Is 3 months too long?

I'm heading out travelling for the first time, on my own and India is my first stop. I was thinking I'd like to spend 3 months. My friend went to India and she was there one month and said with the places I wanted to see that 3 months was too long.

So I'd like to go to Kerala, Goa, Mumbai, Delhi, Agra, Amritsar, Darjeeling, Rathmabore national park, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Jaisialmer, Udaipur and Varanasi. Sorry for the terrible spellings of these names.

I like seeing temples, churches, mosques and I'd like to go on a tiger safari, kerela backwaters tour, darjeeling toy train and to visit the elephant festival. Do you think this is too much, or two little. Would I be better going for 2 months?

Thanks all for your help.

Looking at the number of places and if you have the luxury of time, atleast 2 months is advised.

3 lifetimes isn't long enough!

Seriously though, three months is a nice amount for a first trip. It gives you a little time to relax and ease yourself in but is not so long that you'll feel trapped. The thing about travelling to any country is that many tourists rush through all the "must-see" places in a few weeks, but those who really want to know a place take it slow and allow lots of time to watch and understand. The reality is that you could travel around India for your whole life and still not run out of things to see, do, understand, experience, etc. And also remember, India is BIG country.

Your friend may just be jealous that she could only be here for a month, but you may get to go for 3 :P!

I've spent over a year of my life in Varanasi alone (and still want more) so I think your plan and time are good ones, definitely not too much. My best India trips (and I've never been for any less than four months) have been the ones where I can sit in a place for a while and not move; when I can get into the place I am, instead of bouncing off them. You may very well find that you want to move more, but you'll only know once you start your travels. And, once you get there, you also may very well hear of places you hadn't planned on going that now sound like they're worth a visit. Stick with three months. Safe travels.

Thanks everyone.

I don't want to rush my travels. I'd rather take it easy and if I like a place then have the freedom to stay a bit longer. Would you all recommend couch surfing in India as a good way to meet some people. 3 months is a long time for solo travel and not being on a tour.

Fin Fang, if your accommodation budget is around 400 (plus or minus 200) rupees/night, you will meet lots of people!

When are thinking of going?

And as for "solo" travel, sab has it right, you'll meet people . . . the hardest part for some solo travelers is simply opening their hostel door and going out . . . once you do that, the people you're looking for are just on the other side

Those are a lot of places and would be nice if you able to give it plenty of time.

It depends on the personal preference as well. Some people stay for several weeks at a place(or even several months at single place;for example, at Banaras - Varanasi). While most of people would stay a couple of days at a place like Banaras. Some people like to 'see' the places, then they need shorter time; and some people like to see and 'feel' the places, then it needs more time.

You have Goa, Kerala and Darjeeling in the list as well. These places are quite relaxing, and deserve to have longer stay.

I have several friends who regret to have only one or two months for travelling India.

I went last November for three months thinking it was the perfect amount of time. It turned out that it wasn't near enough time so I'm thinking about going back for six months.

There is a lot to see and do but with a little extra time it's really nice to sit in a place for a week or two and soak it all in. I spent some time in a few places where all I did was go for daily walks and I met so many wonderful people. Of course the sites can keep you busy too.

I say go for the three months!

I spent a month in half the paces you have on your list. You'll need two months as a bare minimum, three is better yet.

I went for 3 months but extended to six and I am heading back for more

Thanks for all the replies. I think I'll stick with my plan of 3 months. If I don't like it I can always leave earlier, or head to Nepal or Sri Lanka for a month instead.

I'm going for my first time in January. I also plan to stay for 3 months and now going through the Kerala forum to decide which area to settle in.

I haven't really traveled for 20 years but am retired now and want to experience new places, and most of all India. As it is still some time away I don't feel the need to make any specific plans yet but I <know> it's going to be perfect and everything will work out.

You could spend 3 month's wandering any area in India & it wouldn't be enough.
Take your time, enjoy the experience & go back when you have more time...

I spent around 3 months in India last year.

Believe me, I'd love to be able to go on another 3 month long trip (maybe in a few more years!)! There's so much to see, do and experience: as others have said, years and years wouldn't be enough to see the whole of India! My next trip will be about a month and I'm thinking of restricting myself to one state.. So that should tell you a bit about how much there is in India!