August 2006


Film Reviews18 Aug 2006 04:29 pm

A very fine review of “KANK”. This is a more balanced one than my playful SMS review bashing up the movie. Thought I should put it up here. Picked this one up from Blogical Conclusions. A blog I regularly follow for reviews.

HEART DIRECTOR
The New Sunday Express – August 13, 2006
Karan Johar’s latest is too long, too weepy, but it’s nonetheless the meatiest romantic melodrama in a while.

KARAN JOHAR’S plots can typically be summed up with a one-liner question: Will Shah Rukh Khan get together with X? Will Shah Rukh Khan get together with Kajol (in Kuch Kuch Hota Hai)? Will Shah Rukh Khan get together with his estranged family (in Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham)? And so, as Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna – or KANK, as it’s come to be known – began to unfold, and I saw that its one-line plot is whether Shah Rukh Khan (playing Dev) will get together with Rani Mukerji (as Maya), I thought this was going to be just another milking of the same, old formula. I expected a few surprises, sure, for Johar is nothing if not an expert at spinning fresh variations on familiar clichés – that’s why those who don’t care for clichés don’t care for Johar’s cinema – but what I didn’t expect is Bollywood’s most mature, most messy romance since the younger Sridevi set eyes on father-figure Anil Kapoor in Lamhe.

The messiness is due to the fact that Dev and Maya are both married – to fashion-magazine-editor Ria (Preity Zinta) and PR guy Rishi (Abhishek Bachchan) respectively – and the maturity is because their spouses aren’t Ranjeet and Bindu clones who drink and smoke and sleep around. It’s quite the opposite, really – Ria loves Dev, and Rishi loves Maya. But like in all marriages, problems crop up, and that’s when Dev and Maya begin a tentative friendship, only to realise they may actually be made for each other. And here’s the kicker: they’re made for each other because they’re the losers in their respective marriages. They’re the cowards, the ones with the hang-ups, the ones who’d rather wallow and seethe inside than take a step to set things right outside. Even when they start seeing each other, they do it so bloodlessly, it comes as no surprise when Maya gives Dev a kiss and immediately wipes the traces of lipstick off his cheek. They barely seem capable of acknowledging this relationship to themselves, let alone others.

When was the last time you saw a big, commercial, name-heavy Hindi movie where the hero and the heroine are portrayed as less charismatic, less fun, more whiny and weepy than the supporting characters (in this case, the people they are married to)? I can’t remember – and that’s just one of the ways KANK messes with your expectations of whom to identify with, whom to root for. Maya has a monster chip on her shoulder about being childless, and that’s probably why she treats Rishi like a child – cleaning up after him, chiding him for not being serious, and possibly being more than a little envious about the carefree way he goes through life. Dev too has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He was once a star soccer player, but after an accident, he’s reduced to being a soccer coach for a little league team, and he resents that Ria is more successful than he is. As opposed to these mopey sad-sacks, Rishi and Ria are so full of positive energy, so accepting of life as it comes, you like them far more than you do Dev and Maya. Yes, you feel sorry that the latter have their problems, but you wish they’d get over them and get on with their lives – the way grownups do.

Then again, it’s true that losers deserve love too, even if it’s not the kind of love that’s terribly exciting to watch unfold before your eyes. KANK is a very, very long movie – Johar really needs to get himself a more ruthless editor; he’s never content to let a moment pass without lingering on it after the mood is long gone, nor is he happy with dialogue when he can instead have declarations lasting long after they’ve made their point – and yet the length, after a while, began to feel somewhat right. Dev and Maya aren’t the kind who’d make tough decisions easily; it would seem that they would take a very long time to overcome their insecurities and their doubts and their wishy-washiness and take the positive step (for them) of breaking up their marriages, if they can bring themselves to do that at all. And I must tell you, for something that begins with such broad humour – some of it downright atrocious; some of it cannily reflective of how laughably pathetic Dev and Maya are – KANK so darkens in tone towards the end and becomes so gloomily unpredictable, I wasn’t quite sure if Dev and Maya would ever end up together. This is a mainstream movie, and mainstream movie convention demands that the hero and heroine ride off (or fly off or sail off or take a train) into the sunset. But mainstream movie convention also demands that people don’t walk out of marriages to loving spouses to pursue selfish affairs of the heart, and that our top stars don’t risk audience alienation. Maya is played by our current Heroine No. 1 – the adorable Babli, for crying out loud! – so you wonder if the writers will fiddle around with her image by making her leave Rishi. She may not want to sleep with him anymore, but she still loves him (and, more importantly, he’s besotted with her) – so will we be able to take her side if she decides to hurt him? After all, it isn’t that he’s wrong for her so much as he isn’t right for her.

