i find this whole debate rather esoteric. why do we not need nanos when we don't protest so vociferously against honda cities and ennovas and other big cars? is it that the rich must have their private transports, big guzzlers, on top of it, and the lesser people should ride in overcrowded metros and buses? fuel suffciency is just a bogey. there will be other kinds of fuel avaialble soon. necessity begets research.

 

bigger cars guzzle more fuel than smaller ones. tehy also hog more space than smaller ones do. they carry fewer prople than smaller ones will. so all in all

 

all that talk of having better public transport remains just that, talk. no big campaign takes place. i have this sneaking suspicion that it is a propaganda of teh upper classes who want their own cars and hate to see others becoming their 'equals' with a car of their own.

 

and, by the way even to manufacture buses we need land. so there you go.......

 

why did mamta banerjee and her great supporter medha patkar not demand land for land when the acquisition began? why now? that is something both must answer.

 

i certainly have no fondness for gandhi's programme. it is impractical to say the least.

 

anjali deshpande

 

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe