community-based cultural resource management: a … · community-based cultural resource management...

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management StudiesXISS, Ranchi, Vol. 17, No.2, June 2019, pp. 8087-8101

COMMUNITY-BASED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:A STUDY OF MAWPHLANG SACRED FOREST IN

MEGHALAYA

Anindita Nayak1

This paper discusses the Khasi and their community-based culturalresource management (CBCRM) as well as a megalithic livingtradition at Mawphlang sacred forest in Meghalaya. Within SixthSchedule, under Khasi Hill Autonomous District Council (KHADC)this sacred forest land is owned by the community and the propertyis sanctioned by the Mawphlang Hima (traditional district). Thetraditional institution’s role in resource management andcommunity’s customary practices through power relations (Khasiclan relationship) are focused on this research. Here communitytourism has been developed by the local youth and working undertwo organizations; Seng Samla Shnong Mawphlang’ (SSSM)(mostly traditional Khasi members) and ‘Mawphlang SustainableTourism Society’ (MSTS) (mostly Christian Khasi members). Theycontest and bid tender every year to get a more powerful position inthe sacred forest management committee and there is an emergingclash between these two organizations. Therefore, thisethnographic study based on fieldwork critically draws thecommunity as well as the institutions’ (traditional and Christian)role to preserve the Mawphlang sacred forest.

Keywords : Sacred Forest, Megalithic Tradition, ResourceManagement, Traditional Institution, Youth Organization

IntroductionEvery culture is unique for the management of resources and heritage.Nature plays an important role to maintain the cultural resources,which make them inter-dependent. Indigenous communities are morefocused to conserve their resources as they are fully depended on it forsurvival. Community’s tradition of preservation is maintainedcustomarily by which they can manage and restore their own resources.Therefore, culture and its resources combined with each other andworked together. The term cultural resources used for the first timein the year 1971 or 1972 by the National Park Servicesi. Culturalresources are manmade with a human activity where cultural resourcemanagement more concentrated on heritage with the community’sliving traditions. Mostly in archaeological perspective, this had beendiscussed. But, from an ethnographical point of view its need to beexplored. The conceptualization of natural resources is rooted in Natural

8087

1 Ph.D. Scholar (UGC NET SRF), Centre for Indigenous Cultural Studies,Central University of Jharkhand, E.mail- [email protected],Mobile : 9475586948

8088 Nayak

Science. This concept further generated scope to the colonizers toconceptualize natural resources. This paper thoroughly discusses thecommunity’s natural resources as well as respective culture by definingtheir components through Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) &Traditional Knowledge System (TKS). According to Mahanty, Jefferson,Nurse, Stephen & McLess (2006) the whole concept of CommunityBased Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) was articulated atthe community level in Asian countries and later it became a parameterfor policymakers and development experts. Natural diversities are bestunderstood by cultural diversities. However, the idea of ‘Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)’ had emerged duringthe 1980s and 1990s in Asian countries. In recent time, it has beenemerging interest to the community for its maintenance of naturalresources in a sustainable way (Mahanty, Jefferson, Nurse, Stephen& McLess, 2006). Mahanty, Jefferson, Nurse, Stephen & McLess (2006)quoted Kellert, Mehta, Ebbin & Lichtenfeld (2002) that “CommunityBased Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) encompasses a diverseset of approaches and practices that broadly share a concern forintegrating social and environmental goals by devolving power andauthority in resource management from central government to thelocal level. Advocates promote CBNRM as a means for improving thesocio-economic conditions of the rural people, improving sustainableresource management and increasing the power and participation ofhitherto marginalized groups”. Therefore, the community’s culturalresources are integral to their natural resources.

Here the author has selected Indigenous Khasi Community ofMeghalaya and their initiative to protect the Mawphlang Sacred Forest.Also, the author has tried to focus on how the Khasi community ofMawphlang, maintains its cultural resources in their own way throughcustomary rules and regulations. The indigenous Khasi, a matrilinealcommunity live in different parts of Khasi Hills especially East KhasiHill, West Khasi Hill, Ri-Bhoi and South West Khasi Hill districts inMeghalaya. Khasi has different subgroups i.e. Pnar Khasi, MaramKhasi, War Khasi, Lyngam Khasi, Bhoi Khasi. They are living withindifferent cultural ecology and slightly different from one another inthe context of language, religion and food habits. Khasi belongs to MonKhamar subgroup of Austro Asiatic language family and it connects tothe other Austro Asiatic language group of central Indian indigenouscommunities. Mawphlang sacred forest is located at East Khasi HillDistrict and 25 kilometers far away from Shillong, the capital ofMeghalaya. In Mawphlang village people are Maram Khasi mixed withPnar Khasi, Syntang Khasi, and War Khasi. Nowadays the people ofthis area, are mostly converted to Christianity. Still a few Niam Khasipeople who believe in traditional religion, worshipping the sacred forest

Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8089

with their age-old tradition. This is probably one of the old villages ofthe region from where mostly the Niam (traditional religion) Khasipeople joined in Seng Khasi movementii. Therefore, organizations likePre Primary School, Seng Khasi Cultural group, Seng Khasi WomenOrganization (Seng Kynthei), and Youth Organization for male (SengSamla Shnong Mawphlang) were established here. Christianityinfluenced broadly the life and philosophy of people of this village.Specifically, this religious faith had introduced new lifestyles, food habits,languages in the life of the Khasi people.

Review of literature

There are mostly archaeological writings which discussed culturalresource and heritage management. Cultural Resource ManagementPlan defined as, “…sites, structures, landforms, objects and locationsof importance to a culture or community for historic, educational,traditional, religious, ceremonial, scientific or other reasons” (ColvilleConfederated Tribe, 2006, p.1). Fowler (1982, pp.1-50) wrote, “Theterm ‘cultural resources’ began to be used within the National ParkService in 1971 or 1972 and soon thereafter by others.” Fowler referredto Lipe and Lindsay (1974) to say “the term management was in useby 1974”. Fowler (1974, pp.1467-68) proposed a working definition of‘Cultural Resources’ and said, “Whatever the origin of the phrase, auseful working definition of cultural resources is ‘physical features,both natural and manmade, associated with human activity. Thiswould include sites, structures, and objects possessing significance,either individually or groupings; in history, architecture, archaeologyor human (cultural) development …. Cultural property(s) are uniqueand non-renewable resources” (Fowler, 1982, p.1). Great Lake IndianLaw Centre in its publication: A Guide to Cultural Resource Laws inIndian Country (2004) quoted Chen (2005) “International Law defines‘Cultural Property’ to include any property of great importance to thecultural heritage of a people”. Cultural Resource Managementdiscourses concentrated more on archaeological heritage (Fowler, 1982;Stapp & Burney, 2002; Keitumetse, 2014) while no less important issustainable living traditions, which are pivoted on indigenous andtraditional knowledge systems (IKS & TKS) (Banks, Giesen & Pearson,2000). Internationally, tribal and indigenous people have accumulatedknowledge over time in a traditional set up (Traditional KnowledgeSystem/ TKS). They learn & practice knowledge of co-existence withinthe natural environment. This knowledge system is practiced bygeneration after generation through oral tradition as well as throughvarious sacred rituals; cultural practices and belief system in whichthey remain embodied (Barua, 2009).

Many scholars had studied Khasi megaliths in the 19th, 20th and21st century. Among them, Godwin-Austin (1872), Clark (1874),Mawlong (1990), Gurdon (1975), Marak (2012, 2019) have notableworks. According to Mawlong, the megalithic tradition was visible inKhasi and Jaintia hills and it was of three basic types; one is menhiror standing stone, the second one is dolmen or table stone (flat one)and the cists (box-like structures). These three types had been erectedfor different purposes. Clark (1874) had categorized Khasi megalithsinto three groups; the funeral pyres, the cists containing the pots ofashes and the monumental groups. According to Khasi indigenoustradition, people had classified their megalith into two categories;Mawbynna-Niam or Maw Niam (sacred or religious stones) &Mawbynna-Nam or Mawnam (commemorative Stones) (Ibid). Gurdon(1975) had divided it into three categories; menhir or vertical stones,dolmens or table stones and cromlechs or cairns mean to serve thepurpose of cineraria. Lyngdoh (1937) had classified Khasi megalithsinto two categories Ki Maw Niam (religious stones) and Ki Maw Nam(memorial stones). This classification is more acceptable to theresearchers.

Objectives of the studyThere are a few objectives in this study. Firstly, to know about thehistory of Mawphalang sacred forest. Secondly, to understand the sacredforest and Khasi clan relations. Thirdly, how nature is represented inKhasi worldview and finally to locate the community’s engagementwith the sacred forest through innovative practices.

