SUSTAINABILITY AND WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL SITES
Pilgrimage Tourism to Sacred Power Places in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal
Trevor H.B. Sofield
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Introduction
Nepal has many historic sites which are rich in built heritage,
cultural distinction or traditional significance. This diverse heritage
reflects the more than thirty different indigenous groups with their unique
languages, cultures and religions who over the centuries have penetrated its
mountains, hills, valleys and plains. It has been said that Nepal has more
temples and gompas (monasteries) per capita than any other country in the
world, and the religious devotion of its Buddhist and Hindu populations over the
centuries has resulted in thousands of sacred sites. In this context,
Nepal’s rich history, entwined with its numerous religious monuments from
Hinduism and Buddhism, provides many places with resources which have
considerable touristic potential. For centuries, small indigenous communities
have been responsible for the custodianship of sacred religious sites, and
because numbers of pilgrims in the past were relatively few the sites retained
much of their environmental and religious integrity. However, tourism in both
secular and religious pilgrimage forms has, through the agency of modern
transport, enabled many hundreds of thousands of visitors per year to now visit
the sites and environmental degradation has been extensive. There is dissonance
between the ‘host and guest’ relationship. This chapter discusses
the management of two World Heritage Sites in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal in
the context of sustainability and pilgrimage tourism. It outlines key features
of the indigenous Newari communities residing at the sites; explores dissonance
and contested space between resident communities, religious associations,
government agencies, pilgrims and tourists; and examines the concept of
empowerment of indigenous communities as a vehicle for achieving sustainable
tourism at religious sites.
Methodology
Three field trips were made to Nepal in 1998 and 1999, for a
total duration of 14 weeks. The fieldwork was supported by the Nepal Government
and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in the context of research
associated with two UNDP tourism projects at the sacred sites of Svayambhunath
and Changu Narayan. Interviews were conducted with key personnel and community
leaders at both sites, tourism ministry officials, archaeology department
officials, private sector tour operators and travel agencies, staff at the
national Tribhuvan University of Nepal, and UNDP staff. In addition,
ethnographic participant observation of tourist behaviour and pilgrims was
carried out at both sites. Fieldwork was supported by intensive library
research and access to UNDP and Government of Nepal documentation.
The Newar Community of Kathmandu Valley
Archaeological evidence indicates that the earliest
distinguishable ethnicities in Nepal were a fusion of Khas with immigrants from
Tibet and Burma. They were followed at least 2000 years ago by the Mongoloid
Kiratis (in Indian literature the term “Kirata” refers to
“people of the Himalayas” - Slusser, 1982). In the fifth century the
Kiratis were conquered by southern Indo-Aryan invaders called the Licchavis, and
this dynasty lasted until the ninth century. The Thakuri period occupied the
next three centuries until invasion by the Malla kings from Tirhut (north India)
who ruled more or less continuously until 1768. They divided the Kathmandu
Valley into the three kingdoms of Kathmandu, Lalitpur (also known as Patan) and
Bhaktapur. In 1769 the leader of the small kingdom of Gorkha, Prithvi Narayan
Shah, captured the three Valley city states and united them into the single
kingdom of Nepal. The Shah dynasty continues as the ruling dynasty to this day.
Over centuries of miscegenation and acculturation the races metamorphosed into
the definitively structured Newars or indigenous people of the Kathmandu Valley.
The ethonym ‘Newar’ and the place name
‘Nepal’ are “in fact etymologically identical ...
although the term “Newar” is only attested from the mid-seventeenth
century (when) it referred primarily to members of the politically dominant
groups. They were the leaders of the people of Nepal” (Gellner, 1995,
pp.4-5). The Newari language however seems to have been spoken by the
inhabitants of the Valley as far back as the records go, and inscriptions dating
back to the Licchavi period mention place names derived from Newari.
Prior to the arrival of the Licchavis, the people of the
Kathmandu Valley practised a mix of Buddhist, tantric and animistic systems of
worship. The brahman priests who accompanied the Licchavis brought
classical Hinduism with them and while that remained the dominant religion of
the kings, Buddhism continued to flourish and was supported rather than
suppressed by the rulers. Nepal escaped to a large extent the iconoclasm of
conquering Muslims who destroyed much of the Indian sub-continent’s
Mahayana Buddhism between the ninth to eleventh centuries, and both Buddhism and
Hinduism formed a complex relationship which is “simultaneously
competitive and ecumenical” (Gellner, 1995, p.3). Most of
Kathmandu’s Newars may be considered Buddhist, in the sense that their
family priests are Tantric Buddhist priests (Sakyas and Vajrachariyas)
rather than Hindu Brahmans. However, there has been significant
syncretism over the centuries and Newars will worship the Tantric Hindu gods as
the patron deities of a village. It is often difficult to distinguish between
the two main spiritual practices of Nepal because they are interwoven with
“the exotica of Tantrism on a background of animistic cults retained from
the distant past: and the result is a proliferation of cults, deities, and
celebrations in variations unknown anywhere else on earth” (Locke, 1999,
p.98). In fact Newars do not cease to be Hindus by virtue of being a follower
of Buddha. Newar Buddhists regard the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu
as incarnations of the Buddha, and the triad are given important roles in
Buddhist cosmology (Locke, 1989). This syncretism is reflected in religious
sites which will encompass both Buddhist stupas and Hindu temples and statues of
Lord Buddha and Hindu gods side by side within the same walled courtyard. The
Newars have produced “a religious culture remarkable for its vigour and
complexity” (Dowman and Bubriski, 1995, p.1).
In the Buddhist and Hindu traditions of the Kathmandu Valley,
the first residents settled around “pithasthann”, freely
translated as “Power places of the gods”, since the focal point of
devotion and communication with the gods is at their residences (Dowman &
Bubriski, 1995). Temples and shrines were erected at such power places and the
Newar settlements clustered around them. Ever since, generations of the same
extended families, the cornerstone of Newar indigenous society, have resided in
such villages as priests and custodians of the sites, providing sustenance and
welcome to pilgrims for hundreds of years (Bahadur Bista, 1999). The entire
Kathmandu Valley is a ‘power place’ of the gods and it has been
called “Nepal Mandala”, its shrines among the holiest places of
pilgrimage in the subcontinent. The term “mandala” has two
meanings: in Hindu/Buddhist cosmology it is a circle, a mystic diagram of varied
form, and in this context the valley and its encircling hills symbolise just
such a spiritual, powerful circle. The second meaning relates to Indian usage of
the term to signify an administrative unit or country, and “from the sixth
century AD, in conjunction with the word Nepal, it signified to the Nepalese the
Kathmandu Valley and its surrounding territory” (Slusser, 1982, p. vii).
The power of the gods resonated into power plays by mortals and the Kathmandu
Valley witnessed successive invasions over the centuries, as noted above.
Throughout the centuries the Newar communities exhibited “a pronounced
territorial introversion - settlements were protected from the dangerous outside
by a ring of deities and defensive walls” (Quigley, 1995, p.300).
Despite the turmoil of successive waves of invaders the rich
Kathmandu Valley also witnessed significant periods of stability. Agricultural
wealth and trade with Tibet and India provided an environment in which the
Newars were able to develop their vibrant artisan culture which is universally
acclaimed. They produced the intricately carved monuments, palaces, temples,
monasteries and courtyards which today constitute the built heritage of the
Kathmandu Valley’s villages, towns and cities. The distinctive curved
roofs of the Newar-constructed palaces and temples of Kathmandu are believed to
be the origin of the archetypical Chinese pagoda roof.
