TRADING TRADITION.

Any tourist spot means business. A small vacant land or a piece of log would be ‘museumised’ for eternity – a wonderful idea that makes business. Why do places/spaces demand this attention? What makes it different, so much so that, we rush to them spending the most, we possess? The simple available answer (that we love to think) is – ‘the place demands this necessity’ … or … do we create and attribute this necessity? For instance, a whole commercial system works around the aura of this place – exotica, if I’m allowed to pronounce this oft-repeated term. Who creates this place and generates this system of differential attributes? The travel agency, the government or the place itself? Perhaps, ‘WE’ do. We ‘want’ a place to be different – out of the ordinary. Difference -here perhaps- is commercial. We make it commercial. We attribute commerce. Hence we play an important role in constructing a commercial aura of a place. Hence, the habit of visiting places by spending money signifies a lot about human behavior.

Now, why do we visit places at all? Tourism – we know, is more about being at the right place at the right time rather than just experience ‘being travelled’. The destiny becomes important than the travel. Then why would we just spend money to 'be' in places? Perhaps, the concept of ‘spending’ here is conceived as an investment - be it time or money. It is an investment on an aura – a status – a good feeling – a feeling of superiority therefore, an investment on the sense of exclusion. This sense is a ‘want’ that has to be ‘cultivated’. This ‘want’ is a construct. A ‘want’ is an act of sophistication, not a ‘need’. Perhaps, the industry meticulously works in converting all the ‘wants’ into ‘needs’. And we happily play our parts in desiring the wants to be converted into needs.

What if the government of India comes with a law that would co-sponsor the citizens to necessarily ‘tour India’ at least once in their lifetime, so that they experience the idea called India? What would happen then?

What was then necessarily, an act of sophistication would be converted into a compulsory act of necessity. Conversely, the discourse of exclusion breaks down as every place would become a place to be toured and everyone would become a tourist. All ‘spots’ would become sites of repeated attendance. Touring would become an act of/by/for the people - the commons. ‘De-aura-fication’ happens. Chaos would rule. Tourism then, would become a wonderful ‘working idea’, just like democracy, wouldn’t – it?

A system of exclusion would be converted into a system of legalized inclusion. Tourism would then be a necessary practice. The mass – the people would give meaning to it. The aura of a tourist place would change; nevertheless, the ones who tour them also would change. Everything changes or... would it?

This discourse of hope we wish and promise: The hope of a not-so-‘business’-like- activity of ‘busy-ness’ is an idea which, would not seem to mean business.

Oh… what a business that’d make, sir jeeeeeeeeeee... perhaps what could be better traded than an act of tradition?