Research methodologyThis study is based on primary and secondary sources. Data wascollected through fieldwork from March-April, 2016 and March-May,2017. During fieldwork, I (researcher) had taken personal interviewsof ten people and collected oral narratives. I made several trips to thedifferent parts of the sacred forest with elderly men and women, youngtour operators. The idea of cultural resource and management isthoroughly discussed here and mostly understood from secondarysources. Apart from that the people I met nearly sixty people (bothmale and female) who shared written documents, folktales ofMawphlang sacred forest. To know about the history of the place, Imet Myntriiii and interviewed him. The headman of the Nongrumvillage (one of the five sectors of Mawphlang village) helped me tounderstand about different typologies of clan forests of the place. Heexplained the sacred forest, drawing the sketches of forest boundaries.I interviewed the youth organization’s (SSSM & MSTS) members toknow about their role for the management of the sacred forest.

8090 Nayak

Findings and analysisBased on the economic hierarchy as well religion, it is found that withinthe Khasi community in Mawphlang, there are groups of people whothink about their sacred forest differently. The traditional religiousgroup (Niam Khasi) tries to preserve their sacred forest throughcustomary cultural practices and another group of people’s motto is toachieve political power. They have controlled the natural resources forpersonal benefit. Furthermore, there has been an emerging clashbetween ADCs (Autonomous District Councils) members under SixthScheduled and the members of traditional political institutions underMawphlang Hima mainly for the management of the sacred forest.The two management groups ‘Seng Samla Shnong Mawphlang’ (SSSM)and ‘Mawphlang Sustainable Tourism Society’ (MSTS) have a healthycompetition for that which organization will get tender in next timefor the maintenance of the sacred forest.

Mawphlang in the folktaleThe village Mawphlang is divided into five sectors; Nongrum, MissionCompound, Dongrewrim, Mawkohmon, Ladumrisain. In every sector,one headman or Rangbahshnong is appointed to look after the villageadministration. The headman of Nongrum Village, the Myntri ofMawphlang Himaiv, Bah Tambor Lyngdoh (an entrepreneur ofMawphlang tourism) were the key informants who shared the followinginformation. During an interview, they shared the information inrelation to the oral history of a sacred forest. In Mawphlang villagethere are five localities and this place belongs to the original 12 clanswhere Blah clan was the first inhabitants came from Jaintia Hill(another district of Meghalaya). Hence, Blah (short form of Iangblah)clan was the first ruler to this place and carried out their chieftainshiptill the Mawphlang Syiemship War. At that time the Syiem (King)and his administration had been chosen a lady, Khmah Nongshai forher powerful administrative quality to protect their land from otherSyiems of Meghalaya. During her leadership, she feared on Syiem ofShillong. And with the permission of Almighty God, she had planted 3saplings at the place of phiphandi (the most sacred place) in Mawphlangto testify God’s wish to protect the land. After three years, the saplingswere sprouted well and became trees. When the Almighty God fulfilledher wishes, she started to worship at the place of phiphandi andsacrificed the bull to save their life as well as to protect from any typeof natural calamities. As the lady performed rituals, therefore shebecame the Lyngdohv (priest) of this place. Later, she transferred thethrone to her grandson. Furthermore, the Lyngdoh clan got theadministrative power to rule over the Mawphlang Hima (kingdom).Since then Mawphlang is ruled by the Lyngdohship.


The sacred forest and its oral historyThe people of Meghalaya have their age-old tradition to preserve apatch of their community forest land which is perceived as sacred. Thesacred forest connects to their religious belief and cultural practices isstill a living tradition to them. In East Khasi Hill District, theMawphlang sacred forest is worshipped by the local Khasi and ismaintained by them. Mawphlang village is a heritage site for its sacredforest and living megalithic tradition. Mawphlang village sacred forestis in the map of the biodiversity heritage site of Biodiversity Board ofMeghalaya since 2002vi. The term Mawphlang is derived from twowords Maw means stone and Phlang means grassy land. This sacredforest is nearly 500 years old as told by local Khasi People and around76.8 hectors area of land (latest Survey with GPS, 15th March 2006)vii.This forest is rich to bio-diversity with different indigenous flora andfauna. This sacred forest belongs to the particular clan Lyngdoh, butfor the whole community, this place is sacred. They preserved thissacred forest through some customary rules and regulations. This istotally maintained by the community generation after generation andthey strongly believe that God will punish for any destruction of theirsacred forest. So, they never allow anybody; outsider and even owncommunity people to harm the flora and fauna of their age-oldMawphlang sacred forest. The sacred forest, old monoliths, and theopen grassy land can show the beauty and symbolize the history of theplace.

