom of the chiefs herself.
Reverend Peter Fraser would join the society alongside many other forward-looking missionaries and liberal Englishmen.
Mary Innes Howie also challenged the Assam government's decision to bar Fraser to return to the Lushai Hills.
The Chief Commissioner could not overlook the fact that unnecessary interference with the customs of a semi-savaged people might easily lead to grave political trouble, and that if Superintendent was to be responsible for the peace and tranquility of the district he must be allowed to exercise a reasonable measure of control.Furthermore, the British administration offered an ultimatum to Fraser to cease his efforts and campaign against the Bawi system and stick to missionary work or leave the Lushai Hills.
[37] The Mizo Union functioned on the principles of the Indian National Congress at the time, which held anti-monarchist and chiefly rule and institutions.
[38] Furthermore, the peaceful abolishment of both institutions proved the British administration wrong in their rationale to maintain it out of peacekeeping concerns.