By Benjamin Lyngdoh
The book “Controversies in Tourism,” (published by CABI, UK) starts with a compelling paragraph on ‘how tourism is responsible for controversies far beyond the negatives that are usually talked about’. While providing a globalised perspective on controversies, it makes one wonder if tourism is in fact a boon or bane. Even in well- established tourism destinations such as the European Union and USA which possess adequate checks and balances on sustainability, economic impacts, etc for ensuring equitable distribution of benefits to stakeholders, there are still problems galore. This brings into focus controversies in Meghalaya tourism which is of a macro scale. Some of them are related to factors within the scope of tourism (endogenous) while others are external factors that influence upon tourism development (exogenous). This column highlights three of the many controversies.
Community-based Tourism (CBT)
CBT is basically a model where the tourism resources are owned and managed by the community. In most of the destinations of Meghalaya which claim to be CBT, the tourism resources are neither owned nor managed by the community. They belong to a few parties who hold all the bargaining power. Again, CBT is basically a model where the tourism activities are operated by the community and the returns from such activities are equitably shared amongst the households of the community. In most of the destinations, the activities are run by a handful of parties who do not share a dime towards community development. If a destination is not christened as CBT, then it is fine if parties function on the principle of every man for himself. If you like, function like a capitalist and gobble up all the wealth. The problem arises when a community says that it is practicing CBT but in reality it is functioning contrary to the principles of CBT.
In order to break the shackles of control by the knowledgeable/mighty few, it is important that awareness and training is given to the community on the very foundations and premises of CBT. It is important to educate the stakeholders that CBT is not a business development model, rather a community development model. In Meghalaya this realisation is largely absent. This is the reason why in CBT destinations there is no development of the community but only of a handful of parties. When poverty is added to the equation, young boys and girls can be found being actively engaged in the name of CBT even during school hours. For a small return of Rs. 100 per day their entire future and well-being is sacrificed. The cost-benefit analysis does not add up. Is this the sort of tourism development we seek in our communities? This controversy is endogenous in nature.
Land Banks
The Meghalaya Tourism Policy, 2023 is a welcome step in the right direction and more focussed than the 2011 version. While the policy is still skewed towards business development with little direction on how tourism would lead to holistic development, it has touched upon critical areas such as training of the stakeholders and service quality. That being said, an interesting addition in the policy is ‘land bank’. After careful study it is found that it is a catch 22 situation. Land bank is basically a western concept made popular in the mid-20th century in USA when de-industrialization resulted in large areas with abandoned land/properties. Gradually it started picking up in agriculture too. Contemporarily, land banks are synonymous with real estate sector where big developers are engaged in the aggregation of land holdings from sellers (mainly poor farmers, etc) for the purpose of development into lavish properties or further selling to investors. Gurgaon and National Capital Region of India are good examples of land banks for real estate development.
Land banks in Meghalaya tourism should be properly studied. It is true that one of the challenges to tourism development in Meghalaya is private ownership of land. Private parties/clan own land. Now, tourism needs a sizeable chunk of land for development. It cannot be done in small plots. There have been cases where a village has not been able to promote tourism as all the land owners were not in agreement. For example, the development of a tourism spot requires passage through a stretch of land belonging to person X. If X does not subscribe to the idea, the tourism spot becomes inaccessible and hence the idea fails. The entire village becomes the loser. In such situations, the land bank concept is advantageous. If plots of land are bought/maintained by some authority (say Tourism Development Regulatory Authority), then it can be issued in bulk to investors/stakeholders for tourism development.
On the flip side, land bank in tourism is fraught with concerns. With politicians and businesspersons already acquiring huge chunks of land in rural areas, will the concept of land bank in tourism benefit only a few? These parties can conglomerate amongst themselves, start tourism activities and thereby eat up all the benefits. The rural folks in the vicinity will be out of the tourism equation. Now, here lies the question. Is land bank truly meant for equitable development of tourism or has it been included in the policy just to benefit a few parties? When we look at land banks in terms of Meghalaya, it has the potential to contribute towards even more landlessness of the majority. Or is the government going to walk the talk of community involvement, PPP, etc as outlined in the policy? This controversy is exogenous in nature.
Commodification
In its real sense, tourism is not a commodity. It is not something that one can just buy and consume. For example, the entry fee to a spot is only Rs. 30, but what can be derived out of that is much more. This is why it is said that tourism is an experience – a learning which leads to fulfilment. This basic premise is starting to disappear from Meghalaya tourism. Everything now is about money. The human aspect such as relationships, connection, cross-cultural learnings, environment, sustainability, etc have almost died down. This is one of the reasons why most of the spots are poorly managed, being dirtied and degraded with no thought for best practices such as waste disposal/management, etc. Forget about responsible and sustainable tourism. this concept has not even entered the tourism practitioners at large. In this process of money and commodification, authenticity is lost. In other words, the very heart of tourism is lost. For example, in tourist spots where they offer the wearing of Khasi attire, it is found that sometimes it is worn the wrong way. In one instance, it was found that a male was wearing female attire. There has to be limits to such commodification. Both the tourist and the host are to be blamed. This controversy is both endogenous and exogenous in nature.
In the end, however, it is not all gloom and doom. Tourism has a lot of good things to offer if it is managed properly. But, do we know how and are we willing? This in itself is a controversy!
(The writer teaches at NEHU; Email – [email protected])