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 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 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 , 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 to the researchers.

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

Research methodology This study is based on primary and secondary sources. Data was collected through fieldwork from March-April, 2016 and March-May, 2017. During fieldwork, I (researcher) had taken personal interviews of ten people and collected oral narratives. I made several trips to the different parts of the sacred forest with elderly men and women, young tour operators. The idea of cultural resource and management is thoroughly discussed here and mostly understood from secondary sources. Apart from that the people I met nearly sixty people (both male and female) who shared written documents, folktales of Mawphlang sacred forest. To know about the history of the place, I met Myntriiii and interviewed him. The headman of the Nongrum village (one of the five sectors of Mawphlang village) helped me to understand about different typologies of clan forests of the place. He explained the sacred forest, drawing the sketches of forest boundaries. I interviewed the youth organization’s (SSSM & MSTS) members to know about their role for the management of the sacred forest. Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8091

Findings and analysis Based on the economic hierarchy as well religion, it is found that within the Khasi community in Mawphlang, there are groups of people who think about their sacred forest differently. The traditional religious group (Niam Khasi) tries to preserve their sacred forest through customary cultural practices and another group of people’s motto is to achieve political power. They have controlled the natural resources for personal benefit. Furthermore, there has been an emerging clash between ADCs (Autonomous District Councils) members under Sixth Scheduled and the members of traditional political institutions under Mawphlang 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 healthy competition for that which organization will get tender in next time for the maintenance of the sacred forest.

Mawphlang in the folktale The village Mawphlang is divided into five sectors; Nongrum, Mission Compound, Dongrewrim, Mawkohmon, Ladumrisain. In every sector, one headman or Rangbahshnong is appointed to look after the village administration. The headman of Nongrum Village, the Myntri of Mawphlang Himaiv, Bah Tambor Lyngdoh (an entrepreneur of Mawphlang tourism) were the key informants who shared the following information. During an interview, they shared the information in relation to the oral history of a sacred forest. In Mawphlang village there are five localities and this place belongs to the original 12 clans where 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 chieftainship till the Mawphlang Syiemship War. At that time the Syiem (King) and his administration had been chosen a lady, Khmah Nongshai for her powerful administrative quality to protect their land from other Syiems of Meghalaya. During her leadership, she feared on Syiem of Shillong. And with the permission of Almighty God, she had planted 3 saplings at the place of phiphandi (the most sacred place) in Mawphlang to testify God’s wish to protect the land. After three years, the saplings were sprouted well and became trees. When the Almighty God fulfilled her wishes, she started to worship at the place of phiphandi and sacrificed the bull to save their life as well as to protect from any type of natural calamities. As the lady performed rituals, therefore she became the Lyngdohv (priest) of this place. Later, she transferred the throne to her grandson. Furthermore, the Lyngdoh clan got the administrative power to rule over the Mawphlang Hima (kingdom). Since then Mawphlang is ruled by the Lyngdohship. 8092 Nayak

