SOME months ago, I was invited to a spectacular location in Rajasthan to discuss in a small but eclectic group the subject ‘Indian Tourism – from here where?’ When I was requested thereafter to write a paper I was told to ‘write what you spoke’ and I readily agreed. But when I sat down to write what I spoke, I realized it was easier said than done. So what I am now reducing to writing is not a new formula or prescription that I have uncovered. It is instead only a sharing of experiences from a journey which we, as an enterprise, have undertaken. I believe there are some useful lessons to be learnt.

In 1988 we were offered the contract to reconstruct and run the resort on Bangaram Island in the Lakshadweep. We were then a single hotel enterprise with extremely limited resources. The contract also stipulated what then appeared to be severe regulations to conserve the fragile ecology of the coral atolls and protect the interests of the island’s inhabitants. Added to this was the further disability on account of poor access which continues to this day. To compound matters was the fact that both the destination and the offering were completely unknown in the market and our limited resources left us with few options to market the product.

The solution we tried was the only one we could under the circumstances – to accept the reality and find a customer who would find immense value in the inherent uniqueness of the offering. Thus, instead of offering excuses for what we would not be in a position to provide we made their very absence in a sense the product’s unique selling proposition. The advertised facilities of the hotel came to be the absence of ‘facilities’ such as telephone, television, newspaper, airconditioning, room service and many more. Instead on offer was nature in its spectacular and pristine form and the means to enjoy it without having to be a cause for its diminution. The proof of success of the concept we experimented with in Bangaram is that invariably every guest came back.

For the hotel, the approach we took was to ‘do just enough’ in the belief that ‘luxury’ is not necessarily the reason for a tourist to visit a destination. ‘Luxury’ would be redefined from its conventionally attributed meaning of ‘opulence of the built space’ and instead be ‘quality of the experience’. Thus it became possible to have a hotel at which the guest gladly paid more for less. In 1989, the Bangaram Island Resort could have been ranked as among the most expensive hotels in the country. Yet, the most commonly heard comment was, ‘Please keep it this way. Do so even if you have to increase the price.’

The lessons we learnt from Bangaram were not only the foundations of our growth but were also instrumental in changing our company’s name from Casino Group of Hotels to ‘CGH Earth’, so as to better represent the non-negotiable core values we adopted – respect for the environment, community and the local ethos.

Our subsequent experience in Kerala had by demonstration a more substantial influence on the evolution of tourism in a state which hitherto was best known for its achievements in the social sector. To quote Burton Stein, ‘Not only did Kerala launch an exemplary land reform programme, but it also devoted relatively large expenditures to basic education and health care, making the state the most egalitarian, best educated and healthiest in the Indian Union, though it remained among the poorest.’ It is, therefore, no surprise that when National Geographic voted Kerala as a ‘must see in a life time destination’, it also described it as a ‘Mount Everest of social development’. Indeed, the achievements in the social sector and relatively pristine environment as a consequence, ironically thanks to the non-arrival of manufacturing industries, can be said to be vital factors that have contributed to the state’s achievements in the tourism sector.

 

Equal credit for Kerala’s achievements need be given to the large number of small and medium entrepreneurs for having created facilities which are contemporary in outlook, unique in experience and of a scale and character which respects the environment and local sensitivities. A fitting description of Kerala’s tourism development reads as: ‘Ordinary people, using resources available no further than in the local village, have created a world class experience.’ It is not the partnership with ‘global brands’, foreign direct investment or imported technologies that are making it happen here. Instead, it is the genius of entrepreneurship exhibited by ordinary people operating on a scale that they can, and in a manner that they know is providing a Keralan personality to the tourism product and thereby its uniqueness.

The Kerala tourism brand is thus as much a creation of the swelling number of entrepreneurs as it is of the state whose role in promotion of the destination has been significant. Indeed, a clear demonstration, at least in this regard, of a successful public-private partnership. It is a chemistry that has few parallels and one which has given birth to unique institutions such as the Kerala Travel Mart – a state and entrepreneur partnered event, which has grown into South Asia’s largest tourism marketing fair and is able to attract more international buyers than any other in the region.

 

While the performance of tourism seen from a macro level in terms of growth rates, earnings and employment is certainly impressive, the story comes alive best if you look at examples at the grassroot level. Take the example of Babu Verghese whose genius created the Kerala houseboat by reworking the traditional kettuvallam. From two in 1992 the number has risen to 350 in 12 years. CGH Earth’s adoption of the traditional tharavad houses on the banks of the Vembanad Lake has set the backwaters on fire and resulted in hundreds of similar lookalikes.

