| Main Page |
Date:
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:09:49 -0500
Author:
"Deanne Hart" <dhart@idc.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Security Issues Related to Mtn Tourism in Nepal
Dr. Sicroff:
Thank you for informing me about
your moderating a new panel
on Security Issues Related to Tourism in Nepal. As you know,
this is a subject I have been following for more than a decade
now, since the mysterious disappearance of my sister, former
Peace Corp volunteer, Nancy Hart, from several days out from
the Jiri roadhead en route to Sagarmatha state park in late
December of 1987.
Nancy had just completed her 2.5
years of service as a PCV,
having taught English at the primary school in Karkineta, Nepal
during 1985-1987. Despondent over leaving her village, and
left in Kathmandu awaiting a flight out in early January to
meet another retired PCV in Bangladesh, Nancy had made plans
for a 2 week trek to Everest Base Camp in mid to late December,
1987. At the last minute, Nancy's trekking companion,
another retired PCV by the name of Tony Bondurant, was unable
to accompany on her this trek due to the fact that his father
suddenly died and he needed to return to the US immediately.
Because she had already made plans
to do the trek, had
purchased the permits and wanted to get out of K-Du, Nancy
made the decision to continue with her trekking plans. Her
thinking was, since she was so upset at the thought of leaving
her life in Nepal behind, a good way to deal with it would be
to take one last trek in order to view Everest (a once in a
lifetime opportunity for many young Americans) and to
"walk her blues away."
Nancy never made it to Sagarmatha.
She was reported overdue
from her trek in early to mid-January by her colleague awaiting
her arrival in Dakka, Bangladesh. At that point the US Embassy
was contacted by the Peace Corps office in K-Du, since
technically Nancy was considered a private citizen having
completed her PCV service as of December 5th. The US Embassy
immediately dispatched a consular officer into the field and
he was able to subsequently track Nancy's journey from the road
head at Jiri to several points along the way on the Namche trek.
Nancy was traveling fast, having
made it to the village of
Junbesi in the late afternoon of Dec. 24th (she got off the bus
in Jiri on 22nd!). Nancy checked into a trekker's lodge in
Junbesi on Christmas eve, 1987 and from that point on her
whereabouts are unknown and she is, according to US State Dept
reports, considered most likely to be the victim of foul play.
Nancy Hart was an experienced
traveler, athlete, and Nepali
customs and language expert. She did not dress ostentatiously,
and followed the Nepali custom of wearing a skirt for her
trek - since at this time many Nepali's were still offended by
seeing Western women in pants or shorts. Nancy carried her own
bags, did not employ a porter since she was sticking to
the main trail, and was simply not the type to hire someone
to carry her gear. Nancy knew the dangers of traveling alone
as a woman in Nepal, however she made the mistake of sticking
to her plans as she really wanted to leave Nepal on a happy note
by being able to say she traveled to Everest state park.
Despite being in good physical
shape, and having penetrating
insights into Nepali customs and behaviour, in addition to being
fluent in Nepali - Nancy took unnecessary risks by traveling
alone during this off-season tourist timeframe.
To this day we do not know what
happened to Nancy, but have
ruled out death by accident on the trail. A Canadian woman
who went missing right around the same time frame as Nancy,
and who the authorities originally suspected may have been a
related case, was subsequently found at the bottom of a ravine
in the Solu Khumbu region. Her belongings were with the body,
and her death was ruled an accident. Nancy remains a missing
person, presumed to be the victim of foul play. I urge all
travelers to Nepal, no matter how experienced you are to never
travel alone. Be careful hiring your porters, treat all with
respect and do not - especially if you're female -- travel
alone under any circumstances. If you ever go missing, your
family will be very hard pressed to find out what happened due
to the lack of infrastucture and professional investigation
techniques in the Kingdom. Not to mention the police corruption,
prejudice toward women, and government instability.
If anyone has any questions for me
please do not hesitate
to contact me. I spent a total of 5 months, in two separate
visits to Nepal, and can provide a lot of insight as to what
to do, and what not to do if you ever find yourself in this
situation where a loved one disappears in Nepal.
Peace.
Dee Hart
Boston, MA
------------------
Moderator's Comments
I would like to thank Dee Hart for
sharing this painful
story.