The sacred forest and its oral history The people of Meghalaya have their age-old tradition to preserve a patch of their community forest land which is perceived as sacred. The sacred forest connects to their religious belief and cultural practices is still a living tradition to them. In East Khasi Hill District, the Mawphlang sacred forest is worshipped by the local Khasi and is maintained by them. Mawphlang village is a heritage site for its sacred forest and living megalithic tradition. Mawphlang village sacred forest is in the map of the biodiversity heritage site of Biodiversity Board of Meghalaya since 2002vi. The term Mawphlang is derived from two words Maw means stone and Phlang means grassy land. This sacred forest is nearly 500 years old as told by local Khasi People and around 76.8 hectors area of land (latest Survey with GPS, 15th March 2006)vii. This forest is rich to bio-diversity with different indigenous flora and fauna. This sacred forest belongs to the particular clan Lyngdoh, but for the whole community, this place is sacred. They preserved this sacred forest through some customary rules and regulations. This is totally maintained by the community generation after generation and they strongly believe that God will punish for any destruction of their sacred forest. So, they never allow anybody; outsider and even own community people to harm the flora and fauna of their age-old Mawphlang sacred forest. The sacred forest, old monoliths, and the open grassy land can show the beauty and symbolize the history of the place. At Mawphlang, the sacred forest is called Law Lyngdoh, worshipped by the local Khasi people and is maintained by them. It is located in the southern slope of U Lum Ryngkew Mawiong (Ryngkew Mawiong Hill, 1863 m), the highest point of Mawphlang village. The forests of Mawphlang were formerly categorized according to the requirements of the time and their functions. These forests are Ka Khlaw 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 during the interaction, he discussed the land of Mawphlang sacred forest. He categorized their land into five types; i.e. Khlaw Lyngdoh or Law Kyntang (sacred forest), Khlaw Shnong/ Raid (community forest), Khlaw Adong (locality forest), Khlaw Shimet (personal/individual forest), Khlaw Ri Kur (clan forest). He described the sacred forest boundary with drawing a map of Mawphlang Sacred Forest (Khlaw Lyngdoh or Law Kyntang). He told me and had shown that the Mawphlang sacred forest has three portions. The left portion is called Khlaw Lait Tyrkhang which is looked after by the Blah Clan. The middle portion is called Khlaw Phiephandi which is looked after by Lyngdoh clan and this place is very much sacred where the radish Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8093 bull is sacrificed during worshipping of U Ryngkew U Basa (forest deities). The right portion is called Khlaw Nongkynrih which is looked after by the Hima Mawphlang. The place Phiephandi is most sacred to the people of Mawphlang where animal sacrifices had occurred. This place is circled by some half shaped breaking stone and covered by a round shaped stone. At Phiephandi (another patch of sacred forest land), a crowning ceremony had been arranged. In that particular place, the then ruler Khmah Nongsai’s grandson had selected his Maha Myntries (ministers) from the Blah Clan, the Kharshiing Clan, the Kharsohliya Clan, and the Kharhunai Clan. The ceremony was solemnized where the stone staging with five seats was made. The Chief sat in the middle and the Myntries sat on both sides. This stone staging is preserved with great respect to the Khasi of Mawphlang. Mawphlang sacred forest has four open boundaries; at the North Khmat Lyngdoh & Lyngktop (playground), at the South Ka Didan (cultivation area), at the East Khlaw Umsaitsniang (community forest) and at the West, Ka Phud Niersaw (place where people sacrificed animals for community feast/function) & Wahlynskien Village are there. In Khlaw Phie Phandi also has a boundary at its four sides. At the North Khamat Lyngdoh (outside the forest), at the South Kyrpong Lyngdoh (inside the forest), at the East U Lait –Tyrkhang (inside the forest) and the West Khlaw Nonkynrih (inside the forest) are there. Inside the Sacred Forest, one footpath is there which is called U Lait Tyrkhang viii.

Phiphandi, the ritualistic place inside the Mawphlang Sacred Forest Megalithic living tradition in resource management The whole Khasi hill is very much unique for its rich cultural resources and heritage. The indigenous Khasi has their traditional 8094 Nayak dance; Shad Suk- Mynsiem, Shad Nongkrem, different folk songs, folklore related to nature especially sacred forest, hill, plants and animals, sacred river. Monolith or erecting stone monument (Ki Mawbynna) is also an important aspect and still, this is a living tradition. For the remembrance of the dead person, for bravery, they erect monolith at common marketplaces, at sacred grounds, at burial grounds, and at resting places. There are adultery monoliths which indicate social punishment for the women for extramarital affairs. The size and shape of the monolith symbolize the gender. The location and the side are also very much significant. At the megalithic site, the number of the erect stone also indicates the purposes behind the erection. For the remembrance, the clan member they erect the stone as one dolmen (table stone, horizontally established) with 3 to 5 menhir (erect stone, vertically established), the middle one is the longest. The dolmen symbolizes the old women or mother of the clan. And the menhir symbolizes the uncle of the women or clan head. And another menhir symbolizes the other male members, son or nephew of the women (dolmen). Sometimes it can be seen at some places there are three to five or seven menhirs where the middle one is very long shaped and three to five dolmens where the middle one is very big and round shaped. The big dolmen is called Mawkynthai. For this megalith, the Khasi people bring the stones from a distant. The quality and color are also important during the erection of monolith. The entire Khasi Hill depicts the huge stone henge which indicates the age-old tradition since prehistoric (Neolithic) time period. Furthermore, the monolith or megalithic tradition is still a living tradition among the Khasi people. Now only the traditional Khasi (Niam Khasi) people practiced this tradition and during every ritual, festival, death or any type of bravery work they erect stones at a particular place.

