But are these reasons compelling enough to rationalize the stripping of a victim's dignity? Is it ethical for a country to allow exploitation of its citizen's misery by displaying them like animals in a petting zoo?Some believe this is justified. In fact, this has been the premise used to validate slum tourism or 'poorism' in impoverished areas of the world. Poverty and disease attract tourists to the Dharavi slums of India, the streets of Rio de Jeneiro and the Kibera slums of Kenya and travelling agencies leach off the misfortune of residents. How much of this money reaches and benefits the victims and the local economy remains unclear. Guided walks and tour buses follow the natives around various slums and tourists get to see, experience (and eventually escape) the life of the less privileged.
Travel agencies and entrepreneurs make money off the victims by making them a living, breathing, 'photograph-us-please' spectacle one minute and leaving them right back where they were (in the depths of poverty, death, disease and destruction) the next. This type of voyeuristic tourism puts natives on display in their own homes, using them as tools to make observers feel better about their own life.
Such voyeuristic tourism has been a rising trend. In the aftermath of many disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes tourists have entered the country in droves with the primary interest of witnessing and perhaps even being a part of the aftermath. This was true with Hurricane Katrina in the US, where bus tours were conducted around neighborhoods destroyed by floods; in the Syrian war zones where tourists travel to take pictures of the dead and the injured and during the 2010 volcanic eruptions of Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland.
While some come to the country for entertainment, others rush in to offer help. But the harsh truth is that unless such people have some technical skills vital to rescue and rehabilitation (like rescue teams, nurses, doctors and epidemic control medical workers do), such tourism is unwanted and sometimes even despised by the locals. This might seem ungrateful, but is nonetheless the truth. And this applies not only to international but domestic tourists as well.
After not receiving aid for weeks in the aftermath of the mega-earthquake of April 25, frustrated villagers of affected districts in Nepal were discontent with common people, government officials and organizations who wandered in to ogle at their misery without significant relief material. Today, more than a month after the earthquake, they still air the same sentiment. Villagers from Sindupalchowk, Gorkha and other affected districts seem to be tired of the government officials who fly in on helicopters and make empty promises. To them Sushil Koirala and Puspa Kamal Dahal might as well be foreigners who gawk at them from safe distances inside safari buses and throw out tidbits from time to time.
I felt the same way when I heard that Hollywood actresses Susan Sarandon and Michelle Yeoh were in Nepal. While their good intention is appreciated, I think they could have done more by staying put in their own countries and donating the money they spent on airfare, five star hotels and other travel costs while in Nepal. Their skill set is of no use to us right now, but the aid and resources they could have provided would have gone a long way.
I don't intend to belittle our government's work or the foreign support and aid we have received in these trying times but want to remind everyone that just because it glitters it's not gold. By this point we must distinguish between genuine help, well meaning but useless help and the plain old elaborate charade put on for publicity. There is a reason why we were more than eager to send the Indian media on their way. The Indian media, by dramatizing our sorrows for ratings, not only degraded itself but also compromised the remarkable work of their legitimate counterparts—the Indian Rescue Team—that saved numerous Nepali lives.
The road to hell, apparently, is paved with good intentions. Volunteering (if not done carefully and thoughtfully) might as well be another brick that paves that road. In the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, international volunteers (most of whom were well meaning) took over the rehabilitation and didn't let the country bounce back on its own terms. They ignored the cultural, social and economical aspects of Haiti as they imposed their own ideas and ideals. As a result, not only did they strip the country of its authenticity but also made the natives reliant on donors.
They might have given the natives fish but neglected to teach them how to catch the fish in the first place. Often, projects were heavily funded but abandoned in the middle after it failed to show results. Today, five years on, Haiti still struggles and Haitians are still looking up to donors.
Such influx of untrained, inexperienced volunteers is thus another and a more serious form of threat promoted by disaster tourism. Why is it worse than voyeurism? Because in this type of tourism, inexperienced personnel directly interfere with long term rehabilitation and prevent others, more legitimate organizations, from taking over. It is thus crucial for any volunteer to carefully evaluate the roles they are assigned and to make sure that the programs they participate in promote sustainability, solidarity and most of all involves the local people. It is better for volunteers to work with experienced agencies that have prior experience in rehabilitation and a record of success.
In the upcoming days one of the major challenges will be to differentiate between right kind from dark kind of tourism. This will not be easy. Tourists might throng to see people living in tents in Tudikhel and might strip their privacy away with pictures and videos. Tourists may be provided guided tours along upended neighborhoods where human misery and loss will turn into a common spectacle. This must be avoided at all costs. The government must strictly restrict travel agencies from engaging in such activities before tourists start arriving in throngs.
On the other hand, full fledged promotion of legitimate tourism must take place. There is no reason why foreigners can't visit Nepal to enjoy its rich natural and cultural landscape like they always have. After all, only around 15 percent of tourist destinations have been affected. Hotels in Chitwan and Pokhara and other popular travel destinations remain open and wait for travelers and adventurers with open arms.
The author is a student of bio-technology at Asian Institute of Technology and Management
snehapande1992@gmail.com
Related story
Kerala Tourism’s first STREET project inaugurated in Maravanthu...
