Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#101

Post by alephnerd »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #93
quadrifoliate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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.

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#102

Post by quadrifoliate »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #91
quadrifoliate wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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 Mumba…

> 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?

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#103

Post by quadrifoliate »

srean wrote: post #100
quadrifoliate wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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.

> 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.

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#104

Post by thewhitetulip »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #102
thewhitetulip wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Mumba…

> 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 s…

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

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#105

Post by thewhitetulip »

alephnerd wrote: post #101
thewhitetulip wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Interesting. I thought it was done for avoiding gentrification

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#106

Post by quadrifoliate »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #104
quadrifoliate wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

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

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.

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#107

Post by srean »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #103
srean wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 attr…

> 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.

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#108

Post by RetroTechie »

tekla wrote: post #6
doublerabbit wrote: post #4

> Do not spit" signs > Some tourists have complained about the ban, saying it should have been implemented on a weekday instead These should not be a thing. What is it that makes folk feel so entitled? "Lack of litter bins"; isn't an excuse. I've seen folk stand next to a litter bin, light up and then throw the cigarettes end to the ground. You're literally standing next to a litter bin! It should be common sense not…

Its so mindboggling. Littering wssnt even an option in my head as a child. Always carry your trash until you can properly dispose. What the hell is wrong with people?

Netherlands back in the day had signs saying:

"Laat niet, als dank voor het aangenaam verpoozen, den eigenaar van 't bosch de schillen en de doozen"

(old-ish Dutch spelling. From ~1930). Translated:

"Leave not as thanks for your pleasant stay, the owner of the forest the peels and the boxes". (google for pix, they're nice!)

Today, I'd be a happy camper if it were just peels & cardboard since both bio-degrade. Unlike most other litter (smoking-related and balloons among my 'favourites').

But it's definitely a cultural thing. Learn kids @ a young age, problem goes away.

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#109

Post by foxglacier »

satvikpendem wrote: post #62
foxglacier wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about doublerabbit, not India. Doublerabbit apparently doesn't like human rights, which is his right, but it's possible he actually holds contradictory opinions and doesn't realize it.

Or what you and others might believe are human rights are not believed by them to be human rights. Human rights are not, in fact, universal, otherwise there would be no disagreement; and either way, no human right is endless and unlimited especially when it impinges on another's rights.

Oh god what's wrong with you people? Can nobody just be direct and say "I don't accept the UDHR and I believe this other thing that's incompatible with it"? Or "I believe the meaning of that article of UDHR is this other thing and here's some reasons or examples".

Re: Mawlynnong, India, transformed by tourism, bans visitors on Sundays

#110

Post by satvikpendem »

foxglacier wrote: post #109
satvikpendem wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or what you and others might believe are human rights are not believed by them to be human rights. Human rights are not, in fact, universal, otherwise there would be no disagreement; and either way, no human right is endless and unlimited especially when it impinges on another's rights.

Oh god what's wrong with you people? Can nobody just be direct and say "I don't accept the UDHR and I believe this other thing that's incompatible with it"? Or "I believe the meaning of that article of UDHR is this other thing and here's some reasons or examples".

I mean, that's not my position, I'm just explaining what some say when they think the UDHR is somehow actually universal.
Post reply on HN