Of course, we would like to see some
lessons learned from
any such experience. "Don't trek alone" is one attractive
conclusion, but it is not the last word. I have trekked alone
many times, and in general prefer to be alone with my thoughts
on the trail, if not at the teahouse at the end of the day.
True, I am a man and don't run
precisely the same risks,
but even a simple fall can be fatal, and these past years when
there there have been Maoists and also bands of armed bandits
posing as Maoists, everyone is at risk; in fact, to judge by
current anecdotes, groups of trekkers have been mugged in Nepal
more often than single trekkers. Regardless of the risks,
trekking alone is a choice, and it is not an idiotic one,
either. Who criticized the "58-year-old grandmother" who
recently began a trek across Nepal in the name of peace?
Who criticizes Reinhold Messner for
climbing Everest solo?
One last point: local people very
frequently know who commits
crimes. At a certain point, the us-them notions can and should
break down, and there will be more cooperation with efforts
to arrest and punish criminals.
Any comments?
-Seth Sicroff
Date:
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:45:35 -0500
Author:
"Ujol" <himboy@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: "Rule of 3"
It saddened me to read about the
disappearance of a PCV, Nancy
Hart. I do agree that TREKKING ALONE in remote mountainous
destinations is not a good idea [but who will tell that to the backpackers who've come half-way around the globe (incurring
significant expenses) and want to go it alone ], if you
consider the possible consequences. The bragging right that
comes with trekking alone and soloing Mt. Everest is not to
be easily dismissed as a reason (usually unacknowledged) for
why some people go it alone. People build careers and
reputations on just such a thing.
While working as a ranger in
northern New Mexico (in the
foothills of the Sangre De Cristos) in my late teens, I was
taught that when trekking/hiking in remote areas or doing
caving or rock climbing, the absolute minimum number of
people that should undertake any of these is three ("Rule of
3"): the reason being that if A gets hurt or gets into an
emergency situation, B can stay with him/her administering
first aid/CPR, etc., while C goes to seek help. In most
hiking/trekking situations this strategy - 'safety in number' - could work although enforcing this on the backpackers who
make up a significant % of tourists visiting Nepal, is not
easy...after all, they've come to enjoy the 'freedom of the
hills' (incidentally there is a book by that name), not to be
restrained by man-made rules. In most cases walking alone is
not a problem: most backpackers walk the oft-beaten tracks anyway during the tourist season. Even if they journey alone,
they are likely to run into many others like them - potential
Good Samaritans, in case they run into trouble.
It is only when they veer off the beaten track to blaze their own trails far from civilization (and basic facilities) that
they should be aware of the 'safety in number' strategy, and
be better prepared because you never know.
In some situations though, safety
cannot be sought in numbers
alone. One has only to recall the violent storm that killed most of the Everest climbing party in the Spring of 1996. Some observers have argued that 'over-crowding' on the slopes
actually made the matter worse.
Well, well, there will always be that classic trade-off between
freedom and security. Even the 'rule of 3' is at best only a
rule of thumb.
-Ujol
----
Moderator's Comments
Ujol makes a valid point about
adjusting one's trekking
strategy according to the terrain. Traveling alone is almost
always a bit riskierthat traveling with a companion or two.
However, the Everest trail, from Jiri right up to Everest
Base Camp, is a super highway. There is virtually no ambiguity
about the trail. If you're ever lost, you can ask "Namche?"
from as far away as Jiri, and everybody will tell you the
route. I've taken wrong turns a few times, but always someone
has run after me to point out the mistake. After Namche, the
trail is even clearer, and more heavily traveled. Only the bit
from Gorak Shep to Base Camp can be a bit dicey for a first
timer, but during the trekking season there are always other
people around.
In my opinion, trekking alone is not
a question of bragging
rights. It's a question of setting your own pace, of stopping
to go to the bathroom when you feel like it, of not having to
listen to somebody yammering at you when you're concentrating
on surviving the climb from Kenja to Sete. And nobody has ever
been the least bit impressed about my trekking anywhere, alone
or not. After all, it's just walking.
Anyway, maybe we should focus a bit
on the Everest issue.
I've already posted some ideas in paragraph 4 of my lead essay
for Session II at <http://www.mtnforum.org/apmn/paper2.htm>.
Comments please!