Dating from the time of the Licchavi dynasty there was a process
of Sanskritization as the former tribal society of the Newars was replaced by
the caste system of Hinduism; and like Nepalese society in general the Newars of
contemporary Nepal remain profoundly influenced by the caste-oriented values of
the Indian sub-continent. They are hierarchically organised by occupational
castes and sub-castes with the priests at the apex, although there is some
fluidity and hierarchies are contested by different castes (Rosser, 1966;
Gellner & Quigley, 1995). According to Quigley (1995, p.300), Newar caste
divisions:
“make clear everyone’s identity to everyone else and also mark
out members of the community from outsiders who do not belong: Buddhist Newars
no less than Hindu Newars are organized along caste lines. Caste divisions are
underscored, as are all aspects of Newar social life, by pervasive ritual.
While certain rituals bring together all the inhabitants of a particular
settlement, many others are primarily oriented to a particular kinship group - a
household for example, or a group of affines or perhaps a lineage.”
The most distinguishing feature of Newar social structure which
sets it apart from other sectors of Nepali society is “its pervasively
communal nature. This is evident in the Newar preference for compact urban
settlements, with houses closely packed along narrow streets and lanes. Even
the farmers are town dwellers, occupying special quarters of large towns or
established in separate tightly knit villages surrounded by their fields”
(Slusser, 1982, p.9). The communal characteristics of Newar society are also
conspicuous in their many socio-religious associations of common interest groups
called “guthis”. The primary function of the guthi is
to enable the individual Newar to fulfil his/her many socio-religious
obligations through group action. It is thus a key integrative factor in Newar
communities. Membership of a guthi may be voluntary in some instances
and compulsory in others, it may be dependent upon common descent, or
common locality, or a combination of both; and will entail a balance of
privilege and responsibility. As a consequence it constitutes a basic element
in group identity (Gellner & Quigley, 1995).
The purpose of a guthi is variable. Its major duty may be
“the collective responsibility for the funerals of its members, the
worship of a particular deity, the upkeep of a given shrine, or one of a host of
other obligations, including organizing social events and feasts”
(Slusser, 1977, p.12). The two most important socio-religious associations are
the digu dyah guthi (effectively the lineage as a ritual unit) and the
si guthi, an association of households which is responsible for
overseeing cremation and death rituals (Quigley, 1995). Traditionally, one of
the chief functions of the guthi was the upkeep of monasteries, temples
and shrines through administration of proceeds from lands granted as endowments
to certain deities and their temples and shrines. The unbroken continuity of
Nepalese religious institutions and of the monuments themselves is quite closely
related to the Newar guthi system (Slusser, 1977). However, the strength
of this tradition has significantly weakened in the past fifty years or so, and
many endowments are allowed to lapse or the proceeds re-directed to ends other
than the maintenance of the monuments and shrines. One result is a marked
adverse effect on the physical condition of the monuments of the Kathmandu
Valley, and funds for their conservation must now be sought from other sources,
hence the involvement of the UNDP in two of the most sacred sites, Svayambhunath
and Changu Naryan.
The social significance of heritage lies in its association with
identity: it is fundamental in helping individuals, communities and nations
define who they are, both to themselves and to outsiders. It provides a sense
of ‘belonging’ in a cultural sense and in terms of place. For the
Newars of Kathmandu Valley, their custodianship of religious heritage sites such
as Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan constitutes a key element in defining their
socio-cultural identity. In this context, “Place” - territoriality -
has always been important for the Newar (Gellner, 1995). Alterity and identity
are produced simultaneously in the formation of “locality” and
“community” in the sense that community “is never simply the
recognition of cultural similarity or social contiguity but a categorical
identity that is premised on various forms of exclusion and construction of
otherness” (Gupta & Ferguson, 1997, p.13). The Newars of Svayambhunath
and Changu Naryan engage in processes of exclusion and othering that assist in
forming the collective identities of the resident communities as holistic units,
part of but different from other Newar groups; sharing religious sentiments with
pilgrims from the global environment (connectivity) but ethnically and
culturally disconnected; and mindfully mapping themselves very firmly as
different from tourists. The same concept may be applied to locality: the issue
is not simply that one is located in a certain place but that the particular
place is set apart from and opposed to other places. The question of identity
for the two communities at the two religious sites demonstrates with special
clarity the intertwining of place and power in the conceptualization of
“culture”, as Gupta & Ferguson (1997) note, and the Newar
tendency of “introversion” based on clearly defined and bounded
territorial ownership, as described by Quigley (1995).
SVAYAMBHUNATH AND CHANGU NARAYAN
Svayambhunath
Svayambhunath is a hilltop temple complex situated on the
northwestern boundary of Kathmandu, with panoramic views of the valley and city.
Its main feature is a Buddhist stupa, the Maha Chaitya, reputed to be more than
2,000 years old. Nepalese legends tell of an island in a lake set between the
Himalayan Mountains to the north and the Mahabharat range to the south. On this
island grew a blue lotus containing the eternal flame of the Primordial Buddha.
Manjushri, a reincarnation of the Buddha, came to worship here, and to make
access from India easier for pilgrims he cut a passage through the Mahabharat
hills with his thunderbolt sword and so drained the lake. This is the creation
myth for the Baghmati River and Chobar Gorge. A fertile valley replaced the
lake, the Newars settled there to farm and build their cities, and this became
Nepal Mandala. Svayambhunath hill and its famous stupa on the summit mark the
site of the original lotus island, the stupa being constructed over the eternal
flame to shield worshippers from its searing light.
The permanent community who lives in and around the stupa
consists of 29 Newar households with a population of 212 people (November 1998).
This community has for centuries lived on the hill top as priests to the Maha
Chaitya and provided services for the Newar Buddhist population of the Valley.
Besides this community there are two gompas (monasteries) with resident
populations of monks on the hill top. One gompa is run by Bhutanese Lamas
and was established in 1780 at the invitation of the Gorkha king. The other
gompa, established in 1954, is run by Tibetan Lamas, although Tibetan
Buddhist links with Svayambhunath may be traced back at least to the eleventh
century. There is also an ancient Hindu temple, the Harati Temple, near the
main stupa which attracts thousands of pilgrims per year and is the focus of
daily pujas (religious ceremonies invoking the gods). Perhaps as many as
150,000 pilgrims and tourists visit Svayambhunath each year. They arrive every
day of the year, although their numbers are greatest on festival days or
auspicious days in the Buddhist or Hindu religious calendars. For Newar
Buddhists, Svayambhunath is their pre-eminent sacred site and is regarded as the
most important ‘power place’ for the Valley and considered by many
as the most powerful shrine in the Himalayas (Dowman & Bubriski, 1995, p.
24). It is visited on a daily basis by many Newar associations from around the
city (e.g. the Uray merchant caste from the Asan Twah market precinct of
Kathmandu: Lewis, 1995) .
Changu Narayan
Changu Narayan, with an ancient Hindu temple complex
inside an enclosed courtyard, was the second site selected for PQTP
intervention. Located approximately 13 kms east-north-east from Kathmandu, the
temple is also on a hilltop, at an altitude of 1550 metres above sea level.
Narayan, or Vishnu, is the preserver of creation to Hindus. His temple is often
described as the most ancient temple in Kathmandu, based on a fifth century
inscription on a stone pillar discovered inside the temple grounds. The Changu
Narayan complex and associated statues, carvings and artefacts cover sixteen
hundred years of Newari art and in effect chart the cultural development of the
indigenous Newari people. The temple and surrounding buildings exhibit some of
the finest stone, wood, and metal craft in the Valley. As with Svayambhunath the
hill is forested, although the tree density has been severely reduced during the
past decade with consequent erosion of the slopes.
Changu Narayan has been a pilgrimage site since the reign of
King Haridutta, who claimed to be a reincarnation of Narayan, more than 1700
years ago. Since that time it has always been associated with the Hindu kings of
the Kathmandu Valley and has become one of the three most important power places
in Nepal for both Hindus and Buddhists. Buddhists venerate Narayan/Vishnu
because the Newar Buddhists also have an origin myth which situates the
Bodhisattva of Compassion, Avalokiteshvara, alongside Vishnu in a key role as
one of the founders of the site (Dowman & Bubriski, 1995, p.117). It is
therefore sacred to adherents of both religions and attracts thousands of
pilgrims from around the world each year as one of the three most venerated
power places in the Kathmandu Valley.
