thursdaysd

I am so sorry to hear about your BIL's daughter - your niece, right?

WRT widows, I had read some very depressing stories about the position of widows in India. I am traveling, and don't have the time to do much research right now, but I found this as a starting point:

http://www.womenundersiegeproject.or...-indias-widows

Of course, the position of women is bad in a number of places, but I would not put Europe and the Americas in the same class as south Asia.

jacketwatch

Thanks for that article. It's very informative. I appreciate that.

The even sadder part of the bride burning (this was on 60 Minutes) is the helplessness people feel about not being able to do anything about it. I still remember that horribly vacant look my BIL had. I do think he passed away too soon because of this.

Yes, I agree about what you said about the position of women in the US and the Americas. I don't know what the solution is but generally think it has to begin with education.

Where are you traveling now?

thursdaysd

I just can't imagine having that happen to your daughter.

I'm in Turin right now, see: http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...ders-south.cfm

I think educating girls can make a big difference, but certain religious attitudes (and I'm not singling out any religion in particular) are a problem too.

kja

I'm speechless, for so many reasons.

My condolences to you and your family, jacketwatch.

jacketwatch

Thank you. Stanley was the bro of my wifes sisters husband and we saw him a few times and never met his daughter. I still remember the times we saw him after this happened and then a few yrs. later and how much he clearly had declined both physically and mentally.

Have fun in Turin my dear.

Yes there are barriers to girls getting educated as so dramatically demonstrated by the case of Malala Yousafzai. However her courage has shown everyone just how demented the Taliban and al Quada really are. Trying to murder a child just because she wants to go to school is, well lets hope all those who have done this or want to do similar acts be brought to justice. The sooner the better.

thursdaysd

Thanks, jacketwatch, it's a nice city.

Educating women interferes with keeping them barefoot and pregnant (and subservient). Apparently the birth rate declines substantially when girls are educated. Which is good for all of us.

OReilly

I have travelled solo all over Europe for 20 years (self-drive, trains, remote areas), and worked in South Africa for several months, so its not that I am a scared about traveling solo.

Yes, I am very aware of the increase in (reported ?) rape and violence against women in India - there has been quite a bit of coverage in the UK newspapers over the past two years.

I have just started planning a trip to India for late 2016 and will likely travel solo. I was considering doing my own planning, taking trains and private drivers between sites, largely staying at 4 Star accomodation.

I have spent the weekend reading marvellous and inspiring trip reports here on Fodors from some of you. Its quite a concern for me that two of the authors (thursdaysd and Kathie) are concerned about travelling solo in India.


I am now wondering if I should err on the side of caution, and look at a more 'guided tour' experience, which I have NEVER done before.

Perhaps a middle-ground of relying on some of the Indian planners mentioned (e.g. Castles and Kings) to organise transportation between sites with trusted drivers?

Any thoughts?

regards

thursdaysd

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but I am concerned about the change in the situation since I first went to India. Is this your first visit to India? If so, I do think some "middle ground" could be a good idea. I would not worry about 2AC class on Indian long distance trains. I would not worry about being out in the day time or early evening. I don't stay in four star hotels, but they would probably be OK too. I would certainly consider using Castle and Kings, which gets consistently good reviews here.

It is not just solo travel that is a concern. At least one of the recent attacks was on a couple.

A return to India, to visit the northwest, is still on my "list" but it has been sliding down it.

crosscheck

I would do a tour -- there are some fabulous ones. Wouldn't want to go alone. I would choose one of the specialized groups (focused on arts and culture) led by our trip planner, the British art historian Louise Nicholson. Friends who have gone with Louise report having the time of their life with fascinating people. I don't believe that she has announced her trips for late 2016 yet, but we might consider one if we can make the dates work.

http://www.louisenicholsonindia.com/

http://www.quovadisindia.com/quo-vadis-exclusives

Sue_xx_yy

Thanks to everyone for a very thoughtful discussion on a difficult topic. I particularly want to acknowledge kja for this:

<i> our beliefs that we can avoid danger are just that -- self-protective beliefs, and there is a substantial body of research on such beliefs. They function in ways that are similar to blaming a victim, in that they preserve our sense that "it couldn't happen to us" -- even though it could. Self-protective beliefs are necessary (or we could never go anywhere!), but they are always at least in part a bit of a delusion. </i>

It is true that statistically, such incidents are rare. However, this is almost moot as we are apt, as kja points out, to consider that our own personal experience - for good or bad - has validity similar, if not identical to, statistical validity. "Nothing happened to me when I went there" is proffered as being meaningful, but statistically, it is no more so than an n=1 sample-sized narrative about a negative experience. Furthermore, statistics are important decision-making criteria but they aren't exhaustive criteria: we also need other, non-statistical proof that the 'system' is working, and this proof is lacking in countries like India.