-seth sicroff
Date:
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:08:21 +0000
Author:
"paramjeet singh" <sparamjeet@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security issues in remote mountainous
destinations
The issue of Security of visitors is
an important one specially
in the context of Himalayas due to their scale, remoteness and
a near absence of modern infrastructure.I agree with Dr. Sicroff
that trekking alone is very rarely a bragging issue. Similarly
exploring remote regions or pushing the limits in adventure
pursuits in the Himalayas be it climbing or something else, is
not always motivated by sponsorship or fame, however much the
media and industry might want us to believe. The pull of the
Himalayas as a dream destination also generates from the
very uncertainty of guaranteed security that we are discussing
about.
Organized and systematized visitor
security which may go hand
in hand with elaborate modern infrastructure like roads
and airstrips and policing and high tech refuges and lodges
and this would definitely make the Himalayas more accessible
to mass tourism. The resultant gains may look rosy but the
need of the consumer societies to turn pristine wildernesses
into well packaged and sanitized playgrounds is debatable.
Besides being a purely aesthetic
issue- mass tourism is also an issue which has implications on the balance between
economic gain and resource conservation.
Paramjeet Singh
---------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Another vote for insecurity!
By way of contrast, I have posted a couple of photos
from the summit of Mt. Fuji, Japan:
http://namche.net/fuji.html
The question is: Can a destination serve all markets? Can
you have your cake and eat it too?
-seth sicroff
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:40:36
+0500
Author: "muhdayaz" <muhdayaz@brain.net.pk>
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in Remote Mountain Areas
An interesting and useful discussion
has been going on for various aspects of safety in the remote mountainous
regions, mostly about the geo-physical hazards, like earthquakes, land
slides, avalanches and unpredictable climatic conditions.
Besides the geo-physical hazards,
there are some other categories of hazards as well, which could become a
major concern for the safety of visiting tourists.
Respect for locals: The indigenous
mountain dwellers must be respected, under all circumstances. I have
personally witnessed that some tourists openly ridicule locals due to a
number of reasons. Use of derogatory language, foul behavior and a general
lack of respect can cause serious clashes amongst the locals and tourists,
where the later is always a minority.
Lack of cultural harmony: In some
closed-door and highly conservative societies like Afghanistan and Pakistan,
the tourist must blend him/her-self with local culture as far as possible.
For example, men and women walking in shorts through populated areas can
become a cause of serious clashes.
Similarly photography of womenfolk
is often not liked in such like societies.
Respect for religious values: Due to
number of contributing factors, land-locked remoteness being a major one,
these societies have always been highly religious. Their tolerance level to
any religious critique is fairly low. Some travelers make open criticism to
their religious values and practices, both. Such an attitude could lead to a
number of security threats.
Besides physical environment,
respect for religious and socio-cultural environment is likely to play a
most significant role for developing a better bondage between locals and
tourists. Mountain dwellers have always been the real custodians of nature.
Hence, they require an utmost respect.
For adequate mitigation of these
potential hazards the best will be to employ a trained local guide, not the
one from down country who is invariably ignorant about local values. It is
the primary job of guide to coach the visitors about many such aspects of
potential conflicts.
Ayaz Khan
---------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Ayaz Khan has expanded the range of
possibilities for blaming the tourist as victim. I think we all agree that
it is best -- and safest -- to know as much as possible about the host
culture, and to conscientiously avoid giving offense. The actual danger
depends to a large degree on where you are. In my experience, Nepali
villagers are remarkably tolerant and friendly. I would not expect the same
in Afghanistan, however.
Having visited that country on
several occasions prior to the breakdown of the overland route, I witnessed
numerous arbitrary assaults on tourists, generally by kids who threw stones
at them just as they routinely threw stones at dogs.
It is true that there are plenty of
very nice people in Afghanistan, but it is basically a bandit country, where
warlords have for generations thrown chains across the roads and shaken down
travelers.
As for hiring a guide, there are
clearly lots of people who appreciate the company. Personally, I'd rather
stay home.
Other views?
-Seth Sicroff
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:52:56
+0545
Author: Suman Rai <srai@icimod.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in Remote Mountain Areas
The question of security is mutual.
Villagers in remote areas are equally insecure when strangers (trekkers)
pass their way. This is especially so in off the beaten tracks where there
is no habit of seeing a stranger. In off the beaten track it is best to be
in a group rather than alone.