There are about 900 households in 9 wards in the village of
Changu Narayan. 143 households are located on the actual temple hilltop, while
the other wards are located in settlements up to 1.5 kilometres distant. About
eighty percent of the village population are Newars and the other twenty
percent are Chhetris, descendants of the warrior caste who had responsibility in
ancient times for defending the fortress temple on the hilltop.
Pilgrimage travel
In examining the literature on pilgrimage tourism, the seminal
work of Turner (1973) provides a useful starting point. Shrines as major places
of pilgrimage are visited by all the adherents of a religion, regardless of
divisions into sects, ethnicity or some other characteristic. Turner’s
concept was of sacred centres “out there”, peripheral and remote,
“excentric” to the centres of population and the socio-political
focus of secular power, often located beyond a stretch of wilderness in the
“chaos” surrounding the ordered, “cosmicized”
socio-political world. While this may be accurate in terms of many Christian
shrines, it is less accurate in the context of Hinduism and Buddhism, and in the
case of Kathmandu’s shrines, Cohen’s (1992) thesis, based on
empirical observation of Buddhism in Thailand, is more apposite. Cohen
suggested that where there is a fusion of religion and politics the same place
will be the centre for both although the institutions are separate; there is
thus a “concentric” rather than an excentric pilgrimage centre. We
could refine this thesis further in a case such as that of ancient Nepal, when
the Licchavi kings were considered reincarnations of Vishnu: both the religious
head and the governance head were combined into the one so that pilgrimage would
be to what we could term ‘a uni-centric place of conjoint
authority’, a power place both spiritually and politically. Svayambhunath
still retains an aspect of this in modern Nepal. Although the present king is
constitutionally head of Hindu state, every twelve years there is a great
Buddhist festival called the Samyak which draws together every single
Newar in the kingdom over a three-day period. On the first evening of
Samyak,
“all the Buddhist images from private homes and public temples are
taken to the Palace, where they receive offerings from the royal family and the
general public. Next day all process to a field at the south east of Svayambhu
hill. Seated on an observation platform the king then observes while the
assembled deities and the samgha receive special offerings. (There is a
particular) symbolism in operation: gathering all deities from the peripheries
to the palace defines and blesses the royal palace as sacred
centre.”
(Lewis, 1995, p.68).
If we take the Turner/Cohen theses and apply them to the
Kathmandu “geographe”, we arrive at a concept I have termed
“concurrence” concerning visitation to sacred sites. For Buddhists
from Nepal a pilgrimage to Svayambhunath will be a journey towards the
sociocultural and political centre of his/her society. For a Buddhist from
India, Sri Lanka, Thailand or Japan, however, the same journey could validly be
regarded in Turnerian interpretation as pilgrimage to an excentric place. For
the secular non-Nepali tourist who visits Svayambhunath, the journey is also one
to the periphery, away from the centre of his/her society and its religious and
socio-political institutions: it is the search for the ‘Other’
(Cohen 1992, 1998) . Even in the twentieth century with the superior technology
of transport now available for the journey from Europe, the Americas, Africa,
Asia and Australasia, travel to Nepal is still distant, time-consuming and
“out there”.
We can combine these various theoretical approaches and say that
visitation to Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan will concurrently include
both the sacred (the pilgrim) and profane (the tourist). It will simultaneously
include travel to both a concentric place (for national visitors) and an
excentric place (for international visitors). The site, its temples, stupas and
history, will simultaneously be both sacred and familiar (to the believer) and a
place of religious significance but exotic (to the tourist). It will be a place
of immense significance and mindful mapping for the pilgrim but placeless for
the tourist in need of a map. It will witness quite different simultaneous
behaviour: that of the pilgrim determined by religious protocol or liminal
experience; and that of the tourist by curiosity, a desire for an
educational/cultural experience or some other secular rationale. It will
accommodate simultaneously participation and observation, the former by pilgrims
in individual or collective acts of worship and religious ceremonies, and the
latter by tourists. (Tourists as non-believers may occasionally also be
participants depending upon the nature of the worship or ceremony, and may be
able to participate at the margins). It will be a ‘power place’
for pilgrims immersed in the cosmological significance of the site, and a place
of exoticism and curiosity for non-believer tourists.
Cohen (1992) notes that the farther and more peripheral
(excentric) the location of a sacred site from the visitor’s own country,
the stronger the tourist components of the pilgrimage will be; the pilgrim is
“a semi-tourist”, dependent upon the same range of services as the
secular visitor (Turner & Turner, 1978). In this context, a pilgrim may be
clearly differentiated from a tourist by virtue of the motivation for travelling
which is intrinsically religious, often accompanied by collective asceticism,
sacrifice and symbolic behaviour: without the religious element, the journey
would not be undertaken (Vukonic, 1996).
However, the distinction drawn between pilgrims and tourists by
the International Workshop on Tourism held by the Christian Conference of Asia
in Manila in 1981 is principled but not necessarily accurate: “The pilgrim
steps gently onto holy soil: the tourist overruns holy places and photographs
their remains. The pilgrim travels with humility and patience; the tourist
travels arrogantly and in a hurry” (cited in Vukonic, 1996, p. 135). As
will be noted below, the pilgrim rather than the tourist is in the view of the
management committee of Svayambhunath responsible for most of the physical
pollution and degradation of the site.
The UNDP Partnership for Quality Tourism Programme
Through the agency of the UNDP, Nepal has been the location of
an innovative experiment designed not only to identify but also to implement the
elusive goal of quality in tourism. It has attempted this ambitious undertaking
through its Partnership for Quality Tourism Project (PQTP), a three-tiered
exercise incorporating:
i) environmental improvement of religious sites;
ii) isolated rural village tourism development; and
iii) institution building for international promotion.
Local projects were carried out between 1994 to 1998 at
Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan in Kathmandu Valley, and this case study
focuses on the PQTP intervention to enhance touristic qualities of the two
sacred sites of Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan by working in close cooperation
with their indigenous communities.
Prior to the PQTP projects, both Svayambhunath and Changu
Narayan exhibited significant physical degradation. Many of the buildings and
monuments were dilapidated and in various stages of disrepair, with cracked
walls, rotting timbers, missing windows, collapsing walls, leaking roofs, etc.
Stairways and paths were also in a state of disrepair. Rubbish was strewn
haphazardly everywhere, and in some places had accumulated so greatly over many
years that smaller monuments and stupas had in fact disappeared under mounds of
refuse. Additionally, the Harati Temple at Svayambhunath is used extensively for
pujas (ceremonies to invoke the gods) on a daily basis, and after the
puja a feast generally follows which may involve several thousand
pilgrims: all of the waste generated by the pujas was not disposed of by
the pilgrims and simply accumulated in ever-increasing piles. On special
occasions such as the Buddha Jayanti and Sri Panchami very large quantities of
refuse were generated by the thousands of pilgrims for which no clean-up regime
existed. Dogs and monkeys were a major hazard (both suffer from rabies), and
hundreds of ravens also contributed to dispersal of garbage around the sites.
Toilets were non-existent and the surrounding forests were literally ankle-deep
in faecal waste and garbage. There was a severe shortage of water on the
hilltops, which compounded efforts to improve hygiene. Sanitation was the single
greatest environmental problem associated with Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan.
Where once the residents of the hilltops had been able to manage
the sites effectively, that management had broken down and there was no single
local institution able to assert its authority to maintain the sites. Physical
degradation was accompanied by social degradation. The indigenous communities
were unable to cope with the sheer volume of visitors. The PQTP realised that
before any lasting rehabilitation of the sites could be attempted community
involvement needed to be re-structured in a way that would provide sustainable
solutions to the degraded sites.
