By Benjamin Lyngdoh
Does Meghalaya tourism have potential? Is enough being done to realise the potential? The saga of delays, gaps and misses highlights that Meghalaya tourism has a long way to go with regards to deriving the best out of its tourism resources. Tourism has the potential to contribute a lot more to the state GDP if the problem areas are looked into. Mentioned below are some of such areas –
Delays –
The issue of Assam tourist vehicles ferrying the major share of tourists is not new. Concerns were first raised in the year 2015. That was the time when tourism really took-off in many new destinations. Tourism was no longer confined only to Shillong, Sohra and Mawlynnong; rather, many new attractions came up in Khasi-Jaintia Hills. This was also the time when resorts started coming-up thick and fast particularly in Ri-Bhoi District. Now, who ferries tourists to such resorts? Obviously, it is the Assam tourist vehicles. On July 26, 2024 HNYF stopped Assam tourist vehicles at Umtyngar from going onwards to Sohra and other destinations. Over the years many pressure groups have had a problem with Assam tourist vehicles plying to the attractions. Even sections of the public support such actions of the pressure groups.
It has been nine years since the problem started. In that time nothing has been done to address it. The delay is unwarranted and problems like this will continue to happen frequently unless a permanent solution is found. This is because Meghalaya tourism will continue to grow. This means that Assam tourist vehicles will also continue to grow. The only factor to be considered while looking at solutions is that ‘protectionism in business does no good’. It is better to have an ecosystem of competition. Stopping Assam tourist vehicles is not the solution; rather, the scaling of skills and capacity (number of tourist vehicles) of the local transport entrepreneurs is.
What is the value proposition of Meghalaya tourism and how is it different from the competition of other destinations located near and far? This is the question that needs examination. Till the time that is done Meghalaya tourism will lack a sense of direction and the policies and strategies formulated and implemented will not have a clear goal. The key here is branding and marketing. In the absence of proper branding there cannot be effective marketing. The result is that Meghalaya tourism will continue to be known as a leisure destination only. The word leisure in tourism parlance is ‘generic’. It is time to look at ‘specifics’. In business development this situation is known as ‘a conceptualization problem’. It is the highest level problem which really needs think-tanks to come together and conceptualize a solution.
For instance, take festival tourism. Meghalaya is slowly turning into a medium-to-high-end festival tourism destination. Now, how do festivals fit into the tourism landscape of Meghalaya? What about other verticals such as adventure, culture, cuisine, wildlife, etc? How do all these define the scope and shape of Meghalaya tourism? This is the branding question. Unless Meghalaya tourism appropriately brands itself as a proper destination it will not be able to position itself with a ‘unique selling proposition’ at the global stage. The absence of branding will result in a slow and gradual demise.
Gaps –
The state government has recognised tourism as one of the major engines for employment and growth. Efforts are being made with regards to training and development of the service providers across accommodations, transportation, food and beverages, guides, etc. It is a positive development; however, there are areas that the state government tourism schemes have not touched upon till date. For instance, take Community-based Tourism (CBT). This is one approach to tourism with a huge potential to bring about rural development. It is true that when properly done CBT can bring about growth and development. The only requirement is the willingness and participation of the community in the tourism activities. But, this is easier said than done. Getting the community to come together for CBT requires (and most importantly) community ownership and management of the tourism resources, resource sharing and distribution of returns amongst the inhabitants. These requirements can be difficult to fulfil as the resources are privately/clan owned. This in itself poses a challenge to distribution of returns, etc. In most cases there is a trust deficit.
Even if the challenge is overcome, there is the question of management. CBT in its true sense requires that the raw materials used in providing services such as food and beverages, accommodation, etc are all sourced locally from the community and nearby areas. The meat and vegetables have to come from the villages so that the community can benefit economically. Today, the CBT destinations of Meghalaya source their raw materials from outside. This means reduced economic benefits for the community. This is one gap that needs to be mitigated. Here, the state government agricultural schemes have a major role to play.
Misses –
Meghalaya currently has a number of tourism associations. Some relate themselves to tourism development, some to tour operations, rural development, hotels and accommodations, guiding, etc. While that is alright, it can also result in a limited view of tourism. Each association is looking at its own mandate only. Maybe there is a case of competition too amongst the associations. On the contrary, tourism works through cooperation and coordination. Tourism encompasses products, services and activities which are dependent and supplementary to one another. This makes the case for an ‘umbrella tourism association’ which would encompass all the associations of Meghalaya. For instance, take the autumn tourism calendar which was released recently. The festivals lined-up are not the domain of any specific association alone; rather, it requires the coordinated functioning of all the associations. Some will take care of tourism services, some will look at the events per se, and some will look at sight-seeing, etc. Having an umbrella association will also help the state government in dealing with the stakeholders through a single contact point. This is one element of ‘ease of doing business.’ Another area relates to tour operations. The complaint is that the majority of tourists who come to Meghalaya get their itineraries done from outside. The tourist does not take the services of the local tour operators. In recent years many local entrepreneurs have tried to do start-ups relating to travel operations. Quite a few have gained some success while many have failed. It would be good if the state government can think of a travel and tourism incubation centre to help the new start-ups. The majority of the start-ups today are all tech-based or tech-supported. This becomes difficult for the budding entrepreneurs in the absence of support and hand-holding. An incubation centre is a perfect setting for networking and entry into the tourism market. This will also augment tourism contribution to the state GDP from the current 5% (approx) per annum to higher levels.
The saga of issues are many. If not addressed immediately and appropriately, the future for Meghalaya tourism may not be that bright.
(The writer teaches at NEHU; email – [email protected])