At Mawphlang, the sacred forest is called Law Lyngdoh,worshipped by the local Khasi people and is maintained by them. It islocated in the southern slope of U Lum Ryngkew Mawiong (RyngkewMawiong Hill, 1863 m), the highest point of Mawphlang village. Theforests of Mawphlang were formerly categorized according to therequirements of the time and their functions. These forests are KaKhlaw Raij, Ka Khlaw Adong, Khlaw Lyngdoh, Khlaw Lyngdoh Khun,Khlaw Lait-Tyrkhang, Khlaw Ri- Kynti or Ri Sumar and Khlaw Ri-Kur (Kharmaphlang, 2009). The headman of Nongrum village duringthe interaction, he discussed the land of Mawphlang sacred forest. Hecategorized their land into five types; i.e. Khlaw Lyngdoh or LawKyntang (sacred forest), Khlaw Shnong/ Raid (community forest),Khlaw Adong (locality forest), Khlaw Shimet (personal/individualforest), Khlaw Ri Kur (clan forest). He described the sacred forestboundary with drawing a map of Mawphlang Sacred Forest (KhlawLyngdoh or Law Kyntang). He told me and had shown that theMawphlang sacred forest has three portions. The left portion is calledKhlaw Lait Tyrkhang which is looked after by the Blah Clan. Themiddle portion is called Khlaw Phiephandi which is looked after byLyngdoh clan and this place is very much sacred where the radish

8092 Nayak

bull is sacrificed during worshipping of U Ryngkew U Basa (forestdeities). The right portion is called Khlaw Nongkynrih which is lookedafter by the Hima Mawphlang. The place Phiephandi is most sacredto the people of Mawphlang where animal sacrifices had occurred. Thisplace is circled by some half shaped breaking stone and covered by around shaped stone. At Phiephandi (another patch of sacred forestland), a crowning ceremony had been arranged. In that particularplace, the then ruler Khmah Nongsai’s grandson had selected his MahaMyntries (ministers) from the Blah Clan, the Kharshiing Clan, theKharsohliya Clan, and the Kharhunai Clan. The ceremony wassolemnized where the stone staging with five seats was made. TheChief sat in the middle and the Myntries sat on both sides. This stonestaging is preserved with great respect to the Khasi of Mawphlang.Mawphlang sacred forest has four open boundaries; at the North KhmatLyngdoh & Lyngktop (playground), at the South Ka Didan (cultivationarea), at the East Khlaw Umsaitsniang (community forest) and at theWest, Ka Phud Niersaw (place where people sacrificed animals forcommunity feast/function) & Wahlynskien Village are there. In KhlawPhie Phandi also has a boundary at its four sides. At the North KhamatLyngdoh (outside the forest), at the South Kyrpong Lyngdoh (insidethe forest), at the East U Lait –Tyrkhang (inside the forest) and theWest Khlaw Nonkynrih (inside the forest) are there. Inside the SacredForest, one footpath is there which is called U Lait Tyrkhang viii.

Phiphandi, the ritualistic place inside the Mawphlang SacredForest Megalithic living tradition in resource management

The whole Khasi hill is very much unique for its rich culturalresources and heritage. The indigenous Khasi has their traditional


dance; Shad Suk- Mynsiem, Shad Nongkrem, different folk songs,folklore related to nature especially sacred forest, hill, plants andanimals, sacred river. Monolith or erecting stone monument (KiMawbynna) is also an important aspect and still, this is a livingtradition. For the remembrance of the dead person, for bravery, theyerect monolith at common marketplaces, at sacred grounds, at burialgrounds, and at resting places. There are adultery monoliths whichindicate social punishment for the women for extramarital affairs. Thesize and shape of the monolith symbolize the gender. The location andthe side are also very much significant. At the megalithic site, thenumber of the erect stone also indicates the purposes behind the erection.For the remembrance, the clan member they erect the stone as onedolmen (table stone, horizontally established) with 3 to 5 menhir (erectstone, vertically established), the middle one is the longest. The dolmensymbolizes the old women or mother of the clan. And the menhirsymbolizes the uncle of the women or clan head. And another menhirsymbolizes the other male members, son or nephew of the women(dolmen). Sometimes it can be seen at some places there are three tofive or seven menhirs where the middle one is very long shaped andthree to five dolmens where the middle one is very big and round shaped.The big dolmen is called Mawkynthai. For this megalith, the Khasipeople bring the stones from a distant. The quality and color are alsoimportant during the erection of monolith. The entire Khasi Hill depictsthe huge stone henge which indicates the age-old tradition sinceprehistoric (Neolithic) time period. Furthermore, the monolith ormegalithic tradition is still a living tradition among the Khasi people.Now only the traditional Khasi (Niam Khasi) people practiced thistradition and during every ritual, festival, death or any type of braverywork they erect stones at a particular place.

