Sri Lanka recorded more than 200,000 tourist arrivals in January. By the end of the year it expects a total of three million. In terms of revenue, Minister of Tourism and Lands Harin Fernando recently stated in an interview that it would amount to $ 5 billion.

This is not an impossible figure. But the Government should be wary of achieving these targets at whatever cost. Such an approach will not just be counterproductive, it will also be damaging – and not just to the tourism industry.

No doubt the industry is picking up. We have gone a long way forward since 2020 and 2021, and, of course, 2022. We are catering to an increasing number of tourists from a wider range of countries, limited not just to India, Russia, and Ukraine, but also other Western and Eastern markets. We should ideally not discriminate between these markets, even though some of them generate more revenue than others.

Questionable policies

But the industry as a whole has adopted some rather questionable policies in the past. Consciously or inadvertently, it has not come down hard on tourist enclaves catering exclusively to foreigners and on foreigners who, as the recent fiasco over a party at a café in the Southern Province shows, tend to indulge in mild racism.

It is something of a cliché to state that officials must commit to balancing the interests of tourists and locals. But this should be the number one priority for any tourism blueprint or plan for the next 10 years.

A recent example would be the case of two tourists who had reportedly travelled in a first-class compartment in a train with second-class tickets. What happened is unclear, but when railway staff were rebuffed in their efforts at moving them to the right compartment, they reportedly retaliated by assaulting the tourists.

The notion that Sri Lanka should pander to foreigners just because tourism is a significant foreign exchange earner is passé and irrelevant, and, to quote Bentham, nonsense on stilts. But that notion has been so institutionalised and inscribed in our society that people rarely question it. The tendency is to indulge tourists and to pander to their every whim, regardless of their impact on the country, its people, its environment.

‘White only’

In that regard, the Government’s decision to revoke the visas of certain Russian and Ukrainian tourists within 14 days looks extreme, but is actually justifiable. The ‘white only’ party, to which Sri Lankans reacted furiously – as they should – became something of a diplomatic mess. But while the Russian Embassy issued a formal apology, the organisers themselves have yet to make a full public statement on what happened.

The episode led to several individuals associated with tourism, particularly in the Southern Province, to recount on social media, particularly X (formerly Twitter), their own harrowing experiences working with tourists and hoteliers from certain regions and countries.

If in the name of developing tourism in this country we ignore these revelations – a #MeToo moment if ever there was one – then we have failed both tourism and the country.

The ‘no locals allowed’ fiasco is another issue. This ball is mostly in the court of local hotel owners. The excuse many of them trot out is that Sri Lankans are just not acquainted with etiquette and table manners and are utterly irredeemable in their behaviour when drunk, to tolerate them at resorts frequented by foreign guests.

This claim is not entirely unjustifiable, but it is ridiculous when considering the many brawls involving tourists – including white foreigners – that take place in Sri Lanka, particularly the southern tourist belt. Such attitudes are condescending if not patronising, even somewhat self-Orientalist.

Counter-responses

Of course, there are seemingly good counter-responses to all this. 

The first and probably most clichéd among them is that tourists bring foreign exchange to the country. 

The second and much less invoked counter-response is that tourists are already discriminated against in terms of pricing, particularly at cultural sites, where they are charged 10 times what locals are. 

The third argument is that Sri Lanka, unlike other countries in the region, has racked up a reputation for warmth and homeliness and that it must live up to it.

The first argument is not that easy to debunk, but it can be. Tourism cannot be planned or rationalised within a transactional framework: that is, it cannot be reduced to a business proposition, whereby the tourist is the client and the country the product.

Even if we adopt a transactional perspective, we cannot treat the country as a commodity when aiming for greater tourist numbers. To do so would be counterproductive: it would mean running the country down, ruining its environment, pandering to everything tourists want to do in, with, and to its society, including its cultural patterns.

The second argument too can be debunked. Social media is awash with posts berating the Government for charging $ 20 for a tour around a cultural site that costs locals around Rs. 50 or Rs. 100. But differential or discriminatory pricing is a thing across the world: there is no country where locals are not prioritised.

Particularly in a country like Sri Lanka, where costs of living and standards of living are just too unbearable for locals to afford the $ 20 that it takes an affluent foreigner to take a tour of the Jaffna Fort or of Sigiriya, differential pricing makes sense and is right by our people.

The third argument is trickier. But it too can be critiqued. As a country we are perceived as hospitable and warm, a tropical home away from home. But being hospitable and warm does not mean being a doormat. 

There are enough and more examples of tourists who go out of their way to ensure a fair deal for local stakeholders, including trishaw drivers and hotel staff. But there have also been instances of tourists short-changing these stakeholders. This has been going on for decades; in all likelihood, it will continue.

It is up to the Sri Lankan Government to take stock of these developments and learn where and when to put its foot down. If it does not, it runs the risk of running down not just tourism, but also the country – and more importantly its people, who, after all, should be the ultimate beneficiaries of any national policy.

(The writer is the Chief International Relations Analyst at Factum, an Asia-Pacific focused foreign policy think tank based in Colombo and accessible via www.factum.lk. He can be reached at uditha@factum.lk)