Megalith in front of Mawphlang Sacred Forest Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8095

Every year the traditional institutions (every Hima) organize a three days Shad Shuk Mynsiem (a traditional Khasi dance) festival in every Hima area before the beginning of agriculture in the month of April- May. In this traditional dance program, the virgin girls can take part in the dance but there is no restriction for male, male from all age group can take part in it. During the three days festival, where I had seen that the Christian Khasi neither participated in the dance nor they observed the festival. The Arts and Culture department of Meghalaya Government, as well as KHADC and Mawphlang Hima traditional darbar, jointly had taken initiative and organized the Monolith Festival at Mawphlang Heritage Village on 31st March to 2nd April 2016. During that time I was there for my Ph.D. research fieldwork. So I could observe the 3 days Monolith festival. They had initiated to organize this festival for the revivalism of the Khasi indigenous culture as well as their age-old heritage; megalithic cultural traditions. Traditional institutional management practices There are three tire traditional administrative systems in Khasi Hills where Shnong or village rests at the ground level, Hima rests at the upper level and Raid or Darbar raid rests at the intermediate level. But in Mawphlang Lyngdohship there is no intermediate unit, this rests on Shnong at the base and Hima at the apex. Each of the villages is administered by the Rangbah Shnong or headmen who have received Sanadsix from the Lyngdoh of the Hima. Under Hima Mawphlang or the Mawphlang Lyngdohship, there are twenty-two (22) villages. The Mawphlang Sacred Forest is under Hima Mawphlang (traditional district) and it has customary management system by the Lyngdoh (traditional priest), Myntri (minister) and the Nongbah Shnong (village head). The elected heads of the 12 ruling clans i.e. Langblah, Lyngdoh Mawphlang, Kharshiing, Kharsohliya, Kharhunai, Kharnarbi, Kharsahkhar, Kharmawphlang, Kharmaram, Kharlangniuh, Kharphyrnap, Kurkalong form the Hima Mawphlang and a Riti Synshar or an instrument of law was introduced by the Hima Mawphlang through the office of the Lyngdoh or priest on 30th April, 1970 (Kharmaphlang, 2009). Here the village Community (five sectors of Mawphlang village), as well as Mawphlang Darbar Hima, had framed some rules and regulations to maintain Mawphlang sacred forest. The signboard in front 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 8096 Nayak

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-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) for the management and control of forest (1958) in the areas of the Autonomous United Khasi Jaintia Hills District within the jurisdiction of the District Council as specified in the Sixth Schedule from the year 1958 to the Constitution of Indiax. In Mawphlang Syiemship (Lyngdohship), the members who belong to Mawphlang Hima Darbar (traditional institutions) are mostly the same executive members nominated by the Khasi Hill Autonomous District Council (KHADC). They have the power to collect a royalty from Mawphlang Hima for the improvement and management of the forest. Village youth organizations and their engagement with sacred forest In the Hima Mawphlang, Seng Samla Shnong Mawphlang (SSSM), one of the leading youth organizations of males, play an important role to preserve and manage the Mawphlang sacred forest. This is the premier institution of the youths from the Niam (traditional) Khasi faith. When I visited the place in the month of March 2017, this organization was taken the charge to look after the sacred forest. It worked from April 2016 to March 2017 and then April 2017 to March 2018. At present 80 youth members are there under the SSSM Organization. Bashankupar Khonghat, the Secretary of this organization told me that they have managed this organization after getting fund from government bodies and other nongovernment resources. They have utilized their fund for management of Sacred Forest; to clean inside and outside of the forest; look after the forest by maintaining their customary rules and regulations. They also have organized different Khasi indigenous games which are becoming abolish day by day. For different social services, they have also utilized their funds. In the Hima Mawphlang whoever get tender to look after the sacred forest, they have to pay tax to Hima Mawphlang office. So in the previous year from April 2016-March 2017, they had paid 84 Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8097 thousand rupees to the Hima Mawphlang. And from April 2017-March 2018 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, the Secretary of SSSM told me that MSTS put the highest bid (3 Lakhs 2 thousands 5 hundred 50 rupees) and owned tender. These two organizations bid tender every year for the memorandum of understanding for conservation and management of Mawphalang sacred forest. Before 2016 April, MSTS played the role to preserve Mawphlang sacred forest. Here, Tambor Lyngdoh is the president of MSTS. During the interaction, he told me that since 2008-2009 he had initiated tourism for the first time at Mawphlang sacred forest. He decided to start his profession as a tourist guide and established tourism in Mawphlang. After that, the village youths had influenced and enrolled as a tourist guide. Tourism has flourished and made a profitable business in Meghalaya as well as in North East at present. Mawphlang sacred forest becomes a famous tourist spot in Meghalaya in recent time for its rich cultural heritage and biodiversity. People from all over India and another foreign country they visit the place regularly. Thus the local youth preferred this profession and take it as a primary occupation. They earn 600-1000 rupees (single guide) per day. Every tourist guide pays only 10% of their earnings to the organization per day. Rotationally they get chance for the guideship. For the tourist, they maintain strict rules and regulations as nobody is allowed to harm the flora and fauna or pluck any leaves, flower. They never allowed for collecting dry wood or dry leaves, branches inside the sacred forest. Only people can enter with any local Khasi tourist guide and strictly follow rules and regulations notified by the Hima Mawphlang.