Take Phillip Kutty’s example in farm tourism – its adaptations are transforming the entire rural landscape in Kerala as is Moosa’s heritage home and culinary offering at Telicherry. See how in the Periyar Tiger Reserve erstwhile poachers have now turned into trekking guides and consequently protectors of the resource they once plundered. These are only a few examples and many more can be cited. But even more significant is the manner in which tourism has invigorated and put new life into an otherwise despondent rural and agricultural economy, especially at the small and tiny level. The growing number of farm stays and tourist visits to farms reflects a trend which can transform the state’s core sector which engages almost 70% of the population.

The surging demand for organic foods, especially with the tourism-induced markets, is breathing new life into the agricultural sector. Indeed, the state’s traditional agriculture and knowledge base make it capable of emerging as one of the largest producers of organic foods, including spices, tropical fruits and rice. Tourism has surely played a significant and catalytic role in transforming rural Kerala. It is thus possible to discern a unique characteristic of the Kerala model of tourism development. While tourism itself has a significant direct impact, the far greater impact comes through tourism’s ability to invigorate the farm and rural sector.

 

The story for the state’s entrepreneurs continues to enfold. At some destinations, for example at Kumarakom on the backwaters, there seems to be an explosive surge in new investments which brings in its wake new challenges of excess. At others, for example at Kovalam, which had gone through a phase of excess and consequent degradation, there is now a shared concern and willingness to clean up the site. New products continue to emerge. Ayurveda is now identified as the state’s unique heritage. More importantly, the success the state has achieved in the tourism sector has been a great confidence builder.

On the human side, the most important thing is that tourism development in Kerala is not a grand project of the government or of the large corporations which are now increasingly attracted to the state. Instead, it is best captured in the efforts of ordinary people who are not content to accept commercialized entertainment as the defining limits of the tourist experience. The integration of tourism into the local community occurs when the local people discover the convenience and desirability of using facilities designed originally for tourists, more so when such facilities are conceived by the local people as their own expression.

The Kerala product is now being emulated by other states, at least at the government level. But soon it will become clear that without the local entrepreneurial energy the outcomes are considerably diminished. In Kerala too, while the initial tone and tenor of development was mandated by given realities influenced both by market opportunities and entrepreneurial sensitivity, this need not necessarily ensure similar quality of development in the future. The question is ‘from here, where’. This would need a substantive and indepth understanding both of the changing dynamics of the destination as well as that of the consumer.

 

The success of the new models experienced by CGH Earth initially at Lakshadweep and later in Kerala, as well as the entrepreneurial success, is a clear indication that there are new customers, in fact of several types, who need to be factored in.

The reality of the destination is corroborated by research findings at the originating markets. Here I refer to the statistical research carried out by Peter Aderhold. Based on holiday traveller characteristics, he grouped his sample surveyed in 1986 into two ‘baskets’. One he called the ‘Sun-Sand-Surf’ (SSS) basket and the other the ‘Alert Independent Traveller’ (AIT) basket. While the SSS is the mass market and the AIT the newly emerging niche, ongoing research provides clear evidence that the AIT is the rising star, clearly sufficient for destinations to hitch their destinies to this growing niche.

The success of the Kerala product is a clear demonstration of the rising strength of the AIT. How and why Kerala chose or chanced upon this model could itself be a subject of an interesting and useful study. But the good fortune is that it did. Maybe the timing was right. For Kerala and for India, our infancy in tourism development is turning out to be a major advantage.

We can and should learn from the mistakes of older destinations which have been caught in the trap of profitless volume and uncharacteristic development which does not reflect the ethos of the destination. Spain, facing the catastrophic impact of its early faceless, though ‘branded’, development is now busy pulling down the huge ‘modern’ mega hotels which were built and operated by some of the biggest and most respected brands in the hospitality industry. All this in a desperate bid to bring back the traditional Spanish way of life. The experience of Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico and Sri Lanka, to name a few, is no different.

Goa, whose development began in the ‘SSS’ era stands in stark contrast to the Kerala model. In Goa the landscape is dominated by ‘modern international standard’ hotels mostly built and operated by national and global brands. If the two destinations of Goa and Kerala are compared, it is apparent that the two attract a distinct type of traveller. Goa, it can be claimed leans more towards the SSS and Kerala more towards AIT.

 

Evidently, in deciding the way forward there are different choices possible. These choices will essentially have to be made at the enterprise level as it happened in Kerala and in Goa. However, the destination too – whether India as a whole or the myriad locations within the country – can have a strong influence on the supply as well as the demand for the service and hence on the type of tourism it would like to encourage.

I believe the way forward is to make an informed choice rather than leave it to a chance outcome.