4 min readMay 17, 2026 06:58 AM IST First published on: May 17, 2026 at 06:58 AM ISTSpeaking in Vadodara recently, the Prime Minister was gently critical about people choosing to go abroad for summer vacations. Emphasising the need for austerity because of the continuing crisis in West Asia, PM Modi appealed for the conservation of foreign exchange. “Is there no place in India worth visiting?” asked the PM. Noting the trend of destination weddings abroad, he warned of the disastrous consequences of dipping forex reserves and said with some romantic flair, “There is no more sacred place to get married than Bharat”.To answer the PM’s question candidly, there is almost no place in India worth visiting. Our hill stations are beset with traffic congestion, water issues and overflowing garbage; while the crummiest islands of Thailand, like Pattaya, are superior to the fanciest parts of Goa — at a fraction of the cost. There’s considerably more bang for your buck in Phuket, Vietnam, Almaty and Bali, which is why the Indian tourist has merrily abandoned Bharat for these places. Only to discover, to one’s amazement, that the second one steps out of India, systems work with reliable predictability. Needless to say, tax-paying citizens have every right to spend precious time off and hard-earned cash any way they want, on pristine locales and exploring new cultures. And indeed, the attempt to shift responsibility to the 1% actually hosting marriages abroad ignores the economics of the wedding industry — holding events in Sri Lanka, Bangkok and Istanbul are cheaper, and arguably more memorable than Delhi, Udaipur and Jaipur.AdvertisementAll things being equal, the make/holiday/wed in India thrust is a reasonable ask at a difficult time — but is it our moral responsibility to pledge allegiance to the decrepit and crumbling Lonavalas’ and Manalis’ when it’s so evident that our money is better utilised elsewhere? The PM’s sermon, directed at the tiny smattering of well-to-do Indians, suggested we are duty bound to meet the current moment by redirecting self-interest toward the greater good. A hark back to JFK’s unforgettable line, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. However, our experiences profoundly shape our civic and moral ambitions. For example, after the agonising bloodshed of the last three years, teenagers in Israel are challenging forced conscription, saying they don’t want to be complicit in a genocide. Can that be called unpatriotic?Human beings develop ideas about justice by the application of abstract principles absorbed over decades, combined with the rules we follow in our daily lives. A sense of duty makes us stop at red lights, or cast votes, for that matter. Ethics, broadly, are about how we choose to live but also, how we treat one other. In that vein, there’s an expectation that society’s rulers will act in ways to provide the best outcome for everyone. The Indian government was mysteriously silent about the impending chaos when they were consumed by winning elections, addressing the fallout of the Iran war only after their selfish objectives were met. But do the wily manoeuverings of the political class absolve ordinary citizens from their patriotic duty, of cutting back on frills during wartime, to produce more benefit than harm? If one subscribes to the postmodern perspective that there can never be any one fully correct answer to any moral dilemma, it’s slightly easier to distinguish between alleged rights or wrongs.Should someone who’s booked non refundable tickets to London and paid in advance for accommodation cancel their trip and philosophically absorb the loss? I think not. But if one was at a planning stage for an exotic vacation, a postponement may be considered. As individuals reacting to world events, it’s easy to think our decisions have no intrinsic value. To pare down the issue to its most basic, an act is correct if it will produce a greater balance of positivity over negativity than the available alternatives.The writer is director, Hutkay Films