Other areas of concern included the way in which itinerant stall
holders and hawkers were using the several hundred monuments as display sites
over which they draped their products to sell to pilgrims and tourists. This
practice commoditized, and in the eyes of some devotees, degraded the religious
experience, obstructed pilgrims and visitors’ view of and access to the
different monuments and diminished their sacredness and significance. The
spiritual experience and visual appearance of the entire complex and the
environment had therefore been adversely affected. Tension between hawkers,
pilgrims and tourists over the aggressive selling tactics of the hawkers was
also evident and was a major concern to the residents, especially because most
of the hawkers were from outside the villages. Additionally the complexes
lacked appropriate signs and interpretation. Visitors to the area could not
appreciate the full significance of the World Heritage Sites. According to local
residents many interpreters who accompanied tourists had extremely poor
knowledge of the historical significance of the complexes as well as the
monuments.
In view of the deteriorating state of the environment at this
World Heritage Site the PQTP project goal for Svayambhunath was:
to establish and test an active, functioning and
self-sustaining urban heritage
site management model for possible replication in other
sites (UNDP, 1994).
To be sustainable the management framework had to empower the
indigenous community and so ‘institution -building’ at the local
level was to be an integral component of the project. The objective was to make
qualitative improvements at Svayambhunath by assisting the indigenous Newari
community to establish a social structure capable of managing the site on a
continuing basis and to assist in undertaking activities such as waste
collection and disposal, toilet construction, training of guides, provision of
interpretive plaques, maps, brochures, a tourist information kiosk,
re-aforestation, relocation of hawkers and an awareness program for
visitors.
DISCUSSION
Institution Building at Svayambhunath
In 1994 no less than 17 different organisations were involved in
a variety of different ways with Svayambhunath. Seven of these were guthi
located within the Newar hilltop community. The other ten were
‘outsider’ organisations with specific interests in the site, e.g.
Buddhist and Hindu organisations. In addition to these organizations, the
Department of Archaeology, the Department of Forestry and the Urban Development
through Local Effort (UDLE) department of the Ministry of Home Affairs were
involved in physical aspects of the site rather than day to day operations and
management. All of these organizations had their own agendas, worked
independently from each other, and there was little or no cooperation between
them. In the face of significant conflict between many of them local people
felt unable to control what was happening (Banskota et al, 1995). Even
something as basic as garbage removal had been taken out of their hands by a
benefactor from New Delhi, who had paid a contractor living near the Bouddanath
shrine some 12 kilometres away to keep the site clean. This contractor employed
his own people from Bouddha who did not arrive at Svayambhu until after 10 am
each morning. Banskota et al (1955) found a strong resistance by the
local Svayambhu people to assume responsibility for keeping the site clean as
they had traditionally done for centuries because of the element of payment for
‘outside’ sweepers. They considered they should ‘own’
the task and any payment should be theirs. The process of alterity, referred to
above, was evident in the attitude of the Newar residents to outsiders and those
organisations over which they had little or no authority. They had been
disempowered. The inter-twining of place and power in the conceptualization of
“community” was particularly apparent in Svayambhunath as the
residents struggled to assert the control they had exercised for centuries.
The huge growth in visitation, both sacred and secular
(touristic) had impacted in a number of ways on the social fabric of the
custodian communities and the traditional social structures were failing in
attempts to maintain the integrity of the sites. The magnitude of the problem
revolved around the presence of the sacred in which space was contested: sacred
space versus secular space, private space versus public space, family space
versus social space, leisure space versus work space, space controlled by
community, commercial space controlled by hawkers, and bureaucratic space
controlled by national government and its representative ministries. The
distinction between these different spaces at times over-lapped and clear
demarcation lines lost, so that pilgrims, tourists and hawkers alike were
contesting the spatial dimensions of the site, ‘invading’ and
cross-cutting each others’ spaces. The private space of resident
communities and monks was assumed in many ways to be public space, accessible to
the curiosity and cameras of the tourists; family space became social space for
visitors; the work space of the resident community became the leisure space for
visitors. Activities of the various organisations were on occasions mutually
contradictory and inappropriate for some of the spaces, and tension was manifest
between them. Some of the dissension may have been the result of contested
hierarchies among the Newar castes (Gellner & Quigley, 1995). A more
detailed ethnographic study than was possible in this framework of research
would be required to examine caste issues in depth and is not pursued here,
other than to note that caste itself may be seen as an allegorical reflection of
the sacred/profane dichotomy contested over spatial dimensions of the sites.
This is so if we accept Dumont’s (1980) theory that the hierarchical
nature of caste is the opposition of pure and the impure (the brahmans at
the top and the untouchables at the bottom): superiority and superior purity are
identical. Dumont claims that the opposition of pure and impure is sustained by
a disjunction between (ritual) status and (secular) power and that this
disjunction characterises caste societies: the priest theoretically takes
precedence over the king, although in actual practice priesthood submits to
power (Dumont, 1980, p.71-72).
To generate a more representative local organisation and thus
empower the indigenous Newar community, the PQTP utilised one of the seven local
organisations, the Maha Samiti (Buddhist Community Development Committee), as
the recipient of its project funds to undertake the various tasks and activities
mentioned above, provided it was able to widen its membership to include at
least one representative from each of the 29 Newari households on the hilltop.
This organization was an amalgamation of the Svayambhu Management Committee and
the Svayambhu Conservation Committee which had, one year prior to the
establishment of the PQTP, attempted to increase coordination of effort by local
institutions in order to prevent the continual decline of the site. It was
therefore considered ‘tailor-made’ by the PQTP to take up the
challenge of growing into a viable local institution with the capability to take
over the project on an on-going basis.
Over the next two years the PQTP nurtured the Maha Samiti,
assisting in drafting a formal constitution and having it legally registered
through the UDLE as a local NGO (Non Governmental Organisation). It was
necessary to hold a series of meetings to explore the understanding by all the
different organisations of the situation, seek consensus on the need to take
action and formulate a plan of action, and then obtain support for a
re-structuring of community organisations to undertake the implementation of
that planning process. The Maha Samiti was instrumental in bringing together
the 17 different bodies and developing a single coordinated plan for the
maintenance and upkeep of the stupas, temples, monuments and grounds, in
cooperation with the Department of Archaeology and the Forestry Department. Its
membership increased to include not only household representatives but a local
women’s group and a youth group. Training programs were initiated and the
Youth Association of the Maha Samiti became the core for more than twenty
trained guides, both male and female, as gender equity became an important
aspect of the PQTP’s work. Plaques, directional signs and interpretative
notices were displayed around the site. Seven toilets were constructed, five for
local use and two for visitors to the site, and the UDLE provided a water tank
on the hilltop for this purpose. A massive clean-up operation to remove the
garbage which had encroached the outer perimeter of the Stupa complex was
successfully completed. Systematic cleaning of the complex was carried out by
the Committee and monuments were no longer buried in garbage.
The Maha Samiti developed a revenue base by charging car parking
fees, an entrance fee (for non-citizens and non-pilgrims), a fee for using the
toilets, guiding fees, rent from retail stalls and hawkers, and the sale of
brochures, maps and posters provided under the PQTP. It created the paid
position of Site Warden and took over responsibility for hiring sweepers,
collecting car park fees (40% of which went to the wages of the car park
attendant), running an Information Kiosk, rostering guides, and supervising
toilets. Cultural performances provide an additional opportunity for fund
raising. By December 1998, the Maha Samiti was operating smoothly and had held
its first elections under its constitution in October of that year, with the
community passing its judgement on the past performance of its office bearers by
changing one third of them.
