[john.sw]

India is one of the few countries where a foreigner needs to pay more for checking into a hotel, air travel, subscribing to periodicals and even to visit historical monuments.

Poorer Indians should have affordable access to their national treasures, so I don't think it is unreasonable for foreigners to pay more at these places.

However, do you think it is right that a foreigner should pay twice or three times the fare that an Indian pays on an internal flight, or double the amount for staying in a five star hotel?

An order issued by PM Manmohan Singh will put an end to the double-tariff regime seen by foreign tourists and even expatriates as an act of hurting discrimination.

For some time now, the Prime Minister’s Office has been receiving complaints from Indian missions abroad and through other channels about the discriminatory tariff regime that visiting foreigners are subjected to.


What do you think?

[justmakebelieve]

It does seem to me that having two seperate prices allows Indians who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it to access their national heritage. Whereas foreigners being charged more for hotels and flights just seems to be money-grabbing. I'm happy to pay a little more when bargaining over clothes, food, etc etc, as I appreciate that I can afford to pay more, and a few rupees means a lot more to the person I am buying from than they do to me. Its just the institutionalised airfares/hotels that irritate me. Maybe they should just be more subtle - offer "discounts" to Indian citizens.....

[maperani]

I think it is a discriminatory practice and breeds corruption.  Last year I visited a very nice fort near tivanamali.  The price I remember was about 400 Rs, that seemed reasonable, considering what you get.  The annoying part was that fact that Indians paid only 2 or 5 Rs!
   This brings in loads of rowdier young Indians who make a lot of noise and don't respect the place.  Another thing they do is carve their initials in these 1000 year old ruins.  I told one kid to stop.  The guards who worked in this place, where very corrupt already.  They followed me around trying to get baksheesh for guided tour or to let me stay late etc.  I mention that he should go see what these Indian boys are doing damaging the monument. He looked angry and said something like they where allowed to do that, their Indian or something..
   I'm sure my 400 Rs did not go to the preservation of the ruins at all, probably into a few different pocks in fact. So, you see how this breeds corruption.   They should raise the rates for Indian, and give foreigners the same. Fair is fair, there are after all many very rich Indians.

As for the plane fares, India is shooting tourism in the foot this way of having two prices. Tourist can only make up a small amount of the passengers any ways.

Hotels already have a luxury tax of 15% or so.

[iwanttogoback]

whilst I can appreciate the point about poorer indians being able to access monuments I fail to see why the foreign tourist should pay for this. I certainly wouldn't expect visitors to my country to do so, I see it as a national responsibility.

I don't mind paying more, and I probably have more, but I want that to be my choice, not one dictated by a universal rule that seems to be aimed at fleecing tourists. and a rule that truly hurts the image of India abroad.

[praks]

iwanttogoback, on Aug 30 2006, 07:59 AM, said:

whilst I can appreciate the point about poorer indians being able to access monuments I fail to see why the foreign tourist should pay for this. I certainly wouldn't expect visitors to my country to do so, I see it as a national responsibility.

I don't mind paying more, and I probably have more, but I want that to be my choice, not one dictated by a universal rule that seems to be aimed at fleecing tourists. and a rule that truly hurts the image of India abroad.

Some time back, I had visitors from abroad who I took to see some monuments and found this two tier pricing, so I asked an official regarding this. He told me that actually, Indians are not paying less than foreigners to visit heritage structures and monuments. It's just that Indian citizens are subsidized by their Govt. when they visit such places. The pricing is the same for all visitors but the Indian Govt. pays the ASI the balance in the form of a grant for every Indian visitor. Hence the two tier pricing.

[malkers]

praks, on Aug 30 2006, 12:38 PM, said:

Some time back, I had visitors from abroad who I took to see some monuments and found this two tier pricing, so I asked an official regarding this. He told me that actually, Indians are not paying less than foreigners to visit heritage structures and monuments. It's just that Indian citizens are subsidized by their Govt. when they visit such places. The pricing is the same for all visitors but the Indian Govt. pays the ASI the balance in the form of a grant for every Indian visitor. Hence the two tier pricing.

I assume somebody can back this up with some proof, a link to an article perhaps?

Until then I won't believe that the Indian Government pays 730rs to the Taj Mahal for every Indian visitor that goes there!

Don't quite get the foreign currency argument here, I'm not American so why would I use dollars, I live in India and I spend all my money in rupees so this argument suggests that if I'm willing to pay in rupees then I should be given the rupee price.

I spend a hell of a lot more money in India each month than the average Indian person earns and a huge lump of that to Government organisations so I could argue the toss that I'm an India taxpayer also.

Does the dual pricing system make me angry?  Your damn right it does, it stinks!

[Strawberry_Blonde]

It does annoy my somewhat, the price you pay 9 times out of 10 is based on your colour. There are a lot of NRI's or Asians/Indians with foreign nationalities earning western salaries but never get questioned and pay the Indian rate. Or Indeed resident Indians that are high salary earners.  Which in the day and age of political correctness could be classed a racist.

