Walking down the isle

Sri Lanka has few monuments or palaces. But it packs in the tourists. The secret is the locals' welcoming nature and top-class hospitality at hotels

- VIR SANGHVI

Here’s something to ponder over. Last year India attracted 6.2 million foreign tourists. Sri Lanka attracted around 2.35 million visitors. To put this in context, consider the difference in size between the two countries. India is nearly 50 times the size of Sri Lanka.

Or look at it another way. Rajasthan is the greatest attraction for foreign visitors to India. But Sri Lanka gets nearly as many tourists as all of Rajasthan. And Rajasthan is five times the size of Sri Lanka.

We know why people come to India. Tourists are attracted by our history and our monuments. The Taj Mahal, for instance, is one of the world’s most famous historical structures. Many upmarket visitors enjoy our palaces and our reputation as the land of maharajas and princes. And there is the sheer diversity of India, from the Himalayas to the beaches of Kerala. As our tourism authorities keep reminding foreigners, there is something for everyone in India.

Sri Lanka does not have India’s advantages: Famous monuments like the Taj. It has no Himalayas. It has no palaces or maharajas. And yet, its success explodes the semiofficial Indian explanation for our dismal tourism performance: Foreigners are put off by stories about natural disasters and riots.

Really? Then what about Sri Lanka, where a cyclone wreaked havoc a few months ago? Where rioters ran amok in the streets of Colombo and set fire to government buildings? Sri Lankan tourism bounces back seemingly effortlessly no matter how bad the global headlines have been.

I wish I could analyse why Sri Lankan tourism has had more success (in relative terms) than India. But all I can tell you with certainty is that it is one of my favourite destinations and I go back year after year. Never have I returned disappointed.