Paradise Ignored
If India had a small, harmless, live volcano, it could claim to be the worlds only one-stop tourist destination. Even without it, the tourism department wouldnt be hauled up for fraud if it claimed that title.
By any reckoning, that ought to put India right on top of the charts in the world tourism stakes. But strangely, the country doesnt even figure among the worlds top 20 tourism destinations (see chart).
In its latest study, the World Tourism Organisation has projected that international tourist traffic would touch 661 million by 2000. And more important for India, south Asia will be the fastest-growing region after west Asia.
Logically, then, tourists from around the world should be making a beeline for India. A look at the statistics so far shows that Indias tourism planners would be extremely optimistic if they worked on that assumption. In 1995, Indias share in world tourist arrivals was a meagre 0.37 per cent insignificant compared with many smaller countries. Austria, a country of barely 12 million people, attracts tourist inflows of over 18 million each year. Countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and China, which cannot boast of even half the diverse tourist attractions of India, have made it to the list of worlds top 20 tourism destinations.
It is not as though this is a recent trend either. In 1980, India ranked 19th in terms of arrivals while China was languishing at rank number 34. Today, India has taken Chinas place and China has gone up to the 5th position.
Indonesias progress has been even more remarkable. In 1988, total tourist arrivals in Indonesia were about 1 million, half a million short of Indias 1.5 million. In eight years, the situation has reversed. In 1995, Indonesia played host to more than 4.5 million tourists, compared with Indias pathetic 2.12 million.
Even the 2 million figure, about which much has been said, does not stand scrutiny. Many tourists comprise visitors from neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh who come to visit their relatives and cannot be strictly classified as tourists. In 1995, more than 17 per cent of them were from these countries.
Also, anyone who stays for more than 24 hours in the country is classified as a tourist so sometimes, even airline crew acquire that status!
The quibble over tourist inflows is not the only issue: planners also need to worry about the kind of tourists coming to India. As much as 20 per cent of tourists are below 24 years of age and another 25 per cent are in the age group of 25 to 36 years. These are mostly budget travellers, who tend to economise on accommodation and entertainment. It shows the average daily spending of tourists in India is one of the lowest in the world. It is $336 in Singapore, $242 in Malaysia, $118 in Indonesia and $45 in India.
Worse, business travel the other high-spending segment has fallen, contrary to popular belief. In 1992, India received 2,75,000 business travellers. This fell to 1,53,000 in 1994, a drop of more than 44 per cent. In the same period, Indonesia was able to attract more than 1 million business travellers.
So clearly, Indias tourism business needs to concentrate on attracting larger inflows of the high- spending tourist to the country. There is scope to do this because visitors to India stay longer on average, a tourist spends about 29 days in India compared to about 10 days in Indonesia and 3.5 days in Singapore.
The absence of high-spending tourists shows up in terms of receipts, which have grown at 2 per cent annually since 1980. Compare this with China and the picture turns even more gloomy. China has increased its tourism receipts eight times since 1980, while Indias earnings have stagnated.
India earned $1,150 million in 1980 compared with Chinas $555 million. By 1995, the situation had reversed. India currently has a 0.7 per cent share in world tourism receipts; a mere drop in the ocean.
Travel experts like to point out that these comparisons, especially with south-east Asia, may not be entirely fair or relevant. Says Rabindra Seth, travel writer and consultant with Welcomgroup, India, being a democracy, cannot look at tourism as a purely commercial activity. The backlog of tremendous poverty has meant that tourism could not get that kind of priority.
Also, few of the south-east Asian countries can claim to be true democracies. This means it has been possible for them to frame policies without worrying about popular public opinion. Thailand can have a presidential decree saying there shall be tourism, not India, says Seth.
Prasun Deb, senior vice president, Mercury Travels adds, The scale of economies is different. It is possible for countries like Thailand to sustain its economy on the large-scale development of one industry.
Thailand has a population of only 60 million and it attracts about 5.2 million tourists. Given the high employment multiplier 2.35 for tourism it will be sufficient to support nearly half the population. India cannot rely only on tourism to support its economy. Analysts also fastidiously point out the drawbacks of promoting tourism of the Thailand variety.
True, but comparisons aside, there is little doubt that India underexploits its tourism potential. It is clear, for instance, that the tourism industry, which is the third largest export industry after ready-made garments and gem and jewellery, needs to be given due recognition.
This has never been the case. The Parliamentary Committee on Transport and Tourism in its 23rd report for 1996-97 mentions, The low level of importance is obvious from the fact that in the Economic Survey presented last year, the tourism industry did not find any mention. Even in the latest updated Economic Survey, only one line has been written that this sector should be given some importance.
If this were not enough, in a year in which the country welcomed its 2 millionth tourist with fanfare, the budget does not even mention tourism. In contrast, the Malaysian tourism policy is steered and guided by the prime minister.
This lack of initiative has its root in the way tourism is perceived in the country. The Parliamentary Committee notes, Unfortunately, there is a general feeling among the policy makers that tourism is [an] elitist industry and a luxury which does not have much relevance for the weaker sections of the society and the underdeveloped areas.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The world tourist trade has now been recognised both by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as the number one generator of income and employment.
It is true that India cannot blindly follow the policy followed by other successful countries but it is free to choose some of the salient features of their policy that can click here.
The limitation of resources in India means it cannot go for a large-scale development of tourist sites. Instead, the focus should be on developing a few destinations with world-class facilities. Experiences in other countries have shown that a few mega projects like Cancon and Acapunco in Mexico and Bali Islands in Indonesia can boost tourism in a major way.
Indias policy makers have belatedly realised this and the approach in the ninth plan is on similar lines. It states, In general, emphasis would be given to integrated development projects and mega tourism resorts rather than spreading the resources too thinly over a number of small projects in a multitude of locations.
A lot can also be learned by the way these countries have marketed themselves. India is much bigger than most of the European countries put together. If the IRA blasts a bomb in London, would tourists flee from Germany? By that reasoning why should unrest in Kashmir drive away tourists from Kerala? Much of the reason has to do with the Indian tourism ministrys lack of hard-sell.
One suggestion has been that India could follow the example of Sri Lanka and hire a public relations agency to improve its image Uganda did the same thing after the fall of its cannibal dictator Idi Amin.
The ills of the tourism industry have been been summed up succinctly by Rai Bahadur M S Oberoi in a recent speech. He says, In an economy where our infrastructural facilities are struggling to cope with current demand, following a policy focused merely on increasing the number of tourists arrivals is self defeating. A high spending visitor or a visitor who spends much less, both make the same demand on the infrastructure. So it is better to go for fewer but quality tourists. Indias planners have still to understand that.