Of late, the Government of India has been taken initiatives for the documentation of indigenous culture of North East India. During my visit to Mawphlang, Delhi based Loksabha TV Channel professionals came to Mawphlang for visual documentation of the Mawphlang sacred forest. On May 2017 I met them at Mawphlang sacred forest when I was 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 and sanctioned money for the documentation of whole North East Indian culture. For this purpose, the TV channel professionals of nearly 10 members had visited different states of North East India to complete their assignment. On that time they had already covered documentation of some of the other indigenous cultures. And then they started to visit some heritage sites in Meghalaya for the visual documentation. They contacted some prominent leaders in the legislative assembly of 8098 Nayak

Meghalaya and interviewed them. The assembly members were mostly Christian people. When the channel people started work and visited at Mawphlang then they realized that without the interaction of local people (mostly the traditional Khasi who are in the management committee 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 at Mawphlang. When they started to work, some misunderstanding occurred in between two groups. The TV Channel professionals informed to the villagers about the project as the present Prime Minister, Government of India had been taken initiative to focus Northeast India to telecast the North East Indian culture. After hearing to this, people were busy to take care and hospitality of the TV Channel people as the local Khasi wanted to get attention. The TV Channel people were confused and shared their tension about manage to both the groups. People invited the Channel people separately at their own office with good arrangements. The SSSM had invited the traditional Khasi dancers, traditional musicians to perform at the open ground near the sacred forest for the documentation of the Khasi culture. But the channel people were confused and lastly, they collected the story behind Mawphlang sacred forest from the MSTS. Therefore, SSSM members were disappointed because the TV channel people did not contact them. SSSM also accused Loksabha TV of their political connection and involvement of MSTS. While SSSM was administering Mawphlang sacred forest at that time that’s why they blamed the TV Channel people for that, without consent of the SSSM how they channel people took interview from MSTS. Discussion The paper shows that Mawphlang Sacred Forest is treasured for its cultural tradition and heritage. People both the Niam Khasi and the Christian Khasi had engaged in maintaining their cultural resources with their active participation. In the Sixth Schedule area, indigenous people have the right for ownership of their resources and here the sacred forest belongs to Hima, this is only the Hima’s property. In Mawphlang ‘Seng Khasi Organization’ is more powerful and they are trying to preserve their traditional culture. And another group is Christian Khasi who is attracted towards the sacred forest for biodiversity project funding (REDD+)xi from international organizations. Followers of Seng Khasi faith and Christianity, apparently affiliated to two separate organizations like SSSM and MSTS at a young age. These two organizations contest for political power and bid tender every year to rule over the Mawphlang sacred forest. Within the Khasi ethnic group, they maintained hierarchy through clan relationship within their social structure. I had a keen observation that different people Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8099 think about sacred forest differently. As one group of people mostly Niam (traditional faith) Khasi people have great respect for their culture, tradition, heritage, the sacred forest as well as megalithic tradition. On the other side another group of people who became Christian Khasi, their religious affiliation never allow them to participate in traditional customs and ritual ceremony. The converted Christian Khasi who held powerful positions, their dominant attitude, lifestyle, food habits, dress codes, and attraction for education tremendously affect the traditional life of the Niam Khasi. Tourism business flourished the economy of this place. Youths are engaged in this and sometimes they charge high rates for hiring vehicles and guest house accommodations in a competition. For the whole matter, many times unpleasant situations happened. But as an overall view that all the villagers, both the youth organizations’ initiative for the preservation of sacred forest are quite appreciable because Mawphlang sacred forest traces its heritage for more than 500 years. Hence, all peoples’ effort shows how a community can maintain its heritage generation after generation as their customary rules and regulations connect sustenance of both environment and culture. Conclusion The study concludes that since times immemorial Khasi have practiced their traditional culture which is more connected to nature. They have huge cultural resources that they try to restore by some cultural practices through dances, folk songs, rituals. Different folktales show that 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 protecting deities, they guard their natural environment through cultural practices. Here the protection of the Mawphlang sacred forest is based on the community’s cultural resource management. Therefore, they maintain biodiversity through the protection of the sacred forest. This story is an example of how a community can maintain its resources only through its customary rules and regulations. This message is very much important not only to the state of Meghalaya but also to the whole world for maintaining the natural resources for its sustainability.

