Pratim Ranjan Bose
How much of tourism is
too much? The question baffles avid travelers, particularly to India’s hill
destinations which were designed to accommodate a limited number of people.
According to India
Tourism Statistics, between 2000 and 2018, the number of tourist visits to
States and union territories gone up by a staggering 8.5 times to 186 crore,
including 1 crore of foreign tourists. Travelling increased exponentially in
the current decade.
 |
| Pix: Author |
The result is evident.
From Darjeeling to Shimla or Kullu-Manali, India’s top tourist draws are
suffering from common maladies of traffic congestion, overflowing garbage,
unbridled construction, water crisis etc.
Lesson from Bhutan
Does this help tourism.
India’s smallest neighbour Bhutan says ‘No’. On February 4, Bhutan ended free
entry of regional tourists from India, Bangladesh and the Maldives.
Indians, who make 70 per
cent of the total tourist inflow to Bhutan, now have to pay a sustainable development
fee (SDF) of Rs 1200 a day. The fee is applicable only in popular tourist
destinations and is a fraction of the daily charges paid by visitors from other
countries.
However, the budget
tourists will be hurt. A family of two adults and a child now pays Rs
20,000-25,000 for a low-cost four-night package, including stay at cheaper
hotels. SDF will increase their total spend by 50-60 per cent.
As in 2018, Bhutan
received 2.74 lakh tourists, including two lakh regional tourists. Two-third of
the regional tourist availed cheaper land routes to enter the country.
Apparently, majority of them were budget tourists.
And, that takes us to the
crux of the issue. Bhutan pursues ‘high value, low volume’ tourism. They don’t
want budget tourists to eat out the space for value tourists - who stays
longer, spends more on cars, food, souvenir etc.
The policy is not new.
Bhutan was always extra careful about its environment, including cultural
environment. Over the last decade footfalls in the country increased by nearly
three times, reaching upto one-third of its population. This called for
scrutiny.
Restricting footfalls will help Bhutan avoid
construction spree, waste generation and environmental decay in top
destinations and at the same time create opportunity for maximizing revenue
from value tourists. Budget travelers are encouraged to visit less explored
parts of the country without any SDF.
India playing
half-cock
Famous American economist
Paul Krugman pointed out that market economy works best when regulated. Bhutan
is doing exactly that. Tourist destinations are valuable assets and, like all
products or brands their performance will depend on perfect positioning.
Apple doesn’t play in the
volume phone segment because that will impact the exclusivity of the brand,
which translates into premium price.
Shimla or Darjeeling were
top tourism brands. Failure to regulate the market not only destroyed their
aspirational value but also caused severe damage to the product quality.
Darjeeling is converted into an urban slum, thereby limiting future revenue
potential.
The Indian authorities
are aware of the problem and are promoting alternate tourism destinations. A
number of such destinations popped up in Darjeeling hills. Premium foreign
tourists are visiting new South Goa destinations, where came up top
resorts.
However, India is
avoiding any direct regulatory intervention, as in Bhutan. This is either to
avoid any popular backlash or take an easy way to promote tourism.
Does it help? Look at
Shillong. In 2010, Meghalaya got 6.6 lakh tourists. In 2017, they received
nearly 10 lakh visitors with an year-on-year growth of 19 per cent. Newspaper
reports point at serious overcrowding, congestion, littering and unbridled
construction.
Need regulation
Tourism is more of an
experience than scenic beauty, as is amply proved by Dubai. The developments in
Bhutan could have been a boon to the neighbouring Indian State of Arunachal
which has just lifted restrictions on travelling.
However, lack of basic
infrastructure makes it a costlier proposition. There is no airport. The
capital city of Itanagar reflects complete absence of urban planning. Car
rentals are exorbitantly high, when compared to Bhutan. And, the turnaround
time is higher.
The point is clear. India
needs long-term, multi-sectoral planning to promote new destinations. Leaving
it to the market is a bad idea; as a crowd of unorganized players may end-up
blocking the way of organized development.
The existing popular
destinations must be graded in terms of their brand-equity, infrastructure,
carrying capacity etc, so as to encourage States to put adequate mechanism to
stop further decay.
(This article was published in ETVBharat on February 20, 2020)
