As someone born and brought up in India, I'm a little conflicted about this.
Of course it is true that a lot of Indians have no civic sense, and will spit, litter, and generally make a noisy nuisance of themselves in this quiet village. On the surface it seems to be a great story about that nuisance being kicked out one day of the week.
At the same time, this is part of...India. It seems questionable legally, and also morally, to just kick out people from the rest of the country and even the state on a a specific day. Your village benefits to some degree from their taxes. How would it be if the villagers were locked into their village for that day and not allowed to travel outside?
Is the solution to a lack of civic sense really just to make more and more of these clean enclaves? Will they finally end up expanding and covering more of the country? I would honestly feel better about this if the entire state of Meghalaya had some kind of cleanliness drive and a tourist tax.
I don't have any easy solutions. If I did, they would have occurred to someone in India and it would be a lot cleaner by now.
I did, a requirement to book a guesthouse room through the weekend does not make the moral/legal issues any better.
Imagine that some town in the US did this; and shut down otherwise public roads to anyone who is not a resident or a guest of a hotel in the town for the weekend, citing visitor nuisance as the reason.
Would you feel better about it because "well you can just book a hotel for the weekend"?
There is a difference between "trippers" and renters. Had your read the article you'd know that they are ok with people living in cottages on Sunday just not "trippers"
They want to reduce people who visit without staying. For Sunday is their day for mass etc
Also most businesses are still closed on the Sunday because the town is Christian
> There is a difference between "trippers" and renters. Had your read the article you'd know that they are ok with people living in cottages on Sunday just not "trippers"
Again, none of this makes it right. It's medieval-style thinking to just put up a gate on Sundays to keep all the "trippers" out as you put it. What if every city and town in India started doing this?
Most cities and towns won't do this because this affects only a handful of extremely small tourist places which are cool like have snow so they attract 80% of our 1 billion population who choose to be tourists.
I get your overall point though. But major cities just don't suffer from the same problems! Say Chennai or Mumbai or Trivendrum or Kochi or anybody else - this is simply not a problem. They don't have over tourism.
And such decisions will not be taken anywhere else in India
Article 13 allows customary law to be applied following judicial review.
It's the same precedent most Himachalis use to keep tourists contained to a handful of tourist traps while keeping the rest of the state clean. Other border states and Northeastern states do the same thing.
Semi-urban areas like Mawlynnong are governed by Panchayats - not municipal councils - and overtourism can become a kiss of death.
I doubt this has been given judicial review at the High Court/Supreme Court level.
As for Himachal, you seem to be the expert but I thought that Himachal disallows non-locals from buying land (which I also think is wrong), not staying anywhere? Or does Himachal also have laws like this?
You have to note that Himachal or other mountain states with snow need protections. Otherwise they ll quickly lose their local traditions because the mountain snow states have extremely pleasant temperatures even in summer so rich folks from all over the country would simply buy out all the land and houses gentrification overloaded
> not staying anywhere? Or does Himachal also have laws like this?
Non-locals are allowed to stay anywhere in HP, but zoning is strictly enforced so you aren't going to find some hotel or B&B in the middle of nowhere without it being zoned as non-agricultural land.
This helps limit tourism to a handful of urban hubs, which helps limit overtourism to a handful of areas that have essentially been written off.
That said, significant swathes of Himachal fall within the Protexted Area Permit and outsiders need permission from the Home Ministry for extended stays, and often get stopped by police or ITBP for checkings (unsurprising given that we neighbor Tibet and plenty of communities have ethnic ties with residents of Ngari).
> I doubt this has been given judicial review at the High Court/Supreme Court level
Tribal Councils and Panchayats in Meghalaya are allowed to use customary law to limit outsiders, and this has been adjudicated by the Meghalaya HC as well.
Meghalaya also falls under the Sixth Schedule which was explicitly made to ensure that tribal areas aren't inundated by more numerous outside ethnic groups.
Overtl tourism is a major issue in Bali, Japan and Bhutan as well. It's a global thing. I remember reading that Greece or some European country had banned cruise ship docking because they didn't want the crowd who runs around the city for half a day
My personal opinion is less about the crowding (though that is a pain) and moreso how overtourism creates a form of Dutch disease and prevents more inclusive economic from being created.
The state in India I mentioned (Himachal Pradesh) has a large tourism industry, but because of strict zoning laws was able to reduce the overall impact of tourism and zone SEZs and industrial parks which helped MSMEs climb up the value chain in industries such as generic pharma manufacturing and food processing.
If hotel and homestay zoning was lax, there would have been less of an incentive for local capital to invest in capex heavy but ultimately higher value economic output. And it was that economic output that helped HP subsidize it's welfare system that was able to bring the state's HDI to middle of the pack Chinese province levels despite not having a single metro with population greater than 200k.
> In a country known for its lack of sanitation, this is no small feat. But in Mawlynnong, children are taught to tidy up from a young age, with many taking to the streets each morning before school to sweep the town of dead leaves and empty rubbish bins. Villagers see to the disposal of biodegradables and take pride in public landscaping.
