[quadrifoliate]

I did, a requirement to book a guesthouse room through the weekend does not make the moral/legal issues any better.

Imagine that some town in the US did this; and shut down otherwise public roads to anyone who is not a resident or a guest of a hotel in the town for the weekend, citing visitor nuisance as the reason.

Would you feel better about it because "well you can just book a hotel for the weekend"?

[alephnerd]

Article 13 allows customary law to be applied following judicial review.

It's the same precedent most Himachalis use to keep tourists contained to a handful of tourist traps while keeping the rest of the state clean. Other border states and Northeastern states do the same thing.

Semi-urban areas like Mawlynnong are governed by Panchayats - not municipal councils - and overtourism can become a kiss of death.

[quadrifoliate]

I doubt this has been given judicial review at the High Court/Supreme Court level.

As for Himachal, you seem to be the expert but I thought that Himachal disallows non-locals from buying land (which I also think is wrong), not staying anywhere? Or does Himachal also have laws like this?

[alephnerd]

> not staying anywhere? Or does Himachal also have laws like this?

Non-locals are allowed to stay anywhere in HP, but zoning is strictly enforced so you aren't going to find some hotel or B&B in the middle of nowhere without it being zoned as non-agricultural land.

This helps limit tourism to a handful of urban hubs, which helps limit overtourism to a handful of areas that have essentially been written off.

That said, significant swathes of Himachal fall within the Protexted Area Permit and outsiders need permission from the Home Ministry for extended stays, and often get stopped by police or ITBP for checkings (unsurprising given that we neighbor Tibet and plenty of communities have ethnic ties with residents of Ngari).

> I doubt this has been given judicial review at the High Court/Supreme Court level

Tribal Councils and Panchayats in Meghalaya are allowed to use customary law to limit outsiders, and this has been adjudicated by the Meghalaya HC as well.

Meghalaya also falls under the Sixth Schedule which was explicitly made to ensure that tribal areas aren't inundated by more numerous outside ethnic groups.

[thewhitetulip]

You have to note that Himachal or other mountain states with snow need protections. Otherwise they ll quickly lose their local traditions because the mountain snow states have extremely pleasant temperatures even in summer so rich folks from all over the country would simply buy out all the land and houses gentrification overloaded

[alephnerd]

That's not why land purchases are restricted in HP - the state conducted land reform and collectivization in the 1970s, and to prevent large landlords from being re-established, the outsider restriction was implemented except in zoned areas.

[thewhitetulip]

Interesting. I thought it was done for avoiding gentrification

[thewhitetulip]

Overtl tourism is a major issue in Bali, Japan and Bhutan as well. It's a global thing. I remember reading that Greece or some European country had banned cruise ship docking because they didn't want the crowd who runs around the city for half a day

[alephnerd]

My personal opinion is less about the crowding (though that is a pain) and moreso how overtourism creates a form of Dutch disease and prevents more inclusive economic from being created.

The state in India I mentioned (Himachal Pradesh) has a large tourism industry, but because of strict zoning laws was able to reduce the overall impact of tourism and zone SEZs and industrial parks which helped MSMEs climb up the value chain in industries such as generic pharma manufacturing and food processing.

If hotel and homestay zoning was lax, there would have been less of an incentive for local capital to invest in capex heavy but ultimately higher value economic output. And it was that economic output that helped HP subsidize it's welfare system that was able to bring the state's HDI to middle of the pack Chinese province levels despite not having a single metro with population greater than 200k.

[thewhitetulip]

I know HP lol I live in India

I hadn't thought of it from your PoV but it makes sense.

And I had just been to the Sar pass trek from Kasol, and let me tell you. It's insanely over crowded right now. Despite the regulations.

On our trek we easily had 300+ people at 13k feet!

So I fully support such decisions because small towns can't handle such crowd

[srean]

Sadly Arunachal is quickly becoming piss pit despite the fact that you need permits to visit.

Same for Kedarnath.

