Visiting India’s ancient monuments? Prepare for racism

[Sky lord]

That's a lie. Seriously!

View attachment 218095View attachment 218095
​

Pakistan Monument Museum Reviews - Islamabad, Islamabad Capital Territory Attractions - TripAdvisor

You people also charge Rs20/- from locals and Rs250/- from foreigners.

Good find. But I don't think they have tourists. The only foreigners are CIA operatives and diplomatic types.

 

[PurpleButcher]

That's a lie. Seriously!

View attachment 218095View attachment 218095
​

Pakistan Monument Museum Reviews - Islamabad, Islamabad Capital Territory Attractions - TripAdvisor

You people also charge Rs20/- from locals and Rs250/- from foreigners.

First of all i would like to apologize for not knowing this since i never witnessed such a thing in Pakistan. I have been to a lot of places but i never observed such a thing take place.

Having said that, i would like to say it is wrong. This thing should not happen in Pakistan and neither anywhere else.

Again my humble apologies.

PS. I hope the reviewer is telling the truth in your link.

 

[Bornubus]

Very logical way to recover the desi wealth/assets used in making of this piece of shyt monument.

Shahjahan Reign witnessed one the worst famine of India which claimed the life of thousands and instead of helping those poor peasants,S.J built this monument of stupidity and callousness

 

[anonymus]

First of all i would like to apologize for not knowing this since i never witnessed such a thing in Pakistan. I have been to a lot of places but i never observed such a thing take place.

Having said that, i would like to say it is wrong. This thing should not happen in Pakistan and neither anywhere else.

Again my humble apologies.

There is no need for apologizing.

This practice of charging higher from tourists, and lower from locals is a universal practice. It is a sort of subsidy given to locals and is extended by all ,but extremely rich countries. This is to ensure that locals know about their heritage and are not priced out due to tickets being priced reasonably. Genuine price of a ticket in any monument is what Foreigners pay , and Locals are heavily subsidized. The only reason that entry is not free for locals is to prevent squatting.


Even Italy has different rate for EU nationals and non EU-nationals. This is a global practice.

Colosseum - Rome - Official Ticket Office

 

[PurpleButcher]

There is no need for apologizing.

This practice of charging higher from tourists, and lower from locals is a universal practice. It is a sort of subsidy given to locals and is extended by all but, extremely rich countries. This is to ensure that locals know about their heritage and are not priced out due to tickets being priced reasonably. Genuine price of a ticket in any monument is what Foreigners pay , and Locals are heavily subsidized. The only reason that entry is not free for locals is to prevent squatting.


Even Italy has different rate for EU nationals and non EU-nationals. This is a global practice.

Colosseum - Rome - Official Ticket Office


I participated in this thread because OP of this thread @syedali73 is a known bigot who is trying to blame us for following global practices.

But it is a wrong practice. Isn't it?. The host country is already earning from the tourists. The earning must be atleast just . Strictly ideally speaking.

 

[Gibbs]

Tís a common practice in almost all developing countries..

 

[anonymus]

But it is a wrong practice. Isn't it?. The host country is already earning from the tourists. The earning must be atleast just . Strictly ideally speaking.

This is a valid ground for having difference in opinion.

My opinion is that locals should have first right over its heritage, and if due to lower purchasing power, they could not afford normal rates, government should subsidize them. I do not see the point in subsidizing foreigners.

You could have flat rates when your population is generally rich enough to afford it. Ticket prices in rich countries serve as barrier to keep poors out (much like clubs, hotels and restaurants in our countries) who are seen as squatters and vagabonds.

Tís a common practice in almost all developing countries..

In many developed countries too.

