Water Starved Karnataka & Water Wasting TN – Exclusive

Water Starved Karnataka & Water Wasting TN – Exclusive

by ekavi / ellakavi associate and partner: Ravinder Singh

February 25, 2007 Posted by ellakavi | Bangalore, Karnataka and Kannada, Nanjundappa Report | 3 Comments

Final award may leave Bangalore parched{CAUVERY ISSUE}

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb92007/index2557200729.asp

Bangalore may become uninhabitable in not-so-distant future, unless Karnataka farmers from the Cauvery basin area spare some water from their share for the burgeoning population here.

Sample this: the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal has in its final order concluded that two-thirds of the State capital are not entitled to Cauvery water. The reason: two-thirds of the City lie outside the Cauvery basin area in Karnataka.

The tribunal, thus, took into consideration the drinking water requirement of only one-third of Bangalore. The quantity of water allotted: 0.87 tmc ft.

Actually, 0.87 TMC is the gross drinking water allocation made by the tribunal for one-third of Bangalore and other cities and towns of Karnataka falling within the basin area.

“Since two-thirds of Bangalore City lie outside the basin, we are considering the drinking water requirement of Bangalore City for its portion of that area which lies within the Cauvery basin…” the final order states on Page 102, Volume 5.

Silicon city

While making projections of the drinking water requirement for year 2011, the tribunal did its calculations on the basis of the 1991 Census. Ironically, all that development Bangalore underwent in the last decade – the City has grown into a silicon hub, attracting migrant work force from across the country and lately abroad – were in vain after all.

The State government had made an appeal to allocate 30 tmc ft of water for Bangalore City. The final order, however, said: “We are considering the existing requirements as indicated in 1990, i.e. 14.52 tmc…,”

The tribunal found that the drinking water requirement of one-third of Bangalore is less than 0.87 tmc ft. The final order does not quantify one-third Bangalore’s share, though. And, 1.75 tmc ft of water is actually allocated for drinking water for one-third of Bangalore, other cities (including Mysore) and towns and rural areas in the entire Cauvery basin area of the state.

What it actually means is the people living in one-third of Bangalore are only entitled to 15 litres of Cauvery water per day per person!

Ground water

How did the tribunal arrive at the figure? The calculation is like this: the total “consumptive” water requirement of one-third of Bangalore and other cities, towns and rural areas is 17.22 tmc ft. Fifty per cent of this requirement will be met from ground water.

The other fifty per cent, i.e. 8.75 tmc ft, has to be met from the river supplies. These figures are arrived at on the basis that 25 per cent of urban population is allowed 135 litres per capita per day (lpcd) while the remaining 75 per cent is allowed 100 lpcd.

In the case of one-third of Bangalore, the tribunal has, however, allowed 150 lpcd. For rural areas of the basin the allocation is 70 lpcd. The total requirement in the three urban categories works out to 8.70 tmc ft and the rural category 8.52. The combined requirement is 17.22 tmc ft, of which 50 per cent (8.75) is to be met from ground water sources.

Consumptive use

Of the remaining 8.75 tmc ft, the actual “consumptive use” is just 20 per cent, which works out to 1.75 tmc ft and urban areas the share works out to 0.87 per cent.

Why only 20 per cent of the actual estimated requirement was allocated?

“Out of 100 units of water initially lifted for domestic use only about 20 units are consumed and the remaining 80 units come back as return flow into the river basin,” the final order says, quoting a past official report to justify allocation of only 20 per cent of its estimated requirement.

February 16, 2007 Posted by ellakavi | Bangalore, Karnataka and Kannada, Nanjundappa Report | Leave a Comment

Are Karnataka Farmers Slaves or Bonded Labors? e.Petition February10, 2007

Are Karnataka Farmers Slaves or Bonded Labors?

From: Ravinder Singh <corruptionfree2007@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:12 am
Subject: Are Karnataka Farmers Slaves or Bonded Labors?

e.Petition February10, 2007

Honorable sh. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam,

President of India

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi- 110004

Are Karnataka Farmers Slaves or Bonded Labors? 

