The reason foreign tourists shun India?

[Faithless]

I can't believe this.

http://ww1.mid-day.com/news/city/2004/august/89963.htm
Pissing on the streets, scratching the crotch, spitting dollops of paan residual — the Indian male can assume demonic proportions if one chooses to get down to it.

As an image to the foreign lens, the idea is exaggerated thanks to cultural differences and a lack of exposure.

So is the Indian male truly the reason why foreign tourists think twice before coming, as Union Tourism Minister Renuka Chowdhury said yesterday? Maybe. Exotica and value for money are definitely incentives for an Indian vacation.

However, Swiss diplomats getting raped in parking lots, lewd comments on the streets and body parts getting grabbed could well account for why Indian tourism has not picked up.

Shobhaa De’s criticism is more geographically specific. “While Renuka has a penchant for sensationalising, there is much truth to her comments. Mumbai and South India are not problem areas, but think about Delhi. Forget foreign tourists, even I wouldn’t travel to North India thanks to the men.”

Asked whether clothing could be a reason foreign tourists face harassment, fashion designer Vaishali Sawhney said, “I think the average Indian male on the street does have a problem. There are men nudging you, bumping into you and passing lewd comments. Whether you are dressed in a salwaar or in Western gear, there is an attitudinal dysfunction that needs to be rectified if tourism is to flourish in India.”

Despite the opinions, Chowdhury’s comment on men defecating on the streets (and how it discourages tourism) brings to the forefront the larger issue of lack of sanitation facilities in India.

Speaking of the Indian male’s lack of hygiene or rather contesting Chowdhury’s generalisation, actress Bipasha Basu said, “I have been to the States, and American men are not exactly the most hygienic. One should not generalise.”

What Renuka Chowdhury said yesterday

* Indian men, wearing Ray Ban glasses and driving Ford cars, pull down the window, spit on the road, and urinate on the roadside. What to do?

* The growing crime rate against women has also affected the tourism industry, especially high-end tourism. It should be a matter of national shame that we allow women to be raped.

What does it reflect on the men of India? Is this the culture we have to project? For attracting high-end tourists, you need to ensure them a sense of security and peace of mind

* We were taught that guests are Gods. Somewhere we have forgotten all that. We must revive this. Right from the customs counter and taxi drivers, the tourists should feel they have landed in the right place

* I am going to launch an intensive national campaign to urge people to get back to the culture of treating tourists as honoured guests. I hope my campaign will help them to know what to do.

[applehead]

wow. i never knew this about india.
that's awful.

one of my childhood friend is indian
and she's been bugging me to go visit
with her but it's not a place that i would
ever like to go.

[SunWuKong]

wow. i never knew this about india.
that's awful.

one of my childhood friend is indian
and she's been bugging me to go visit
with her but it's not a place that i would
ever like to go.

my cousins in NYC never like to go outside the city. you new yorkers never like to go anywhere.

[Mr.Lum]

I have no desire to go to India whatsoever. I just don't. It doesn't interest me. My grandpa went when he was about to die (he spent the last 10 years of his life traveling to Scandinavia, UK, France, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia (hajj), Egypt, India, Hawai'i, Latin America, China, Malaysia, Thailand and other places) and I remember him saying he liked India the least except for France and Singapore. I know a girl from school who goes to India every year, she really digs it. But from all the pictures I see of it it looks crowded and dirty. I think it will get better over time tho. I've seen shots of their universities and some other builings that are very nice.

[deez nuts]

my cousins in NYC never like to go outside the city. you new yorkers never like to go anywhere.

going to third world or third world like countries don't appeal to me.

[ism]

my cousins in NYC never like to go outside the city. you new yorkers never like to go anywhere.Everything's already in NYC. Only reason to leave would be for food (ingredients that can't be freshly flown in) or different weather.

With that said, I'd only go to India for the food. But there's a long queue ahead of it.

[applehead]

my cousins in NYC never like to go outside the city. you new yorkers never like to go anywhere.

that's not true!

=)
i know that things are not as bad
as i think they are even though most of the
images of india i've seen doesn't seem
too tourist friendly.

[truMp]

wow this article is way out of hand, no one else notices this?

[SunWuKong]

wow this article is way out of hand, no one else notices this?

well to be fair, i've never been to India, so i wouldn't know.

[golden_buns]

going to third world or third world like countries don't appeal to me.

princess :wink:

[Tao]

princess :wink:
for real, princess bun boy. afraid to go to india cause he's gonna get groped

[deez nuts]

yes. i'm too pretty and delicate.

i also don't want any of my organs being taken out and sold on the black market.

[applehead]

bunboy. i bet you can't even last
two days camping.
and i mean camping camping.
not the renting-a-cabin crap.