 

[wolfschanzze]

Citizens of Bharat are exempted since it is their history and it should naturally be free for them to visit and we also pay tax to the government which makes our tickets cheaper,While Foreigners don't pay any taxes to Bharat and therefore the hike in Tickets visiting tourist places.
Every country follows the same model, what is this OP whining about?
Infact UK openly says They will prefer to employ UK citizens in NHS,after that if there are vacancies left they will first give preference to Europeans,secondly East Europeans and lastly if there still any vacancies left for the job then they will consider people from Developing nations.
Is this not Racism? when both applicants are equally qualified for the job?
Every nation follows this model,there is nothing wrong in that.

 

[Mythal]

Its not racism. Its called differential pricing

 

[Jayanta]

Incredible India!
Visiting India’s ancient monuments? Prepare for racism


The idea of who is or isn’t a foreigner manifests daily in a summary assessment of the skin colour of tourists queuing outside the ticket counter of monuments of national importance. You can call this a farcical display of discrimination based on colour, but it can be bruising nevertheless—for Indians and foreigners alike.

This shameful story of racism is an outcome of the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI’s) policy to have dual pricing for entry tickets to the monuments. Under this the foreigners have to pay several times more than Indians. For instance, to enter the Taj Mahal, foreigners pay Rs750 ($12.5), as against the Rs20 ($0.33) Indians do. For visiting the Red Fort or the Humayun Tomb in Delhi, Indians pay Rs10 ($0.17) and foreigners Rs250 ($4.2).

The problem is that there isn’t a mechanism in place through which the citizenship of visitors can be determined. No proof of identity is asked for, and whether a tourist is foreigner is determined by the person at the ticket counter on the basis of his or her notion of who looks Indian in appearance. The colour of skin and facial features become the clinching factors in this egregiously flawed process of determining citizenship.

Thus, anyone who is white or black is asked to buy the more costly ticket unless he or she challenges the person at the counter and furnishes identity documents to prove that they are Indians. Even a person such as Sonia Gandhi, who has relinquished her Italian citizenship for an Indian one, might run the risk of being declared an outsider, only because her complexion is foreign-white.

Judging by the clothes

The legal definition of who is an Indian citizen eludes the person who mans the ticket counter. His or her perception of who is a foreigner is almost always based on colour and sartorial style. Thus, Bangladeshis or Pakistanis or Sri Lankans can swing through the gates of the Taj Mahal for Rs20 even though they too have to pay a higher rate for entry—Rs510—which is Rs240 lower than what others clubbed as foreigners have to dish out. They could get into Delhi’s Red Fort for just Rs10, as their appearance wouldn’t arouse suspicion that they are foreigners.

Nor are those Indians suspected who are brown in colour but are citizens of another country. Really, who would challenge the identity of a lookalike of the West Indian cricketer Shivnaraine Chaderpaul unless he gives away his foreign-ness through his accent? No wonder, foreigners of Indian origin often have their relatives buy tickets at the rates applicable for Indians, evading the possibility of giving themselves away through their accented speech.

But judging the Indian citizenship of visitors from their appearance is demeaning for those who don’t have features or colour the ASI personnel consider Indian. My relative was asked to pay the foreigner’s rate at Delhi’s Humayun tomb because the person at the ticket counter thought she was from the Philippines. She had to speak in Hindi to avail of the Rs10 ticket. Some people from the northeast states experience this slight whenever they are asked, “You foreigner?”

At times, Indians are classified as foreigners because of their sartorial style. For instance, wear shorts, t-shirt and a cap, and you might be gruffly asked to pay the amount charged from the foreigner. To prove his Indian-ness, one journalist uttered the choicest abuses in the local language.

This dual pricing policy is justified on the basis that tickets for visiting historical sites abroad are priced far higher than they are in India, and foreigners, therefore, are not only accustomed to paying high rates, but can also afford it. It enhances the revenue of the Archaeological Survey of India, enabling it to maintain and manage better the monuments under its charge. But this logic is flawed—tickets for visiting historical sites in Asian and African countries are not, unlike in the West, priced exorbitantly high.

Resentment among backpackers

Charging higher fees from foreigners without granting them special rights to access monuments is both exploitative and discriminatory. Such policies are opposed because they spawn in a category of people a feeling of hurt and victimisation.