In terms of social (institutional) sustainability, the model of
coordinating the 17 disparate bodies into a loose cooperative, with key
responsibilities specifically tasked to designated sub-associations and
individuals, appears to have been successful. There must be significant
tensions below the surface (there invariably are in collectives as diverse as
this, especially when complicated by the vexed issue of caste and different
religious emphases). But the administration by the Maha Samiti of the
temple complex as an extremely important power place for pilgrimage by both
Buddhists and Hindus, and as World Heritage site and a major tourist attraction
for Kathmandu, is functioning reasonably effectively. Due accord is being paid
to the religious significance and integrity of the site by the management
committee, so that certain practices and behaviour are not permitted (e.g.
photographing the interiors of some shrines and not allowing tourists physical
access to others). This integrity and the distinction drawn between tourists and
those visiting the site for religious purposes (citizens and pilgrims are
admitted free of charge) are two vital components in setting the parameters for
a degree of commercialisation which will support rather than debase the site.
Signage and the courteous instructions of the Youth Group guides assist in this
objective. In addition, vendors are prohibited from displaying their wares
against and over religious monuments and shrines (as was previously the case)
although they are permitted to use the walls of monks’ quarters. The
spaces of the site are now demarcated rather than contested. Dissonance is
largely absent, the presence of tourists is mainly passive, the
non-commoditization of festivals has minimized change to ritual, and so adverse
cultural impacts from tourism at the present time are minimal.
The introduction of fees removed the need for subsidies or
grants by government or donor agencies to cover wages. A degree of local
employment was created and the residents of the hilltop were benefiting from the
improved cleanliness, sanitation facilities and more orderly management.
Financial independence is a fundamental element of sustainability and
Svayambhunath satisfied this criterion in 1999.
However, while foundations for financial, social and cultural
sustainability had been achieved, environmental sustainability was still short
of its goals. Two external factors, outside the immediate control of the Maha
Samiti, were responsible.
The first is that while rubbish removal and sweeping inside the
temple complex was effective in keeping the site clean and garbage was deposited
daily in a large container adjacent to the car park, the Kathmandu municipal
authorities failed to empty the container regularly. Because the container had
no lid, monkeys and ravens scattered garbage all over the place. The Maha
Samiti designated a disposal site in the forest to handle the overflow, but
it was located only 25 metres outside the perimeter wall of the temple complex
and quickly reached capacity; monkeys, dogs and ravens also scavenged there and
garbage was once again being deposited just outside the perimeter walls. The
community is dependent upon the municipal authority for removal of wastes from
the hilltop and its inability to control this key aspect of environmental
degradation threatened the site.
The second external factor which the Maha Samiti found
difficulty controlling was the behaviour of pilgrims and locals concerning
disposal of waste, and toileting. No effective awareness program had been
introduced to educate them not to discard rubbish wherever and whenever they
liked, despite various attempts. The resident community was vocal in its
complaints especially of Puja worshippers who created significant piles
of rubbish. The lack of general awareness about appropriate rubbish disposal
among most worshipers was identified by the Site warden as a major obstacle for
greater effectiveness in maintaining site cleanliness. Hilltop residents said
they preferred international tourists who were sensitive in this regard and as a
general rule did not litter.
With reference to toileting, a small charge is levied for use of
the toilets (rupees2-5) and in this context a contrast was again drawn by the
hilltop residents and the warden between locals/pilgrims (especially from India)
and international tourists. The former resisted paying the small fee and
persistently used the forest, while tourists were consistent in their use of the
toilet facilities. It was the pilgrims who were littering and polluting the
site rather than the tourists, a refutation of the 1981 declaration by the
Manila Christian Conference of Asia referred to above, even if the footsteps of
the tourists were not motivated by religious devotion.
Changu Narayan and the PQTP
Following an assessment of the PQTP intervention at
Svayambhunath a modified approach was developed for the project at Changu
Narayan. The issues of pollution and littering were not as great but many of
the buildings, walls, stairs and paths were in an even more dilapidated
condition. In addition, about two hundred priceless artefacts, including
chariots more than three or four hundred years old, stone carvings and statues
dating back to 1000 AD, and innumerable carvings and artefacts (stone, wood and
metal) were simply lying around the site, suffering the depredations of time and
weather with little or no protection: conservation was not extant. Much of the
forest had disappeared and hillside erosion was evident. The lack of toilet
facilities was a major concern. While it was a very active pilgrimage and
tourism site, the indigenous community who had held custodianship of the site
for centuries considered that it had little power to take remedial action. The
same conflict with outside interests and government departments as at Svayambhu
was evident at Changu Narayan. Rights of ownership of or access to space was
contested by different parties, as was the case in Svayambhunath, with
‘invasion’ of social residential space by pilgrims and tourists
alike a particular problem.
As with Svayambhu the process began with a series of public
meetings to inform the community about the project and seek their support.
While the village consisted of nine wards in fact only those households
constituting the community inhabiting the immediate precincts of the world
heritage site were involved. This ‘community’ was invited to
suggest activities under the PQTP and much of the resultant program derived from
their proposals. It was thus much more of a bottom-up rather than a top-down
planning process, with the community empowered from the beginning to participate
in decision-making. Once consensus had been reached and the parameters of the
program established, the PQTP team assisted the residents to elect a Community
Development Committee (CDC). This was accepted by the government as having sole
responsibility for implementing the project with the PQTP and coordinating
efforts with line agencies such as the Archaeology Department and the Forestry
Department. It was officially registered as a local NGO.
Under the Changu Narayan pilot project a more integrated
community development approach was taken although tourism development remained
the point of access for facilitating social change. Empowerment was considered
essential and the responsibilities of the community were to be enhanced through
the establishment of an elected representative community management organisation
(the Community Development Committee), the establishment of a Tourist
Information Centre controlled by the new Community Development Committee, and
the organization by the community of an annual ‘Changu Narayan Tourism
Festival’ in addition to the numerous religious festivals.
An initial site cleaning and garbage removal exercise began two
years of intense activity, with the residents highly motivated to participate.
Various construction activities transformed the site and formerly abandoned
bajan patis (traditional cultural performance stages and rest houses)
with assistance from the Archaeology Department became focal points for ongoing
cultural activities associated with religious festivals. All 143 individual
households within the site installed their own toilets, and stone paving
replaced the mud paths. Beautification resulted in piles of garbage being
replaced with gardens of colourful flowers, and rubbish bins and regular
collection resulted in the residents themselves adopting a more responsible
attitude towards rubbish disposal. A public car park, restaurant and public
toilets were constructed, set off by an impressive entrance gateway built in the
traditional style. A successful Tourist Day festival was organised on 6
February 1998 and attracted more than 3,000 visitors. Small curio/craft stalls
funded under the Micro Credit Scheme were set up by the women of the village,
with many of the items being produced locally as a result of the various
training courses. The Tourist Information Centre was functioning effectively
and selling a range of postcards, brochures, maps and posters produced by the
PQTP, and trained guides, having benefited from English language tuition
classes, were capable and competent communicators. Following a thirteen hundred
year old tradition of looking upon visitors to the temple as honoured guests,
the CDC decided against charging an entrance fee. Nor were guide services
charged for, although visitors were advised that they could make a donation for
services rendered if they wished.
By early 1998 most of the project’s objectives had been
achieved. The contests over space still continued but had diminished. The PQTP
intervention had resulted in significant physical improvements to the site and
its hillsides, and in the management of the site by the villagers. Residents,
pilgrims and tourists all expressed themselves pleased with the results. A
striking although small example of ‘unconscious retaliation’ by
residents had occurred in one instance, with the residents
‘invading’ public space and transforming it into private space and
space for social exchange among themselves. One third of the new car park,
constructed specifically for pilgrims, tourists and their transport as public
space, was taken over by the villagers for spreading and drying their rice and
millet, the paving representing the best warm dry location for this process. To
guard the grain against monkeys and ravens many of the women and children spent
much of the day squatting in small communal groups among the grain, to the total
exclusion of those for whom the space had been created!
By mid-1998 however, the situation had changed. The Changu
Narayan Tourist Information Centre had closed.
A brief excursion into Nepal’s recent political history is
necessary to understand the nature of the problem.
