By Benjamin Lyngdoh
The amendment to the Residents’ Act is a dagger drawn deep into the heart of tourism. At present, people are talking about the adverse impacts of the legislation on the flow of tourists. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The real issues at hand are painstaking and they will have a huge blow on the livelihoods of the stakeholders. The ones who stand to lose the most are the tourism enterprises and its entrepreneurs, those employed in the tourism and hospitality sector and the hundreds of young minds that are now pursuing various tourism and hospitality courses. As such, there is bound to be a cascading effect across innumerable tourism dependent households in the state. In addition to all this, we must factor the ‘tarnished outcome’ and the ‘loss of image’ (or even credibility) of Meghalaya tourism domestically and abroad. The Residents’ Act will undoubtedly result in a trade-off between protecting our indigenousness and tourism driven growth and development; but, at what cost? What is the cost benefit analysis of it all? Accordingly, I place the following pointers –
Firstly, the United Nations World Tourism Organization defines tourism as ‘the activities of persons traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes’. In this definition, the phrase ‘not more than one consecutive year’ is important. This is because on the flipside it implies that one has to ‘stay overnight’ so as to be considered a tourist. In majority of the cases this would involve a stay of at least 24 hours. Here, lies the crux of the matter; that the government is using and insisting upon this very yardstick for segregation between ‘need and no need for registration’. The intent may be for ease of implementation of the legislation. However, in the context of tourism this number ‘24 hours’ is a death knell. The potential tourist would hesitate to visit our state or think many times over the hassles of registration and verification. The yardstick ‘24 hours’ is a direct attack on the vibrancy of tourism. It creates a fright psychosis in the minds of the potential clientele. As such, if the government insists upon this yardstick; tourism will suffer. It will run into life support. One can only hope that the government will revisit and reapply its mind into this crucial parameter!
Secondly, why is the need to file entry papers (print or electronic) so much of a problem in tourism? Well, this has to do with the inherent nature of the sector. Tourism is about leisure. It is about recreation and rejuvenation. It is about entertainment. Contemporarily, it is about learning, connections and experiences thereby contributing towards the overall wellbeing of a tourist. If one delves into the specifics above, one will be able to figure out a very important element. That being, the clientele aspires and demands to have a hassle-free travel. Effective tourism aptly follows the norm of ‘travel light, travel far and travel well and most critically without any hiccups’. Tourism can be termed as a soft service sector and it is highly sensitive to any abnormalities; be it in the form of violence as was seen in the Arab Spring of 2010s or the ecological imbalance as seen in the case of Maya Bay of Thailand and so forth. In our case, this structural change in the form of entry regulation is bound to have a rippling effect. As such, the Residents’ Act will be throwing a spanner in the works. This need to file papers will turn ‘potential visitors’ into ‘doubtful visitors’. It will send a wrong message to our existing and more importantly, the potential markets.
Thirdly, what does the ILP experiences in other states teach us? More importantly, how can we relate such ILP practices with our talk of Residents’ Act? Well, be it this way or that way; it will impact upon the demands for tourism products and services. It will impact upon the skilling of the youth. It will decrease employment opportunities. Most worryingly, it will turn our promising tourism attractions into ‘non-performing assets’ and overtime into ‘dead assets’. The clientele will have a skewed perception of us as a people. In short, we will be seen as unwelcoming people! As such, whatever clarifications and assurances the government gives will run into naught; precisely because what happens on the ground is totally different from what is thought in the corridors of power.
In my personal experience, going through the ILP procedures while travelling (be it for business or pleasure), was not a pleasing experience. In fact, it is not just about entry papers; it is also about the chance that you may be checked any time and by anyone (even by pressure groups) as to your travel credentials. Now, which tourist would like to experience such an ordeal and most importantly, can our state government ensure that our very own pressure groups will not be resorting to such checking practices?
Fourthly, tourism entrepreneurship and businesses have been thriving over the years. They are in the stage of survival and edging towards growth. Moreover, through the Meghalaya Tourism Development and Investment Promotion Scheme, 2012; homestay accommodations have been given a major boost. All of this is because of the demand which has been consistent ever since the turn of the millennium. As such, I fail to see as to why are we shooting ourselves on the foot? Do we not see that this Residents Act has the potential to derail whatever good work that has been done so far? If it is administered in its current form, it will take Meghalaya tourism back by 10-15 years and maybe forever to reengineer and reposition and reimage ourselves.
Therefore, instead of making the Residents Act inclusive of the tourism sector; it is most wise to exempt the tourist clientele from its purview altogether. Remove the words ‘tourism and tourist’ from its pages. What is the issue for the pressure groups? Immigration and illegal immigration and the loss of indigenousness right! Well, tourism has nothing to do with all these; as they come and go back. Hence, as for the concerns of the pressure groups; the better approach would be to strengthen the checking mechanisms at the locality levels through the Headmen and of the markets through the District Councils. The need of the hour is to focus on the real problem areas at hand and legislate as such!
Lastly, collateral damage comes to mind! Meghalaya tourism is on the brink of becoming a collateral damage of the Residents’ Act. The ‘death knell’ has started. As such, for us in the tourism and hospitality sector it is time to brace for the storm. In addition, if we really dig into the roots of it all; this is all about that age old debate – do we open up and grow or do we preserve indigenousness and strategize? Well, on this point we all have our own opinions and the discourse can continue!
(The Author teaches at NEHU)