lyntay

Hello - I'm in the planning stages of a trip to India and am going to the following places: Delhi, Jodhpur, Ranakpur, Udaipur, Jojawar, Pushkar, Jaipur, Agra, Varanasi, Mumbai and Ellora. But I have a decision to make: should I include Jaisalmer or Ranthambore National Park. I do not have the time to see them both. Which one would you include and why? Thanks, Cathy

dgunbug

I have not been to the park, but understand the tiger sightings are infrequent. We did spend three days in Jaisalmer and thought it was a wonderful city to visit.

Craig

I hope you have several weeks to accomplish that itinerary. That said, Ranthambore fits in well near Jaipur and Agra, since it is close to each. 2 nights is plenty but you may not see a tiger when you are there. For us it was a nice break from the cities, and we actually did see a tiger. Have not been to Jaisalmer, but if you have more time, it may be a good option if you do not feel you will get tired of the somewhat similar northern Indian forts and architecture.

MmePerdu

I'd vote for Jaisalmer, too, unless even a remote chance of seeing a tiger is worth the sure thing of an entertaining day in a nice town. But your priorities trump any opinions here.

I'd also be inclined to dump Mumbai in favor of more time in smaller places. Another example of personal priorities.

thursdaysd

Totally agree with both dgunbug and MmePerdu, for the reasons given.

lyntay

Okay, you've been very helpful. That was my feeling - that it would be unlikely that I would see a tiger.

MmePerdu - where would you spend more time if not going to Mumbai?

MmePerdu

In principle, I'd spend more time in a place I was already going (for you, a place already on your list) and enjoy them more. I haven't been to some on your list but Jodhpur is one of my all-time favorite places. And there are others, of course, not on your list.

Since I have no idea of your overall itinerary and how long you're spending in each or why, it's impossible to say. I will say, though, that trying to hurry in India is an exercise in futility, it will be a blur, nothing whatever to be gained. I don't know if you've been there before and have a good sense of the pace you'll enjoy.

MmePerdu

By the way, I should also mention, the unspoken phrase with any of these subjective responses such as my comments about pace above, is "in my opinion". And in my opinion my urge to slow down has been particularly rewarded in India because it is such a radically different or "exotic" culture to most of us. And that's precisely why I'm drawn to it. So to rush from place to place gives me less time to take it in, because taking it in takes time. I hope that makes sense.

Some travelers appear to me to like movement for the sake of movement, because they could not possibly actually be seeing more as they do it. Or so it seems to me and I've been doing this a long time and in lots of places and still trying to go slower. It may be, too, a symptom of our time and shorter attention spans. Unless a photo is enough and on to the next one. I want time for the photo and to see.