What’s more startling is what they do with our Hero No. 1. Shah Rukh has always been the hero most in touch with his feminine side – the word for that these days, I think, is metrosexual – but he goes a step further in KANK and gives us a man who is borderline emasculated. Dev is filled with insecurity and resentment and petty jealousy (mostly towards Ria), and there’s nothing he can do about it – at least till he meets Maya. The way I saw it, he’s the classic Indian MCP who can’t handle a hard-nosed career woman like Ria; he needs a soft, sensitive, sari-clad homemaker like Maya to make him feel like a man again. Even Maya’s profession is non-threatening; she teaches little kids at a school. In contrast, Ria doesn’t have the time to attend her own kid’s soccer match; like overworked fathers usually do, she bribes the child with a PlayStation to say she’s sorry. But KANK, remarkably, doesn’t brand her a bitch. We actually sympathise with her when she observes, in one of the film’s many pointed bits of dialogue, “Main Arjun ki maa nahin ban saki kyonki mujhe uska baap banna pada.” (She couldn’t be a mother to her child because she had to become the father.) Yet, under that necessary armour of steel, Ria is a woman. When Dev and Maya finally admit to their spouses that they are in love, Rishi flies into a rage and begins to break things around the house, while Ria remains calm and collected. Rishi wants to know if Maya enjoyed sleeping with Dev, but Ria asks Dev if he’s in love with Maya; the man is more concerned with the sexual aspect of the betrayal while Ria, all woman, tries to come to grips with the emotional implications.

With all this, it’s no surprise that Preity (looking quite spectacular) and Abhishek come off far better – even in their abbreviated parts – than Shah Rukh and Rani, who really aren’t asked to do anything here that they haven’t done earlier (and better). Bachchan Jr., in particular, is the great jolt of energy the movie sorely needs every once in a while. (Bachchan Sr. is there too, in a charming little role as a naughty old man who’s the film’s conscience.) Abhishek brings the house down in a couple of song sequences that are dazzlingly put together – especially the sixties’-themed Rock N Roll Soniye, where he boogies with women costumed in billowing Marilyn Monroe skirts (you know, like in The Seven Year Itch) and figure-hugging Mumtaz saris (you know, like in Brahmchari’s Aaj kal tere mere pyar ke charche). Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy’s best number – Mitwa – is also nicely used to underline the growing friendship between Dev and Maya, but the title track is somewhat wasted. When it begins, everything around Maya and Dev turns blue, which we’ve just learnt is her favourite colour. It’s as if, having finally accepted her love for Dev, the world around her has become more to her liking – and then Johar kills the conceit by colour-coding the rest of the segments of the song in red and green and so on.

That overkill may be the undoing of Karan Johar, and I really wish he’d stop self-referencing. (K3G’s Bole choodiyan is played by a brass band for a wedding baraat, and a hospital sequence is straight out of Kal Ho Naa Ho, right down to the various visitors dropping in one by one to have farewell conversations with the patient.) But you can’t deny that he’s one of the very few young directors who’s interested in – and who knows his way around – old-fashioned, Bollywood storytelling, where the emphasis is on emotion rather than reason, where the point of a scene isn’t in drawing out truth or detailing reality but in the sensual experience of the moment: foreplay, climax, afterplay (or, if you will, buildup, detonation, cool-down). He knows that he has a dark story to tell, so he loads his first half with corny comedy, making us like his characters before we have reason to dislike them. He values the power of precisely-shaped words conveying the beating heart of an emotion with sledgehammer impact. He realises that part of the reason we’re here is to see five-star stars getting the five-star treatment, so there’s not a scene, not a shot that shows his actors as anyone remotely resembling us. Yet, the way Johar tells his story isn’t old-fashioned at all; he uses spruced-up movie trickery as well as anyone else. When Rishi calls Maya to apologise for yelling at her, she’s on the phone with her lover Dev, so Rishi leaves a voice message; Johar uses a split screen to simultaneously show both of them making their respective calls, and we simultaneously see one who’s in the process of mending this marriage, the other in the process of breaking it. Who’d have guessed that our prime purveyor of candy-coloured entertainment had it in him to process these shades of grey!