This is kind of fascinating to me because the few times I visited India I was completely gobsmacked by the insane levels of trash and pollution such that I never wanted to return. Like Gurugram reminded me of some type of ecological disaster dystopia out of Blade Runner. So I was particularly glad to see this story was about an Indian village and not one of the usual "amazingly clean Asian city" suspects, e.g. Singapore or somewhere in Japan.
I've read that Japan had some crazy pollution and littering until regulations and campaigns in the 70s. Alright, I'll admit, I saw it on a Youtube short [1].
There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on the change on the Internet (at least not the English Internet), but this Japanese guy's anecdotes seem to corroborate it [2]. It makes sense, a lot of countries started taking pollution and littering more seriously around the 70s. It looks like that's when Japan started regulating it seriously [3]:
> from 24 November to 18 December 1970, 14 pollution control bills were passed into law [...] overnight, Japan was transformed from a country with meagre environmental regulations, to one of the strictest in the OECD.
There are no consequences for bad behavior in India if you are powerful enough (e.g. a police constable is a very very powerful person who can be filmed taking a bribe or filmed thrashing some innocent person and nothing happens to them.)
When they are able/willing to enforce consequences for bad behavior, most of India's civic problems will evaporate.
Yes, on one hand its fascinating, on other its about impossible before end of universe that it would be possible to apply India wide. Right on with Gurugram observation. The latest government way to fix all issue is to change name of the place to something from "glorious Indian past".
In terms of actually responding to eco-disaster I don't think people are there yet to see error and mend their ways. I do not expect this to change at least for next couple of decades.
> Like Gurugram reminded me of some type of ecological disaster dystopia out of Blade Runner
That's because of zoning. Much of Gurgaon isn't zoned as a municipality but as villages or agricultural land, which means there is no unified municipal government in vast swathes of the city. This is the same issue with Bangalore.
Other large Indian cities (eg. Pune, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Chennai, Hyderabad, etc) are nowhere near as bad
> So I was particularly glad to see this story was about an Indian village
My ancestral family is from village and small towns, and counterintuitively (edit: for people who do not know India) they tend to be much cleaner because they have more formally defined municipal and local governments.
Of course, this depends state to state, like everything else in India.
Edit: quick explaination of local government in India
Local government in India is heavily dependent on whether your block is zoned as "rural", "urban", "agricultural", or "industrial".
In the first generation of megacities like Bangalore and Delhi NCR, zoning never actually got updated because a lot of urbanization happened before zoning caught up, and changing zoning could impact your tax burden, as agricultural income isn't taxed in India.
So if you are a landlord (eg.) running a backpacker hostel in Delhi, if your land was rezoned from agricultural to urban it would also be reassessed from a tax burden perspective so landlords have an incentive to fight rezoning tooth and nail.
Additionally, a lot of areas that are colloquially called (eg.) Bangalore aren't actually within the borders of the city of Bangalore but historically unzoned or miszoned land.
In smaller towns and the newer generation of megacities (eg. Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Pune) zoning was more tightly enforced and local governments are more aligned becuase they are much more homogenous.
This is something the PM Office is now starting to address [0], but will also depend on local and state governments. Some states like Kerala, HP, TN, Punjab, and Gujarat have been more proactive about fixing zoning, but others like Delhi and Karnataka have been less inclined.
> My ancestral family is from village and small towns, and counterintuitively they tend to be much cleaner because they have more formally defined municipal and local governments.
Indian, and this is not counterintuitive to me at all. I have also seen this, really small rural villages with their tight local governments tend to be pretty clean.
Seems like quite the stretch just to blame it on zoning. Gurugram was particularly bad but the other places around New Delhi I visited weren't much better.
It's not a culture thing though. The ethnic groups and castes that dominates Gurgaon and Delhi local government also dominates local government in the Chandigarh Capital Region (CCR) as well as other urban agglomerations in Haryana such as Karnal and Kurkushetra which are all much better managed than Gurgaon.
The key difference is zoning is nowhere near as screwy in those metros compared to Gurgaon. Gurgaon's urbanization in 1990s to 2010s was completely unplanned. It was the literal Wild West.
Same with Bangalore compared to other large metros in Karnataka like Mangalore and Mysore.
Much of Delhi isn't zoned as a city either but as villages (in Delhi they are called Lal Doras) [0]. Most of the hostels and hotels backpackers stay in when visiting Delhi are located in these lal doras.
Additionally, the local government and the federal government have been at loggerheads for over decade because it's municipal government was ruled by the BJP but it's state government was ruled by the opposition (AAP), so both attempted to undermine the other.
Delhi NCR and Bangalore are two of the worst managed metropolitan areas in India from a local government perspective because of overlapping jurisdictions and extremely wonky zoning. Of course, those are the two Indian cities most HNers historically ended up visiting.
That said, it's highly likely most non-Desi HNers haven't visited India since 2020 because most businesses now send Indian Americans directly to India and India was never a strong tourism market aside from diaspora.
Most western cities were trays filled till a few decades. Some like SF and Seattle still have zones that resemble a war zone. Have you been to Skid row in LA? Yeah, culture is real.
Mawlynnong is barely 3,000 feet from Bangladesh, and the nearest town to it in Bangladesh (Jaflong - roughly 5 to 10 miles away) is much dirtier [0] despite also being inhabited by the same ethnic group (Khasi) as well.