Megalith in front of Mawphlang Sacred Forest

8094 Nayak

Every year the traditional institutions (every Hima) organize athree days Shad Shuk Mynsiem (a traditional Khasi dance) festival inevery Hima area before the beginning of agriculture in the month ofApril- May. In this traditional dance program, the virgin girls cantake part in the dance but there is no restriction for male, male fromall age group can take part in it. During the three days festival, whereI had seen that the Christian Khasi neither participated in the dancenor they observed the festival. The Arts and Culture department ofMeghalaya Government, as well as KHADC and Mawphlang Himatraditional darbar, jointly had taken initiative and organized theMonolith Festival at Mawphlang Heritage Village on 31st March to 2nd

April 2016. During that time I was there for my Ph.D. researchfieldwork. So I could observe the 3 days Monolith festival. They hadinitiated to organize this festival for the revivalism of the Khasiindigenous culture as well as their age-old heritage; megalithic culturaltraditions.Traditional institutional management practicesThere are three tire traditional administrative systems in Khasi Hillswhere Shnong or village rests at the ground level, Hima rests at theupper level and Raid or Darbar raid rests at the intermediate level.But in Mawphlang Lyngdohship there is no intermediate unit, thisrests on Shnong at the base and Hima at the apex. Each of the villagesis administered by the Rangbah Shnong or headmen who have receivedSanadsix from the Lyngdoh of the Hima. Under Hima Mawphlang orthe Mawphlang Lyngdohship, there are twenty-two (22) villages. TheMawphlang Sacred Forest is under Hima Mawphlang (traditionaldistrict) and it has customary management system by the Lyngdoh(traditional priest), Myntri (minister) and the Nongbah Shnong (villagehead). The elected heads of the 12 ruling clans i.e. Langblah, LyngdohMawphlang, Kharshiing, Kharsohliya, Kharhunai, Kharnarbi,Kharsahkhar, Kharmawphlang, Kharmaram, Kharlangniuh,Kharphyrnap, Kurkalong form the Hima Mawphlang and a RitiSynshar or an instrument of law was introduced by the HimaMawphlang through the office of the Lyngdoh or priest on 30th April,1970 (Kharmaphlang, 2009).Here the village Community (five sectors of Mawphlang village), aswell as Mawphlang Darbar Hima, had framed some rules andregulations to maintain Mawphlang sacred forest. The signboard infront of the Sacred Forest had shown the rules and regulations as a‘warning’. These are;1. No person (s) is allowed.2. To throw garbage (bottle, polythene bag, waste paper, etc.) in

and around the Sacred Grove


3. To cut trees, felling, chopping of branches of any type of species,plucking of flowers, orchid’s branches, etc.

4. To cook of light fire inside the Grove.5. To enter the Grove without the guidance of local guides authorize

by the office of Hima Mawphlang.6. To the cause commit nuisance, immoral practices, illegal

activities in the area of the Grove.7. To hunt, trap or kill any living creatures inside the Grove.8. No vehicle is allowed to enter around the area of Grove.

Presently there are fifty-three kingdoms (Hima) in Khasi Hills.All have one rule to respect the sacred forest.

Besides the traditional institutions, there is United Khasi-JaintiaHills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) for the management andcontrol of forest (1958) in the areas of the Autonomous United KhasiJaintia Hills District within the jurisdiction of the District Council asspecified in the Sixth Schedule from the year 1958 to the Constitutionof Indiax. In Mawphlang Syiemship (Lyngdohship), the members whobelong to Mawphlang Hima Darbar (traditional institutions) are mostlythe same executive members nominated by the Khasi Hill AutonomousDistrict Council (KHADC). They have the power to collect a royaltyfrom Mawphlang Hima for the improvement and management of theforest.Village youth organizations and their engagement with sacredforestIn the Hima Mawphlang, Seng Samla Shnong Mawphlang (SSSM),one of the leading youth organizations of males, play an important roleto preserve and manage the Mawphlang sacred forest. This is thepremier institution of the youths from the Niam (traditional) Khasifaith. When I visited the place in the month of March 2017, thisorganization was taken the charge to look after the sacred forest. Itworked from April 2016 to March 2017 and then April 2017 to March2018. At present 80 youth members are there under the SSSMOrganization. Bashankupar Khonghat, the Secretary of thisorganization told me that they have managed this organization aftergetting fund from government bodies and other nongovernmentresources. They have utilized their fund for management of SacredForest; to clean inside and outside of the forest; look after the forest bymaintaining their customary rules and regulations. They also haveorganized different Khasi indigenous games which are becoming abolishday by day. For different social services, they have also utilized theirfunds. In the Hima Mawphlang whoever get tender to look after thesacred forest, they have to pay tax to Hima Mawphlang office. So inthe previous year from April 2016-March 2017, they had paid 84