And also the fact that for using cameras you are charged an extra fee and video cameras often charged at a phenomenaly large additional fee  - the only plausible explanation for this is that tourists and those that can afford such luxurious items can afford to pay the extras fees..! But hey lets not charge the upcoming techies with their super duper mega pixel video camera phone!!

I am all for poorer people being given an acceptable rate to enter such buildings/national heritage to make them accesible but unless I am wrong its hard for people to identify themselves as being such in India. In the UK most places give a reduced rate to tourists places, transport etc for the unemployed, senior citizens and small children all of which will have some kind of identity card/book from the welfare state to prove their status and eligibilty for reduced rates which I guess does not exist in India?

SB

Edited by Strawberry_Blonde, 31 August 2006 - 09:19 AM.

[Vik]

Strawberry_Blonde, on Aug 31 2006, 04:40 AM, said:

It does annoy my somewhat, the price you pay 9 times out of 10 is based on your colour. There are a lot of NRI's or Asians/Indians with foreign nationalities earning western salaries but never get questioned and pay the Indian rate. Or Indeed resident Indians that are high salary earners.  Which in the day and age of political correctness could be classed a racist.

And also the fact that for using cameras you are charged an extra fee and video cameras often charged at a phenomenaly large additional fee  - the only plausible explanation for this is that tourists and those that can afford such luxurious items can afford to pay the extras fees..! But hey lets not charge the upcoming techies with their super duper mega pixel video camera phone!!

I am all for poorer people being given an acceptable rate to enter such buildings/national heritage to make them accesible but unless I am wrong its hard for people to identify themselves as being such in India. In the UK most places give a reduced rate to tourists places, transport etc for the unemployed, senior citizens and small children all of which will have some kind of identity card/book from the welfare state to prove their status and eligibilty for reduced rates which I guess does not exist in India?

SB

I totally disagree with the different ticket prices to visit monuments. How can we say, please come and explore our culture, visit our monuments and learn a bit of our history and oh!! ensure you are fully loaded.  I've had to face this embarrasing situation a couple of times when I could get in for Rs 10 and the people who were actually interested about the monument had to pay about Rs400 - 500 and this is just the start. after you pay the high price and get in.. everything in the shops will have the prices double with the white foreigner tax.

     It does hurt me to see a fellow indians carving " I love XXXXX" on the walls of a building that is a part of history. I guess the Indian government should either increase the ticket prices of indians visiting such places, atleast this way we can be sure that no further damage is caused and will ensure the rifraffs are kept at bay also resulting in less garbage being throw around.

re Hotel prices.. it's very simple. If you want luxury you pay otherwise there are ample alternatives.

[Phantom]

Vik, on Aug 31 2006, 02:54 PM, said:

It does hurt me to see a fellow indians carving " I love XXXXX" on the walls of a building that is a part of history. I guess the Indian government should either increase the ticket prices of indians visiting such places, atleast this way we can be sure that no further damage is caused and will ensure the rifraffs are kept at bay also resulting in less garbage being throw around.

Yeah .. right !! Do you know how that sounds.. as in "poor indians are the root cause of all that is bad in the historical monuments so lets stop these people from entering these place, so that a few foreigners can enjoy the serene beauty of India" .. I know you dont mean to say this... But it surely looks this way.

Also, when you pay an amount at a monument and get the receipt, then it cant (IT CAN NOT) go to the pockets of the people collecting it. Granted, India has a lot of corruption but they wont give you receipts for accepting bribe.. ... Lets have some sanity in the arguments.

It might hurt some people to pay more than an avg. Indian when they themselves are earning in Indian rupee but how many foreigners do you think, are like that ?? maybe 1% of the total tourists. Then how can you generalize things for everybody ??

[Vik]

Phantom, on Aug 31 2006, 11:06 AM, said:

Yeah .. right !! Do you know how that sounds.. as in "poor indians are the root cause of all that is bad in the historical monuments so lets stop these people from entering these place, so that a few foreigners can enjoy the serene beauty of India" .. I know you dont mean to say this... But it surely looks this way.

I'm not saying the poor Indian is the route cause, but you gotta agree that they are a major contributor. My comment on increased prices for everybody was invew of keeping the damage causers at bay. I would still take someone to the taj even if they increased the ticket prices.

Phantom, on Aug 31 2006, 11:06 AM, said:

It might hurt some people to pay more than an avg. Indian when they themselves are earning in Indian rupee but how many foreigners do you think, are like that ?? maybe 1% of the total tourists. Then how can you generalize things for everybody ??

If you saw somebody pay less for something, wont you complain. no matter how much one earns.

Edited by Vik, 31 August 2006 - 04:01 PM.