You might think tourists from the prosperous European or American or southeast Asian nations would be oblivious of the dual pricing of entry tickets. But ask Sanjay Sharma, who is the president of regional-level-approved Guides Association of Agra, ministry of tourism. He says the backpacker bunch resent ASI’s dual pricing policy and often whisper among themselves the inherent injustice of having to pay more than Indians to visit historical sites in and around Agra.

“The more prosperous of tourists don’t bother because their tours are organised through travel agencies which have already paid for their entry tickets,” said Sharma. “They don’t have to purchase tickets at the counter, which is where different rates for different classes of tourists are listed. Most of them are oblivious of the discriminatory policy.”

When the dual pricing for tickets was announced well over a decade ago, Sharma says Agra witnessed protests and dharnas (demonstrations) against it. Even the Allahabad high court was petitioned, he said, but the dual pricing policy was upheld. “The differential ticket rates speak poorly for India,” Sharma said. “Do Indian citizens have to pay a higher entry fee than the Europeans for visiting museums or historical sites in their countries?”

He says some restaurants owners have taken to printing two sets of menu cards—the costlier one is presented to the foreigners. As is the case at the monuments, the colour of skin is the principal determinant of who is a foreigner. Point to the unfairness of this practice and these restaurateurs will, in the manner of the government, shoot back: Isn’t eating out far costlier in Europe than in India?

Visiting India’s ancient monuments? Prepare for racism – Quartz

Let me explain you....want to come to UK or US for studies be prepared for racism. An EU PhD students pay £4000/annum as tuition fees where as international students (including students from developing countries) have to pay £16000 for the same course.
Now the entrance rate for foreigners was equivalent in US$...the domestic entrance was Rs10 and foreigners US$10....however it has changed now domestic tourist pays Rs20 while foreigners still pay US$10 approx.
Why Indians pay less...well they are Indian citizen and pay their taxes in India.

Good find. But I don't think they have tourists. The only foreigners are CIA operatives and diplomatic types.

Come on don't insult them...there are many foreign tourists but most of them come there for another type of tourism...where in they get trained how to make IED and blow things up.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I think it's damn fine idea for India to charge Pakistani's 10 times what they charge other foreigners. In Pakistan we need to charge 10 times whatever they charge to go to India and then 10 times on coming back. That should dissuade anybody going to that dump.

And anybody going to India more then once loses Pak citizenship. No Pakistani should visit India other than officials.

Ps. Still can't frankly figure out why a Pakistani would want to go to India when there is a whole world to explore.

 

[bongbang]

Yeah Bangladeshi Pakistani and Srilankans are very much Indian why charge them as foreigners

 

[Psychic]

We also charge foreigners more in parks,museums and historical sites. It is well known to me.

 

[halupridol]

I think it's damn fine idea for India to charge Pakistani's 10 times what they charge other foreigners. In Pakistan we need to charge 10 times whatever they charge to go to India and then 10 times on coming back. That should dissuade anybody going to that dump.

And anybody going to India more then once loses Pak citizenship. No Pakistani should visit India other than officials.

Ps. Still can't frankly figure out why a Pakistani would want to go to India when there is a whole world to explore.

dont know about all the Pakistanis visiting India,,,,but hordes of them do come here to this "dump" to avail better medical care that they cant even dream of in there own penduland.....haath jor kar aatey hae aur haath jor kar wapas jatey hae.
even Pak ppl frm US n UK keep whining n complaining about not getting visa for India,,,, guess u shud ask them,will help u figure out why they want to visit India.

 

[Lord ZeN]

And anybody going to India more then once loses Pak citizenship. No Pakistani should visit India other than officials.
Ps. Still can't frankly figure out why a Pakistani would want to go to India when there is a whole world to explore.

lolzz man.. So are you going to strip citizenship of Pakistani actors like Ali Zafar and Fawad Khan just for travelling to India more than once.