Strange but true that local
communities trust a group more than an individual. Often a lone person going
about creates suspicion and can be intercepted by locals to clear their
suspicion and insecurity. And the process of clarify things is not very
pleasant especially if one cant communicate because of local dialect. And it
becomes quite nerve racking when you attract attention and get surrounded by
children, women, men and even the dogs.
Suman
-------
MODERATOR'S COMMENT
Well, here's yet another vote
against trekking alone. Frankly, it strikes me both as counter-intuitive and
completely against all of my experience: traveling alone in Nepal, I have
always been welcomed with warmth and respect (because I did not rely on a
guide or porter). Off the beaten track, I have been invited to eat and sleep
in very modest quarters that could not have accommodated a group.
Even supposing there are places
where people trust groups more than individuals, what are we supposed to do
about that? It's one thing to ask tourists to respect local customs about
dress, religion, and so on -- quite another to expect them to jump through
hoops because of unfounded suspicions. In my opinion, if those places really
do want tourists, they'd better get over the phobia.
No?
-seth sicroff
Date:
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:28:08 +0530
Author:
Alka Sabharwal <asabharwal@icimod.org.np>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in Remote Mountain Areas
Friends, I should appreciate
Sicroff's mandate to keep the
discussion focused without a bias! Responding to Ayaz's
mail and its interpretation by Sicroff. I think the biggest
risk involve when communities themselves are not prepared/
ready to cater to tourism and it is pushed down by respective state or travel agencies. We all know host communities can
be very well victim of the large decision making processes
without their consent. I agree with Sicroff, the risks involved
in such circumstances would differ from region to region and
hence the tourist's experience. Histories are part of every
culture and we should not forget they are reaction to certain
circumstances and never a frozen truth. They also change. But
the problem lies when such historical/cultural sensitivities are undermined and not considered serious enough to introduce appropriate kinds of tourism. I would like to ask whether this discussion on security issues would wind up without really
talking about the participation of host communities in risk management and their willingness to support or resist tourism
and its effects on risks faced by tourists. And can always
modern risk evading infrastructure help without the support of local communities, especially in remote regions?
Alka Sabharwal
ICIMOD
Date:
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:13:28 -0400
Author:
"Peter Zahler" <pzahler@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in Remote Mountain Areas
As someone who has worked in
northern Pakistan, as well as
Afghanistan and Iran since 1992, I have to wholly endorse Mr.
Khan's comments and take issue with some of yours. There is
obviously a great difference between Nepal and Western Asia, and between Nepalese and Afghanis. But I think it is incredibly
important that this be recognized and stressed, not slid past.
While I don't want to slip into your
straw man of "blame the
tourist," the fact is that I saw repeated and seemingly endless
events of (often unconscious) disrespect in these countries
by foreigners throughout my time there, ranging from wearing
those comfy lycra shorts to asking where to buy good pot. I
was certainly on the edge of throwing stones at these morons -- they made my job MUCH harder at the very least, if not much more dangerous, by creating an anger and potential backlash at the stupid ignorant arrogant West, of which I was unfortunately a part by default.
Western Asia is different from the
Rockies, or the Alps, or
the Nepal Himalayas. It has dramatically different customs,
and luckily one of those customs is great patience toward
visitors. But understandably that only goes so far.
As for refusing to hire a guide --
well that didn't work for
Ken Gillette. Frankly, I would NEVER trek in Northern Pakistan
without a guide. Besides the incredible physical dangers of
the area, and difficult-to-find-and-follow routes, the people
are not all friendly slap-happy natives eager to see your
shiny face. A local guide who speaks the local language, knows
the local routes and customs, and can advise against idiotic if ignorant actions (and potentially dangerous people), is as essential as good shoes. Even for someone like me, who has worked in those hills since 1992. And I might add that it helps
the local economy. Giving a little back to the people whose
baby potato plants you're tromping on is not a bad thing at all.
If you don't want to hire a guide,
definitely stay home. It
would be safer for everyone, including me.
Oh, and Afghanistan is by far the
most beautiful country I've ever been in, having spent a good part of last summer there,
and the people treated me with the utmost respect and kindness.
I wouldn't recommend it for tourists
yet, what with regular outbreaks of violence and 10 million land mines, but a "bandit country"? Try 23 straight years of war, and even Eugene Oregon
would go bad.