8096 Nayak

thousand rupees to the Hima Mawphlang. And from April 2017-March2018 they had paid 1 Lakh 20 thousand rupees to the Hima Mawphlang.Now another organization ‘Mawphlang Sustainable Tourism Society’(MSTS) has assigned for the work for the next one year April, 2018-March 2019. Last year (2018) Mr. Bashankupar Khonghat, theSecretary of SSSM told me that MSTS put the highest bid (3 Lakhs 2thousands 5 hundred 50 rupees) and owned tender. These twoorganizations bid tender every year for the memorandum ofunderstanding for conservation and management of Mawphalang sacredforest. Before 2016 April, MSTS played the role to preserve Mawphlangsacred forest. Here, Tambor Lyngdoh is the president of MSTS. Duringthe interaction, he told me that since 2008-2009 he had initiated tourismfor the first time at Mawphlang sacred forest. He decided to start hisprofession as a tourist guide and established tourism in Mawphlang.After that, the village youths had influenced and enrolled as a touristguide. Tourism has flourished and made a profitable business inMeghalaya as well as in North East India at present. Mawphlang sacredforest becomes a famous tourist spot in Meghalaya in recent time forits rich cultural heritage and biodiversity. People from all over Indiaand another foreign country they visit the place regularly. Thus thelocal youth preferred this profession and take it as a primaryoccupation. They earn 600-1000 rupees (single guide) per day. Everytourist guide pays only 10% of their earnings to the organization perday. Rotationally they get chance for the guideship. For the tourist,they maintain strict rules and regulations as nobody is allowed to harmthe flora and fauna or pluck any leaves, flower. They never allowed forcollecting dry wood or dry leaves, branches inside the sacred forest.Only people can enter with any local Khasi tourist guide and strictlyfollow rules and regulations notified by the Hima Mawphlang.

Of late, the Government of India has been taken initiatives forthe documentation of indigenous culture of North East India. Duringmy visit to Mawphlang, Delhi based Loksabha TV Channel professionalscame to Mawphlang for visual documentation of the Mawphlang sacredforest. On May 2017 I met them at Mawphlang sacred forest when Iwas there for my Ph.D. field study. During interaction with them,they told me that the present BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party)Government has been emphasizing the North Eastern culture andsanctioned money for the documentation of whole North East Indianculture. For this purpose, the TV channel professionals of nearly 10members had visited different states of North East India to completetheir assignment. On that time they had already covered documentationof some of the other indigenous cultures. And then they started to visitsome heritage sites in Meghalaya for the visual documentation. Theycontacted some prominent leaders in the legislative assembly of


Meghalaya and interviewed them. The assembly members were mostlyChristian people. When the channel people started work and visited atMawphlang then they realized that without the interaction of localpeople (mostly the traditional Khasi who are in the managementcommittee at Mawphlang sacred forest) this work can not be completed.They had faced a serious problem to negotiate the people of two groups;the Christian Khasi and the Seng Khasi (traditional Khasi) people atMawphlang. When they started to work, some misunderstandingoccurred in between two groups. The TV Channel professionals informedto the villagers about the project as the present Prime Minister,Government of India had been taken initiative to focus Northeast Indiato telecast the North East Indian culture. After hearing to this, peoplewere busy to take care and hospitality of the TV Channel people as thelocal Khasi wanted to get attention. The TV Channel people wereconfused and shared their tension about manage to both the groups.People invited the Channel people separately at their own office withgood arrangements. The SSSM had invited the traditional Khasidancers, traditional musicians to perform at the open ground near thesacred forest for the documentation of the Khasi culture. But thechannel people were confused and lastly, they collected the story behindMawphlang sacred forest from the MSTS. Therefore, SSSM memberswere disappointed because the TV channel people did not contact them.SSSM also accused Loksabha TV of their political connection andinvolvement of MSTS. While SSSM was administering Mawphlangsacred forest at that time that’s why they blamed the TV Channelpeople for that, without consent of the SSSM how they channel peopletook interview from MSTS.DiscussionThe paper shows that Mawphlang Sacred Forest is treasured for itscultural tradition and heritage. People both the Niam Khasi and theChristian Khasi had engaged in maintaining their cultural resourceswith their active participation. In the Sixth Schedule area, indigenouspeople have the right for ownership of their resources and here thesacred forest belongs to Hima, this is only the Hima’s property. InMawphlang ‘Seng Khasi Organization’ is more powerful and they aretrying to preserve their traditional culture. And another group isChristian Khasi who is attracted towards the sacred forest forbiodiversity project funding (REDD+)xi from international organizations.Followers of Seng Khasi faith and Christianity, apparently affiliatedto two separate organizations like SSSM and MSTS at a young age.These two organizations contest for political power and bid tender everyyear to rule over the Mawphlang sacred forest. Within the Khasi ethnicgroup, they maintained hierarchy through clan relationship withintheir social structure. I had a keen observation that different people