Decentralization and Dissonance at Changu Narayan
Over the past twenty years the Government of Nepal introduced a
series of legislative measures designed to decentralize central administration
and government services to the district and village level. Following the
restoration of multiple-party democracy in 1990 the National Parliament
introduced legislation to establish Village Development Committees (VDCs) and
District Development Committees (DDCs), with responsibility for planning and
implementing development activities at those levels. A key objective was to
increase public participation in the development process. In 1990 this approach
was strengthened with national NGOs and Community Based Organizations (CBOs)
being sanctioned as partners of the two local government bodies in promoting
development. The 1991 District Development Committee Act gave local government
specific responsibility for development of specific sectors (such as district
roads) and authority to contract support of any organization to do so, including
NGOs and CBOs. Further moves to strengthen decentralization came with the
passage in 1998 of the Local Self-Governance Act. This Act delegates authority
and responsibility, and entrust the means and resources, to local authorities to
make them more efficient and effective in local government, and to develop
institutional mechanisms that are participatory and able to respond to the
aspirations of the local people. The Bill includes provision for the
formulation - through a participatory bottom-up planning process - of VDC
village development plans and DDC District Development Plans.
In Changu Narayan, the reliance of the PQTP on the newly-formed
Community Development Committee (CDC) without involving the Village Development
Committee in a substantive way inadvertently thrust the CDC into a power
struggle with the VDC. The PQTP failed to take into account the contemporary
political structure which had modified the original political power structure of
the village and given authority to a wider unit than the community actually
physically resident on Changu Narayan hill. Thus, while the hilltop residents
had custodial responsibility for the temple site and were intimately and
directly involved in its day-to-day operations in a way that village households
who resided in a ward one kilometre distant could not, under the new
politico-legal system they could only really exercise that responsibility under
the authority of and with the approval of the VDC. The PQTP acknowledged the
authority of the Changu Narayan VDC to a limited extent by establishing a
three-man Advisory Committee (non-elected) for the CDC, one of whose members is
the Chairman of the VDC. But the channelling of PQTP funds through the CDC and
the power granted to it by the PQTP to plan the rehabilitation, restoration and
development of the temple site and determine what those funds should be spent on
without formalised reference to the VDC, may be seen in hindsight to have
challenged the primacy of the VDC, guaranteed by legislation, to determine
village based development. The PQTP unintentionally gave one-and-a-half of the
wards of Changu Narayan (i.e. the residents of the temple hilltop) some
exclusive rights and benefits not shared by the other seven-and-a-half wards.
At the macro-community level the entire hilltop site became contested space,
with the VDC determined to assert its right to control that space over the
residents who actually lived within the space.
The VDC therefore took action to affirm its authority. An
initial step was to pass a motion in the VDC to close the CDC’s Tourist
Information Office, a simple enough step since it had the support of seven of
the nine wards’ representatives. The VDC also printed its own brochures
and maps for sale in opposition to the material provided to the CDC under the
PQTP. Perhaps more seriously however, the VDC insisted on the introduction of a
compulsory entrance fee of R60 for every visitor to Changu Narayan, a revenue
raising exercise intended to benefit all 900 households in the village. It
constructed a toll-gate across the entrance road just below the brow of the hill
and set up its own collection booth.
This major difference between the now divided community resulted
in the government’s senior representative, the District Officer, calling a
halt to the activities of both parties to the dispute in October 1998, while
they experienced an indeterminate cooling-off period. The entry collection booth
of the VDC was closed as was the office of the CDC. However, parking fees were
still collected for the CDC because the parking lot came under the Ministry of
Housing’s scheme for providing infrastructure at religious sites and was
administered through the Religious Sites Development Committee. The CDC
continued to distribute copies of its brochure and postcards to retail outlets
in the village and if tourists wished to use guides (who did after all reside in
the village and so were present day after day) then they happily obliged and
made no request for payment. The CDC also continued with its daily sweeping of
the inner courtyard and weekly rubbish collection, and allowed one of its three
patis to be used on a monthly basis as a maternity clinic by the Health
Department, both activities begun under the aegis of the PQTP. The CDC was
viewed positively by the residents of Changu Narayan hilltop and there was a
real sense of ownership associated with the site. Motivation to maintain
improvements appeared high.
The difference on this issue of charging an entrance fee between
the two Committees may be seen as an example of the ambivalence associated with
some traditional theological values towards strangers. Buddhism, with its
“encompassing tolerance” welcomes outsiders and relatively easily
integrates them into its midst (Cohen, 1998, p.3). Hinduism on the other hand
is stricter and will place bans on entry by non-Hindus to many of its most
sacred sites. At Changu Narayan, however, there are religiously sanctioned rules
of traditional hospitality and for such reasons the CDC, as the host village
occupying the space of the hilltop sacred site, would prefer to treat tourists
as ‘guests’. By contrast the VDC, most of whose members reside
outside the space of the sacred, view tourists as ‘customers’ in the
context of the contemporary value of the ‘user pays’ principle, who
should therefore be asked to pay (compulsory levying of fees). The District
Officer, as mediator in the dispute, has suggested a policy of not charging
pilgrims and local visitors to the site, but imposing an entry fee for tourists,
as is the case at Svayambhunath. This is widely practiced and accepted in many
parts of the world and is a compromise which is currently (June 1999) being
explored by to the two Committees.
In retrospect it is possible to conclude that the Community
Development Committee established by the PQTP proved to be a partially
inadequate vehicle for implementation of the project because of the intervention
of the Village Development Committee. However, given that the hilltop community
had a centuries-old history of custodianship of the site and a similar tradition
of looking after visitors it must have appeared to the PQTP team as an eminently
suitable repository of responsibility for the Project’s execution. That is
proved less successful than expected highlighted the need for a very thorough
examination of the community-as-stakeholder in the context of empowerment and
for tourism initiatives to be integrated into wider community development needs.
In the context of the assumed oneness or contiguity of
locality/identity/community and the tendency to take that cohesion as
self-evident, automatic and complete, Watts (1992) reminds us that the frequent
failure of projects may be based on an incomplete analysis of the actual
situation. In the case of Changu Narayan it can be seen that there was a facile
mapping of the construction of cohesion onto territorially bounded space which
excluded the greater part of the ‘community’ as defined not only
legalistically by the Government under its decentralisation legislation, but
socially by the people who constituted the village. The fact that Newars are
also divided by caste and religion as well (as locality) underlines the fact
that ‘community’ must not be interpreted as ‘unitary
cohesiveness’.
Community Empowerment and Sustainability
Empowerment of communities for tourism development requires a
political framework which is either supportive (pro-active) or at least neutral,
not obstructionist. In situations of dual systems, (traditionally oriented
communities located in the social and political space of a modern state) there
must be effective means whereby empowerment embedded in Weber's traditional base
can be transformed from ‘legitimate’ into legally sanctioned
empowerment if it is to be a vehicle for sustainable development (1978:53). In
his typology of power and domination Weber drew a distinction between legal
domination and legitimate domination. The latter is not necessarily dependent
upon the existence of the state and is expressed through "traditional
domination" in which personal relations are used as support for the political
authority. It takes several globally recognised forms such as:
i) gerontocracy. This links power with seniority, as in most
traditional Aboriginal societies in Australia;
ii) patriarchalism. This maintains power within a particular
family;
iii) patrimonialism (inheritance through male lines). This is
the most widespread, its norm is custom, regarded as inviolable, its mode of
authority is essentially personal and its organisation entails no administration
in the modern sense. It employs dignitaries rather than functionaries and there
is no separation between the private and the public sphere. It has a gender
counterpart in matrimonialism;
iv) charismatic domination. This is another form of domination,
which is extra-legitimate. It is an exceptional type, a revolutionary form of
power which can operate against regimes of traditional or legal character;
and
v) legal domination. This can only occur in states with a
legislative framework, and domination will be exercised by a combination of the
executive and its bureaucracy (Weber 1978:53).
