Indian Talent, Global Content |
New and Improved: May 2012
Just Launched - New eStore selling travel guides, editing courses, ebooks and special offers |
Entry to Indian Historical Monuments: Foreigners Pay More. Is it Fair?
There are no obvious answers as to why the foreigner in India pays more than an Indian to visit historical sites. International tourists often pay several times what is charged of the Indian. One of the strongest, though implicit, arguments for a differential fee appears to be that the sum is a negligible amount to the tourist, where we assume that tourists visiting carry a relatively stronger currency with them. The other argument (again implicit) seems to be that someone other than an Indian should pay more to see what is “ours”. Perhaps the most persuasive of the possible reasons is that the traveler who comes from rural or tiny-town India will be unable to afford the high costs. In fact, several countries in Asia charge a higher fee to visiting foreigners. For anyone visiting the Grand Palace and Temple of the Emerald Buddha in Bangkok, Thailand, entrance alone sets you back by about 250 Baht, which is the equivalent of about Rs 320. The local Thai walks in at no cost at all! Places of interest such as museums, art galleries and historical buildings in European countries are uniformly high. Many countries have special concessions for students and members of related societies, or offer passes that are valid at several places. Indian authorities could take a leaf out of their book, and charge a uniform, though higher, fee. Or do we not trust that the Indian will want to see national heritage sites for a higher charge? A tourist from rural or small town India would find it difficult to pay a higher fee per head. Do they forgo the experience altogether? The issue is not merely one of fees. Many of us have walked into a monument tucked away in a corner of a dizzyingly busy city, only to find that “Raju was here” and “Tinku loves Pinku”! The question isn’t merely that of how much is charged of whom, but how we have chosen to treat our heritage monuments and sites. The issue at hand is of conservation. Despite claiming pride in our long, varied and culturally rich past, there is little evidence of it in our treatment of our monuments. Such indifference to the past might also have something to do with being rooted in a philosophical premise whose popular understanding treats the material and temporal as illusion. That, however, is stuff for a debate of a different sort. Very few of us Indians seem to value what we have left of our cultural legacy. This might be changing slowly, but not nearly enough is being done in terms of preservation. Ridiculously small fees are charged at some smaller sites that are less popular and spectacular but are of historical, artistic and local significance. Sums as little as Rs.5! The rupee inflates, fee rates need revision. The beleaguered and under-funded ASI might then be able to cover costs of conservation and restoration - if only it is to efface more recent etchings over priceless history. Assuming the fees go at least in part towards the upkeep of a place, it stands to reason that it is we, the owners of the past, that are on display who should be responsible, At least to the same extent as the visiting German or African. Are we, as Indians, more likely to value our heritage more if we pay more to see it? Perhaps it is an experiment worth a try. Chillibreeze's disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of Chillibreeze as a company. Chillibreeze has a strict anti-plagiarism policy. Please contact us to report any copyright issues related to this article.
>> Read more articles written by Chillibreeze writers:1. Articles related to Content and Outsourcing
|
Premium Services
Products Must Reads... Upgrade Your Writing |
||||||||||||||
Copyright 2004 - 2011 Chillibreeze Solutions Pvt. Ltd. |