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to my Ph.D. supervisor Dr. Sucheta Sen Chaudhuri and also thankful to Dr. Sarit K.Chaudhuri for their patience, and valuable 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 ‘Mawphlang Sustainable Tourism Society’ (MSTS), Bashankupar Khonghat, the Secretary of ‘Seng Samla Shnong’ Youth Organization at Hima 8100 Nayak

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

Endnotes i National Park Service was created by the United States in the year 1916 and assumed responsibility for cultural resources associated with national parks and monuments. i i This reform movement of late nineteenth century in the Khasi hills redefined the Khasi religion. Follower of this faith concentrated to the mass education and specially women education. iii Minister of the Hima, the traditional political organization iv Mawphlang Hima, a customary political administration is headed by Lyngdoh and four Myntries. These myntries are elected from Iangblah clan, Kharshiing clan, Kharhunai clan and Kharsohlia clan. 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. Lygdoh clan has two category; one is priest and another can do administrative job. vi www.news.webindia123.com vii Source: personal interview with headman of Nongrum Village viii 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 out the terms to be fulfilled by the chief during the period of his administration. Formerly, the independence of the Khasi States was recognized by the British in the form of agreements and treaties. It was 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 properties vs. traditional cultural resource management. CRM-Washington, 23(1), 33-5. Barua, I. (2009). Conservation and management of community and natural resources: 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: Chapala Publishing House. Community-Based Cultural Resource Management 8101

Chen, F. S. (2005). Handbook of federal Indian law. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Clark, C. B. (1874). The stone monuments of the Khasi hills. Journal of the Anthropological Institute (JAI), III, 481-493. Fowler, D. D. (1982). Cultural resource management. Advances in Archaeological Method 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 resource laws 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). Community natural 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 cultural resource 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 resource management 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: Orient Blackswan. Mawlong, C. (1990). Classification of khasi megaliths: A critique. Proceedings of North East India. History Association, Imphal, 9-14. Stapp, D. C., & Burney, M. S. (2002). Tribal cultural resource management: A full circle to stewardship. New York: Altamira Press; A Division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, History/Archaeology Programme, (2006) Cultural Resource Management Plan, 1872. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a24f7f841aba12ab7ecfa9/t/ 57bf56cdb3db2bdb891e63d1/1472157400402/ Cultural+Resource+Management+Plan.pdf United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Management & Control of Forests) Act (1958). Retrieved from http://khadc.nic.in/ acts_rules_regulations_bills/Acts_Rules_arranged/ 19A_24A_Forest_Act_1958_Rules_1960.pdf