India and Politics18 Aug 2006 03:02 pm

The Hindu has a story today on the transformation of Dr. Manmohan Singh. Completely agree with the story! Click here to know my thoughts on the speech.

A transformed Manmohan
Harish Khare

Controlled aggression, a game plan and application of technique At the outset he positioned himself in the Mahatma corner, quoting Gandhi’s abiding injunction to wipe every tear from every eye, and declared himself a legatee of the Jawaharlal Nehru vision

NEW DELHI: Manmohan Singh has been Member of Parliament since 1991 but he had never been applauded as an exciting parliamentarian. And perhaps never before did he display as emotionally combative a streak as he did on Thursday in the Rajya Sabha in the debate on the controversial nuclear deal.

Before dealing with the doubts and questions about the India-United
States Civilian Nuclear Agreement, the Prime Minister almost stumped the House with a kind of personal testimonial. Rather than conforming to his reputation as a shy and reticent person, and as a humdrum speaker, the Prime Minister spoke as a man who felt that his reputation and pride were being questioned.

It was a Virender Sehwag kind of performance — controlled aggression, a game plan and an application of sound technique. At the outset, he positioned himself in the Mahatma corner, quoting Gandhi’s abiding injunction to wipe every tear from every eye, and declared himself a legatee of the Jawaharlal Nehru vision.

To those who questioned his professional competence to deal with so
complicated an issue as the nuclear world, he asserted, “I have some experience” of dealing with economics and technology of nuclear business. He reminded the House that as member (finance) of the Atomic Energy Commission he has had worked with the distinguished nuclear professionals like H.N. Sethna and P.K. Iyengar.

And then, a bit of working philosophy. Status quo is always comfortable, but the challenge lies in breaking out of familiar terrain, and to cope
imaginatively and confidently with “uncertainty.” He talked of all the names and epithets that were hurled in his direction when he induced the post-1991 paradigm shift in the economy. He was no stranger to the name-calling game; he seemed to be telling his critics but told the House that he felt he stood vindicated by history of last 15 years.

Recalls TTK’s observation
Dr. Singh recalled the insightful observation of T.T. Krishnamachari of “tigers on the prowl” in New Delhi and added, somewhat challengingly, that he had nothing to fear from the new tigers, scenting blood.

In an unusual personal touch, the Prime Minister reminded everyone that he was born in a poor family and had the blood of freedom fighters in his veins. He conceded that while he was a latecomer to the world of politics, he belonged to a party that had a proud heritage of having brought freedom to the country.

As the Congress benches repeatedly applauded him, Dr. Singh promised that he would do his best to promote and protect “the vital interests of the country.” In an unusually emotional pitch, Dr. Singh told the parliamentarians that he was in the “service of India” and was committed to “the last ounce of my blood” to work for freeing millions of Indians who suffer “day in and day out.”

Unexpected
This sentimental preface was totally unexpected. It galvanised the Congress benches who were till that moment somewhat sceptical of the Prime Minister’s parliamentary skills to respond to the critics’ daylong assault.

In a way, Dr. Singh won the day even before he came down to the specifics of the nuclear deal. At the end of his 70-minute performance, the Congress MPs were left wondering the transformation that overtook the Prime Minister.

India and Politics18 Aug 2006 10:57 am

Our Hon. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh gave his reply to the queries raised by the opposition and the Left on the nuclear deal with the US in the Rajya Sabha. It was not a reply, it was more of a speech. The speech had all the ingredients that a seasoned political speech writer would include. In fact, till I heard the speech I didn’t realise the immense significance of this Nuclear Deal in the Indian Democracy. But what came out of the speech was something totally different for me – it was the emergence of Dr. Manmohan Singh, the shrewd politician.