There must be a shared willingness by community, individuals,
and external entities (authorities) to initiate and undertake the processes
leading to empowerment (the so-called institutional or 'environmental change' of
Wallerstein & Bernstein, 1988). A fundamental tenet is that it must be able
to counter dependency - if it cannot or does not, then it cannot be defined as
genuine empowerment. As Jacobsen & Cohen stated:
"resources which cannot be applied to contended issues leave
their owner impotent, while a position of strength without adequate resources to
hold it under pressure is a temporary illusion of power, not its reality" (1986,
p.110)
These comments emphasise the necessity for positive support
emerging from the public sector, working in partnership with peoples'
organisations, if a project is to be sustainable. My concept of empowerment
thus includes as an essential characteristic the wider issue of the role of the
state. As Craig and Mayo write:
"Without engaging with the state and with political processes at
different levels, localised community actions risk remaining marginalised, if
occasionally incorporated. The importance of developing strategies to link
local projects into wider strategies and movements for change at both national
and international levels is clearly defined. This issue is critical in relation
to longer term goals for transformation. If community participation and
empowerment are to contribute to such longer-term goals, then strategies need to
be formulated ... to engage wider political processes and to be set within a
framework of (existing) economic, social and political structures"
(1995:9-10).
In the context of tourism development it is proposed that
empowerment be regarded as a multi-dimensional process which provides
communities with:
i) a consultative process often characterised by the input of
outside expertise to which they have access;
ii) the opportunity to learn and to choose;
iii) the ability to make decisions;
iv) the capacity to implement/apply those decisions;
v) acceptance of responsibility for those decisions and actions
and their consequences; and
vi) outcomes directly benefiting the community and its members,
not diverted or channelled into other communities and/or their members.
My concept of empowerment by and of communities is at once both
a process and an outcome. It is an amalgamation of several different emphases,
although a key component is the decision-making model which encompasses
application or implementation of decisions. This concept is derived in part also
from the social exchange theory literature, especially Emerson (power/dependence
relations, 1972); Blau (dependence, subordination, prestige and power in social
exchange, 1987); and Molm (linking power structure and the use or non-use of
power, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, ).
When we apply this concept of empowerment to assess the
sustainability of the change process for tourism development and the management
of the sites at Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan, we find that:
i) without the element of empowerment tourism development at
the level of community will have difficulty achieving sustainability;
ii) the exercise of traditional or legitimate empowerment
by traditionally-oriented communities will of itself be an ineffectual mechanism
for attempting sustainable tourism development;
iii) such traditional empowerment must be transformed
into legal empowerment if sustainable tourism development is to be achieved;
iv) empowerment for such communities will usually require
environmental or institutional change to allow a genuine re-allocation of power
to ensure appropriate changes in the asymmetrical relationship of the community
to the wider society; and
v) conversely, empowerment of indigenous communities cannot be
'taken' by the communities concerned drawing only upon their own traditional
resources but will require support and sanction by the state, if it is to avoid
being short-lived.
In the case of the two world heritage sites in Kathmandu there
has been legislative action by the state to devolve a measure of real power to
village communities through the Parliamentary Acts of 1990, 1991 and 1998,
referred to above. However, while the Acts may provide an environment for
community based empowerment, implementation requires a social process which
extends well beyond the rhetoric of the political process. In this context the
PQTP interventions in Changu Narayan and Svayambhunath were the catalyst for
institutional social change. At Svayambhunath the support for and allocation of
resources to the pre-existing Maha Samiti resulted in empowerment sanctioned by
the state through the registration of the Maha Samiti as a local NGO, and its
consequent capacity to be recognised by state agencies as an appropriate vehicle
for management with which they could work. The Maha Samiti appeared to have
been successful in its management of the site, with the exception of the
long-term removal of wastes from the hilltop, and its slow progress in modifying
the behaviour of pilgrims. Legalisation thus empowered and sustained the Maha
Samiti and provided it with the authority to coordinate various other
organisations and the role of government departments.
Changu Narayan was a different story because the PQTP
intervention in effect empowered only part of the structure legalised by the
state and socially identified by the people. That is, by restricting its
support for institutional development to the residents of only the hilltop
rather than the entire village the PQTP dis-empowered the state-sanctioned
Village Development Committee and the socially sanctioned identity of the
greater group of people who perceive that together they are the community
of Changu Narayan. It is this dual process of empowerment/disempowerment,
inadvertently set in motion by the PQTP, which resulted in conflict and
contested authority. If we accept the key principles of sustainable tourism
propounded by Wahab & Pigram (1998) as being (i) integrative, compatible
human use of environments and resource management for tourism that minimizes
human disturbance of ecosystems, avoiding actions with irreversible
consequences; and (ii) responsible and socially compatible tourism in
partnership with community interests and the public sector, we must withhold
judgement about the sustainability of the current institutional framework
promoted by the PQTP for management of Changu Narayan.
In the case of both Svayambhunath and Changu Narayan it is
useful when assessing their sustainability to draw a distinction between the
sustainability of the sites as attractors and the sustainability of their
management (although both of course are mutually interdependent). The
first is physical, the second social and cultural.
With reference to the first, the faith of the pilgrim has
endured for centuries and will endure for a long time yet; the sites will not
quickly lose their religious and historical significance as power places able to
attract believers from around the world. If we apply historical methodology to
determine the sustainability of the sites (vide Sofield & Li, 1998)
it is obvious that they have endured despite the tempestuous events of
centuries. Both have witnessed periods of neglect and decline (for example,
during the Muslim invasion of Nepal in the eleventh century Svayambhunath was
largely destroyed and Changu Narayan looted). Earthquakes have exacted a toll
and many of the buildings have been partially or totally destroyed. Fire has
completely destroyed the temple of Changu Narayan on several occasions, most
recently in the eighteenth century (Dowman and Bubriski, 1995). Throughout
these vicissitudes, the fundamental faith associated with the religions has
raised champions and benefactors to ensure that the monuments and temples rose,
literally, from the rubble and ashes, time and time again. Unlike some man-made
attractions whose magnetism for visitors may wane (e.g theme parks and
‘adventure worlds’), pilgrimage sites which are truly power places
will endure. Whether all aspects of those sites, all of the many monuments and
temples, lesser and greater, and the many artefacts which adorn them, will
survive intact is less certain. But for as long as the religions of Buddhism
and Hinduism remain vibrant and dynamic, we may expect that Svayambhunath and
Changu Narayan will survive, even if their physical characteristics change.
The rich heritage of the sites suggests that as tourist
attractions they are also likely to endure. The combination of ancient
monuments, ‘exotic’ festivals and living cultures which epitomise
‘the other’ for non-indigenes, will ensure that the sites have both
a theological and a touristic future. Societies change more quickly than bricks
and mortar however, and the state of flux experienced at both sites in terms of
their management regimes provides evidence of the effects of socio-cultural
determinants on the physical environments of such sites. The secular tourist is
a relative novelty in the context of visitation to these sites and commercial
tourism development is a different form of activity requiring different
facilities and different responses from the traditional patterns of visitor
management. The huge numbers of contemporary pilgrims, far exceeding historical
visitation levels, has also created new pressures and new demands on the sites
and the resident communities, requiring different mechanisms from those which
may have been employed successfully in the past. It is a dynamic situation in
which tourism, both sacred and secular, has been incorporated into the social
space of the communities: tourism in its different manifestations has, simply,
become part of daily life. The empowerment of the indigenous Newar communities
will necessarily be a vital part of the future management of these sites, even
if at this point in time their shape and form cannot be finally determined. The
identity of the Newar communities, their past and present and future, is
inextricably linked to these two power places, even if contemporary theories of
anthropology suggest that the paradigm of power/place/identity cannot be taken
for granted.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
References
Bahadur Bista, Dor. 1999. And then there was man. In:
Cheogyal, L. & Moran, K. (eds) Nepal, pp.79-90. Basingstoke; APA
Publications.
Banskota, K., Sharma, B., Neupane, I. & Gyawali, P. 1995.
