Applied for 1-year Tourist, but got 6 months Tourist Visa

I am an American citizen. Last month I applied to my regional embassy (Washington, DC) for a 1-year Tourist visa to India. I included all fees ($85 + $15 Priority Mail) and I filled out all of the paperwork.

Today I received my visa and it was for only six (6) months. There was a receipt inside the envelope showing my $85 + $15 payment. The envelope had no other notes or information inside.

Was I denied a 1-year visa? Or could the six month visa have been a processing error?

My flight leaves on July 11th, so I do not have time to re-submit.

Thanks in advance for your help and suggestions!
Nick from Atlanta

I couldn't speculate on why this happened, but even if you had been given a full one-year visa (or if you had applied for a 10-year visa and received it), you could still not stay in India more than 180 days at a time. You'd be required to leave the country and re-enter it, which is what you're going to have to do now. Now you have to leave, and spend a few days in Nepal or Sri Lanka or someplace else (a side trip to Bangkok) and apply for a new tourist visa to fill out the rest of the year, if that's how long you plan to stay travel in India.

Should the 6-month visa have cost less?

The visa form used in the San Francisco Office of the Consulate General of India does have two different prices for 6-month visas and 1-year visas. There's also a space to check to indicate which period of time you're applying for.

So they owe this guy money?

Either they got the period wrong, or they forgot the change: there's a mistake there somewhere.

I called the Embassy today, and it was a mistake. I will send my passport FedEx overnight and they will return it to me with a corrected visa next week. (They cannot under any circumstances return my money.) Nice person on the phone and she seemed genuinely concerned about the mistake.
Thanks for your help everyone.

Good outcome

In the UK the Indian Embassy never answer the phones.
Thats my experience anyway although you can e-mail your queries via the HCI London website.

Do you get answers to the emails?

I have known of people who live in non-english speaking countries, have had prompt email responses from Indian Embassies or Consulates in their respective countries.

I meant from London.

There seems to be a huge difference between the foreign missions in different countries.

London has a reputation for efficiency and getting the work done at the counter, but I have the impression that they are not so good at communication --- eg not answering the phone.

Hello, My girlfriend is in Kazakhstan and she belongs to that country. She wants to come to India to meet me and she says in email, "I think I can get tourist visa for more than 6 months, thre were some options. I think 1 year or so..."

Is her statement true? and if she gets 1 year long tourist visa, can she continuously live in India for 1 year long time period? I heard something that foreigner must leave India within six months and should re-enter if they want. is this applicable even when she has 1 year visa?

I am confused. can anyone throw light on this? any experience?

There are thousands of posts about this. A visa is not the same as permission to stay. If you have a hundred-year visa, you can enter at any time during those 100 years. But permission to stay (after each entry) is for no more than six months.

I have a ten year visa but I better be gone after 180 days..

I really don't know why there are so many problems with Indian tourist visa nowadays. It use to be far better before the days of outsourcing. Now they are picky and as for the phantom 1 year tourist visa - it does not exist. No one gets them. I asked for one early this year and was told by the London outsourcing office - I would never get one so don't bother.

There was a BBC programme about tourist in India - aired sometime in Sept. I missed it. Apparently India is the least favourite place to visit for tourists. Thailand, and South East Asia offered a much better service in all respects.

personally I think India is shooting itself in the foot.