Respected Sir,

Firstly I am concerned by the unequal treatment of citizens of two different states by the GOI in Cauvery Tribunal Award, secondly very poor food production in Cauvery basin- potential shortfall of 30 million tones from 5.5 million hectare cultivable area in the basin and thirdly irresponsible conduct of states of India.

Tribunal sadly ignored the needs of the farmers and gave in to politics. Karnataka farmers in Cauvery basin get little rains and little Canal waters to raise a paddy crop but water of Karnataka is taken out to raise 2-3 poor paddy crops in TN.

It would have been satisfying had TN raised something like 20 million tones of paddy from 2-3 crops in 2.9 million hectares, Punjab raises 15 million tones of paddy in single crop over 2.5 million hectares. But yield in four Cauvery districts is 1.2 million tones only. Thus there is a strong case for restricting paddy cultivation to single cropping pattern in both Cauvery basin states.

Inventor�s Award would have been to first focus on fulfilling Karnataka needs of irrigating paddy in Southwest monsoon period and use 270 TMC water allocated to it and then let most of the water in its dams to raise good crop in TN during Northwest monsoon when TN get maximum rains.

Farmers of Karnataka were treated by TN as bonded labor or slaves, which �Robbing� of their water resources render them, while anti bonded labor/slavery laws are in place but farmers of Karnataka have been tied by Tribunal Award for many more generations. A ruler ceded its rights to use riparian waters to another rulers under alien rule and fifth or sixth generation continue to pay the debt like slaves, denied of their natural rights to riparian waters. Clause II of the Tribunal Award recognizes 1892 and 1924 pre independence agreements.

For 115 years Cauvery basin people are fighting over use of Cauvery waters, there is very little productive use of water in Cauvery, food-grains production in TN using most of Cauvery water food production in the four Cauvery districts of TN is just 1.2 million tones or around 5 million tones food grain production in entire basin- Punjab allocated less water than in Cauvery produces 25 million tones. Cauvery could have been producing 35 million tones.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/06/stories/2007020603861000.htm

Now it known Tribunal Awarded 192 TMC water at Biligundlu which translates to committed releases of 217 TMC at Mettur Dam against interim award of 205. Water resource of Cauvery is 740 TMC. Tribunal has also awarded 30 TMC to Kerala and 21 TMC of that shall be in Karnataka account. Thus Karnataka has to release 217+21 TMC of water or 238 TMC against 205 prescribed earlier in interim order. 

But mischief in Cauvery Tribunal Award is dependability of 50% against 75% taken as a rule. The water in the basin is calculated to be 740 TMC based on 50% dependability but at Lower Cooleron Anicut- up to 10% of Cauvery water may be generating below the Lower Cooleron Anicut.

It is also noticed that design discharge of the Lower Cooleron Anicut is 4,50,000 cusecs, yield of Cauvery is calculated above this point. There are obviously substantial overflows going waste. Dams in the upstream could have captured substantial surplus waters.

Cauvery Tribunal Award was not influenced by �Expert Opinion or Public Interest� but by political demands. When Karnataka is raising paddy and need maximum water, prescribed releases for June-July-August-September-October months are 10, 34, 50, and 40 TMC = 134 TMC or 70% of 192 TMC prescribed releases in Cauvery for TN. Cauvery Tribunal award therefore sabotages agriculture in Karnataka when it could have easily supported one fully assisted crop each in Karnataka and TN.

It is utterly foolish of the Cauvery Tribunal to prescribe 134 TMC water releases for paddy in June-September when TN get 320 mm rains in 122 days not when TN get 670 mm rains in 92 days for paddy. Tribunal ought to have ensured adequate water releases for main crops in both states and then proceeded to allocate surplus.

Inventor has noted TN has demanded and Cauvery Tribunal Agreed to only 45 TMC or 23% of 192 TMC of water for main Samba crop of paddy during Northwest monsoon October-November-December (22,15 and 8 TMC) to avoid overflows in to sea. Mettur dam has live capacity of 90 TMC so TN could manage up to 135 TMC of water releases Samba crop, which is not adequate for 2.9 million hectares of cultivable land.

Area under paddy in Cauvery districts of TN is 5,70,000 hectares only in four Cauvery districts. Tribunal Award is therefore a big fraud in prescribing 419 TMC to TN.