For example: to me, the occasional miserable incident isn't proof that the 'system' isn't working. What I also consider are my beliefs about how policing in general works. My perception is that in no country, including Western countries, are the police so numerous or effective as to be able to control the behaviour of the population as a whole. Instead, a place is safe when the population is generally self-controlling, AND cooperates with those who police those who don't oblige. For example, police rely on 'eyes on the street' to help them prosecute, let alone prevent, crime. But if the public at large is afraid to use narrow streets, even narrow streets near a major shopping centre:

<i> the 51-year-old woman was also robbed and beaten in the attack, which happened in the afternoon in narrow streets near Connaught Place, a popular central shopping centre and one of Delhi's tourist attractions </i>

then that critical component of policing is presumably failing in India. Police in general also rely on the majority of the population to cooperate with them and support them in the effort. My perception is that that cooperation is insufficient in India, based on several things but in particular the degree of callousness and brazenness of the attacks. In one instance, a Polish woman reported an attack by a taxi driver. First, taxi drivers are arguably thought of by many as a supplement to the police, in that they supposedly sell what should be safe transportation. But worse than this, was that the alleged attack took place <i> in the presence of her two year old child </i>. Amongst other things, that suggests the perpetrators are fairly certain that even if their attack is witnessed, nobody, even if only out of fear, will so much as pick up a cellphone to report the attack. Even when a child's welfare is at risk.

This kind of criminal confidence is the sign of a society that may not be failing, but is certainly at risk of same. I am sorry: I know several Indian ex-pats, and the country sounds fascinating, but I am still hesitant about visiting the country. If it's a matter of taking a formal tour, which are very expensive, then a trip likely isn't in the cards for us.

thursdaysd

Sue - thanks for a thoughtful and interesting post.

There are alternatives to an expensive tour. Costs in India are considerably lower than in Europe, making a car and driver a reasonable option. Or, there are cheaper tours. I would consider Intrepid, although that may be too bare bones for some. Adventures Abroad is another, more expensive, option that still runs small groups.

kja

@ Sue_xx_yy -- I'm glad you thought my remarks useful. As you say, the reports of violence against women in India have not done a great deal, IMO, to contribute to confidence that women are, in fact, safe, or that onlookers will help if needed.

julies

I appreciate all of the thoughtful conversation about this topic. However, I suspect (and I do not have time to research and dig up the numbers) that statistically the chances of one individual tourist being the victim of an attack are miniscule. So, it then becomes a question of whether to let fear run one's life. This is always an individual decision.

Disagreeing with the policies and mores of a country is a completely different issue. Some people want to make their travel decisions based on such issues.

Although I have never traveled with a tour, it would seem to me that unless one never left the confines of the group of tourists, theoretically there would still be some measure of risk involved. So if one is truly fearful, that would mean no individual shopping expeditions or dining out alone etc.

I love India and have spent 4 months there. We have met some marvelous Indians, so I would hate to let what I perceive as irrational fears stop someone from visiting a fascinating destination. And, please note that I said I perceive these to be irrational fears. This is my perception; yours may be different.

kja

Respectfully, julies, while I agree (as I already stated upthread) that it is an individual decision, I don't think it is "a question of whether to let fear run one's life." I think it can -- and honestly, <b>should</b> be -- a much more nuanced question about the <b>degree</b> of risk that anyone, as an individual, is willing to assume. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but I don't think it is: The question, "Are you going to let fear run your life?" begs one to say "NO!" without even thinking (and so, to be accurate, to make a decision "irrationally"). The question, "What level of risk are you willing to assume?" actually asks one to think things through and make a conscious, rational decision. JMO.

thursdaysd

What kja said. It is not "letting fear run your life" to make a considered decision based on available evidence. That decision will obviously be different for different people, for different places, and even for the same place at different times.

I visited Syria in 2009. Would it be "letting fear run [my] life" for me to decide not to visit Syria this year? I submit that even you (julies) would decide not visit Syria at present, and it would be a prudent decision, not "letting fear run your life".

