Full Text-PDF
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies XISS, 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 cultural resource management (CBCRM) as well as a megalithic living tradition at Mawphlang sacred forest in Meghalaya. Within Sixth Schedule, under Khasi Hill Autonomous District Council (KHADC) this sacred forest land is owned by the community and the property is sanctioned by the Mawphlang Hima (traditional district). The traditional institution’s role in resource management and community’s customary practices through power relations (Khasi clan relationship) are focused on this research. Here community tourism has been developed by the local youth and working under two organizations; Seng Samla Shnong Mawphlang’ (SSSM) (mostly traditional Khasi members) and ‘Mawphlang Sustainable Tourism Society’ (MSTS) (mostly Christian Khasi members). They contest and bid tender every year to get a more powerful position in the sacred forest management committee and there is an emerging clash between these two organizations. Therefore, this ethnographic study based on fieldwork critically draws the community as well as the institutions’ (traditional and Christian) role to preserve the Mawphlang sacred forest. Keywords : Sacred Forest, Megalithic Tradition, Resource Management, Traditional Institution, Youth Organization Introduction Every 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 more focused to conserve their resources as they are fully depended on it for survival. Community’s tradition of preservation is maintained customarily by which they can manage and restore their own resources. Therefore, culture and its resources combined with each other and worked together. The term cultural resources used for the first time in the year 1971 or 1972 by the National Park Servicesi. Cultural resources are manmade with a human activity where cultural resource management more concentrated on heritage with the community’s living traditions. Mostly in archaeological perspective, this had been discussed. But, from an ethnographical point of view its need to be explored. The conceptualization of natural resources is rooted in Natural 1 Ph.D. Scholar (UGC NET SRF), Centre for Indigenous Cultural Studies, Central University of Jharkhand, E.mail- [email protected], Mobile : 9475586948 8087 8088 Nayak Science. This concept further generated scope to the colonizers to conceptualize natural resources. This paper thoroughly discusses the community’s natural resources as well as respective culture by defining their components through Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) & Traditional Knowledge System (TKS). According to Mahanty, Jefferson, Nurse, Stephen & McLess (2006) the whole concept of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) was articulated at the community level in Asian countries and later it became a parameter for policymakers and development experts. Natural diversities are best understood by cultural diversities. However, the idea of ‘Community- Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)’ had emerged during the 1980s and 1990s in Asian countries. In recent time, it has been emerging interest to the community for its maintenance of natural resources in a sustainable way (Mahanty, Jefferson, Nurse, Stephen & McLess, 2006). Mahanty, Jefferson, Nurse, Stephen & McLess (2006) quoted Kellert, Mehta, Ebbin & Lichtenfeld (2002) that “Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) encompasses a diverse set of approaches and practices that broadly share a concern for integrating social and environmental goals by devolving power and authority in resource management from central government to the local level. Advocates promote CBNRM as a means for improving the socio-economic conditions of the rural people, improving sustainable resource management and increasing the power and participation of hitherto marginalized groups”. Therefore, the community’s cultural resources are integral to their natural resources. Here the author has selected Indigenous Khasi Community of Meghalaya and their initiative to protect the Mawphlang Sacred Forest. Also, the author has tried to focus on how the Khasi community of Mawphlang, maintains its cultural resources in their own way through customary rules and regulations. The indigenous Khasi, a matrilineal community live in different parts of Khasi Hills especially East Khasi Hill, West Khasi Hill, Ri-Bhoi and South West Khasi Hill districts in Meghalaya. Khasi has different subgroups i.e. Pnar Khasi, Maram Khasi, War Khasi, Lyngam Khasi, Bhoi Khasi. They are living within different cultural ecology and slightly different from one another in the context of language, religion and food habits. Khasi belongs to Mon Khamar subgroup of Austro Asiatic language family and it connects to the other Austro Asiatic language group of central Indian indigenous communities. Mawphlang sacred forest is located at East Khasi Hill District and 25 kilometers far away from Shillong, the capital of Meghalaya. In Mawphlang village people are Maram Khasi mixed with Pnar Khasi, Syntang Khasi, and War Khasi. Nowadays the people of this area, are mostly converted to Christianity. Still a few Niam Khasi people 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 of the region from where mostly the Niam (traditional religion) Khasi people joined in Seng Khasi movementii. Therefore, organizations like Pre Primary School, Seng Khasi Cultural group, Seng Khasi Women Organization (Seng Kynthei), and Youth Organization for male (Seng Samla Shnong Mawphlang) were established here. Christianity influenced 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 cultural resource and heritage management. Cultural Resource Management Plan defined as, “…sites, structures, landforms, objects and locations of importance to a culture or community for historic, educational, traditional, religious, ceremonial, scientific or other reasons” (Colville Confederated Tribe, 2006, p.1). Fowler (1982, pp.1-50) wrote, “The term ‘cultural resources’ began to be used within the National Park Service in 1971 or 1972 and soon thereafter by others.” Fowler referred to Lipe and Lindsay (1974) to say “the term management was in use by 1974”. Fowler (1974, pp.1467-68) proposed a working definition of ‘Cultural Resources’ and said, “Whatever the origin of the phrase, a useful working definition of cultural resources is ‘physical features, both natural and manmade, associated with human activity. This would include sites, structures, and objects possessing significance, either individually or groupings; in history, architecture, archaeology or human (cultural) development …. Cultural property(s) are unique and non-renewable resources” (Fowler, 1982, p.1). Great Lake Indian Law Centre in its publication: A Guide to Cultural Resource Laws in Indian Country (2004) quoted Chen (2005) “International Law defines ‘Cultural Property’ to include any property of great importance to the cultural heritage of a people”. Cultural Resource Management discourses concentrated more on archaeological heritage (Fowler, 1982; Stapp & Burney, 2002; Keitumetse, 2014) while no less important is sustainable living traditions, which are pivoted on indigenous and traditional knowledge systems (IKS & TKS) (Banks, Giesen & Pearson, 2000). Internationally, tribal and indigenous people have accumulated knowledge over time in a traditional set up (Traditional Knowledge System/ TKS). They learn & practice knowledge of co-existence within the natural environment. This knowledge system is practiced by generation after generation through oral tradition as well as through various sacred rituals; cultural practices and belief system in which they remain embodied (Barua, 2009). 8090 Nayak Many scholars had studied Khasi megaliths in the 19th, 20th and 21st century. Among them, Godwin-Austin (1872), Clark (1874), Mawlong (1990), Gurdon (1975), Marak (2012, 2019) have notable works. According to Mawlong, the megalithic tradition was visible in Khasi and Jaintia hills and it was of three basic types; one is menhir or standing stone, the second one is dolmen or table stone (flat one) and the cists (box-like structures). These three types had been erected for different purposes. Clark (1874) had categorized Khasi megaliths into three groups; the funeral pyres, the cists containing the pots of ashes and the monumental groups. According to Khasi indigenous tradition, 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 the purpose of cineraria. Lyngdoh (1937) had classified Khasi megaliths into two categories Ki Maw Niam (religious stones) and Ki Maw Nam (memorial stones). This classification is more acceptable