[deez nuts]

bunboy. i bet you can't even last
two days camping.
and i mean camping camping.
not the renting-a-cabin crap.

seriously, gimme a weekend at the waldorf. i'm no mountain man jack, fuck that.

camp grounds should be made into malls or parking lots. what a waste of potential real estate.

[robotic]

um. well, we have to go to a third world country every year. ;_;

[Faithless]

bunboy. i bet you can't even last
two days camping.
and i mean camping camping.
not the renting-a-cabin crap.
I confess. I know I couldn't. Who wants to crap in the woods with bear sniffing your ass?

.
seriously, gimme a weekend at the waldorf. i'm no mountain man jack, fuck that.

camp grounds should be made into malls or parking lots. what a waste of potential real estate.
I hate camping, but I still like the open space.

.
wow this article is way out of hand, no one else notices this?
I was hoping someone would question it.

[applehead]

um. well, we have to go to a third world country every year. ;_;

aw. robotic.
you're a good sport. you're pakistani, right?

one thing that does entice me about india
is shopping at the outdoor markets.
when my indian friend comes back from
visiting she gets all these rad jewelry
and knick knacks for the house.
there's this little shop on 5th av.
that has things for the home
and a lot of the really cool looking
pieces are from india. my friend
said they're way overpriced though.

[kimpossible]

bunboy. i bet you can't even last
two days camping.


heh, neither could i. i'm not going to spend lots of money on camping gear so i can go out and pretend i don't have a home or bed. :smile:

i likey central heating, toilets, toilet paper, no bugs, DVD player, fridge.

[asvenus]

lord have mercy people....open you eyes a tad here....1)India thrives on a healty tourist economy...partic from the Europeans who adore it as they feel they get in touch with their spirtual side and all that other malarkey 2) you all sound quite ignorant, considering none of you have been there, c'mon ppl as if people dont slag off every DEVELOPING nation (NOT third world thank you!!)....i have been to India 5 times and it one of the most beautiful, breathtaking, interesting places steeped in a romantic and revolutionary history i have ever been to....yeah so it has downsides but men pissing on the streets, women getting raped in car parks...oooh hello IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE!!
also Indian archtiecture, particulary the temples and shrines and all the Islamic architecture is IMO some of the most beautiful there is...not to mention all the food which is cheap as anything..and clothes and shoes etc etc...

[artsfartsyjanet]

all of my indian friends seem to have gone back to india at least once. they like it. one person i know didn't particularly enjoy it.

[Mr.Lum]

as if people dont slag off every DEVELOPING nation (NOT third world thank you!!)...

India is a major Third World nation, Third World simply means that they did not ally with the USSR/Commies or with US/West.

[SunWuKong]

India is a major Third World nation, Third World simply means that they did not ally with the USSR/Commies or with US/West.

well now that the Cold War is over, the term is technically outdated.

[Mr.Lum]

well now that the Cold War is over, the term is technically outdated.

Third world according to my International Relations text book is the "third rung on the world economic ladder" being after former Communist countries and right before the Forth World being the poorest of the poor nations (ie East Timor, Somalia etc). Third world was the nonallied bloc of countries at the UN.

[asvenus]

things are not that clear cut anymore in terms of dividing up nations into 1st, 2nd and 3rd world...i mean its derogatory anyway but actually is innaccurate...these countries are referred to as developing nations (i say 'underdeveloped') and the '1st world' countries 'developed' nations. i surprised they still even use those terms, i though they were replaced in the 80's

[SunWuKong]

Third world according to my International Relations text book is the "third rung on the world economic ladder" being after former Communist countries and right before the Forth World being the poorest of the poor nations (ie East Timor, Somalia etc). Third world was the nonallied bloc of countries at the UN.


uhh... therefore the term is outdated, because the Cold War is over... it wasn't so much a category of economic powers as it was a category of political alignment. it referred to those who are not aligned with either the capitalists (First World) or the communists (Second World) and it included countries with a wide range of backgrounds, including both rich and poor.

furthermore, the term "Fourth World" didn't come into being until 1974, after a book was published called The Fourth World: An Indian Reality (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029756200/oneworldnatioonl/002-2511747-6219224). this wasn't so much a category of economic powers either, because it refers to people who don't have their own states, but instead live within other states or across different state lines, like Native Americans or the Hmong.

[applehead]

uhh... therefore the term is outdated, because the Cold War is over... it wasn't so much a category of economic powers as it was a category of political alignment. it referred to those who are not aligned with either the capitalists (First World) or the communists (Second World) and it included countries with a wide range of backgrounds, including both rich and poor.

furthermore, the term "Fourth World" didn't come into being until 1974, after a book was published called The Fourth World: An Indian Reality (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029756200/oneworldnatioonl/002-2511747-6219224). this wasn't so much a category of economic powers either, because it refers to people who don't have their own states, but instead live within other states or across different state lines, like Native Americans or the Hmong.

wowzers. i never knew that!
i always thought those
terms referred to economic status.

