top of page

By:

Naresh Kamath

5 November 2024 at 5:30:38 am

Indian Tourists Need a Reputation Reset

India has long taken pride in the philosophy of ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ - the belief that guests deserve warmth, respect and dignity. It is an idea deeply woven into the country’s cultural imagination, often been projected as a defining Indian value. As millions of Indians travel overseas every year, the conduct of a small but highly visible section of Indian tourists is increasingly shaping how India itself is perceived abroad. The issue is not about a single incident or a handful of viral...

Indian Tourists Need a Reputation Reset

India has long taken pride in the philosophy of ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ - the belief that guests deserve warmth, respect and dignity. It is an idea deeply woven into the country’s cultural imagination, often been projected as a defining Indian value. As millions of Indians travel overseas every year, the conduct of a small but highly visible section of Indian tourists is increasingly shaping how India itself is perceived abroad. The issue is not about a single incident or a handful of viral videos but a pattern that is drawing notice from hotels, tourism operators and local authorities across the world. The debate gained fresh momentum after reports emerged of a Swiss hotel issuing a notice specifically addressed to Indian guests. The advisory reportedly requested guests not to pack food from breakfast buffets for later consumption and reminded them to maintain silence in corridors and balconies. Hotels routinely issue guidelines. But when a particular nationality becomes the subject of a specific advisory, it inevitably raises larger questions about perception. “It is a sorry state of affairs. Indians, especially in groups, are displaying atrocious behaviour. This was anyway bound to happen,” says Subhash Motwani, founder of Namaste Tourism. Embarrassing Incidents Whether the notice was justified is another separate matter. The question is why such perceptions are emerging in the first place. Recent months have seen several incidents involving Indian tourists gain traction on social media. One widely circulated video showed travellers performing garba on an airport tarmac in Vietnam. Garba is among India’s most vibrant cultural traditions and a source of immense pride for millions. Yet airports are highly regulated spaces where safety protocols and discipline take precedence over celebration. The incident became symbolic of a larger problem. The rise of social media has encouraged some travellers to treat foreign destinations as stages for content creation. Public dancing, loud celebrations, disruptive behaviour and attention-seeking stunts may generate views and engagement online, but they can also leave lasting impressions on locals and fellow tourists. India is hardly the first country to confront such a challenge. During the 1950s and 1960s, American tourists acquired a reputation for arrogance abroad, giving rise to the phrase “Ugly American.” Britain spent decades dealing with the international embarrassment caused by football hooliganism. China faced similar concerns as outbound tourism surged during the early years of the twenty-first century. A nation’s image is shaped not just by its economic achievements and diplomatic influence but also by the behaviour of its citizens overseas. India today finds itself in a similar situation. Indian tourists are now among the most visible traveller groups across Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. This is, in many ways, a remarkable success story. However, with visibility comes responsibility. Hospitality professionals across destinations frequently point to recurring concerns. Excessive noise, queue-jumping, disregard for local regulations, overcrowding hotel rooms and attempts to bypass established rules through jugaad are among the complaints often cited. Collectively, repeated experiences can create lasting perceptions. The most revealing aspect of the debate is that Indian travellers often display exemplary discipline in countries known for strict law enforcement. In destinations such as Singapore, the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, compliance with rules is generally high. Complaints tend to emerge more frequently in places perceived as relaxed or lenient. That suggests the challenge is not one of awareness. Most travellers understand the rules perfectly well. The problem is often a mindset that rules can be negotiated when consequences appear unlikely. Changing that mindset is far more important than introducing additional regulations or issuing fresh advisories. Every interaction at an airport, hotel, restaurant, tourist attraction or public transport system contributes to how a country is viewed. These everyday encounters often shape perceptions more powerfully than government campaigns or tourism advertisements. As India stakes its claim to a larger role in the world, its citizens must recognise that national prestige is shaped not only by economic achievements and diplomatic successes, but also by everyday behaviour abroad. The overwhelming majority of Indian tourists travel responsibly and leave behind positive impressions. Their conduct rarely becomes news because courtesy seldom goes viral. Yet a handful of highly visible incidents can overshadow thousands of positive experiences. The challenge is to encourage responsible travel and a greater awareness that behaviour abroad carries consequences beyond the individual. The conduct of Indian citizens overseas should reflect the confidence and values of a nation seeking not merely recognition but enduring respect. (The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Reimagining Boundaries: In Defence of AYUSH Practitioners

India’s health-care shortage will not be fixed by keeping its traditional healers on the margins.

