Rediff has blocked this message which contains nothing abusing or derogatory? is Rediff on Karnataka side Sir??? I give the message of one friend which has been blocked :
"It is obvious that the author of this article has not read the verdict in its entirety. He has failed to note important points like - 50 tmc of catchment water will remain with karnatak other than the 270 tmc alloted. Moreover, you need water to recharge ground water...it does not appear magically ! Unfortunately people are only reading the final 2 numbers and not the details. Actually, Karnatak's only problem is that there is no clear cut distress sharing formula in the verdict. "
RE:Flawed Article
by Lucifer Sam on Feb 07, 2007 01:33 PM Permalink
oh yeah mr. vidyadar rao, I had made som comments too that had no abusive words or contained anything but logical rebuttal of a comment. yet, my comment was removed. and I had written a pro-karnataka comment. does it mean rediff is on the side of tamil nadu? about your friend's insight about needing water for charging ground water, I agree... that is not achieved by denuding forests to distribute free land to landless labourers to get votes. It requires forest cover and rain water harvesting, maintaining catchment areas. It also requires construction of small canals, barrages and dams to store and distribute water where it is needed. Not sit and wait till karnataka to build all that is necessary to store and distribute water and then demand, blackmail and get water free of cost... It is this aspect which has been addressed by the author. TN even protests desilting of dams in karnataka, tell me how you can store water in shallow dams? is this your humanitarian approach?
RE:RE:Flawed Article
by Prasanna Veerabhadraiah on Feb 07, 2007 04:40 PM Permalink
Surprised to see even my pro-comment removed. i dont mind. I believe in rediff more strongly now that it is unbiased.