[Phantom]

Vik, on Aug 31 2006, 03:59 PM, said:

I'm not saying the poor Indian is the route cause, but you gotta agree that they are a major contributor. My comment on increased prices for everybody was invew of keeping the damage causers at bay. I would still take someone to the taj even if they increased the ticket prices.
If you saw somebody pay less for something, wont you complain. no matter how much one earns.

C'mon Vik, 80% of India is poor. You cant stop their entry into the monuments. Whats the use of having any monuments then.
And of course I would complain if somebody is paying less. But If I am in a foreign land, and their govt. is subsidizing a few things for their citizens then why should I complain ?? what right do I have to complain ??
If these things bother you, then get an Indian citizenship.. otherwise just dont visit those places

[cyberhippie]

My tuppence worth!!

Sorry guys but I find it a tired and very convenient excuse that foriegners paying more to get into monuments somehow allows the ubiquitous "poor Indian" to sample his/her culture, the truly poor (not to be mixed up with low paid workers) don't have the wherewithal to travel to see such monuments and would consider it a crass waste of money to do so. The really poor of India seldom travel for recreation and if they live close to a monument chances are they won't bother either, or get in for free via the massive nepatisitic network of friends and family.
A large number of Indian tourists who visit such sites can easily afford to pay 30-50 rupees for a one time visit to a monument and therebye help finance  THEIR cultural heritage!
After all many of these middle class visitors (yes the visitors to these monument are predominately middle class) think nothing of splashing out on a bottle of whisky or an expensive meal..............so why not help maintain their cultural heritage?????
This argument of the foreigner subsidising India's culture to help the poor of India is frankly rediculous. I still remember the single pricing for all and have to say that the extra revenue generated by the two tier pricing and the expansion in well heeled foreign tourists has done little to improve these monuments. They look much as they always did, which begs the question is the two tier pricing really helping maintain the monuments or simply paying cousin brothers's  dowry for his daughter???

As for the two tier pricing on airlines, it's a blatent rip off and I'm sorry Paagla but it has nothing to do with currency exchange rates!! Same goes for Hotels.
The situation with the two tier pricing at monuments I can/do live with but hotels and airlines really brings out the stroppy Jock in me when I see Indians who earn far more than me getting cheap service simply because they are Indian................who is that subsidising, certainly not India's poor!!

The quicker they get rid of two tier pricing the better it will be for India's credibility as a holiday destination!!

Nuff said   

[sego]

That double pricing is Racial discrimination, here in Canada and mostly Indians are lined up at the Ombudsman office to file a complaint against their workplace for Racial discrimination.

[Phantom]

Well, a large no. of indians who go to these monuments have more or less only one earning member who is paying for the whole family. So the burden is that much more.

I am all for single pricing. But Lets wait till dollar and rupee are at par

[captmahajan]

I disagree with two tier pricing for foreigners anywhere. it isnt fair.

including two tier pricing for indians attending universities in the usa or uk.

[cyberhippie]

Couldn't agree more Cap'n

[Snowcrab]

captmahajan, on Sep 1 2006, 08:56 AM, said:

I disagree with two tier pricing for foreigners anywhere. it isnt fair.

including two tier pricing for indians attending universities in the usa or uk.

Exactly the point my Indian houseguest made. I was quite surprised to find that he had to pay 150% more than a Canadian student for his university tuition-and no Students Loans or grants. Of course, his Canadian job pays quite a bit, and would also translate into quite a good position back in India if he wants to return, so it is an investment that will benefit him personally in the long run.

Paying two to four times the Indian rate for everything, not just entrance to monuments, is not really an investment in future potential for most tourists and given that tourists will for the most part be a minor source of revenue for most establishments, government or private unless they are in a very busy tourist area it seems to be sort of counter productive to annoy and discourage them from coming at all with obvious rapacity.

And word does get around, been to a couple of places in India that are hurting now because tourists have put the word out that the place is overcrowded and charging high prices. It's not pretty to see people who have made a long term investment in stock and property loosing their investment because the area became overrun with touts and quick buck scam artists.

[captmahajan]

Snowcrab, on Sep 3 2006, 03:25 AM, said:

Of course, his Canadian job pays quite a bit, and would also translate into quite a good position back in India if he wants to return, so it is an investment that will benefit him personally in the long run.

Paying two to four times the Indian rate for everything, not just entrance to monuments, is not really an investment in future potential for most tourists..

true. however, as an example, my son is studying music in the usa with exhorbitant foreigners fees. though I believe this "investment" will benefit his passion more than his wallet in the long run, my point is that the logic of return on investment doesnt always apply.

one could say a visit to the taj benefits a tourist personally, too.

again, I am against two tier pricing everywhere. just making a point is all.

[GoanCanuck]

Snowcrab, on Sep 2 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

Exactly the point my Indian houseguest made. I was quite surprised to find that he had to pay 150% more than a Canadian student for his university tuition-and no Students Loans or grants.

For students from India studying medicine/dentistry in Canada the tuition fee is 300% more than what is paid by locals.

Edited by GoanCanuck, 03 September 2006 - 08:16 AM.