Data From India�s Water Wealth � by K.L. Rao

Area in Thousand Hectares

Rainfall In Millimeter In Karnataka

http://education.vsnl.com/imdchennai/mon_karnataka_snl.htm

http://des.kar.nic.in/AGS/AgriStatPerShareDistgrains.html

http://www.kar.nic.in/websites.asp?category=6

http://hassan.nic.in/htmls/stat.htm

It can be seen in the data given in K.L. Rao book India�s Water Wealth, are under canal irrigation was only 170,000 hectares or 7% of the cultivable area in Karnataka compared to 940,000 hectares or 32% in TN.

Karnataka get most of rains in 122 day Southwest monsoon period but the rainfall in Karnataka four major districts in Cauvery basin below Krishna Raj Sagar dam is 400 mm only. So it is essential to release canal waters to assist paddy cultivation and get good crops.

But in TN most of the rains fall during Northeast Monsoon from October-November-December period.

Rainfall In Millimeter In Tamil Nadu

REMEDY;

(A) A law must be enacted to firstly prescribe river waters based on food grains production and to penalize waste of river waters.

(B) One large dam was required by both states to trap water for their use.

(C) Water saving technologies ought to be introduced in conveying waters to crops.

Thank you,

Petitioner;

Ravinder Singh

Inventor & Consultant

Corruptionfree2007@yahoo.com

Povertyfree77@yahoo.com

http://education.vsnl.com/imdchennai/pre_mon_tn_snl.htm

http://education.vsnl.com/imdchennai/mon_tn_snl.htm

http://education.vsnl.com/imdchennai/ne_mon_tn_snl.htm

http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/tab03_03.htm

http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/tab04_06.htm

http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/tab04_12.htm

February 15, 2007 Posted by ellakavi | Bangalore, Karnataka and Kannada, Nanjundappa Report | 2 Comments

Why the Cauvery award is flawed? Adopt Priniciples of Natural Justice !!!

Why the Cauvery award is flawed

February 06, 2007 – redifmail.com

The verdict by the three-member Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal headed by Justice N P Singh on February 5 fails on some crucial tests of equity, efficiency, technology and science.

The award is bound to be challenged by Karnataka and Kerala, even as Tamil Nadu and Puduchery seem satisfied at this stage. Moreover the ambiguity in the award about sharing the water during distress years is likely to create problems in future.

The Cauvery award fails on the test of science as it does not consider groundwater availability in the Cauvery basin area. It has only decided on the distribution of the surface water among the claimants. Tamil Nadu, being the lower riparian, has significant availability of groundwater, while Karnataka and Kerala, being the upper riparian, have relatively little of it. Groundwater, in reality, is the water lifeline of this country, with over two-thirds of irrigated foodgrains production, over 90 per cent of rural water supply and over 50 per cent of urban water supply dependent on groundwater.

It’s also well known that groundwater and surface water are in dynamic equilibrium. To illustrate, the utilisable surface water in Cauvery basin is 19 BCM (billion cubic metres; 670.89 tmc ft), and replenishable groundwater resource in the basin is 12.3 BCM (434.31 tmc ft), which shows that the groundwater available in the basin is about 67 per cent of the utilisable surface water. To allow unrestricted groundwater use and not include groundwater in calculating water availability and allocation is unscientific, to put it rather charitably.

The award fails the test of efficiency as the tribunal does not reward efficient use of water. It is well known that the farmers in Cauvery delta utilise larger amounts of water from the river. The cropping pattern in the delta includes a double crop of water-intensive paddy. The award, instead of promoting and rewarding more efficient cropping patterns and use of water, seems to be rewarding extravagant water.

The award fails the test of technology as it did not consider the new water efficient method of cultivating rice, called the System of Rice Intensification. This technique has proved effective over thousands of hectares in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere over the last 3-4 years. SRI can reduce water requirements by over 50 per cent and increase yields by 50 per cent or more. If SRI is indeed practiced in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the perceived water distress in the Cauvery basin could be almost eliminated.

The award also fails the test of equity, as it did not consider the resources and needs of people at the micro level, but looked at the aggregate demands at the macro (state level). When you aggregate the demands in this way, the issues of equity and appropriateness at the micro level is lost entirely. This in fact has the potential of negating the potential water solutions for vast numbers of people in the catchment that contributes to the water in the river. In the Cauvery basin this threat of losing sight of micro issues is very much real, as was seen when the tank desilting project in Karnataka was opposed by Tamil Nadu on the pretext that it will reduce water available in the Mettur dam!

