Oh sorry I didn't go to Pakistan. I thought you were talking about how the India visa process works for Indian-Americans. Well, yeah, they're minimum wage employees with a lot of power.
India's visa rule is unfairly persecuting innocent Pakistanis Being born in Pakistan is not a evidence of predisposition to commit terrorist acts. The visa rules are racist, and must change Most people would be shocked if they went to the visa website of a London embassy and read: "Processing time is two to three days for British citizens, but seven to eight weeks for British citizens of Jewish origin". Indeed, advertising an intention to discriminate is contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976. Yet, explicit discrimination of this kind can be found on the website for visas for India: "Processing time for UK Nationals is a minimum of 2-3 working days ... Processing time of applications received from persons of Pakistani origin [including British citizens] will be minimum 7-8 weeks." Pakistani ethnic origin is detected through questions about place of birth and previous nationality, both for the applicant and their parents. Disclosing a link with Pakistan triggers demands for extra information and a long processing period, which in many cases makes travel to India impossible. India is effectively banning more than half a million British citizens of Pakistani origin from travelling to India as tourists, on business, or to participate in academic conferences or student exchange programmes. Looking behind a British passport and treating an individual differently, because they or their parents were born in Pakistan, is direct or indirect racial discrimination violating UK, European and international human rights law. It cannot be justified under any circumstances, because it is a first step down a very slippery slope of racism. In 1933, Nazi Germany excluded German citizens of Jewish origin from the civil service. In 1942, the United States arrested all US citizens of Japanese origin living on the west coast, and transferred them to prison camps. It makes no difference that India is practising racial discrimination against British citizens rather than its own. India would object very strongly if Australia, Canada, China or the US made it much harder for British citizens of Indian origin (but not Pakistani origin) to obtain a tourist visa. India's racist visa rule is an irrational response to the tragic attacks in Mumbai in November 2008. The attackers arrived by sea, without visas, deliberately evading all border controls. No visa rule of any kind could have stopped them. The rule appears to be based on the case of the convicted terrorist David Headley, a US citizen of Pakistani origin who made several trips to Mumbai to scout locations for the attacks. But when he applied for an Indian visa, Headley failed to disclose his previous name, and falsely stated that his father's name was Headley. Terrorists planning to kill or assist killers will not be deterred by questions on a visa application form. They will give false information. But thousands of innocent people of Pakistani origin who answer truthfully may find themselves barred from India. Under UK, European and international human rights law, suspicion of potential to commit a crime must be based on an individual's own conduct, not on their racial or ethnic origin. India should apply the same security check to all British citizens applying for visas. If the check reveals no cause for concern, the visa should be issued. Being born in Pakistan, or the child of a person born in Pakistan, is not a crime, nor evidence of predisposition to commit terrorist acts in India. In the 1980s, India could have been accused of "exporting terrorism". The 1985 bombing of an Air India 747 flying from Montreal to London killed 329 people, including 280 Canadian citizens. This terrible crime was linked to extremist Sikh nationalism in India. Should Canada have retaliated by adopting a similar rule, requiring British and US citizens of Indian origin to apply for visas, issued after a long wait, if at all? During the painful recovery from traumatic terrorist attacks, it is tempting for governments to abandon human rights principles and impose sweeping restrictions on the innocent. But this temptation must be resisted. This weekend, we celebrate the independence days of Pakistan and India, and recall (many of us with shame) Britain's role in the partition and its bloody aftermath, which includes the unfinished business of Kashmir. The vast majority of British citizens sincerely hope that India and Pakistan will find a way to end their cold war. But India's decision to punish British (US, Canadian and other) citizens of Pakistani origin, by making it extremely difficult for them to travel to India, will do nothing to help resolve its conflict with Pakistan. On the contrary, it will cause those who are denied visas to resent India for excluding them, rather than praise India's democracy and economic growth, after their visits. And it puts British universities and employers sending groups of students or staff to India in a very difficult position. Should they cancel the trip for all, or say to their fellow British citizens "No Pakistanis need apply"?
I've been to India for work a few times and I have to disagree with this. India is the foulest smelling place in the world. Everywhere you go, you can't get away from that feces smell. Its so crowded and the poverty is so rampant... beggars everywhere. I don't know why anyone would volunteer to go there on a vacation or for leisure.
Everywhere you go? Where exactly have you been? Bombay is everything you described. However, places like Ladakh, Shimla, Goa, Rajasthan, places in south India would be amazing to visit. So much history, culture and yes beauty. But yes its not made for everyone.
You and slandballa are two lucky mofos. I really want to go to India but don't have the knowledge of how to go about a road trip and really don't like doing so through online sources. If/when any of you guys do go on such a trip, please remember to post details here, would be highly appreciated!
I'm in India right now. :grin: Yes there's plenty of poverty and its not tourist friendly but I'm enjoying myself just fine. Also sorry to hear about the visa situation. The Indian Consulate system might literally be the worst in the world. I asked some of my relatives about visiting India with Pakistani ties and its even more ridiculous than I thought it was. For example, my family knows someone who was born in Karachi before the partition. He then moved to India and lived there for 20 years before moving to the US and getting US citizenship. He then gets denied a visa because he was born in "Pakistan" even though Pakistan didnt exist at the time and he moved to India during independence and consequently got Indian citizenship. Not to mention now if you were formerly an Indian citizen they are making you dig up your old Indian passports that most people forgot about and turn them in or wait 3 months for a background check before getting a visa. So a lot of Indians are pretty pissed off since a few years ago they used to give visas in 6 hours. Now they are taking forever for everyone. They also jacked up the prices of visas and PIO cards. If you keep pestering them they'll eventually give you a visa but its up to you if you think its worth the effort.
He said he wasn't from India (learn how to read pal) And not wanting to go to India is ignorant? Pretty sure a lot of people would never want to go there
I'll post some details when I get some time but my trip is going from Hyderabad to Bombay to Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Bangalore, New delhi/Agra, and then Rajasthan. I wanted to visit Ladakh and dharmsala but I couldnt fit it in. I'll do those next time I go.
Why are you going from central India to the north then back to the south and then back north? You must love those trains. I'll be honest though, the trains are much better than flying Air India. Btw, Hyderabad ftw!!!
Not wanting to go there for the reasons he mentioned is pretty ignorant. A lot of people might not go there but a lot of other people still do visit for the pure purpose of tourism and adventure. They're not little girls who are afraid to get cooties.
I've been to Jodhpur (one of my fav cities), Agra (Taj Mahal), and couple others.. fantastic places! Some ppl go for Himalayas, Ganga river etc... It's a big country, many and very different things to see, lots to offer. For travel, it's a winner if you don't mind the sanitation. I believe its tourism is doing well, if the terrorism didnt affect too much.
It's a beautiful place. The culture, food, people, colors... So many different regions that offer unique experiences. I guess if you have no appreciation of different life and culture, it wouldn't be fun to go.
I said pick one of those right? Perhaps you want to learn how to read bud. If somebody themselves don't want to go to India, more power to them and that's not being ignorant. I'm sure lots and lots of people never want to set foot there. And I am sure lots and lots of people have visited India and will continue to visit it. Ignorant is somebody like you who probably can't understand why others would want to go there.
I was born there, but moved to Houston about 25 years ago. Only been back twice and last time was almost 8 years ago. Would love to go just back pack top to bottom for about three months. Never seem to get the time though. Wife is also a damn Paki so that will of course make it difficult. Might go next year with my brother or just hell by myself. Past trips have been only to Bombay. Not going to lie, when I went in 2002 and first landed it was a nightmare. The freakin smell was bad and the beggars everywhere. Called my wife the next day and told her it sucks and didn't know what the hell I had gotten myself into. After a few days though I started to absolutely love it. The food, the culture, partying..... Bombay is an amazing place to party. Super expensive even in dollars though.
