By Benjamin Lyngdoh
September 27 is celebrated globally as ‘World Tourism Day’. The theme this year is ‘tourism for inclusive growth’. Inclusivity means the capacity of tourism to provide a livelihood to the stakeholders. It also means the capacity to pull prospective stakeholders into tourism. Inclusiveness depends on how tourism is streamlined. The factor which impacts upon streamlining is ‘political economy’. It is the study of business and its development in relation to regulations. It analyses the ways in which governments allocate scarce resources in society through regulations. The flow is pretty straight-forward i.e. regulation leads to a dynamic business environment. However, the scope of political economy also includes ‘government thinking’. In tourism, the political economy provides a framework for the growth of services such as food and beverages, accommodation, transportation, recreation, entertainment, etc. That being said, the goal of a political economy is the achievement of sustainable development. But this concept has not caught up in Meghalaya. This deficit can be attributed to tourism being largely observed only from the prism of business.
The political economy of Meghalaya tourism is a narration in disappointment, both in terms of regulation and government thinking. Let us put things into perspective. Tourism has reached many parts of the state and is a source of livelihoods for many. Community-based tourism is popular. Money returns apart, it has helped in shaping the confidence of many stakeholders. This can be seen in destinations like Mawlynnong, Shnongpdeng, Nongriat, etc. But is this enough? Many assessments (government included) tell us that the potential is much more. What is needed is a structure and streamlining of tourism. This way, many more attractions can be included in the tourism map in a meaningful manner with a focus on services and their quality.
Meghalaya has a tourism policy and a tourism property scheme (for home stays). However, this is not the solution either. These are mere guidelines in the organization of tourism. If we observe the attractions analytically we will find that the political economy is missing. Forget about regulation of tourism services, even a clear vision and mission is not there. There is no tourism brand. As a result, marketing suffers. Kerala is ‘God’s own country’. What is Meghalaya? We cannot go on using generic terms like ‘natural beauty and pleasant weather’. It is time to build a brand logo with a tagline that fits the destination. A student competition can be organized for this. They have brilliant ideas.
Many stakeholders point to the growth of tourism in Meghalaya. They say it has happened without regulations. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the domestic and international arrivals were around 12 lakh and 25 thousand per annum respectively. It is these numbers that have created a negative perception towards regulation. There is a fear that regulation will spoil the tourism bandwagon. Accepted, there is growth without regulation. But we need to take a step back and analyze the nature of growth. Is it sustainable? What happens when we start facing stiff competition from other destinations? In Mawlynnong, waste management is an issue. Do we ever wonder how the waste is disposed of? At Shnongpdeng, sewage management is an issue. River Umngot is at the receiving end.
At many attractions, service quality of the tourism enterprises is an issue. Sometimes the drive for money has got the better of etiquette and hospitality. So, how do we reverse the trend? For this, regulation and government thinking has to be proactive. That is the only way out. But, being proactive does not equate to talking about ‘high-end tourism’. This is the most ironic thing today. There are no regulations and checks at all on the current stock of tourism services; yet, we are trying to jump directly to the other end of tourism services (high-end tourism). This is not how an economic sector works. Things cannot be achieved by saying; they are better achieved by putting up well thought out processes in place.
In a discussion, Ian A. Lyngdoh (General Secretary, Meghalaya Tourism Development Forum) raised the issue of ‘morality’ in relation to high-end tourism. He has a very valid point. After all, tourism in Meghalaya (and the world over) is driven by micro and small enterprises. These enterprises engage a lot of semi-skilled workforce. Unskilled people are also involved. This is the uniqueness of tourism. Although it is a specialized activity, the employment can be highly casual. This has both good and bad points. The good point is the chance for livelihood for the grassroots; the bad point is the dilution in service quality. This is where regulation can play a transformative role. It can make the tourism experience better for the tourist. In return, it can give better livelihoods to the stakeholders. Regulation can keep a tab on carrying capacity of an attraction along with ways and means for capacity building of the workforce. This will add value to the destination.
From this point, Meghalaya can gradually migrate towards high-end tourism a few years down the line. This is where the political economy of tourism has to focus. The quality of a destination is determined by the forces of tourism demand and tourism supply. In Meghalaya, we have been focusing too much on the demand aspect (the tourist numbers). It is time to focus on the real deal which is the supply aspect (service quality of tourism).
The achievement of the above requires a focus on regulation and government thinking. The grassroots stakeholders must not be scared of regulations. This is because the purpose is not to cast people away from tourism. On the contrary, it is about streamlining of the sector together with a focus on capacity building. Regulation would also help in record-keeping of the tourism enterprises. This will help in situations such as Covid-19 with regards to planning a relief/stimulus package. The government will have a base for decision-making. In relation to this, there is a Meghalaya Registration of Tourist Trade Bill, 2019. It is a start and a good initiative. However, it has not moved since the year 2019. It is time to reactivate the process. Although the time period for public suggestions on the Bill are over, nonetheless many tourism thinkers have pointed to the scope of the Bill. It only includes registration of hotels, travel agents and guides. But there are many other tourist trades such as small accommodations, tour operators, transport, food and beverages, souvenir shops, way side amenities, etc., which should be considered. Only then can we do justice to the exercise.
In the end, government thinking must take an interest in contemporary issues. Let us take Kongthong village as an example. There is talk to officially call it a ‘whistling’ village. Alan West Kharkongor (President, Meghalaya Rural Tourism Forum) says that it is not right; rather, it should be called a song/singing village. Well, who will address this confusion? It is the political economy of government thinking that must step in and do the needful!
(Email: [email protected]; the writer teaches at NEHU)