For indigenous people being part of the community is as natural as breathing. At funeral homes everyone congregates irrespective of wealth ranking to pay respects to the deceased and offer condolences to the family. Indeed, this is the single event that brings people together for the common cause of expressing sadness at the loss of a life. But that is where this community spirit ends. When Government schemes are proposed within a locality under a Dorbar Shnong, only the office bearers take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the entire shnong. Is that really how a democracy functions, especially the much-touted Khasi democracy where consultations are at the root of decision-making?
Then there are environmental pressure groups that pick and choose their issues. If there was a problem in setting up a 5-star hotel in a hillock surrounded by the Umiam Lake, is there no wrongdoing by the Government in cutting down 540 or more trees to make way for a Ropeway Project meant to entertain tourists? Where is GreenTech Foundation when the greenery of Lum Shillong is being murdered? Most Dorbar Shnong look at the income the project will generate and are happy with that. They hardly have any concern for the long term ecological impacts and above all the adverse impact on catchments which supply water to areas downhill. A cause for concern is how the Project was cleared by the Environment and Forest Department only because there is a clause for compensatory forestry elsewhere several kilometers away from Lum Shyllong. Is that really what compensatory forestry is? Under India's forest conservation framework, agencies that divert forest land for projects are generally required to do three things - (a) Pay the cost of compensatory afforestation (b) Provide land on which new trees can be planted (c) Contribute funds for the regeneration and protection of forests.
While the replacement plantation can happen wherever suitable land is available, which may be many kilometres away from the area originally cleared, ecologists have repeatedly pointed out several problems with this approach. They say a mature forest cannot simply be replaced by saplings elsewhere. Also, wildlife loses its habitat immediately, while the new forest may take decades to become established. Besides, the local ecosystem-soil organisms, birds, insects, water sources, and native plant species may be permanently altered. Sacred groves, hill forests, and watersheds have cultural and ecological value that cannot easily be recreated. Planting trees in another location does not necessarily restore the cooling effect, groundwater recharge, or soil stability of the original forest. In a place like Lum Shyllong, these concerns are especially important because the forest is not merely a collection of trees. It is part of a larger ecological and cultural landscape that includes water catchments, wildlife habitats, sacred spaces, and one of Shillong's last major green lungs. The question to ask is not, "How many trees will be planted?" but rather, "Can the ecological functions of the original forest be restored?" In many cases, the answer is 'no.'