The main difference is, Meghalaya has much stronger local government whereas it's much weaker in Sylhet.
Given that both Jaflong and Mawlynnong are inhabited by ethnic brethren of the same culture, the cultural argument clearly doesn't hold in comparison to the state capacity argument.
I know statements like this mean well, but man it's so frustrating. It's the same thing as telling a person with depression to "just be happy".
If it were so simple this would've been solved nation wide by Modi's 2014 address.
Where does this education come from? Leaders, but leaders are product of their social environment. To create this change means to go against the norm meaning someone or a few have to break the trend. Then that belief has to take hold in others and THEN the real test begins. It has to be generational, the new generation, by yes, education, needs it to be truth as opposed to a new way. The old guard must die.
Only then will you "solve all social issues by education". Don't even get me started on scale. It works on a village or small country, but more? or a 2nd issue?
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that simple. I was born and raised in India and I have seen hordes of supposedly "educated" Indian people with degrees littering and making a nuisance of themselves; and seen a lot of Indians who didn't have a formal education be much more conscientious about cleanliness and such because their family raised them that way.
It's some combination of moral education, culture, science, and psychology. Even religion can play a role, especially in India where it's so important for a majority of the people.
Degrees doesn't mean someone was brought up with cleanliness as a value, that's not what they mean by "educated." It's education of taking care of your general area and environment, not general schooling.
> It's education of taking care of your general area and environment, not general schooling.
I kind of know what you mean, but feel like we are going into No True Scotsman territory with the "well, that's not what education really means".
Degrees and such are typically the yardstick by which education is measured; if attainment of this education as measured by those yardsticks does not correlate with cleanliness, then the conclusion must be "The education system in India is broken and we should emphasize cleanliness in the education system" rather than "Education will solve cleanliness, it's that simple".
I think you just misunderstood the meaning of the word education in their comment, they clearly meant educating on cleanliness not in the literal K through university education system.
More like, the education thus far was insufficient, not that it's not simple to just have education; it is that simple, but simple does not mean easy or without effort. Japan instills cleanliness from early schooling, that's what needs to be done in India too. Not just throwing up our hands and saying "it's not that simple."
Hopefully the process is sped up with the rapid increase in Indians traveling internationally, and they'll start to realize and feel embarrassment/shame at the state of cleanliness in their own country.
It should be clear that this is about the stress that visiting Indians bring. And their trash.
But it also highlights how you need to restrict access to move up the value chain. Hordes of bus tourists who eat elsewhere or bring take away contribute little economically, you can sell some trinkets. People with a hotel booking are also likely to eat locally.
Venice faces a similar situation with cruise ships and Airbnbs raising the price of housing. They should be capping cruise ship numbers, and a weekend break would be good too.
> But it also highlights how you need to restrict access to move up the value chain. Hordes of bus tourists who eat elsewhere or bring take away contribute little economically, you can sell some trinkets. People with a hotel booking are also likely to eat locally.
I don't think this fits the story at all. They just want a day off. The rest of the week is unrestricted.
That is a sensitive messaging campaign, and no doubt true as well. But the effect is that rich people who want to visit on the weekend will book a local hotel stay rather than day trip, and as a bonus they will not have to deal with crowds.
I think that's an edge case that would get removed if it had significant use.
Especially since the article gives me the impression you're still supposed to leave pretty quickly on those Sundays, that it's more like an easement than a day pass.
They already have a levy on cruise ships, but it doesn't really increase the amenity for the citizens. If you can bid for places in the cap you have a dual effect, limiting congestion and encouraging longer stays, and selecting for higher value ships.
You could tweak it in many ways, like additional levy that can be recouped by spending on food in local restaurants (vs shipboard all-inclusive meals).
Its rooted in culture and how people are socialized to relate to public spaces and the people around them. Here’s Lee Kuan Yew talking about the same problem he faced in Singapore at first: https://medium.com/@barronqasem/the-moral-behind-lee-kuan-ye... (“The difficult part was getting the people to change their habits so that they behaved more like first world citizens, not like third world citizens spitting and littering all over the place.”).
I only really have experience with Americans and Bangladeshis, but in my experience Americans are Nazis about littering and recycling. I was talking with a law school professor once after class and dropped a diet coke bottle into the trash in front of her. Without missing a beat she reached into the trash bin to take it out and threw it into the recycling bin.
> in my experience Americans are Nazis about littering and recycling
I don't know about that. I've seen many a poorly sorted recycle bin in my life. Americans are definitely in the upper quartile, maybe even the upper decile, of the world as a whole. Among the developed world the country may be just about average.
I believe glass recycling is segregated by color in some countries in Europe. And they take that really seriously.
American recycling in a lot of major cities is single-stream - aka you put all recycling together and a central plant sorts it for you. More efficient, more accurate, and it encourages more people to recycle since it's extremely easy.
Have have you been to many countries in Asia recently?
Spitting is still super common in many cities, especially in India. I've had a few taxi drivers who would open their door periodically to spit on the ground (and no they weren't chewing anything).