Indeed, as the well-known commentator S Guhan noted, the Cauvery dispute is somewhat different than other water disputes like the Narmada and Godavari in the sense that Cauvery is already an overdeveloped basin, where the dispute is because of the seeming distress caused due to over-development. It is precisely for this reason that the issues of efficiency, technology, equity and science should be even more relevant for the Cauvery case.

Ambiguity: The tribunal is also less than clear about the crucial question of sharing at the times of distress, when the real problems surface. It would have helped if the tribunal had clarified the exact manner of sharing the distress in each month of the year. The fact that the tribunal has used 50 per cent dependable hydrology for adjudication heightens this issue, since this means that the distress will be felt in about 50 per cent of the years. Here it may be added that the climate change due to global warming is only likely to increase the problems of dependability of flows in river. The review period available now before the award becomes final should be used to help clarify such issues.

In fact, past experience of implementing tribunal awards has been far from happy. The number of lingering inter-state water disputes are increasing by the day. The Ravi-Beas dispute between Punjab and Haryana, the Krishna water dispute between Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, the Godavari dispute between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa continue to linger. In the Narmada Valley, the disputes between the state and the people, a direct product of the Narmada Tribunal Award, continue, as the award (like all others) had heard only the state, not the people of the valley.

Upper riparian state’s case: Karnataka state officials have given an indication of feeling aggrieved. If we look at the table below, we can see that Karnataka is the only state that has got less share in water than its share in the catchment of the Cauvery basin. When we add the fact that Karnataka basin has less groundwater availability, we see that there is some justification this feeling.

The interim order of the tribunal had directed Karnataka to release 205 tmc ft water and the final order requires Karnataka to release 192 tmc ft. Karnataka has been able to release more than the stipulated amount in 11 of the last 15 years. If that was possible for 205 tmc ft, it should certainly be possible for 192 tmc. Some problems could arise as the award now stipulates monthly release figures.

Karnataka’s options: Section 5(1) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act provides an opportunity for all concerned states to file clarification petitions (basically seeking explanation or guidance) before the tribunal over the next three months. Even after the final award is notified, the states can go to the Supreme Court. Karnataka and Kerala are likely to explore these avenues. The Centre has no option but to notify the tribunal’s final award. Participant states can delay the formation and implementation of the regulatory body mandated in the award, but it is too premature to discuss such possibilities at this stage.

The Cauvery Family: Fortunately in the Cauvery basin, some useful work has already been done by a collective called the Cauvery Family, of farmers, technical experts and academics from Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, over their nine sittings. This collective will have an important role to play in days to come to ensure that appropriate solutions are brought into the picture missing in the tribunal award and to ensure that people’s real needs are taken care of. If this family is allowed and enabled to perform such a role, it can surely bring about significant improvements in the Cauvery basin.

Amicable solutions to river water disputes are possible only when there is greater democracy in water resources planning and decision-making, something that is totally missing today.

The author is the founder of the NGO — South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People

_________________________________________________________________________________

EKAVI says Adopt Principals of Natural Justice

We need to ensure principals of natural justice are applied in the issue.The principles in this context could be:

1. Only running distance can be used to ensure proportionate distribution of water as per sl number 1 in the table OR
2. Only quantity of contribution to river system can be used to ensure proportionate distribution of water as per sl number 2 in the table.This would benefit Karnataka most OR
3. Sum of average of both running distance and quantity of contribution to river system can be used to ensure proportionate distribution of water as per sl number 5 in the table.This would do justice to both but Tamil nadu still will be benefitted.

Some questions:

1. Tribunal awards distress formula on proportionate basis.But why it did not use same formula for normal conditions?
2. If previous Karnataka govts were inefficient in utilising avilable water to provide irrigation facilities to people, then what is the fault of a child born in 2007? Does the new born child has to pay for sins of his elders and govt of Karnataka ?
3. What if Britishers were here and Karnataka had not woken even in 2007 and Tamilnadu continue to increase its irrigation area to utilise 100% Kaveri water? Tribunal would have awarded 100% water to existing farmers of Tamilnadu?

