Nepal is currently witnessing an exponential increase in visitors from India, with Indian travelers making up approximately 35 percent of international arrivals by air. The number of religious pilgrims arriving by road is growing even faster (The Himalayan Times). This surge is most evident in places like Muktinath, Pashupatinath, Janakpur, Pokhara, Chitwan, and Jomsom.
The high number of Indian visitors has provided added impetus to Nepal’s tourism sector during the off-season months from April to June. This trend is, of course, very significant in terms of the civilizational, cultural, and religious relationships between Nepal and India and should be celebrated.
But as we celebrate the numbers, I believe it’s time the celebration was also accompanied by honest introspection. This surge is not a one-off phenomenon; this trend is here to stay and grow.
The question is not whether Indian arrivals are growing. The real question is whether Nepal is prepared for the kind of tourism it is experiencing, especially in popular destinations such as Pokhara, Jomsom, and Muktinath.
Social media is filled with pictures, reels, troll posts, and even vlogs highlighting some worrying activities of Indian pilgrims and generalizing all Indian visitors as tourists. And one of the biggest mistakes we make is treating every Indian visitor as a “tourist” in the traditional sense. If we follow the standard definition of a tourist (i.e., someone who travels to a place for business, leisure or other purposes and stays there for at least 24 hours), then virtually everyone falls into this category. However, we have to move beyond this broad categorization as we’re talking about the “tourism industry” and its economic returns.
An important distinction that needs to be made in this regard is between religious pilgrims and leisure tourists as these groups differ significantly in their motivations, spending behavior, and infrastructural requirements. Failure to distinguish them could lead to inaccurate tourism data and poorly-suited policy responses.
The current influx also raises questions about Nepal’s infrastructural capacity and carrying capacity. There have been complaints of overcrowding and congestion at pilgrimage sites such as Gupteshwar Mahadev Cave and Muktinath. Tourism officials have also admitted that Nepal’s infrastructure is not designed to accommodate the surge in religious travel (The Kathmandu Post). So the problem is not the nationality of visitors, but our preparedness.
But social media has further diluted the story. Images of Indian pilgrims cooking on roadsides or resting in open spaces have led to allegations that these visitors have little to offer to Nepal’s economy. These arguments are essentially misleading. Many pilgrims cook for themselves because they want vegetarian or religiously appropriate food, which are available in very few places along pilgrimage routes in Nepal. Most Indian pilgrims travel in groups where self-cooking is a common practice. Instead of criticizing the visitors, Nepal should view this as a market signal. Better vegetarian restaurants and pilgrim accommodation, sanitation facilities, and designated rest areas would improve visitor experiences and generate more income for locals. And the current boom is also an opportunity to rethink tourism plans.
Nepal should also develop separate statistics for religious pilgrims, leisure tourists, adventure travelers, business visitors, and transit visitors. Only then will the government be able to gauge tourism revenue, average spending, infrastructure and destination management accurately. On the other hand, carrying-capacity assessment should be mandatory for major pilgrimage spots. Crowd management systems, timed entry during peak seasons, better waste management, public toilets, digital information services and emergency medical facilities are no longer optional – they are essential.
Indian pilgrims’ behavior, such as roadside cooking and littering, has also been criticized in some way on social media. However, these practices are largely based on religious dietary restrictions and group customs that Nepal can only partially accommodate. Instead of being critical, we should be looking at these as indicators for market opportunities. Better vegetarian dining, pilgrim-friendly accommodation, cleanliness facilities, and rest areas would improve the experience of visitors and provide more economic returns to the local community.
If managed properly, India’s pilgrim market is an extraordinary economic opportunity. A small increase in the number of Indian pilgrims traveling to Nepal on religious trips could greatly benefit Nepal’s tourism industry. On the other hand, uncontrolled growth could damage Nepal’s cultural heritage sites and make for unpleasant experiences.
Nepal should neither be alarmed by the increasing number of Indian visitors, nor celebrate raw arrival figures uncritically. It is time for policymakers to get a complete picture of visitor profiles, expenditure patterns, infrastructure, and sustainability of this growth. The true measure of tourism success is the quality of visitor experiences, tangible benefits to the host community, and the sustainability of the destination.
The current surge in Indian tourism is a great opportunity for Nepal. The realization of its full potential as a long-term success will depend entirely on the strategic choices and actions taken by Nepal today.
(Shrestha is a former minister and a tourism consultant.)