I've got a suspicion that it was more common a few decades ago. I saw a bit of that in China back in 2007 but I wouldn't be surprised if it's less of a thing now.
I was recently traveling on a local bus near the Amazon and an indigenous family sitting in front of me were eating a local snack. When they finished, they opened the window and threw out the plastic wrappers.
At first I couldn't understand how someone who lives so close to nature could do something like that. But then I realized that when the parents were kids, those snacks were probably wrapped in banana leaves, not plastic, so discarding the leaves on the ground would have been perfectly natural thing to do.
How do you reconcile you complaint about complaining about the tourist ban with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says people have the right to freedom of movement within the borders of each state?
Does that Declaration give you an inalienable right to do anything you please? I doubt it. As the old saying goes, your freedom stops where someone else’s freedom starts.
Or in Seinfeld speak, “we live in a society!!!”
Have to consider others not just oneself. That’s the price of freedom and being responsible about it.
What do you think that human rights rule is supposed to mean then? By your definition, the (more older) Chinese way of restricting mobility between provinces according to hukou would be OK because you can just bypass the forbidden provinces.
I'm talking about doublerabbit, not India. Doublerabbit apparently doesn't like human rights, which is his right, but it's possible he actually holds contradictory opinions and doesn't realize it.
Or what you and others might believe are human rights are not believed by them to be human rights. Human rights are not, in fact, universal, otherwise there would be no disagreement; and either way, no human right is endless and unlimited especially when it impinges on another's rights.
The new editorialised title is an improvement, given that most of HN's readership is probably not in the UK, especially not at time of writing: 0130 BST on a Tuesday.
On the contrary, my first thought upon reading the title was "I hope it's not just Japan again". No disrespect to Japan, but articles about Japanese tidiness are a dime a dozen.
Huh? South-asia is more than just india. Just like all of the other cardinal directions that refer to different geographical regions within asia. Why can't it be a part of Asia?
Wikipedia says that Budapest is home to one of the most populous Christian communities in Central Europe and it's considered to be one the most dirty places on Earth. Rome is often called Europe's dirtiest cities. Also Christian. Either Christ failed there, or religion has nothing to do with it.
One of the most dirty places on Earth. Surely this cannot be true. I’ve been to ten dirtier cities in India alone than that, let alone the rest of South and South East Asia. I suppose in some sense every city is one of the most dirty places on Earth even if you rank 500 on some list but it cannot be useful to think of it like this.
The village is heavily Christian. This is about forcing their religious views on everyone else in the village. The bit about tourists is just a smokescreen.
As someone born and brought up in India, I'm a little conflicted about this.
Of course it is true that a lot of Indians have no civic sense, and will spit, litter, and generally make a noisy nuisance of themselves in this quiet village. On the surface it seems to be a great story about that nuisance being kicked out one day of the week.
At the same time, this is part of...India. It seems questionable legally, and also morally, to just kick out people from the rest of the country and even the state on a a specific day. Your village benefits to some degree from their taxes. How would it be if the villagers were locked into their village for that day and not allowed to travel outside?
Is the solution to a lack of civic sense really just to make more and more of these clean enclaves? Will they finally end up expanding and covering more of the country? I would honestly feel better about this if the entire state of Meghalaya had some kind of cleanliness drive and a tourist tax.
I don't have any easy solutions. If I did, they would have occurred to someone in India and it would be a lot cleaner by now.
> Visitors who book guesthouse rooms in Mawlynnong through Saturday and Sunday are exempt from the Sunday ban
Did you read the article?
I did, a requirement to book a guesthouse room through the weekend does not make the moral/legal issues any better.
Imagine that some town in the US did this; and shut down otherwise public roads to anyone who is not a resident or a guest of a hotel in the town for the weekend, citing visitor nuisance as the reason.
Would you feel better about it because "well you can just book a hotel for the weekend"?
There is a difference between "trippers" and renters. Had your read the article you'd know that they are ok with people living in cottages on Sunday just not "trippers"
They want to reduce people who visit without staying. For Sunday is their day for mass etc
Also most businesses are still closed on the Sunday because the town is Christian
> There is a difference between "trippers" and renters. Had your read the article you'd know that they are ok with people living in cottages on Sunday just not "trippers"
Again, none of this makes it right. It's medieval-style thinking to just put up a gate on Sundays to keep all the "trippers" out as you put it. What if every city and town in India started doing this?
I'm not in US and have never set foot there ever.
But I've lived my entire life in India so far.
Most cities and towns won't do this because this affects only a handful of extremely small tourist places which are cool like have snow so they attract 80% of our 1 billion population who choose to be tourists.
I get your overall point though. But major cities just don't suffer from the same problems! Say Chennai or Mumbai or Trivendrum or Kochi or anybody else - this is simply not a problem. They don't have over tourism.
And such decisions will not be taken anywhere else in India
Article 13 allows customary law to be applied following judicial review.
It's the same precedent most Himachalis use to keep tourists contained to a handful of tourist traps while keeping the rest of the state clean. Other border states and Northeastern states do the same thing.
Semi-urban areas like Mawlynnong are governed by Panchayats - not municipal councils - and overtourism can become a kiss of death.