Please Note:Only partial Data for Kerala and Puducherry available..Hence not used in table
Prepared by Bhujanga

__________________________

February 9, 2007 Posted by ellakavi | Bangalore, Karnataka and Kannada, Nanjundappa Report | Leave a Comment

Cauvery Verdict- Gross Failure Of Judiciary & GOI

Cauvery Verdict- Gross Failure Of Judiciary & GOI

“Mischief In Tribunal Order”

Urgent PIL, February05, 2007

Honorable President Of India Sh. APJ Abdul Kalam,

Honorable Prime Minister Of India,

Honorable Chief Justice Of India.

Subject;

Cauvery Verdict- Gross Failure Of Judiciary & GOI

“Mischief In Tribunal Order”

Petitioner;

Ravinder Singh, Inventor & Consultant, Y-77, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-16

Respected Sir,

Cauvery verdict has yet again shamed people of India in not addressing our problems in humanitarian and just manner. This reflects poorly on the caliber of our constitutional heads in not addressing the interstate issue of sharing of Cauvery water wisely and judicially in 60 years and war like situation has been created. Even reasonably good orders are scandalized by “Mischief” in judicial verdicts.

Critical Observation;

1. For sixty years riparian people of Karnataka and Kerala were prevented from using the waters generated in their rivers by TN even as their population has gone up by nearly 3.5 times. But TN government all along demanded even more waters of Ganga than consumed by Ganga Basin people unmindful of the huge cost of $150b and inefficiency/non-viability.

2. It must be emphasized that TN farmers in Cauvery basin get over 1000 mm rains compared to 500 mm for Karnataka farmers. Rain god in showering good rains already twice blesses TN. There is no obstruction and hindrance in this and efficiency is 100%. Though rains are not predicted but farmers can adjust to rains and with the assistance of tube-wells get optimum crop yield. The Tribunal award announced today is;-

[New Delhi, Feb. 5: The Cauvery Water Diputes Tribunal has announced its verdict today. As per the verdict Tamil Nadu will get 419 tmcft water and Karnataka 270 tmcft. Kerala and Puducherry will get 30 tmcft and 9 tmcft water respectively. Actual release by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu to be 192 tmcft annually. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200702051401.htm ]

3. Petitioner inventor who has studied all important documents and even studied some latest files of water use in TN, has firm belief “Mischief” of “Actual release by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu to be 192 tmcft annually” has scandalized this judgment completely. The wording of Tribunal ought to be “Entitlements Of TN  and Karnataka are 419 tmcf and 270 tmcf in Cauvery River and both states should co-operate in maximizing their entitlement under the guidance of a team of independent experts.”

4. It is important for constitution heads to remember that TN in run up to this judgment was using far more waters of Cauvery than allocated presently but food production from 3% of river waters of India diverted in to Cauvery delta region is just 0.4%, a sixth of Indian food production.

It is shocking that rice production in Cauvery delta area getting most of Cauvery waters in three districts (18,19,20) Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagappattinam is only 0.8 million tons less than a tenth of Punjab. Importantly TMC of water is released from Mettur Dam alone and huge inflows from intermediate basin, the food productivity is absolutely pathetic in the world considering MS Swaminathan belongs to the region that has conned India for 50 years as farming expert. Average Cauveri basin flows are 20 maf and Karnataka is able to use 4-5 maf only and water available for Cauveri Delta is more than Indus waters allocated to Punjab that produces 25 million tons of wheat and rice. It is also important to mention that these three districts get 50% of canal irrigation.

http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/tab04_06.htm

5. Cauvery dispute has restricted development of agriculture in Karnataka over 60 years and TN that has substantial access to most of Cauvery waters produces too little food in using Cauvery waters. Food production of only 0.8 million tones in using Caveri Waters against average TN requirement of 12 million tones and by global average 24 million tones approximately.

6. There is total absence of statesmanship of the parties and wisdom in humanly addressing the issue. Everything our constitutional heads need to know in resolving the cauvery issue was taught to the petitioner at age five by his grand father.

