The tourism department’s ambitious plan to develop select destinations across the state under Focus Tourism Destinations (FTD) has come under criticism for regional disparity.
As per the Tourism Policy 2020-25 that was unveiled recently, select destinations in each of the 30 districts have been picked for development on priority.
However, eight districts have been chosen for overall tourism development, with several questioning the intent of this move.
Speaking to DH, Hyderabad Karnataka Horata Samithi’s Razak Ustaad claimed that it was nothing but regional bias. “In the previous policy, they had not made district-wise bifurcation. They had identified tourist places across the state. However, this time the policy itself is partial. There are better places than the ones they have selected for special focus,”
he said.
As per the policy, in eight districts - Chamarajanagar, Chikkamagaluru, Dakshina Kannada, Hassan, Kodagu, Shivamogga, Udupi and Uttara Kannada - all tourism destinations within these districts will be considered
as FTDs.
As for the rest of the districts, important places have been picked for development. Badami, Basavakalyan, Kittur, Lakkundi, Munirabad are among the few of the destinations selected from north Karnataka districts.
The policy stated that the tourism department conducted a “detailed review” of the previously identified tourism destinations across the state along with other destinations that held promise for business, to identify the
FTDs.
Tourism secretary T K Anil Kumar said the policy was purely based on research and analysis and the criticism did not hold ground.
Research had shown that the southern tourism circuit, for example, Bengaluru-Mysuru-Coorg was “more vibrant”, he said, emphasising that the department had the best interest of the entire state. While previously, the government had identified 319 places of tourist importance, that list would still be valid,
he added.
Former tourism minister Priyank Kharge of the Congress, however, felt that the department had taken on unrealistic ambitions by identifying whole districts
under FTD.
“Going by the tourism department’s budget, it is impossible to do justice to entire districts. A better approach would have been to consider places across the state based on footfall,” he observed.