I doubt this has been given judicial review at the High Court/Supreme Court level.
As for Himachal, you seem to be the expert but I thought that Himachal disallows non-locals from buying land (which I also think is wrong), not staying anywhere? Or does Himachal also have laws like this?
You have to note that Himachal or other mountain states with snow need protections. Otherwise they ll quickly lose their local traditions because the mountain snow states have extremely pleasant temperatures even in summer so rich folks from all over the country would simply buy out all the land and houses gentrification overloaded
> not staying anywhere? Or does Himachal also have laws like this?
Non-locals are allowed to stay anywhere in HP, but zoning is strictly enforced so you aren't going to find some hotel or B&B in the middle of nowhere without it being zoned as non-agricultural land.
This helps limit tourism to a handful of urban hubs, which helps limit overtourism to a handful of areas that have essentially been written off.
That said, significant swathes of Himachal fall within the Protexted Area Permit and outsiders need permission from the Home Ministry for extended stays, and often get stopped by police or ITBP for checkings (unsurprising given that we neighbor Tibet and plenty of communities have ethnic ties with residents of Ngari).
> I doubt this has been given judicial review at the High Court/Supreme Court level
Tribal Councils and Panchayats in Meghalaya are allowed to use customary law to limit outsiders, and this has been adjudicated by the Meghalaya HC as well.
Meghalaya also falls under the Sixth Schedule which was explicitly made to ensure that tribal areas aren't inundated by more numerous outside ethnic groups.
Overtl tourism is a major issue in Bali, Japan and Bhutan as well. It's a global thing. I remember reading that Greece or some European country had banned cruise ship docking because they didn't want the crowd who runs around the city for half a day
My personal opinion is less about the crowding (though that is a pain) and moreso how overtourism creates a form of Dutch disease and prevents more inclusive economic from being created.
The state in India I mentioned (Himachal Pradesh) has a large tourism industry, but because of strict zoning laws was able to reduce the overall impact of tourism and zone SEZs and industrial parks which helped MSMEs climb up the value chain in industries such as generic pharma manufacturing and food processing.
If hotel and homestay zoning was lax, there would have been less of an incentive for local capital to invest in capex heavy but ultimately higher value economic output. And it was that economic output that helped HP subsidize it's welfare system that was able to bring the state's HDI to middle of the pack Chinese province levels despite not having a single metro with population greater than 200k.
I know HP lol I live in India
I hadn't thought of it from your PoV but it makes sense.
And I had just been to the Sar pass trek from Kasol, and let me tell you. It's insanely over crowded right now. Despite the regulations.
On our trek we easily had 300+ people at 13k feet!
So I fully support such decisions because small towns can't handle such crowd
> In a country known for its lack of sanitation, this is no small feat. But in Mawlynnong, children are taught to tidy up from a young age, with many taking to the streets each morning before school to sweep the town of dead leaves and empty rubbish bins. Villagers see to the disposal of biodegradables and take pride in public landscaping.
Culture is real.
This is kind of fascinating to me because the few times I visited India I was completely gobsmacked by the insane levels of trash and pollution such that I never wanted to return. Like Gurugram reminded me of some type of ecological disaster dystopia out of Blade Runner. So I was particularly glad to see this story was about an Indian village and not one of the usual "amazingly clean Asian city" suspects, e.g. Singapore or somewhere in Japan.
I've read that Japan had some crazy pollution and littering until regulations and campaigns in the 70s. Alright, I'll admit, I saw it on a Youtube short [1].
There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on the change on the Internet (at least not the English Internet), but this Japanese guy's anecdotes seem to corroborate it [2]. It makes sense, a lot of countries started taking pollution and littering more seriously around the 70s. It looks like that's when Japan started regulating it seriously [3]:
> from 24 November to 18 December 1970, 14 pollution control bills were passed into law [...] overnight, Japan was transformed from a country with meagre environmental regulations, to one of the strictest in the OECD.
1. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PP60G-lMiDA
2. https://tour-hiro.com/blog/culture/5721/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_Diet
There are no consequences for bad behavior in India if you are powerful enough (e.g. a police constable is a very very powerful person who can be filmed taking a bribe or filmed thrashing some innocent person and nothing happens to them.)
When they are able/willing to enforce consequences for bad behavior, most of India's civic problems will evaporate.
Yes, on one hand its fascinating, on other its about impossible before end of universe that it would be possible to apply India wide. Right on with Gurugram observation. The latest government way to fix all issue is to change name of the place to something from "glorious Indian past".
In terms of actually responding to eco-disaster I don't think people are there yet to see error and mend their ways. I do not expect this to change at least for next couple of decades.
> Like Gurugram reminded me of some type of ecological disaster dystopia out of Blade Runner
That's because of zoning. Much of Gurgaon isn't zoned as a municipality but as villages or agricultural land, which means there is no unified municipal government in vast swathes of the city. This is the same issue with Bangalore.
Other large Indian cities (eg. Pune, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Chennai, Hyderabad, etc) are nowhere near as bad
> So I was particularly glad to see this story was about an Indian village
My ancestral family is from village and small towns, and counterintuitively (edit: for people who do not know India) they tend to be much cleaner because they have more formally defined municipal and local governments.