A Rapid Assessment of the Quality Tourism Project. Kathmandu: CREST.
Blau, P. 1987. Microprocess and macrostructure. In K. Cook
(Ed.) Social exchange theory (pp.83-100). London: Sage Publications.
Bonniface, P, and P. Fowler (1993) Heritage and Tourism in
the ‘Global Village’. London: Routledge.
Cheogyal, L., & Moran, K. (eds) 1999. Nepal.
Basingstoke; APA Publications.
Clark, L. 1994. Establishing a Partnership for Quality
Tourism: Inception Report. Kathmandu: UNDP.
Cohen, E. 1979. Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research,
6:18-35.
1984. The sociology of tourism: Approaches, problems and
findings. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, pp.373-392.
1988. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 15:371-386.
1992. Pilgrimage Centers: Concentric and Excentric. Annals
of Tourism Research, 19(1), pp.35-50.
1998. Tourism and religion: A comparative perspective.
Pacific Tourism Review, 2 (1), pp.1-10.
Cook , K. (ed.) 1987. Social Exchange Theory (pp.83-100).
London: Sage Publications.
Craig, G. & Mayo, M. (Eds.) 1995. Community empowerment.
A reader in participation and development. London: Zed Books.
de Alwis, R. 1997. Issues in and prospects for development of
tourism in Nepal - An agenda for action. Kathmandu: UNDP.
Department of Tourism (DoT). 1997a. Annual Statistical Report
1996. Kathmandu: DoT.
Department of Tourism 1997b. Nepal: A World of its Own.
Kathmandu: DoT.
Dowman, K. and Bubriski, K. 1995. Power Places of Kathmandu.
Hindu and Buddhist Holy Sites in the Sacred Valley of Nepal. London: Thames
& Hudson.
Dumont, L. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and
its Implications. Translated by M. Sainsbury, L. Dumont and B. Gulati.
Chicagoo: Chicago University Press.
Furer-Haimendorf, C. von (ed.) 1966. Caste and Kin in
Nepal, India and Ceylon. Bombay: Asian Publishing House.
Emerson, R. 1972. Exchange theory. In: J. Berger, M.
Zelditch & B. Anderson (Eds.) Sociological theories in progress. New
York: Houghton-Miflin.
Gellner, D.N. & Quigley, Delcan (eds.) 1995. Contested
Hierarchies: A Collaborative Ethnography of Caste Among the Newars of the
Kathmandu Valley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Graburn, N.H.H. 1977. Tourism: The sacred journey. In: Valene
Smith (ed) Hosts and Guests, pp.17-31. Philadelphia; University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Gupta, Akhil & Ferguson, James (eds.). 1997. Culture
Power Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. London; Duke University
Press.
Gurung, C.P. 1996. Establishing a Partnership for Quality
Tourism Project: Final Report. Kathmandu: UNDP.
Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry. London:
Methuen.
Jacobsen, C, & Cohen, A. 1986. The power of social
collectivities: Towards an integrative conceptualization and operationalization.
British Journal of Sociology, 37(1):106-121.
KEEP 1998. Kathmandu Environmental Education Project
Newsletter. Kathmandu: KEEP
Lewis, Todd T. 1995 Buddhist merchants in Kathmandu: the Asan
Twah market and Uray social organization. In: Gellner, D.N. & Quigley,
Delcan (eds.) 1995. Contested Hierarchies: A Collaborative Ethnography of
Caste Among the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley, pp.39-79. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Locke, J.K. 1989. The unique features of Newar Buddhism. In:
T. Skorupski (ed) The Buddhist Heritage (Buddhica Britannica, vol. 1.
Tring: the Institute of Buddhist Studies).
Locke, J.K. 1999. Religions of Nepal. In: Cheogyal, L.,
& Moran, K. (eds) 1999. Nepal. Basingstoke; APA
Publications.MacCannell, D. 1976. The tourist: A new theory of the leisure
class. New York: Shocken.
Molm, Linda D. 1987a. Extending power-dependence theory: Power
processes and negative outcomes. In E.J. Lawler, & B. Markovsky, (Eds.)
Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 4:171-198 Greenwich: JAI.
1987b. Linking power structure and power use. In K.S. Cook
(Ed.) Social exchange theory (pp.101-129). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
1988. The structure and use of power: A comparison of reward
and punishment power. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 108-122.
Nepal National Planning Commission. 1992. The Eighth Plan
(1992 - 1997). Kathmandu: GoN.
Nepal Rastra Bank. 1989. Income and Employment Generation
from Tourism in Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Rastra Bank.
Nepal, S.K. 1997. Sustainable Tourism, Protected Areas, and
Livelihood Needs of Local Communities in Developing Countries. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 4 (2), June.
pp.123-134.
Quigley, Declan 1995. Conclusion: Caste organization and the
ancient city. In: Gellner, D.N. & Quigley, Delcan (eds.) 1995.
Contested Hierarchies: A Collaborative Ethnography of Caste Among the Newars
of the Kathmandu Valley, pp.298-327. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rosser, C. 1966. Social mobility in the Newar caste system.
In: Furer-Haimendorf, C. von (ed) Caste and Kin in Nepal, India and
Ceylon. Bombay: Asian Publishing House.
Sharma, P.R. 1995. Culture and Tourism: Defining Roles and
Relationships. Discussion Paper Series No. MEI 95/2. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Sharma, P. 1995. A Framework for Tourism Carrying Capacity
Analysis. Discussion Paper Series No. MEI 95/1. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Slusser, Mary. 1982. Nepal Mandala: A Cultural Study of the
Kathmandu Valley. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sofield, T.H.B. and Li, F.M.S. 1998. Historical methodology
and sustainability: An 800-year-old festival from China. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 6 (4), pp.267-292.
Thakali, S. & Gurung, G.S. 1997. Tourism Survey: A
Profile of Major Projects and Institutions in Tourism and Environment in Tourism
Destination Areas of Nepal. Kathmandu: PQTP, UNDP.
Tuladhar, G.R. 1996. Final Report: Base Line Survey at
Changunarayan, Dhunche & Syabru. Kathmandu: PQTP, UNDP.
Turner, V. 1973. The center out there: The pilgrim’s
goal. History of Religion, 12(3), pp.191-230.
Turner, V., and Turner, E. 1978. Image and Pilgrimage in
Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives. New York; Columbia
University Press.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
1994. Project Document: Establishing Partnership for
Quality Tourism. Kathmandu: UNDP.
1995. Partnership for Quality Tourism. Kathmandu:
UNDP.
1996. Project Document: Partnership for Quality Tourism,
Phase II. Kathmandu: UNDP.
UNDP Partnership for Quality Tourism Project. 1998.
Changunarayan: A Brochure Guide to the Site. Kathmandu: PQTP.
Uzzell, D. (editor) (1989) Heritage Interpretation Volume 1.
The Natural and Built Environment. London: Belhaven Press.
van Velzen, J. 1998. Exploring Possibilities for Integrating
the Concept of Multiple Use Visitor Centre within Projects of SNV.
Kathmandu: SNV/KEEP.
Vukonic, Boris. 1996. Tourism and Religion. Oxford,
UK; Elsevier Press.
Wahab, Saleh & Pigram, John 1997. Tourism, Development
and Growth: the Challenge of Sustainability. London: Routledge. Watts,
M.J. 1992. Space for everything (a commentary). Cultural Anthropology,
7(1):115-129.
Wallerstein, N. & Bernstein, E. 1988 Empowerment education:
Freire's ideas adapted to health education. Health Education Quarterly,
15(4):379-394.
Weber, M. 1946 [1978] The theory of social and economic
organisation. New York: The Free Press. Reprinted 1978.
World Heritage Committee (1984) Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. WHC/2 Revised, Paris:
UNESCO, World Heritage Committee.
|
![[ Murdoch University logo and link to homepage ]](/images/header/cs/logo/mu_logo_lhs_45.gif){kind=logo}