The PM played all the cards he had in this speech. He started off by thanking all the members for raising queries so that the issues would come up for debate and get clarified too. He elaborated on the types of queries and answered them brilliantly. To read meaningful exceprts of the speech please click here. What stood out for me are the following statements:

  • I did not seek Prime Ministership, it came to me and I have carried out my duties faithfully and will continue to do so. Infact, if you ask me, choosing Dr. Manmohan Singh for PM was the most sensible decision made by Sonia Gandhi. And after this speech, my opinion only got strengthened.
  • I am the son of a Freedom Fighter who left his job to fight for the independence of this country. So, there is the blood of a freedom fighter that runs in me. I got those goosebumps on hearing those words. Even the PM choked on saying these words and paused to have a glass of water.
  • I made it clear to Mr. Bush that the intervention in Iraq was a mistake. This statement told me that Dr. Singh is not a weak and spineless man. He has it in him to speak on behalf of the country whatever be his political pressures.
  • When I introduced reforms during 1972-73, I was labeled a pawn in the hands of the US. Looking back, I wonder how India would have handled the Great Asian crisis . He was now taking the entire issue on his head. His capabilities are well known and from here on the entire house just listened. They were sold already.
  • I was the Finance Secretary for the Atomic Energy Commission and I know what are the costs involved in the deals that we are involved in. He understands the domain of Nuclear Energy.
  • There are risks involved in such deals. And I am willing to take such risks for the sake of the development of the country. He knew what he was doing.
  • I will serve the country to the last ounce of my blood and nobody can take that right away from me. I didn’t care about the speech anymore. I was deeply impressed by this man who is leading my country.

I am sold to the Nuclear Deal!

You can watch the video of the speech here.

And if you want to know more about our PM. Click here.

Blogging17 Aug 2006 04:39 pm

Found this new tool to blog in various languages. Shastri referred me to this website. I can blog in any language I want. Let me give you a sample.

My name is Aditya – English
ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ಆದಿತ್ಯ – Kannada
నా పెరు ఆదిత్య – Telugu
मम नामः आदित्य – Sanskrit
मेरा नाम आदित्य है। – Hindi
என் பெயிர் ஆதித்ய – Tamil

Feeling really nice to have used such a tool. And if you have difficulty reading the above kannada sentence then you will have to go here to sort it out. About other languages, I am afraid I have no idea!

God and Hinduism and Religion and Science & Religion and Spirituality16 Aug 2006 11:36 am
An interesting article that discusses the co-existence of science and God in today’s world.
Is God Necessary?
C.S.RAMAKRISHNAN
Sri C.S. Ramakrishnan is a long-standing and close devotee and a former editor of The Vedanta Kesari.
Voltaire, whose massive scholarship and keen intellect are beyond question, used to say that if God did not exist it will be necessary to invent him. He felt that many things in life and the world cannot be rationally and consistently explained without assuming the presence of God. No doubt, at the time of Voltaire science had not developed as it has subsequently. Today’s science is an Aladdin’s lamp enables us to perform phenomena, which would have been termed miracles. All manner of indescribable phenomena can be attributed to modern science. So most scientists do not share Voltaire’s views.
It will be interesting to see what a reputed scientist like Eric Cornell, the Nobel laureate in Physics in the year 2001, has to say in this regard. He gave a very insightful lecture while getting inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Eric Cornell explained his view by accounting for a familiar pheno menon, the blue sky. He offers two types of solution. The first answer of scientific insight is the Raleigh’s law of scattering of light. Light consists of a series of coloured rays starting from red and ending in blue. The rays in the red region are long waves whereas those in the blue region are short. When the light is flowing from the sun to the earth, the rays undergo scattering. The red rays get scattered more readily than the blue ones. Therefore by the time the rays reach the earth only blue rays are left, i.e. the source appears to be blue. The sky therefore is blue. This was the discovery made by Lord Raleigh on which subsequent developments in optics took place.
But Cornell indicates a second solution. May be God wanted the sky to be blue. You cannot question why he wanted like that. The Nobel laureate points out that Raleigh’s law of scattering explains `how’ blueness came but not why. Science always explains the `how’ of things and not the `why’ of things. While how is scientifically explained, the why finds explanation only in religion.
Eric Cornell suggests that in a scientific class only scientific questions can be raised. For a religious answer we have to be in a religious class. He suggests that we should not confuse by asking a scientific question in a religious class and a religious question in a scientific class. Not that the two solutions are opposed to each other but each has to be applied in a separate dimension. Suppose we are talking to a friend in English we have to follow the rules of English grammar but if the talk is in Tamil it is the Tamil grammar that has to be applied. Both the grammar rules are valid and not opposed to each other. Again, suppose you have the dream of a tiger chasing you. In the dream the chase is real. But once you wake up, the dream-tiger disappears. In the wakeful state we cannot ask where the tiger has gone, though it is the same mind which is witnessing both. The Ultimate Reality is one; it may manifest itself scientifically or religiously. In what way we wish to perceive the reality, the choice is ours.
Discourses and Hinduism and Religion and Spirituality15 Aug 2006 07:25 pm