Of course, this depends state to state, like everything else in India.
Edit: quick explaination of local government in India
Local government in India is heavily dependent on whether your block is zoned as "rural", "urban", "agricultural", or "industrial".
In the first generation of megacities like Bangalore and Delhi NCR, zoning never actually got updated because a lot of urbanization happened before zoning caught up, and changing zoning could impact your tax burden, as agricultural income isn't taxed in India.
So if you are a landlord (eg.) running a backpacker hostel in Delhi, if your land was rezoned from agricultural to urban it would also be reassessed from a tax burden perspective so landlords have an incentive to fight rezoning tooth and nail.
Additionally, a lot of areas that are colloquially called (eg.) Bangalore aren't actually within the borders of the city of Bangalore but historically unzoned or miszoned land.
In smaller towns and the newer generation of megacities (eg. Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Pune) zoning was more tightly enforced and local governments are more aligned becuase they are much more homogenous.
This is something the PM Office is now starting to address [0], but will also depend on local and state governments. Some states like Kerala, HP, TN, Punjab, and Gujarat have been more proactive about fixing zoning, but others like Delhi and Karnataka have been less inclined.
[0] - https://eacpm.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/EAC-PM-Worki...
> My ancestral family is from village and small towns, and counterintuitively they tend to be much cleaner because they have more formally defined municipal and local governments.
Indian, and this is not counterintuitive to me at all. I have also seen this, really small rural villages with their tight local governments tend to be pretty clean.
Yep. The added issue is half of the "cities" non-Indians visit in India aren't actually zoned as cities.
In essence, India had hidden urbanization occur [0], but zoning never caught up to it.
[0] - https://eacpm.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/EAC-PM-Worki...
Seems like quite the stretch just to blame it on zoning. Gurugram was particularly bad but the other places around New Delhi I visited weren't much better.
Blaming it on “culture” makes me feel good about myself and my in-group.
It's not a culture thing though. The ethnic groups and castes that dominates Gurgaon and Delhi local government also dominates local government in the Chandigarh Capital Region (CCR) as well as other urban agglomerations in Haryana such as Karnal and Kurkushetra which are all much better managed than Gurgaon.
The key difference is zoning is nowhere near as screwy in those metros compared to Gurgaon. Gurgaon's urbanization in 1990s to 2010s was completely unplanned. It was the literal Wild West.
Same with Bangalore compared to other large metros in Karnataka like Mangalore and Mysore.
Much of Delhi isn't zoned as a city either but as villages (in Delhi they are called Lal Doras) [0]. Most of the hostels and hotels backpackers stay in when visiting Delhi are located in these lal doras.
Additionally, the local government and the federal government have been at loggerheads for over decade because it's municipal government was ruled by the BJP but it's state government was ruled by the opposition (AAP), so both attempted to undermine the other.
Delhi NCR and Bangalore are two of the worst managed metropolitan areas in India from a local government perspective because of overlapping jurisdictions and extremely wonky zoning. Of course, those are the two Indian cities most HNers historically ended up visiting.
That said, it's highly likely most non-Desi HNers haven't visited India since 2020 because most businesses now send Indian Americans directly to India and India was never a strong tourism market aside from diaspora.
[0] - https://theprint.in/ground-reports/lal-dora-villages-delhi-h...
Most western cities were trays filled till a few decades. Some like SF and Seattle still have zones that resemble a war zone. Have you been to Skid row in LA? Yeah, culture is real.
> Culture is real
Mawlynnong is barely 3,000 feet from Bangladesh, and the nearest town to it in Bangladesh (Jaflong - roughly 5 to 10 miles away) is much dirtier [0] despite also being inhabited by the same ethnic group (Khasi) as well.
The main difference is, Meghalaya has much stronger local government whereas it's much weaker in Sylhet.
Given that both Jaflong and Mawlynnong are inhabited by ethnic brethren of the same culture, the cultural argument clearly doesn't hold in comparison to the state capacity argument.
[0] - https://maps.app.goo.gl/knutXG7jePr4UhFm8
> But in Mawlynnong, children are taught to tidy up from a young age
This needs to be a thing everywhere. Education works to resolve most - if not all - social issues.
I know statements like this mean well, but man it's so frustrating. It's the same thing as telling a person with depression to "just be happy".
If it were so simple this would've been solved nation wide by Modi's 2014 address.
Where does this education come from? Leaders, but leaders are product of their social environment. To create this change means to go against the norm meaning someone or a few have to break the trend. Then that belief has to take hold in others and THEN the real test begins. It has to be generational, the new generation, by yes, education, needs it to be truth as opposed to a new way. The old guard must die.
Only then will you "solve all social issues by education". Don't even get me started on scale. It works on a village or small country, but more? or a 2nd issue?
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that simple. I was born and raised in India and I have seen hordes of supposedly "educated" Indian people with degrees littering and making a nuisance of themselves; and seen a lot of Indians who didn't have a formal education be much more conscientious about cleanliness and such because their family raised them that way.
It's some combination of moral education, culture, science, and psychology. Even religion can play a role, especially in India where it's so important for a majority of the people.