Peter Zahler
Date:
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:46:12 -0500
Author:
Guillermo García Zamora <andinito1@yahoo.es>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security issues in remote mountainous destinations
I contact you to share my ideas and
thoughts on the topic
security in mountain areas. As I have read in the presentations
of other participants, the topic of the security in the
mountainous areas is quite broad. In this case I want to
share what happens in a one part of Mendoza, Argentina (not
Aconcagua). This place began to be used as acclimatization
place by many expeditions that intended to climb Aconcagua,
due to the beauty of the landscape and the possibility of
acclimatization to high elevation. Last December I went
with some friends up the highest peak in the area and we
found commercial dining facilities! At that height (4200 meters), the prices are naturally high, but how high is
too high? Do we really want to invest that kind of money,
and harm the environment, in order to sell a hamburger and
a coca-cola? It seems that adventure tourism is opening
the way for people that are not prepared to face the
difficulties and unpredictabilities of mountains. Do we want
to market the mountains as if they were spas? How can
governments of developing countries supply helicopters and
rescue services, when these countries have other priorities such as education and health? Are we abandoning adventure
when we refuse to assume the natural risks? Will we, as
Edward Whimper foresaw, be the "favored" few among the
billions who will never have the chance to see the natural
beauty of the mountains?
Guillermo Garcia Zamora
----------------
MODERATOR's COMMENTS
Guillermo García Zamora laments the
gentrification of our
mountain legacy. But isn't there a difference between turning
peaks into walk-ups, on the one hand, and providing some kind
of search and rescue service? As for competing priorities,
shouldn't search and rescue be funded by the users? And doesn't
the tourism market to some extent fund other government
functions such as health and education? Just asking. -Seth
Sicroff
From: Mingma Norbu Sherpa <minmonju@wlink.com.np>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:31:56 +0530
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Security issues in mountain
tourism
Dear participants,
From the records of police checkposts in Khumbu area, it is very often found that trekkers claim that their valuable belongings such as cameras,
binaculors, etc are lost. By fraud reporting, they take a clearance letter from the police and claim for insurance back in the
country. Such type of tourist bahaviour also damages the images of the destinations. Comparatively, Khumbu region is very safe
and peace. Your thoughts and ideas on this issues will be appreciated.
Mingma Norbu Sherpa (Monju)
From: Phuntshok Tshering <ptshering@icimod.org.np
Date sent: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:25:31 +0545
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in Remote Mountain Areas
May I first say that
this pre-Namche e-conference is a very well organized
and commendable one. The style of moderation adopted in this appears to me
to be a very effective and efficient one and I congratulate Dr. Seth
Sicroff for it !
Among the opening lines of
this e-consultation I read somewhere that it
was meant to focus “specifically on issues that are of concern to the
residents of remote mountain tourism destinations”. But I missed this much
needed concern for local people in most of the comments that I had a
chance to glance thru….on the important topic of ‘Issues of security in
remote mountain areas’.
For me, what comes through
as an unambiguous message ..is the
concern for
the safety and security of all the strangers (professionals, visitors,
tourists and trekkers who, generally speaking, among other good intentions
also go to make a living off the remote areas as well as for adventure,
excitement, pleasure etc.) not of the local residents.
No doubt there is ample
reference to local ‘dwellers’ and the need of
tourists and visitors to be super-sensitive to the local traditions and
customs and culture., which is good. But as long as we do that (in however
many ways ?) everything is okay kind-of message is what one tends to
interpret and understand.
Just as a gentle reminder,
in terms of ownership of spaces and rights to
some delicate but basic aspects of life and living such as privacy (over
which there is always much hue and cry in western societies)
aren’t we
entering (invading?) into the spaces, spaces which have been lived by
local communities for centuries even if, isolated ? Never mind the
wideness, the openness, the wilderness and the remoteness ….it’s their
space, no ? So in actual fact don’t you think the issue of security /
insecurity that local people in far flung and isolated remote mountains
experience vis-à-vis guests of all sorts deserve some attention ? What is
their perspective and how do they feel ? How safe are they supposed to
feel ? Are we all angels who pass by their doors ??
