View of Jaipur from the fort
Fancy palace, looks just like GDL
Amber Fort- all the interns!
Lindsay, Meg and me standing at one of the many entrances to Amber fort
I almost forget to mention-- we took a trip to Jaipur this weekend! It was incredible. Jaipur is the "Pink City," the capital of Rajasthan and filled to the brim with palaces and forts. We spent two days touring some of the forts and bazaars. We met one of Harsh's college friends who took us out for the best kulfi I have ever had. Actually, the majority of the weekend was spent eating: lots of non-veg, lots of kulfi ice cream, and then this cold coffee drink we got that was literally espresso-spiked whipping cream. I made a couple of key purchases, such as some husband-deterrent Aladin pants and a man's kurta pajama suit. I really like how the men dress here: all billowing white fabric and awesome pointy leather shoes. The man in the shop probably thought I was crazy when I tried on the kurta-pajama in the mirror. Cross-dressing hasn't exactly caught on yet in India. What has caught on in India is charging tourists around 10 times more than the local price. For absolutely everything. Entry into the forts was around 150 for foreigners and 10 rupees for Indians. Don't even get me started on the bartering that took place. It was like reliving the Spice Trade, except for that the Westerners now actually have something the locals want.
The whole local-foreigner rate to enter national heritage sites is a pretty interesting debate. At first, I was annoyed. I have had the good fortune to travel around a bit, and I have never encountered differing rates for cultural sites, unless it is a student or senior discount (neither of which Jaipur's attractions offer). I wondered about what kind of up-roar would happen in the US, or in Europe for that matter, if there were vastly different rates for "locals" and "foreigners." Just because there is the assumption that foreigners have more money does not necessarily mean that they have unlimited purchasing power, nor does it mean that international visitors should be financially responsible for the upkeep of these cultural sites. At the same time, one could argue that the Indian government has a responsibility to allow its citizens to visit their country's historical sites at a price they can afford. Compared to the average tourist, Indians have a much lower per capita income, so it evens itself out proportionately. 10 rupees to the average Indian visitor would feel the same in the pocket to 150 rupees for the camera-toting foreigner. It's a pretty interesting debate! Hopefully as I travel more this summer, I will gain some insight on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment