IndiaHikes Etc Need to Self Regulate. Urgently.

  

Update on Nov 1, 2021: After I posted this piece, I pointed IndiaHikes to it and they were interested enough to spend nearly two hours over the weekend chatting over a video call about the various issues I have raised below. They pointed out that the camping ban I refered to had nothing to do with IndiaHikes's activities in the region (not that I said exactly that). After reading the full judgment of the High Court, I agree that in no way does it indict IndiaHikes. It sides with the petitioners who claimed that the damage to the meadows is the result of a combination of several factors. The petitioners specifically demanded the following (most of which were met by the judgment): (1) Remove permanent structures that the state govt had constructed to improve accessibility for visitors; (2) Stop commercial grazing; (3) Stop trekkers and other tourists from staying overnight on these meadows; and (4) Stop gathering of Yarsa gambu (a medicinal plant). So while it is clear that the judgement was driven in part by the need to regulate commercial trekking and camping, it was not the sole factor. 

From my conversation with IndiaHikes, I also learnt a bit more about their activities to protect the spaces that provide them with their business. Their efforts towards conservation and research on ethical trekking seem commendable and well intentioned. However, the concern remains that in the absence of a regulatory framework, and in spite of best efforts like IndiaHikes' Green Trails projects, the overall impact of the organized trekking industry on Himalayan Trails can only cause net damage to the environment and ambience of these spaces. My suggestion to self regulate between the major companies (IndiaHikes, Bikat, Trek the Himalayas, etc, which together account for a substantial proportion of trekker traffic) was met with extreme skepticism --- similar to other opinions expressed on on Indiamike in response to my post). Instead they prefer the approach of engaging with the government to drive trekking guidelines and regulations. How this will play out in the longer run remains to be seen. Will smaller operators have a voice? Will local people be consulted? 

A note of self critique. The original version of my write up below appeared to single out IndiaHikes, whereas my commentary was really about corporatized trekking in general, and the risks this new industry is posing to our trails thanks to the volumes they are already driving and their ever-improving marketing. IndiaHikes is the pioneer of this industry and occupies the most physical space in the mountains and virtual space online, hence tends to be targeted disproportionately for criticism. Given that, I have made some slight changes to the article below to address this. 

In conclusion, I maintain that given their pioneering efforts to make trekking accessible , it's not enough for IndiaHikes alone to trek responsibly --- the onus remains in part on them to help drive and institutionalize sustainable and equitable trekking practices for the wider industry. Part of this needs to be reducing the size of trek groups. A body of commentary and research exists around why trek groups should be limited to about 10-15 including staff. For regulating footfalls per day and per season, at this point, it looks like we have to wait for or apply pressure to the government to step in.

--

It is hard to go for a trek in the Himalayas these days without encountering the presence of large corporate trekking companies on the trails and villages that you pass through. Until a few years ago, meeting an occasional fellow trekking group would involve exchanging pleasantries and insights about the region. Nowadays, the clients of these groups often comprise a large proportion of relatively inexperienced trekkers wooed by slick social media marketing and questionable vision statements that state “Everyone Must Trek”. Heartening as it may be to see a new generation of youth being introduced to the delicate riches the Himalayas has to offer, over-commercialization of the fragile environments in which these groups operate is squarely upon us, and the time to introspect and correct course is long overdue.

The fallout of this trend is visible on several trekking routes, many of them in Uttarakhand. Anecdotes abound of fragile meadows housing over a hundred trekkers at the same time, campsites being set up for several days at a stretch to enable successive batches of trekkers to use the same facilities (and keep costs low for the organizers), loud chatter and music upsetting the natural calm of the surroundings, and giant holes being dug for human latrines.

Between Nov 23 and Dec 21 2021 (in a year where travel has been subdued by the pandemic), I counted 16 batches of trekkers leaving for Har-Ki-Dun from the IndiaHikes website, some on successive days. Assuming all the batches are of the size I saw during my mid-October visit to the region, Indiahikes alone is pushing upwards of 500 people through these trails and campsites in a single month.

IndiaHikes takes pride in calling themselves India’s “safest and largest” trekking company. The question is, while client safety is of course important (and if ignored could be really bad for business), is India’s largest trekking company (or it's clones) safe for the mountains they profess to love?

No doubt recent corporatization of the trekking industry has helped boost local economies, since these agencies (often, not always) patronize local porters, cooks, guides and hotels at the trailhead. (As an aside, these agencies rather amusingly refer to the town or village at the trailhead as “base camp”. Perhaps this is to provide their impressionable clients with a sense of faux adventure). However, traveling across different parts of Uttarakhand, I’ve also noted several examples of local resentment as well. 

A guide belonging to an older school of trekking rued the fact that camps are reused, forcing groups to move on to the next camp even if health and fitness indicate it’s wiser to stay back. But the imperative to make room for the incoming batch in this new, demand-driven era doesn’t allow for such flexibility.  Another guide in another region rued how route information was taken from him, and then handed over to a non-local guide when it came to running the trek. A more widespread complaint was how the large groups run by these agencies have forced the Uttarakhand govt and the courts to step in and ban camping altogether on meadows that would earlier commonly be used by smaller groups (while this is a real perception the reality is more complex as explained in the update above). This has directly impacted their livelihood. In fact, many treks that require camping on the meadows cannot even be conducted any more. For example, many operators have discontinued their RoopKund trek due to the ban on camping at Ali and Bedni Bugyals. At the time of the 2018 ban, the protests by these corporate agencies were the loudest (no surprise, given their mastery of the internet medium) and they were quick to point to their sustainability initiatives and how “smaller groups pollute the most”. However, these agencies had the resources to go look elsewhere for business --- they found trails that don't require meadow camps, and they also expanded into other states where the ban doesn't apply. The relatively voiceless local trekking guides have had to bear the brunt of the heavy-handed decision of our courts.