I do not have any answers
to all these and more but I certainly feel that
we need to look at the issue from that angle. When people leave rural as
well remote mountain areas to other parts usually in the lowlands and more
developed urban areas, in search of ‘better’ life, we have appropriate
terms for them - rural-urban
migration, out-migration etc.. In
normal ‘development’ language these are phenomena to be noted and
‘studied’, not necessarily considered positive for various strong
reasons
including the effects on gender relations and increase of women’s workload
etc.. (although this is fast changing too as many young women leave homes
to work in town and cities). This is our perspective. When we trek into
their lands, knock on their doors and expect them to accept us with a
smile ..what goes on in their minds ? what is their perspective ? Do we
want to know before we decide it’s our right to walk thru them and over
them with our rescue helicopters, scientific equipments and all ! Is it
all noble, altruistic and romantic ideals that drive people to the poor
mountains ? for their livelihoods’ improvements ? What shall we call this
type of migration ? Is this increasing flow or migration of strangers a
cause for some of the issues of security, conflicts, garbage, soil
erosion, male out-migration, cultural erosion etc..? I don’t know to be
honest.
Phuntshok Tshering
-------------------
Moderator's Comments
Phuntshok Tshering is concerned about the asymmetry of the
treatment of security issues, and draws attention particularly to the
"insecurity" of having one's homeland invaded by transients.
I think the problem is largely semantic. The fact of the
matter is that tourists generally do not pose a threat to the physical
security of their hosts. (Nor, in Nepal, do hosts pose generally pose much
of a physical threat to guests.) The problems you are referring to are
generally categorized as "impact," and most germane to the topic
of our first session.
Unfortunately, I think, the impact discussion focused far
too much on garbage, which happens to be a visitor's concern. There were
many other impact issues that could have been discussed - out-migration, loss
of privacy, economic distortion, cultural commodification among them. But
our organizational premise was that the first session would be largely
focused on issues more pertinent to local residents, while the second would
be more focused on outsider perspectives.
However, there are clearly security issues that do concern
local people and people from neighboring districts; these include natural
hazards and porter safety.
One other point: the issue of tourist security in the
context of mountain tourism is premised on the assumption that the local
people want tourism. If they do, then it is to their interest to enhance the
appeal of the destination, particularly with regards the personal safety of
visitors. If they don't want tourists, then that is another kettle of fish
entirely. -Seth Sicroff
From: "muhdayaz"
<muhdayaz@brain.net.pk>
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in
Remote Mountain Areas
Date sent: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:02:09 +0500
Though a little belated, but I'll still like
to respond to some of the comments.
The subject issue of security in
the remote mountain localities is a bilateral issue, certainly not a
unilateral one. The risks involved are two folds. Where the visitor feels
some degree of natural or man-made threats, at the same time the local
communities also have some threats from the visiting tourists. I am sure in
this context several examples can be quoted from different parts of the
globe. I have myself witnessed a number of tourists the way they become a
threat to the poor locals. Hence, let's not get defensive.
I do not agree with Moderator's
comments to my e-mail of 11 April 2003 that tourists are being blamed.
Certainly not. Well! One could call it a cautionary note to any potential
tourists against socio-cultural and religious threats. At the same time I
also do not agree with his derogatory remarks that "Afghanistan is
basically a bandit country". I don't know what is the reaction of an
Afghan for such remarks? The objective of discussion is not to pass such
like judgments about an entire country. Perhaps because of current turmoil
in Nepal due to Maoist rebels, one can make an identical remark about Nepal
as well, for which he/she will be totally wrong. One also has to view the
past Afghan scenario of civil war spread over more than two decades. Every
culture has its own merits and de-merits. One can't make socio-cultural
scenarios of Nepal congruent with Afghanistan.
Besides, geo-physical security
factors like land-slides, avalanches and earthquakes etc, socio-cultural and
socio-religious threats are also a ground reality against the host
communities as well as against the tourists.
I do agree with Moderator's
remarks that unfortunately in the past there have been some unpleasant
instances in places like Afghanistan. But, let's not forget that each
instance has its own perspective. The entire blame cannot be attributed to
host communities, alone. Mountain communities have their own limitations,
where poverty is mostly predominant. Hence, any visiting tourist brings them
some meager income generation opportunities.
Because of this factor they
always welcome such visitors. However, communities like Afghans and some
valleys of Northern Pakistan are certainly aggressive by nature. But, at the
same time they have unsurpassable traditions of exemplary hospitality, as
remarked by Mr. Peter Zahler.
Ayaz
| Main Page |