8098 Nayak

think about sacred forest differently. As one group of people mostlyNiam (traditional faith) Khasi people have great respect for theirculture, tradition, heritage, the sacred forest as well as megalithictradition. On the other side another group of people who becameChristian Khasi, their religious affiliation never allow them toparticipate in traditional customs and ritual ceremony. The convertedChristian Khasi who held powerful positions, their dominant attitude,lifestyle, food habits, dress codes, and attraction for educationtremendously affect the traditional life of the Niam Khasi. Tourismbusiness flourished the economy of this place. Youths are engaged inthis and sometimes they charge high rates for hiring vehicles andguest house accommodations in a competition. For the whole matter,many times unpleasant situations happened. But as an overall viewthat all the villagers, both the youth organizations’ initiative for thepreservation of sacred forest are quite appreciable because Mawphlangsacred forest traces its heritage for more than 500 years. Hence, allpeoples’ effort shows how a community can maintain its heritagegeneration after generation as their customary rules and regulationsconnect sustenance of both environment and culture.ConclusionThe study concludes that since times immemorial Khasi have practicedtheir traditional culture which is more connected to nature. They havehuge cultural resources that they try to restore by some culturalpractices through dances, folk songs, rituals. Different folktales showthat they have a strong connection to the natural environment; hill,forest, stone, water, tree, different animals like tiger, snake, and bird,etc. Through strong belief to the different environment protectingdeities, they guard their natural environment through culturalpractices. Here the protection of the Mawphlang sacred forest is basedon the community’s cultural resource management. Therefore, theymaintain biodiversity through the protection of the sacred forest. Thisstory is an example of how a community can maintain its resourcesonly through its customary rules and regulations. This message isvery much important not only to the state of Meghalaya but also to thewhole world for maintaining the natural resources for its sustainability.

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to my Ph.D. supervisor Dr. Sucheta Sen Chaudhuriand also thankful to Dr. Sarit K.Chaudhuri for their patience, andvaluable comments on it. It helped me to modify this paper.Furthermore the informants, the headman of the Nongrum village,the Myntri (minister) of the Hima Mawphlang, Tambor Lyngdoh,the local entrepreneurs and the President of ‘MawphlangSustainable Tourism Society’ (MSTS), Bashankupar Khonghat, theSecretary of ‘Seng Samla Shnong’ Youth Organization at Hima


Mawphlang. I also owe my sincere gratitude to every one ofMawphlang village in East Khasi Hill, Meghalaya. They helpedme to conceptualize the Sacred Forest and frame it in a paper fromthe ethnographical point of view.

Endnotes

i National Park Service was created by the United States in the year1916 and assumed responsibility for cultural resources associatedwith national parks and monuments.

i i This reform movement of late nineteenth century in the Khasi hillsredefined the Khasi religion. Follower of this faith concentrated tothe mass education and specially women education.

i i i Minister of the Hima, the traditional political organizationiv Mawphlang Hima, a customary political administration is headed

by Lyngdoh and four Myntries. These myntries are elected fromIangblah clan, Kharshiing clan, Kharhunai clan and Kharsohliaclan. Only adult male members can attain meetings in Hima office,women are prohibited to enter.

v Lyngdog is one of the Khasi clans who can perform rituals. Lygdohclan has two category; one is priest and another can do administrativejob.

vi www.news.webindia123.comvii Source: personal interview with headman of Nongrum Villageviii Information was collected from Bah Tambor Lyngdoh, one of the

prominent entrepreneurs of the Mawphalang tourism.ix “Sanads are the legal documents issued by the District Council to

the chief after being elected by the people of his Hima. It spells outthe terms to be fulfilled by the chief during the period of hisadministration. Formerly, the independence of the Khasi States wasrecognized by the British in the form of agreements and treaties. Itwas in 1877 that the formal recognition was replaced with Sanads”(Cantlie, 2008-2009.p. 148).

x Government of Meghalaya, Autonomous District Council.xi Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus

(REDD+)

REFERENCES

Banks, K. M., Giesen, M. J., & Pearson, N. (2000). Traditional cultural propertiesvs. traditional cultural resource management. CRM-Washington, 23(1),33-5.