Continued from Part III

Extending the from the types of “sukhas” quoted in the Gita, to the types quoted in the “Kathopanishads”. There are three types of “Ananda”s.

Vishayananda: Vishaya (Poisonous things) + ananda (Happiness) = Happiness that we find in doing mundane tasks referred to as poisonous things.

Bhajanananda: Bhajan (hymns sung in the praise of God) + ananda (Happiness) = Happiness that is derived from singing hymns in the praise of God.

Brahmananda: Brahman (The Lord) + ananda (Happiness) = A state of Happiness where one is united with one’s own Divine Self. It is in this state of “Brahmanandam” that Ultimate Happiness lies.

For a person to perceive an object there needs to be sunlight (or light). And there is a limitation to our sensory perceptions since there are physical limits. The limitations vary from species to species. Human eye, for example, cannot see clearly beyond a few metres whereas the eagle’s eye can see clearly upto several kilometres. The human eye can not perceive things in the dark whereas the cat/ owl can. Our eyes are not built that way. Physical dimensions of our sensory perception have limitations. And there is another added limitation without which we cannot perceive at all – “The Mind”. Our mind can influence our perceptions completely.

Coming back to the first part of the sloka that’s being understood it means that in the state where the sun does not shine and a person cannot perceive an object but preceives the “Ultimate Happiness” is this state of “Brahmanandam”. Where the sun, moon, stars or even flashes of lightning are not present, only those minds “Antahakarana”, that are free from all internal blemishes can perceive the Ultimate Happiness.

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said, “Pure mind and pure Atman is one and the same”.
He was responding to a question from a devotee who spoke thus, “How can I perceive something that’s transcedental through this mind?”.
Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa replied, “This mind keeps hovering around everywhere. mind when completely still is no longer ‘Mind’. Our mind depends on our daily habits. The highest reality is something that has never been defined. It cannot be defined. If it can be confined to any ‘naama-roopa’ [Names and forms] then it is not the highest reality.”

During the ritual of “Mangalarthi” in the Ramakrishna Ashram Temple we all sing “Namo nama prabhuvakyamanaateetha”.
It can be broken into “Namo Nama Prabhu Vakya Mana Ateetha”.
Which means “I bow to you (Namo) O Lord (Prabhu) who are beyond(Ateetha) names (Nama), sentences (vakya) and mind(Mana)”.
These are the highest lines of praise that can possibly be. A Britisher on hearing these was lamenting how it took him hours to explain or make some one understand the deeper meaning of these words. Whereas in the Hindu way of life, it is a daily part of our lives. We sing them everyday. “Bhaja Govindam” that represents the highest truth that the Vedanta has to offer is sung with a simple arrangement of tabla and a harmonium.

All this means that the Hindu way of life was designed to achieve the “Bhajanandam” mentioned in the Kathopanishads. Through that we just had to take the next step that is towards “Brahmanandam”. Sometimes during the stages of “Bhajanandam” the highest reality dawns on us but it goes off at a tangent because our minds are not fully prepared to receive it. All other realities/ forms of light that we come across are borrowed realities/ forms of light. This consciousness that we are trying to understand is the basis of and for Life.

Sometimes we see a star in the night sky. We also notice that it wasn’t there yesterday. So, we give it a name and celebrate its deiscovery. But it’s also possible that the star might not exist at all in reality. The star might have been present millions of years back and it’s light might have been visible to us today. And our sensory perceptions only allow us to perceive, understand and believe it in a way that it’s present even today. Hence, senses do not give us access to the Highest Reality.

Everything that we see is Brahman. Why we do not see Brahman is the subject of spirituality.

Swami Vivekananda was once asked, “Why do you make us believe that God is not visible to everyone? Why do you hypnotize us into believing that we are all ignorant?”
For which Swami Vivekananda replied, “I am in fact dehypnotizing you. I am creating an awareness in you that there is a world outside what we can perceive through our senses.”

