This is a blog post from
This is how a foreigner enters the Taj Mahal compound: Buys ticket from counter, takes free bottle of water and shoe cover, walks to the ‘high ticket holder’ queue, walks in straight.
This is how an Indian enters the Taj Mahal compound: Buys ticket after standing in a non-existent queue for at least 10 minutes, buys water after paying Rs. 20 from shops near the entrance, haggles for shoe cover price, after a few minutes of back-and-forth argument pays Rs. 10 for the shoe cover (or does not buy at all ), stands in line to go through security check for at least 30 mins — not counting the Sunday rush, shows ID card at security check, goes through security check, and (finally) walks in.
This, at just the entrance. Entering the mausoleum is another ordeal altogether (foreigners have a separate entrance for this too).
But foreigners pay Rs. 750 for the ticket instead of Rs. 20 Indians pay, you say? That’s exactly my point here. Making foreigners pay more at historical sites or museums and giving them preferential treatment, while we Indians slug it out, is downright racist. Or for that matter, making foreigners pay more just because they’re non-Indian is racist too.
It’s infuriating to see that we’re going back to the colonial times where Indians are treated differently. Why do we have to stand in a different queue at Taj Mahal? Equality, clearly, comes at a higher price.
The idea of dual pricing, explains K.K. Mohammed, former regional director of North, Archaeological Survey of India, is the high ticket prices for museums and historical across the world. “Ticket prices in India are very low, even for foreigners. Besides, most of the monuments have free entry. For example, Delhi has 174 historical monuments and only 10 have entry by ticket. This way, the ASI makes some amount of money,” Mr. Mohammed said.
All in the looks
The immediate image of a foreigner that comes to our mind is somebody from the western part of the globe, somebody who’s ‘richer’. But not every foreigner is from the developed world. People from all over the world come to India.
Why should tourists from Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia — countries where the GDP is lower compared to India, in some cases — have to pay so much money to see world-famous monuments? What about backpackers who come here on a shoestring budget?
Making them pay up to 3,750% more is not just unfair, it’s fleecing them. Assuming that they can afford to pay so much is classist.
“I organise a lot of group tours, sometimes with foreigners, and I have experienced first-hand, how foreigners are clearly put off by being asked to pay more than locals. A German tourist was of the opinion that if you are so proud of your heritage, wouldn’t we want to make it easier for people all over the world to come and see it?” says Dr. Uma Joseph, Associate Professor, Head, Department of History and Tourism, St. Francis College, Hyderabad.
She further adds that if making money was the criteria, heritage monuments should be corporatised. The Taj Group of Hotels has effectively managed to make a money-spinning machine out of Falaknuma Palace, once a washed out heritage monument.
On the other hand, nowhere in the developed world do foreigners have to pay more than what locals do. If I visit the Louvre Museum in Paris, I pay €15 — the same as the French do, or even The Great Wall of China where I, or anybody else, have to pay CNY 45.
To be fair, India isn’t the only country where foreigners are made to pay more. Several Middle Eastern countries — Jordan, Lebanon and Iran — have dual pricing for foreigners as well.
Does that mean India is justified in charging dual prices? No, and here’s why. The footfall of tourists is very high in India; about 40,000 tourists and locals come to see the Taj Mahal on weekends alone. In this scenario, the differential pricing does not make sense, at least when the argument is about ‘raising’ more money. Besides, we’d want to be more tourist-friendly to attract more feigners towards India.
What should be done instead, says M.N. Rajesh, Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of Hyderabad, is increase ticket prices: “Ticket prices for Indians are abysmally low. That should be increased. Having said that, there should be a uniform price for all — foreigner or not. Instead, the authorities should charge more for advanced commercial photography.”
If pride for heritage prompts us to charge more, or it’s the money that we need, it in no way justifies that two people sharing the same enthusiasm for history be charged separately for the same experience, irrespective of where they come from.
But, we’re coherently racist any way.
