had about the destination. The driver scoffed when
he was not getting two thousand for the driving
how he could give that amount to the information
provider.
Enquiries about things to see in Chamoli and
Rudraprayag districts led to a short list of temple
names. On seeking directions to the non-religious
/ adventure activity destinations, collected from
various books and magazines, the replies generally
included a blunt no, a blank look, or a series of
questions about my intentions to visit the places.
I wonder, why do we always complain although
more than three fourth of the Himalayas lie in India
yet its share in the adventure tourism is negligible?
Are we serious about adventure tourism in the
Himalayas?
Local vs Non-Local (empty) Rhetoric: Some
Confessions
One of the elderly locals casually told, putting a
spoke in others’ successful projects is common
in the state. Many prefer to spoil the others’
endeavors instead of making sincere efforts to
build something of their own. When I enquired
why could non-locals neither buy land nor work
in Uttarakhand but Uttarakhandis could buy land
and work in all other Indian cities and towns?
He rationalized the biased house-building and
job rules by citing presence of two governments,
center and state, in Delhi. That means all Indian
citizens have equal right over the national capital.
Can this rationale be applied to other big cities, like
Bengaluru, Mumbai...? Can I not rephrase the same
rationale for the Himalayas, all Indians have equal
right over the Indian Himalayas?How could a non-local adventure travel agent,
especially, if the business is much more successful
than the local ones, operate on large scale in the
state? I heard it straight from the horse’s mouth,
a local travel operator. A ban on high altitude
meadows was also an offshoot of this jealousy
besides the environment rhetoric. Even I heard
incidences of fights between local rural and local
urban adventure tour operators over adventure
tourism business rights.
This highly twisted local vs non-local (empty)
rhetoric has many more manifestations. Locals
commonly complain that their role is limited
to cooking, carrying loads, cleaning, and other
low-paying tasks in tourism businesses operated
by non-locals even though they are fitter and
stronger than the latter. Who is responsible for this
treatment? Locals themselves to some extent.
Natives, especially in rural areas of the state, do not
have time to look beyond their fields and pastures.
The short tourism season, May-September,
coincides with the farming and livestock tendering
periods. Every villager is so busy that s/he cannot
even work in her/his neighbor’s fields for a daily
wage. Packanimal owners, porters, and many
trekking guides do not want to work on slopes
during winter, December-April, because of cold
nights. Everyone wants to work for just four-five
months and to earn a fat annual salary.
The big landowners in the villages want to sell
or rent their (agricultural) land to blue-chip
companies for a large sum or regular income
without any hard work. They do not mind dealing
with non-local companies offering handsome(^212)
Volume 4, Issue 1 | June 2019