As a consequence of the ban, the competition for campsites at locations below the alpine meadows has increased, leaving the small local operator at a distinct disadvantage compared to the head-count-heavy corporate groups. On our recent trip to Har Ki Dun and Ruinsara Tal as part of a small locally guided group, we had to make early starts, and continuously gather intelligence from our “khachhar-wala” to learn of the whereabouts of groups from “TTK” (Trek The Himalayas) and “IndiaHikes-walo” so as not to step on their toes and ensure for ourselves a peaceful trek. While we were able to stay ahead of these groups on the outbound section of the trek, the impact of such large groups was there to be seen (rather smelled) on the way back.

“Everyone must trek”. “Take drugs to keep altitude sickness at bay”. “Trek in the winter”. “Experience snowfall while on a trek, it’s a once in a lifetime experience”. “Extend the trekking seasons beyond the norm”.

These are examples of the pieces of advice you will get if you watch “Trek With Swathi”, a YouTube channel promoted by IndiaHikes. Some of these suggestions can be debated ad nauseum. For example the use of Diamox is a hotly contested topic among experienced trekkers and even mountaineers, so I won’t get into that here. While the others are problematic too, the issues really stem from the first piece of advice above, which also happens to be the vision statement of the company. This vision needs to be urgently contested by anyone who cares about the Himalayas. 

“Everyone Must Trek” is a great vision statement for a corporate trekking agency with an eye on a balance sheet. In a way it’s quite refreshing to see the intellectual honesty in articulating the priority of the company, which is to woo India’s massive young population into trekking the Himalayas with them. Drive up the volume of trekkers, extend the trekking season, cover more and more routes, amortize fixed costs over larger and larger numbers of clients hence drive per client costs down, hence expand the target market, and better meet the mission. This seems more like a business strategy than a vision to provide life altering travel experiences to clients. And that’s fair and square since they are after all running a business. But it needs to be seen for what it is – an advertisement by a commercial entity, rather than an idealistic mission to serve society in some way.

Let’s say for argument’s sake we set aside the above cynicism, which is based on suspicion of profit motives. Even so, “Everyone Must Trek” is an irresponsible recommendation to make to the population at large, even if it is aimed at “personal transformation” --- the self-professed rationale that the founders and staff of IndiaHikes preach to us in their online presence. Now, of course, there is no doubt that trekking can be transformational, both physically and mentally.  In fact, it has been transformational to me personally. However it’s a big leap from there to broadcasting it over the internet as an activity that everyone needs to indulge in. In spite of 20 years of trekking experience I certainly can’t go recommending it to everyone I know, least of all to people I don’t. Quite simply, a lot of people are simply not wired for multi-day treks --- everyone doesn’t necessarily have a personal connection to the outdoors, or have the necessary respect for their surroundings, or have the motivation to deal with the physical and mental challenges that come with the terrain. Personal transformation can be achieved in different ways: prayer, yoga, running, etc. Why shove this particular method down the throats of unsuspecting and unaware consumers?

It’s heartening to note that even IndiaHikes’s most visible face, Swathi Chatrapathy seems somewhat conflicted by this, but in the end, it’s clear that all matters pale into secondary concern when she is confronted with their mission statement. She argues that “naysayers raise a hue and cry that Indiahikes takes too many trekkers to the mountains. They must realise that there is an unprecedented demand for trekking in our country”. That is a disingenuous argument. She must well know that IndiaHikes and their like have created this demand and are further expanding it through their social media savvy marketing.

There is a second more fundamental problem with their mission statement. While cool videos that market the romance of the mountains can attract a certain section of the market, or contribute towards peer-pressure induced participation in treks, there’s the aspect of impact which we’ve touched on earlier. IndiaHikes’s vision is to see all of India’s population to hit our trails across all seasons, across all regions. Given the fragility of these environs, and the level of respect our citizenry habitually displays towards our surroundings (visit any busy parts of this country to see the scant disregard we as a people show), this “vision” needs to be called out for what it is: irresponsible, dangerous, and misguided.

India’s trekking community and for that matter, anyone who cares about the Himalayas must pressurize such agencies to reduce their footprint in the mountains. Clients must play a role here as well. You can insist that agencies run smaller groups ---- no larger than 10 trekkers. Ask where the cooks and staff are from. Ask for local support. (These are often common practice now, but no harm asking). Ask hard questions about sanitation and how many trekkers your agencies are pushing on your trail per season. Approach your trek with as much personal preparation and judgment as possible. Prepare, prepare, prepare. Going for a Himalayan trek should not be like a resort holiday.

Most of all, learn from the mountains and it’s people. Tread delicately, and the rewards can be immeasurable. For thousands of years, people have used the resources of the Himalayas for sustaining their livelihoods. What we are seeing today is an onslaught of commercialization in its deepest and most fragile and precious reaches. These corporate trekking companies are in the process of transforming the trekking industry which till a few years ago was comprised of local entrepreneurs guiding clients up and down these trails. As these companies grow, they need to recognize that with great power comes great responsibility, and they need to urgently reflect on the sustainability of their mission, and the need to equitably share these incredible spaces with others. If these agencies don’t self-regulate urgently, we are staring at more heavy-handed intervention from the authorities, which will hurt everyone.