In 2001 the train I rode through Bihar province in India carried armed guards, and I decided not to get off and visit Bodhgaya. The province is much safer now, and I would make a different decision. If I return to India I would like to visit Ladakh. I would have less concern about my safety there than I would in Mumbai or Kolkata.

A prudent decision is also different depending on who you are. What makes sense for a 250 lb white man in good physical condition, is not necessarily a prudent decision for a 125 lb black woman with a lame leg. That's not how it <i>should</i> be, I agree, but those who ignore facts tend to get bitten by them.

The risks in India may be small statistically, but I submit that they are bigger than they used to be. I'm sure that the people who have already fallen victim didn't think that they would be attacked either. It is, of course, your choice, but no reason to suggest that those who choose differently are driven by fear rather than prudence.

Sue_xx_yy

Thank you all once again for a thoughtful discussion.

julies, you are quite correct to point out that fear should not be the only component in our decisions. Terrorist attacks are statistically rare, and if you were to guess I don't consider those a factor in travel, you would be correct, or at least up to a point. However, part of why I don't consider them in my plans isn't just the statistical likelihood, but the perception that the population as a whole has of them. A terrorist attack is viewed as not just an attack against the state but the population as a whole, and so the degree of cooperation and empathy that one can expect is much greater. People will debate whether a victim of sexual violence could have controlled it - there is endless advice on 'conservative clothing' etc. etc. to be found on the Internet - but far fewer people, if any, will debate whether the victims of that Parisian nightclub attack could have controlled their circumstances. This is indicative of the degree of empathy and social cooperation that one can rely on, where that kind of violence is concerned.

I do recognize that my remarks need some balance. I should emphasize that it is not my intention to indict Indians as necessarily indifferent to the safety of others. The very fact that such articles appear in the Indian press demonstrates that the country is not afraid to discuss its problems. There are also, as we know, the articles that describe vigourous protest by Indian women, who are working hard for change in societal attitudes towards them. I find this far more reassuring than alarming; I am not lulled by regime states where the press constantly implies that their society is a utopia.

Sue_xx_yy

Speaking of tours, I think it might have been thursdaysd who mentioned Intrepid travel. First, full disclosure: I've never taken a tour with them anywhere, so can neither endorse nor indict this specific company. But their business model is intriguing: they use a lot of public transport, including the metro in Delhi. The suggestion, which I obviously can't confirm or refute, is that by traveling with someone who 'knows the ropes', who has access to the company sources of help and support, one reduces (not, of course, to a zero probability) the risk.

As you say, julies, even when traveling with a group, one would want some time on one's own, so group travel doesn't eliminate the risks associated with individual travel. But I think most people are thinking in terms of energy. It takes energy to cope with the stresses as well as the delights of a culture different from one's own; one might be able to summon enough to cope occasionally, but not necessarily 24/7. I read your most excellent trip report and clearly you managed it, with the caveat that you chose only certain classes of train travel, for example. In other words, you chose the degree of 'insulation' that you felt you needed.

Which brings me to another thought: the degree of rule consistency. Japan, at least to me, was very consistent in its rules, it was fairly easy therefore for even yours truly as a novice to get a handle on the basics (line up at the mark on the platform for the train). The precise degree of safety there I can't determine; I know that they have their problems, as well, but I do know that not having to think so hard during actual travel freed up a lot of energy.

crosscheck

I don't think anyone is ruling out India because of fear. Regardless of statistical probability it's just not relaxing having to cover up and look over your shoulder every time you venture out for a stroll while on holiday. When you go to India you sign up for edginess. But 'condoned gang rapes of tourists by daylight' is beyond edgy and adds an infuriating ugly dimension.

karenclang

I've lived and often traveled independently in India since the late 70s (most recently 3 years ago). But I wouldn't advise it for a first time female traveler. You could book hotels, trains, air yourself and either use the travel desk at your hotel or Castle & Kings to arrange a driver for getting around (probably there's no need for guide if you're using a good guidebook). Disrespect for women (including western women) unfortunately is common. I'm a mild mannered person but I've hit Indian men who touched me inappropriately and I once lost my passport & money to organized pick pockets in Connaught Square.

Southern India in my experience is a more hospitable place for female travelers than the north (though I haven't yet traveled to Ladakh and Spiti).

The other alternative is to book a tour. In addition to those tour companies recommended: Oat Adventure Travel (less expensive than Adventures Abroad since they don't charge a single supplement). Their groups range from 10 to 16 people.

thursdaysd

Another, also the Dharamsala area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/wo....html?ref=asia