(Report comment)

(Report comment)

Nevertheless, India’s new branding and marketing campaign makes a lot of sense to me. Focusing on the people who have the most disposable income, and yet, are sensitive to health issues, poverty, violence, and general discomfort when they travel is a good way to allocate their marketing spend. The fact is the country of India, fair or unfair, does have to contend with negative perceptions that impact travel. It might not impact you, the lower end of the market, in the same way as a higher end travel that can carefully choose where and how they travel, but it does have an impact on tourism nonetheless.

And it does play a significant role in the country’s economy when this marketing strategy succeeds. Everything from more flexible airline flights, jobs based on infrastructure improvements and new construction, tourism-specific employment, taxes, and so on. Of course, any changes are going to be felt and seen, but I think India is wise enough to preserve its unique culture. Furthermore, it is up to the people of India to do so.

For someone who readily accepts advertising on their website, which incidentally I see now has an ad from Montana that says, “nothing but grizzlies and wolves and bison and trout,” what do you propose they do? How would the advertising be different? And how would it play a role in resource consumption?

(Report comment)

What I meant by access to technology, and why I put it in both the positive AND negative columns, is the fact that the western world is exporting our high rates of heart disease, previously unheard of in “developing” (I use quotes there because I always take this word with a grain of salt) countries. I fully believe everyone should have access to technology and information, but do I believe everyone, including Americans, should be putting their lives on the line because they can never turn off? No, I believe a lot of Indians have led a much smarter, and healthier lifestyle, and I’m not interested into strapping them into ours.

“Harsh” conditions are absolutely a part of the point. I was referring specifically here to a tourist having to experience these conditions because these conditions are not necessarily “harsh” to the people that live in India. It’s a bit colonialist to believe that what you see is negative or harsh because it’s not YOUR idea of a good life. First of all, they don’t have the stomach issues that tourists do because their immune systems are set to deal with the types of bugs that are found in their foods, homes, etc. Given, they probably would (and often do upon moving to Britain) get sick being in a sterilized environment in the West, but we’re the ones for whom the overabundance of antibiotic use has made for weak-as-hell immune systems.

Second, being close and over-crowded is a huge part of being Indian, along with inviting strangers into your house for chai and chat, and no, I don’t want that to change for anything.

And as Ryannah mentioned, there is often little trickle-down effect in terms of the money coming in. As I stated in the article, I fully believe that every Indian (but I’ll change that here to every person in the world) deserves access to clean water. And good food. And good medicine. And health and happiness. I’m just not sure that bringing in rich tourists are the way to attain these basic human rights.

(Report comment)

The author has certainly pointed out some of the more significant positives and negatives. The case against upscale tourism, however, would be stronger if some of the more self-serving justifications were left out.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted some of the author’s thoughts, but while reading the article I found myself wondering what the reaction of the average Indian living in less than ideal conditions would be to some of the points put forward. I am guessing he/she might be a bit incredulous. Access to technology as a negative? India being about the sacred and divine, over-crowding, and dysentery? Harsh conditions as part of the point?

What point is that? To experience the “real” India, the “authentic” India? Is the “authentic” India in danger of disappearing if revenue generated by upscale tourism helps ease some of the harsh living conditions experienced by Indians every day?

This sort of talk seems a bit colonialist and seems to emerge out of what is called “the salvage paradigm”, in which a culture is represented by outsiders as going through fatal changes, and therefore must be saved, or salvaged.

Again, I may have misinterpreted or read a bit too much into the article, but this was my initial reaction.

(Report comment)

I also thought immediately upon seeing the “Incredible India” video about the overcommercialization of yoga. It seems so many people want to chase the “authentic yoga” experience to its source, but how authentic is it when it’s all set up as a luxury package?

(Report comment)

I actually write about this very thing quite a bit in my book, The Weight of Silence: Invisible Children of India. I visited Dharavi once, the largest slum in India (located in Mumbai), and what I found there really surprised me. I think that people should get off the beaten path and discover what makes India truly special.

thank you for this article!

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

Excellent article. You’ve raised issues that aren’t just pertinent to India but in the “developing” world in general.
When I went to the Brazilian Consulate to apply for a visa, I was given a glossy brochure full of beautiful people– all white/light skinned and–especially curious–all foreign! “Doesn’t look like Brazil to me!” I thought, and I wondered what kind of false expectations it set for visitors and how it misrepresented “true” Brazilian culture.

(Report comment)