[Petitioner asked his wise grand father in 1960 during visit to his ancestral village in post wheat harvest in month of May “Why You Have Put Under Cultivation Only 20%? - He Explained In Detail The Water Resources In Persian Wheels Are Just Enough To Irrigate And Raise Crops On 20% Area In May June months Of Dry Summer, Crops On Will Be Raised On Rest Of Area Coinciding With Monsoon Rains ”. He also explained on persistent questioning how water dries up in the well and losses of water in canals go on increasing with length.”]

7. But this judgment has come at a time when global warming concerns are real and petroleum prices have shot past vegetable oil prices. Developed countries have diverted food products like corn and wheat for ethanol production and using soybean, canola and palm oil as diesel substitute. Therefore for food security it is absolutely for desirable to optimize food production and water used linked to food production.

8. Mischief in the Order like in Narmada Award where in 9 maf water is allocate to Gujarat but in other clauses Gujarat was actually allowed to use over 20 maf of water. Such kind of mischief by corrupt or incompetent judges leads to over designing waste of resources, future conflicts and eventually wastes of resources, conflicts and mismanagement.

Interim Remedy;

Based On My Understanding Of The Cauvery Dispute modifying just two line will substantially correct the deficiencies in present Tribunal Award;

A. “Actual release by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu to be 192 tmcft annually” be replaced by

— “Actual release by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu to be 192 tmcft in normal year, lesser when TN gets more than 419 tmcf of water in above average rainy season and more when Karnataka has excess to spare in above average rainy season.”  

B. Both states are situated on Indian coastline therefore get substantial rains many times in a short period and in many years get up to 150% of normal rain but not enough storages to capture most of this water.

— “All Cauvery Basin states are permitted to raise storages to 60% of the inflows in the catchments of the future dams.”

Conclusions;

C. Productivity linked water use policy is essential to double the food production to achieve world average food production. (Food-grains consumption of 300 gms/day) It will not be long before more responsible government in near future may introduce improved water policy.

D. The Cauvery Tribunal has wrongly restrained upper basin states from optimally using their riparian waters.

E. Function of Judiciary under the constitution is to ensure equitable, productive and judicial use of river waters, which is partly addressed by modifying just one line deleting the mischief.

F. Though the figure of water release mandated for Karnataka is 192 tmcf against 205 tmcf previously but average releases at Stanley reservoir were 330 tmcf. Thus by the time new policy is introduced Karnataka will use 138 tmcf more water and TN shall get 13 tmcf less.

G. TN is overjoyed in getting 192 tmcf and Karnataka should be able to do that.

Thank you,

(Ravinder Singh)

Petitioner

February 6, 2007 Posted by ellakavi | Bangalore, Karnataka and Kannada, Nanjundappa Report | 3 Comments

Yahoo! Our City – Bangalore

  Yahoo! Our City – Bangalore

Sent BY: “aravindswami” <aravindswami@yahoo.com>

Source: http://libranlover.blogspot.com/2007/02/yahoo-our-city-bangalore.html

Yahoo! has started a new Our City portal. Right now, it is in beta and only available on Yahoo’s India site (yahoo.in) for Bangalore (http://ourcity.yahoo.in/bangalore/home) and New Delhi.

This new effort by Yahoo! is a great example of what a localized web portal should be. The best thing about this site is that it is a mash-up, weaving together information from a variety of sources, including and not limited to, Wikipedia, Yahoo! News, Upcoming.org (for events), del.icio.us (for bookmarks), The Weather Channel, various blog sources including Bangalore Metblogs and Flickr (for photos).

Since the information on this local portal is culled from many different sources which are constantly updated, it ensures that the portal always presents fresh information to visitors. Too bad that there is still no worthy online mapping application for Indian cities. It would have been a perfect fit here.

My favorite part of the site is Kannada World (http://ourcity.yahoo.in/bangalore/kannada). At a time when many organizations and individuals in/about Bangalore easily forget Kannada, it is heartening to see Yahoo! put in a special Kannada section. Way to win the hearts of local people. The next step on the portal is to change all references to Bangalore to Bengalooru.

Source: http://libranlover.blogspot.com/2007/02/yahoo-our-city-bangalore.html

February 2, 2007 Posted by ellakavi | Bangalore, Karnataka and Kannada, Nanjundappa Report | 1 Comment