Spiritual Life is to know that which is beyond ouselves and begins with reforming ourselves. Spiritual Life is about cultivating an attitude of Divinity and through that bringing a change to oneself.

Discourses and Hinduism and Religion and Spirituality13 Aug 2006 08:25 pm

This discourse was given on Sunday, August 13, 2006. In this article I have tried to include my learnings or my questions wherever possible.

How is the highest reality to be perceived? Knowing the ultimate reality is not similar to knowing something through your senses. It is something that is much beyond. And knowing it will give you “Paramam Sukham” unlike happiness from sensory perceptions. For example: A man sees an apple tree. He is happy because he perceives apple to be a good thing. But when a man sees a posionous tree, his happiness doesn’t exist. Like this, happiness derived out of sensory perceptions are short-lived and temporary.

“Paramam Sukham” is the peace that surpasses all happiness. Let us first try to understand what “sukha” is all about? In the Bhagavad Gita, chapter 18, Lord Krishna is discussing about the various kinds of sukhas.

The first one is of the lowest kind “Tamasika“. It is born of delusion, sleep, laziness and miscomprehension. People who live in unhygenic conditions and are happy about it are examples of such kind.

Probably, people like me who sleep at any given chance are also of this
kind!

Let us take the example of the Lord himself, who once took the form of a pig (Varaha avtaara) and began deriving so much of happiness in that form that he forgot to come back to his original form. Lord Krishna had to remind him to come back to his original state.

The second one is of the mediocre kind “Rajasika sukha“. Happiness emerging out of an element of restlessness and lot of activity. Any type of “sukha” that is aimed to satisfying our greed, anger, vendetta or some such emotional extremity. This kind of happiness “sukha” is characterized by the taste of nectar at first and poison towards the end.

The third one and the highest kind “Satwika sukha”. This sukha is characterized by poison at first, but nectar at the end. Something that begins as a very difficult job but slowly we attain pleasure in it because of something that we discover in it that is more than the sensory pleasure. When we discover something more than the senses can sense then that kind of happiness is “satwika sukha”.

A fitting example of “satwika sukha” would be that of chewing the amla fruit. it gives a distinct bitter taste at first, but if you are able to bear with it then there is the sukha of the sweet taste that it leaves in the mouth towards the end.

Another example is that of a student studying for his exams. There are so many things to distract him from his studies. A film on the television or a film magazine or something that will give him immediate pleasure are all more attractive to him than studying for his exams. He doesn’t understand that if he studies well now, he will be able to derive more happiness later in his life. If he bears with the poison of hardwork now, he will be able to enjoy the nectar of the results later on.

A person who understands this basic premise of postponing immediate happiness is a mature person. He has understood the principle of “satwika sukha”. It is a thought requiring utmost maturity in a person. A person who doesn’t understand this becomes a source of unhappiness for everyone around him. A person who doesn’t understand this gets into bad habits and other escapist activities qutoing immediate pleasure. These are the people who become anti-social elements.

Film Reviews and Humour13 Aug 2006 08:06 pm

[Semantics adjusted to blog language]

A1 and B1 are married and so are A2 and B2. A1 sleeps with B2 and they tell A2 and B1. The marriages are over. A1 and B2 marry.

Direction
Karan Johar trying to make a ‘Silsila’. He is no Yash Chopra. He better stick to his stupid movie making style and leave the substance stream alone.

Music
‘Mitwa’ and the title song apart, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy fail to impress. Background music restricted to stretching sitar strings and crying violins.

Editing
Movie length 3 hours 20 mins!

Acting
Big B is the best

Rating
*

Legend:
*Stay at home
**If you have the time to kill, go ahead, but not recommended
***Watch if you are a film buff!
****Go watch it on the big screen!
*****Don’t miss watching this one on the big screen! Avoid piracy!

Mysore11 Aug 2006 04:08 pm

As expected, The Hindu quotes the truth. Here it is:

“Work on doubling the broad-gauge railway line between Bangalore and Mysore will be taken up soon and the State Government has earmarked Rs. 25 crore as its contribution to the project…”

And we were talking about bullet trains.

Others11 Aug 2006 11:54 am

« Previous PageNext Page »