Barua, I. (2009). Conservation and management of community and naturalresources: A case study from north east India. Stud Tribes Tribals, 7(1),39-46.

Cantlie, K. (2008-2009). Notes on Khasi law (pp.143-150). Shillong: ChapalaPublishing House.

8100 Nayak

Chen, F. S. (2005). Handbook of federal Indian law. Washington: United StatesGovernment Printing Office.

Clark, C. B. (1874). The stone monuments of the Khasi hills. Journal of theAnthropological Institute (JAI), III, 481-493.

Fowler, D. D. (1982). Cultural resource management. Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, 5, 1-50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/200210052

Fowler, J. M. (1974). Protection of the cultural environment in federal law. In E.L. Dolgin, & T. C. P. Guilbert (Eds.), Environmental Law (pp. 1467-1468).St. Paul, Minnesota: Environemntal Law Institute: West Publishing Co.

Godwin-Austen, H. H. (1872). The stone monuments of the Khasi hill tribes.Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 1(2), 122-43.

Great Lakes Indian Law Centre. (2004). What are indigenous cultural resourcelaws and regulations? Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.Retreived from https://law.wisc.edu/glilc/documents/finaltcrbooklet.pdf

Gurdon, P. R. T. (1975). The Khasis. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.Keitumetse, S. O. (2014). Cultural resources as sustainability enablers: Towards

a community-based cultural heritage resources management(COBACHREM) model. Sustainability Journal, 6(1), 70-85.

Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Communitynatural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society &Natural Resources, 13 (8), 705-715. doi: 10.1080/089419200750035575.

Kharmaphlang, D. (2009). A Walk through the sacred forests of Meghalaya.Glimpses from the North-East. Shillong: National Knowledge Commission.Retrieved from http://schoolofeducators.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/nkc_northEast.pdf

Lipe, W.A., & Lindsay, Jr. A. J. (Eds.). (1974). Proceedings of the 1974 culturalresource management conference . Federal Centre, Denver, Colorado:Museum of North Arizona. Technical Series No. 14.

Lyngdoh, H. (1937). Ka Niam Khasi (pp.1-20). Shillong: Printing Works.Lyngdoh, T. (2009). Ka law lyngdoh mawphlang: Mawphlang sacred grove.

unpublished paper.Mahanty, S., Jefferson, F., Nurse, M., Stephen, P., & McLess, L. (Eds.). (2006).

Hanging in the balance: Equity in community based natural resourcemanagement in Asia. Honolulu, Hawai, and Bangkok: East-West Centre,RECOFTC.

Marak, Q. (Eds.). (2019). Megalithic tradition of North East India. New Delhi:Concept Publishing House.

Marak, Q. (2012). Megaliths of North East India. In T. B. Subba (Eds.), North-East India: A Handbook of Anthropology (pp. 34-53). New Delhi: OrientBlackswan.

Mawlong, C. (1990). Classification of khasi megaliths: A critique. Proceedings ofNorth East India. History Association, Imphal, 9-14.

Stapp, D. C., & Burney, M. S. (2002). Tribal cultural resource management: A fullcircle to stewardship. New York: Altamira Press; A Division of Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, History/ArchaeologyProgramme, (2006) Cultural Resource Management Plan, 1872. Retrievedfrom https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a24f7f841aba12ab7ecfa9/t/5 7 b f 5 6 c d b 3 d b 2 b d b 8 9 1 e 6 3 d 1 / 1 4 7 2 1 5 7 4 0 0 4 0 2 /Cultural+Resource+Management+Plan.pdf

United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Management & Controlof Forests) Act (1958). Retrieved from http://khadc.nic.in/a c t s _ r u l e s _ r e g u l a t i o n s _ b i l l s / A c t s _ R u l e s _ a r r a n g e d /19A_24A_Forest_Act_1958_Rules_1960.pdf


community-based cultural resource management: a … · community-based cultural resource management...

Documents