A recent critique of AYUSH practitioners in an article in The Hindu (July 29) titled ‘The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners’ by Dinesh S Thakur and Prashant Reddy T presents a detailed but one-sided argument against expanding the scope of practice for AYUSH professionals. While it raises concerns about patient safety and regulatory clarity, it ignores India’s healthcare realities, the history of medical education and the progress of integrative models. It is quite unfair to call the syllabus for Ayurveda students “an absolute mish-mash of concepts” and to say “there is no middle ground between both systems of medicine” when recent research shows that many AYUSH concepts have influenced modern medicine, including advanced areas such as nanomedicine and personalized medicine.


The key question is whether AYUSH practitioners should be allowed to prescribe certain modern medicines or perform specific procedures. Limiting this discussion to legal or doctrinal terms ignores the ground realities. In many districts, a single government allopathic doctor may be responsible for thousands of people. AYUSH doctors are often the first, and sometimes the only, available source of care. Preventing them from dispensing a limited list of essential drugs, ordering diagnostic tests, or making timely referrals can lead to delayed or missed treatment for people in areas with very limited medical facilities. Likewise, questioning whether “practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors” is at odds with Indian law. The government should take constructive steps to provide appropriate training to AYUSH practitioners for the benefit of citizens and adopt a clear policy position. Yet, in recent Parliament discussions, the Ministry of AYUSH stated there are no plans to officially authorize AYUSH doctors with additional training to prescribe a limited range of essential allopathic medicines. This is despite the well-known fact that rural areas face a serious shortage of allopathic doctors. In many such regions, posts for allopathic doctors remain vacant for years because they are often unwilling to serve there, leaving communities with little or no access to timely medical care.


The Bhore Committee’s doubts about traditional systems are often seen as a standard for legitimacy. But its thinking reflected colonial priorities and the unquestioning adoption of Western models. These models took root partly because, for centuries, caste hierarchies in India allowed almost only Brahmin men to access Ayurveda education, preventing women and people from other communities from entering the field. When Western medicine arrived with standardized syllabi, examinations, hospitals, and wider opportunities for women and non-elite groups, it displaced an unequal system. Acknowledging this history does not diminish Ayurveda; it explains why reforms were needed and why today’s AYUSH education is more inclusive and structured.


Legal recognition has also evolved. The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, formally recognized Indian systems of medicine and created a national regulator. This has since become the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), with clearer licensing standards, model syllabi, and practitioner registers. It is a structured, quality-focused system, not a permissive one.


Criticism of State notifications under Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which allow certain AYUSH practitioners to prescribe a limited set of modern medicines, misses the real purpose behind these orders. They are a practical response to the lack of MBBS doctors in many areas. The focus should not be on questioning whether such powers should be given at all, but on ensuring they are exercised responsibly. This means having clear lists of permitted drugs, making training compulsory, keeping proper records of prescriptions, and imposing strict penalties for any misuse. Such measures can protect patient safety while also improving access to care.


It is also wrong to say AYUSH education is detached from modern science. Current BAMS, BHMS, and other AYUSH courses include anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, microbiology, diagnostics, and public health. While quality may vary between universities, the trend is toward stronger scientific foundations and more clinical exposure. This should continue through regular curriculum updates, standard setting, and independent reviews.


The debate on surgery needs more careful consideration. Ayurveda’s Sushruta Samhita shows a long tradition of surgical knowledge. Any permission for AYUSH surgeons to perform certain procedures should depend on skill, patient types, facilities, and supervision. While some Ayurved students have limited surgical training, the solution is not exclusion but better training by using experienced surgeons as mentors, shared skills labs, standardized assessments, and accredited departments with adequate case load and good outcomes before allowing independent practice. NCISM can lead this with transparent accreditation and periodic re-credentialing.


At the heart of the legal debate is also the issue of protecting their own professional position. Many in the allopathic community welcome integration when AYUSH practitioners work under their supervision, but resist it when it involves equal recognition and shared responsibilities. Patient safety must remain the top priority, but it can be better protected through clearly defined scopes of practice, uniform minimum standards, and joint training programmes, rather than by imposing blanket bans.


Modern healthcare already uses knowledge from different systems. The important question is what works, for whom, in which situations, and at what risk. The World Health Organization supports the role of traditional medicine in universal health coverage, provided countries regulate it well, fund research, and integrate it responsibly. India has moved in this direction by hosting the Global Centre for Traditional Medicine. The next steps are strong clinical research, monitoring drug safety, reporting adverse events across systems, and measuring outcomes in a transparent way.


It is time to move beyond the false choice between science and tradition. India’s healthcare future depends on combining the strengths of both, with decisions guided by solid evidence, ethical practice, and accountability. With proper training and oversight, AYUSH practitioners can deliver timely, culturally appropriate and safe care, particularly in areas where medical services are scarce. Excluding them simply because they follow a different system serves neither the cause of science nor the needs of society.


(Dr. Asmita Wele is Director, Research, College of Ayurved and Research Centre, D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri-Pune; Dr. Kishore Paknikar is former Director, Agharkar Research Institute and Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page