Permits need to be issued with the carrying capacity of the land in mind.

Bhutan seems to pull this off well.

[thewhitetulip]

There is a difference between "trippers" and renters. Had your read the article you'd know that they are ok with people living in cottages on Sunday just not "trippers"

They want to reduce people who visit without staying. For Sunday is their day for mass etc

Also most businesses are still closed on the Sunday because the town is Christian

[quadrifoliate]

> There is a difference between "trippers" and renters. Had your read the article you'd know that they are ok with people living in cottages on Sunday just not "trippers"

Again, none of this makes it right. It's medieval-style thinking to just put up a gate on Sundays to keep all the "trippers" out as you put it. What if every city and town in India started doing this?

[thewhitetulip]

I'm not in US and have never set foot there ever.

But I've lived my entire life in India so far.

Most cities and towns won't do this because this affects only a handful of extremely small tourist places which are cool like have snow so they attract 80% of our 1 billion population who choose to be tourists.

I get your overall point though. But major cities just don't suffer from the same problems! Say Chennai or Mumbai or Trivendrum or Kochi or anybody else - this is simply not a problem. They don't have over tourism.

And such decisions will not be taken anywhere else in India

[quadrifoliate]

> But major cities just don't suffer from the same problems! Say Chennai or Mumbai or Trivendrum or Kochi or anybody else - this is simply not a problem. They don't have over tourism.

It might not be tourism specifically, but major cities have a huge problem with net migration into the cities, typically from rural areas. This causes overcrowding, slums, and a ton of pressure on land and water. Logically, the cities should also be free to ban "outsiders" from coming in for whatever time they want. After all, the outsiders are encroaching on their way of life!

Great, let's ban anyone from entering Chennai or Mumbai unless they own or rent land there, or have a confirmed hotel booking! We can set up checkpoints at the city boundaries, and require anyone coming in to show these proofs.

See how quickly this logic can fall apart if everyone starts applying it?

[thewhitetulip]

Nobody will apply this logic in major cities because it'll cause a lot of outrage and rightfully so.

This is not the first small tourist place to set restrictions as far as I know so yeah this won't be a slippery slope any time soon

[quadrifoliate]

Slippery slope is a fallacy, but enough of these incidents and people will absolutely start trying to apply this in their home states. I thought India had gotten past the "I don't like people from other states" phase by now.

For example, if people from the rest of India are not allowed to buy land in Himachal, it seems only fair that Himachalis who own land in Himachal should not be allowed to buy land anywhere else in India. Sooner or later people are going to come to that logical conclusion.

[srean]

As an Indian and an avid traveller I would welcome such a step.

So many places in India have been reduced to a shit show of filth because of not drawing a line.

Many places use an adaptive system of tickets/permits to keep tourist attractions attractive.

I wouldn't mind queuing up for permits if the upshot is a better experience and civic minded fellow travellers.

[quadrifoliate]

> So many places in India have been reduced to a shit show of filth because of not drawing a line.

I would be highly supportive of prosecuting and fining people creating a shit show of filth, regardless of whether it's locals or tourists. Why not apply the law equally to both if the locals are so confident that they don't litter?

> Many places use an adaptive system of tickets/permits to keep tourist attractions attractive.

That is not what's going on here though. A reasonable permit system that controls numbers seems fairer than some randos putting up a gate and blocking a public road.

[srean]

> That is not what's going on here though

When the government is absent in its role people/communities do self-organize. As long as local defacto controllers do not resort to things like honor killing, honor rapes like they do in the Haryana belt I am very much for local and distributed control and empowerment.

Regarding stringent anti-littering laws, enforcement has proven nigh impossible exactly where it's required the most. The only discernible difference would be more corruption funded pocket money for the local police. I would be so happy to be proven wrong.

Even with effective anti-littering in place, many places would still need to control the volume of footfalls.

Really saddened by the filth in around Kedarnath. It used to be so pristine before.