Degrees doesn't mean someone was brought up with cleanliness as a value, that's not what they mean by "educated." It's education of taking care of your general area and environment, not general schooling.
> It's education of taking care of your general area and environment, not general schooling.
I kind of know what you mean, but feel like we are going into No True Scotsman territory with the "well, that's not what education really means".
Degrees and such are typically the yardstick by which education is measured; if attainment of this education as measured by those yardsticks does not correlate with cleanliness, then the conclusion must be "The education system in India is broken and we should emphasize cleanliness in the education system" rather than "Education will solve cleanliness, it's that simple".
I think you just misunderstood the meaning of the word education in their comment, they clearly meant educating on cleanliness not in the literal K through university education system.
More like, the education thus far was insufficient, not that it's not simple to just have education; it is that simple, but simple does not mean easy or without effort. Japan instills cleanliness from early schooling, that's what needs to be done in India too. Not just throwing up our hands and saying "it's not that simple."
Hopefully the process is sped up with the rapid increase in Indians traveling internationally, and they'll start to realize and feel embarrassment/shame at the state of cleanliness in their own country.
> If it were so simple this would've been solved nation wide by Modi's 2014 address.
What? How is this supposed to work?
It should be clear that this is about the stress that visiting Indians bring. And their trash.
But it also highlights how you need to restrict access to move up the value chain. Hordes of bus tourists who eat elsewhere or bring take away contribute little economically, you can sell some trinkets. People with a hotel booking are also likely to eat locally.
Venice faces a similar situation with cruise ships and Airbnbs raising the price of housing. They should be capping cruise ship numbers, and a weekend break would be good too.
> But it also highlights how you need to restrict access to move up the value chain. Hordes of bus tourists who eat elsewhere or bring take away contribute little economically, you can sell some trinkets. People with a hotel booking are also likely to eat locally.
I don't think this fits the story at all. They just want a day off. The rest of the week is unrestricted.
That is a sensitive messaging campaign, and no doubt true as well. But the effect is that rich people who want to visit on the weekend will book a local hotel stay rather than day trip, and as a bonus they will not have to deal with crowds.
I think that's an edge case that would get removed if it had significant use.
Especially since the article gives me the impression you're still supposed to leave pretty quickly on those Sundays, that it's more like an easement than a day pass.
Surely a tax would be a better incentive mechanism than a hard cap.
They already have a levy on cruise ships, but it doesn't really increase the amenity for the citizens. If you can bid for places in the cap you have a dual effect, limiting congestion and encouraging longer stays, and selecting for higher value ships.
You could tweak it in many ways, like additional levy that can be recouped by spending on food in local restaurants (vs shipboard all-inclusive meals).
Ah the age old story of something being loved to death.
Cleaner than Japan? That's something...
cleaner than Singapore or Thailand would really be something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_sales_ban_in_Singa...
> Do not spit" signs
> Some tourists have complained about the ban, saying it should have been implemented on a weekday instead
These should not be a thing. What is it that makes folk feel so entitled?
"Lack of litter bins"; isn't an excuse. I've seen folk stand next to a litter bin, light up and then throw the cigarettes end to the ground.
You're literally standing next to a litter bin!
It should be common sense not to spit nor to litter. Spitting is the worse and I see it all the time here in the UK.
It really bothers me when they spit on days where it is below freezing. It becomes a slip hazard on sidewalks.
Its rooted in culture and how people are socialized to relate to public spaces and the people around them. Here’s Lee Kuan Yew talking about the same problem he faced in Singapore at first: https://medium.com/@barronqasem/the-moral-behind-lee-kuan-ye... (“The difficult part was getting the people to change their habits so that they behaved more like first world citizens, not like third world citizens spitting and littering all over the place.”).
I only really have experience with Americans and Bangladeshis, but in my experience Americans are Nazis about littering and recycling. I was talking with a law school professor once after class and dropped a diet coke bottle into the trash in front of her. Without missing a beat she reached into the trash bin to take it out and threw it into the recycling bin.
> in my experience Americans are Nazis about littering and recycling.
America is a really big place.
My "progressive" American city has a lot of litter, because there is no money to clean it up or punish litterers.
I've been in quite a few American cities where recycling bins simply do not exist.
> in my experience Americans are Nazis about littering and recycling
I don't know about that. I've seen many a poorly sorted recycle bin in my life. Americans are definitely in the upper quartile, maybe even the upper decile, of the world as a whole. Among the developed world the country may be just about average.
I believe glass recycling is segregated by color in some countries in Europe. And they take that really seriously.
American recycling in a lot of major cities is single-stream - aka you put all recycling together and a central plant sorts it for you. More efficient, more accurate, and it encourages more people to recycle since it's extremely easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stream_recycling
> I believe glass recycling is segregated by color in some countries in Europe.
I guess my bar is on the floor lol.
> stand next to a litter bin, light up and then throw the cigarettes end to the ground.
If the litter bin doesn’t have an ashtray (like most in the US), maybe they were worried about starting a trash fire?
What in hell? I haven’t seen or heard people spit on sidewalks other than some homeless people in ages.