[Mr.Lum]

because the Cold War is over... it wasn't so much a category of economic powers as it was a category of political alignment. it referred to those who are not aligned with either the capitalists (First World) or the communists (Second World) and it included countries with a wide range of backgrounds, including both rich and poor.


I have stated this numorous times on this thread as well as others.

furthermore, the term "Fourth World" didn't come into being until 1974, after a book was published called The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. this wasn't so much a category of economic powers either, because it refers to people who don't have their own states, but instead live within other states or across different state lines, like Native Americans or the Hmong.


I am aware of this, however it is not used in that context anymore. AS you said, the Cold War is over and Third/Forth World just came to mean poor countries, First World came to mean rich and Second World and Forth World mostly fell out of use. Using Third World to describe India is not inaccurate in either sense anyhow. Fiji was First World in the Cold WAr sense but in the sense that it is used to day is a Third World nation. Algeria was always third world, South Africa has always been First as has the US. Encyclopedias from the early 90s classify China as "Third World" as well although by Cold War termonoogy it was more like Second.

[SunWuKong]

I am aware of this, however it is not used in that context anymore. AS you said, the Cold War is over and Third/Forth World just came to mean poor countries, First World came to mean rich and Second World and Forth World mostly fell out of use. Using Third World to describe India is not inaccurate in either sense anyhow. Fiji was First World in the Cold WAr sense but in the sense that it is used to day is a Third World nation. Algeria was always third world, South Africa has always been First as has the US. Encyclopedias from the early 90s classify China as "Third World" as well although by Cold War termonoogy it was more like Second.

well, i suppose it's just semantics. many people have switched over to using the terms "developed" and "developing" to describe nations.

as for China being categorised as "Third World" instead of "Second World", that could be because China normalised relationship with the US in 1972, which of course greatly angered the USSR. the reality was that China never had a very good relationship with the USSR anyway.

[Mr.Lum]

as for China being categorised as "Third World" instead of "Second World", that could be because China normalised relationship with the US in 1972, which of course greatly angered the USSR. the reality was that China never had a very good relationship with the USSR anyway.

Well, the reason I always heard was that it's per capita income was so low that it was classified as such. I mean, they were for most of the Cold War essentially Second World (communists) you didn't have to be allied with the Soviets. But yeah, "developed" and "developing" are the PC terms nowadays.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Technically speaking, wouldn't that definition mean Finland is a third-world country? They stayed out of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and, like India, maintained relations with the Soviet Union and tended to fall in line behind them on foreign policy issues (probably because of the giant military threat posed by the Soviets --- just google "Finlandization" to see what I'm talking about), but didn't move towards a Soviet-style economic or political system.

Anyway, I think instinctively, people think of first/second/third world as referring to economic status. Or maybe economic system: capitalism, communism, and kleptocracy.

[Mr.Lum]

Technically speaking, wouldn't that definition mean Finland is a third-world country? They stayed out of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and, like India, maintained relations with the Soviet Union and tended to fall in line behind them on foreign policy issues (probably because of the giant military threat posed by the Soviets --- just google "Finlandization" to see what I'm talking about), but didn't move towards a Soviet-style economic or political system.



They did sign the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance in 48 which lasted until 1992 and it bascially was an alliance against Germany and friends (ie the US) to make Finland a buffer between the West and the USSR. So they were technically allied with the Soviets but they weren't commies. I guess they would be Second World in the sense of being allied with the USSR but in terms of economics/politics they've almost always been capitalist/democratic.

[Pookie_gal]

India is a beautiful country. Like Asvenus says, it has wonderful architecture (where else can you find something as spectacular as the Taj Mahal?), picturesque scenery (I went to the beach in Goa, which was a contrast to the peaceful hills of Chikmagalur) and the rich culture (Bollywood based in the bustling city in Mumbai). I haven't explored the whole country, and have only been to the south, in particular Mumbai, Bangalore, Goa and Chikmagalur, but I have seen enough to make me want to return some day.

Every country has good points and bad points. Crime happens everywhere, not just in India. I mean, London has had its fair share of tourists being raped/murdered but tourists still come.

Don't be put off by what the media says about the country - there are some really beautiful parts of India that are untouched by the tourist industry, and people are very friendly. Experience it for yourself, then you can decide if it's really as bad as people say it is.

[Vedic_Warrior]

India is a great country to visit. I've been there 4 times, and I've enjoyed every single visit.

As far as urinating in the streets is concerned, it doesn't only happen in India. One of my friends who visited Japan last year told me that older people who can't "hold it" often do their business in the street......