In parts of Asia where people chew betel nut, of course that’s a different story -they put the old west custom of spitting tobacco chew to shame.
Have have you been to many countries in Asia recently?
Spitting is still super common in many cities, especially in India. I've had a few taxi drivers who would open their door periodically to spit on the ground (and no they weren't chewing anything).
I've got a suspicion that it was more common a few decades ago. I saw a bit of that in China back in 2007 but I wouldn't be surprised if it's less of a thing now.
Its so mindboggling. Littering wssnt even an option in my head as a child. Always carry your trash until you can properly dispose.
What the hell is wrong with people?
Same here. I find it hard to understand people who litter.
What I really don't understand is throwing litter from cars. You literally cannot find somewhere in your car to keep the litter until you get home?
I was recently traveling on a local bus near the Amazon and an indigenous family sitting in front of me were eating a local snack. When they finished, they opened the window and threw out the plastic wrappers.
At first I couldn't understand how someone who lives so close to nature could do something like that. But then I realized that when the parents were kids, those snacks were probably wrapped in banana leaves, not plastic, so discarding the leaves on the ground would have been perfectly natural thing to do.
How do you reconcile you complaint about complaining about the tourist ban with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says people have the right to freedom of movement within the borders of each state?
Does that Declaration give you an inalienable right to do anything you please? I doubt it. As the old saying goes, your freedom stops where someone else’s freedom starts.
Or in Seinfeld speak, “we live in a society!!!”
Have to consider others not just oneself. That’s the price of freedom and being responsible about it.
The alternative is a nanny state or anarchy.
Nothing is stopping you from travelling within the borders. A village is nothing more than a province within the state.
If the law ruled: "you may not traverse through the state on Sundays"; then one could argue that is a breach of human rights.
However, the last time I checked, detours exist. Enabling you to bypass a village that may be closed on Sundays.
If you're a tourist and a village says no, why can't you obey that, why does that upset you?
What do you think that human rights rule is supposed to mean then? By your definition, the (more older) Chinese way of restricting mobility between provinces according to hukou would be OK because you can just bypass the forbidden provinces.
India doesn't give a shit about that. They have restricted civil areas that require visitor clearance even for citizens.
I'm talking about doublerabbit, not India. Doublerabbit apparently doesn't like human rights, which is his right, but it's possible he actually holds contradictory opinions and doesn't realize it.
Or what you and others might believe are human rights are not believed by them to be human rights. Human rights are not, in fact, universal, otherwise there would be no disagreement; and either way, no human right is endless and unlimited especially when it impinges on another's rights.
Ask the US Army. /s
bans only 1 day? man, I'd expand that to include mondays and tuesdays
More accurately, "bans day trippers on Sundays."
> Visitors who book guesthouse rooms in Mawlynnong through Saturday and Sunday are exempt from the Sunday ban.
Reading the title generates imagery of a city in Japan being overrun by foreigners.
The actual content is about a self-proclaimed 'Asia's cleanest village' in India, banning Sunday visits from other domestic Indians.
Probably wouldn't be a popular story if this was revealed in the title.
The article is on the BBC site, so Asia means India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/etc.
Japan is Japan.
The new editorialised title is an improvement, given that most of HN's readership is probably not in the UK, especially not at time of writing: 0130 BST on a Tuesday.
On the contrary, my first thought upon reading the title was "I hope it's not just Japan again". No disrespect to Japan, but articles about Japanese tidiness are a dime a dozen.
[flagged]
India is literally part of Asia. How else would you describe it?
I prefer the maximalist perspective: France is West Asia.
India?
so is Israel and Australia but you dont call them Asians do you
Australia is its own continent, at least as we reckon them in the US. So, no, that's not Asia.
I suppose Israel is technically part of Asia, but of course we always refer to that area as the Middle East.
But India... that's either South Asia or just Asia.
What continent is India in? What continent is Australia in?
Huh? South-asia is more than just india. Just like all of the other cardinal directions that refer to different geographical regions within asia. Why can't it be a part of Asia?
[flagged]
Wikipedia says that Budapest is home to one of the most populous Christian communities in Central Europe and it's considered to be one the most dirty places on Earth. Rome is often called Europe's dirtiest cities. Also Christian. Either Christ failed there, or religion has nothing to do with it.
One of the most dirty places on Earth. Surely this cannot be true. I’ve been to ten dirtier cities in India alone than that, let alone the rest of South and South East Asia. I suppose in some sense every city is one of the most dirty places on Earth even if you rank 500 on some list but it cannot be useful to think of it like this.
I guess it depends on who you ask. https://bbj.hu/budapest/travel/tourism/budapest-tops-list-of...
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/world-dirtiest-cities-including-on...
https://dailynewshungary.com/budapest-dirtiest-city-tourists...
tourists feel it. It may be that the absolute worst places are the ones nobody goes to and writes home about.
Oh “of the top 100 tourist destinations on Euromonitor”. Okay, that’s believable I suppose.
By no means correlated.
I'm sorry but your comment has no effect on the force of that person's confirmation bias.
The village is heavily Christian. This is about forcing their religious views on everyone else in the village. The bit about tourists is just a smokescreen.