[wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?

Thu Jul 6 09:43:11 UTC 2006

>The lack of design of a
>mechanism to spend the money is at fault.

yes, yes- beyond government goodwill, telco politics, NGO agendas, etc, 
whats required is an effective and sustainable building mechanism-

For instance, in the area of "social work" an approach has emerged called 
"Assets Based Community Development" (pioneered in Chicago), combining 
financial rigour with bottom-up community development and ownership, to 
forge stronger and more practical links between government policy/funding 
and community based and owned projects. Such a dynamic is transferable in 
principle into the space of community ICT projects...

The above is a rushed note, but to repeat my previous postings I do urge 
attention to issues of strategy, especially the social dynamic and the 
organisational/business sustainability of ICT projects.

Beyond that, the whole "rural question" is a major strategic matter.

Hence I'd advise that wsfii India convention includes a session on strategy, 
and that a range of experts (beyond ICT and technology) are invited to this 
debate.

I think the hope, as always, lies in the energy of communities to themselves 
address their needs and act to build a better future. They may need 
"outside" assistance in the form of technology/telecoms/business/social 
enterprise expertise at the outset, but the community itself provides the 
fertile soil for a project to take root and flourish...

John

>From: vvcrishna at radiophony.com
>Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>Date: Thu,  6 Jul 2006 05:38:43 +0000
>
>Quoting Balaji G <balaji_g1947 at yahoo.com>:
>
> > I am not standing in defence of the Government for their efficiencies or
> > inefficiencies.
> > We all know that rural India is in a complete mess. Yet, if at all
> > something has progressed there, it has happened only through the 
>government.
> > Even in case of telecom, all rural teledensity increase  has taken place
> > because of public sector undertaking BSNL. Private telecom operators 
>happily
> > chose to pay penalties as against connecting in rural. On the other 
>hand,
> > Ngos and community based efforts have remained marginal.
>
>The ills of NGOs are reasonably well known - they are as subject to 
>influence
>through the need for sustainability as anyone else driven by profit. As for 
>the
>private telecom operators, the intransigence or lack of interest in 
>deploying
>the USO prior to this year is surely condemnable. It was not a tax - it was 
>a
>penalty for not deploying networks in rural areas, and no wonder that BSNL 
>was
>the only entity that provided service in the absence of any profit-oriented
>motivation (the only thing that business respond to). The lack of design of 
>a
>mechanism to spend the money is at fault.
>
>However, the government is also to blame for continuing with a regulatory 
>policy
>on braodcasting and interconnectivity that is designed to fail, and 
>disempower
>people from building their own solutions (with our without the 'aid' of
>government or business).
>
> >
> > So the onus for doing good falls only on Government. And you yourself 
>have
> > said that Government has failed to do much. The article by Mohan Mishra 
>says
> > things on similar lines too. Every one talks, but looks to only 
>Government
> > to do something, and nothing much happens. So the fault also lies as 
>much in
> > all other constituents, who only talk and eventually leave it to 
>Government
> > to do the dirty (the noble) job.
> >
> > So, where is the hope? Is anyone interested ? If others are not, and
> > Government is also not, where is the...... hope?
>
>I don't know for sure that 'NGOs' or 'self-help groups' or whatever label 
>is put
>on groups that move collectively towards helping themselves will definitely
>succeed where other processes have failed.
>
>Possibly, the change in attitude of the government will in itself be the
>greatest motivator. Is that a decent enough hope?
>
> >
> > Of course, Mr Mishra in his article has reasons to be more optimistic 
>than
> > me, as he calls for genuine action.
> >
> > Balaji
> >
> >
> >
> > Vickram Crishna-2 wrote:
> > >
> > > At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the
> > > first
> > > step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which
> > > still
> > > slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time 
>and
> > > yes,
> > > another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
> > > internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful
> > > 'proofs of
> > > concept'.
> > >
> > > I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear 
>the
> > > onus
> > > for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and 
>white,
> > > but
> > > surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as 
>basic
> > > communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite 
>enjoying a
> > > mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium 
>itself as
> > > a
> > > revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?
> > >
> > > Quoting john wilson <johnresearch at hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Balaji and all,
> > >>
> > >> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements 
>of
> > >> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from
> > >> government
> > >> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such
> > >> political
> > >> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
> > >>
> > >> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
> > >>
> > >> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. 
>Government
> > >> and
> > >> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political
> > >> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail 
>due
> > >> to
> > >> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The
> > >> pendulum
> > >> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of 
>failure.
> > >> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and
> > >> market
> > >> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local,
> > >> "first-mile"
> > >> community network projects is changed.
> > >>
> > >> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy 
>in a
> > >> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access",
> > >> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of
> > >> community projects.
> > >>
> > >> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net 
>had
> > >> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a
> > >> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", 
>"co-operative"
> > >> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of
> > >> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update
> > >> since
> > >> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the
> > >> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed 
>to
> > >> maintain a democratic community management and  economic 
>sustainability.
> > >> Has
> > >>
> > >> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced 
>recently?
> > >> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
> > >>
> > >> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community 
>wireless
> >
> > >> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative
> > >> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno 
>presented
> > >> to
> > >>
> > >> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his 
>presentation
> > >> here
> > >>
> > >> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. 
>The
> > >> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India
> > >> situation"?
> > >>
> > >> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", 
>where
> >
> > >> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re 
>issues
> > >> of
> > >> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
> > >>
> > >> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given 
>to
> > >> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention 
>to
> > >> the
> > >>
> > >> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a 
>real
> > >> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to 
>repeat
> > >> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake,
> > >> your
> > >> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of 
>business.
> > >>
> > >> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder 
>whether
> > >> it
> > >> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy 
>re
> > >> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded 
>advocacy
> > >> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of
> > >> interest,
> > >> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland
> > >> convention (with World Bank funding)?
> > >>
> > >> Where's the politics?
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 at yahoo.com>
> > >> >Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information
> > >> >Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > >> >To: wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > >> >Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
> > >> >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Dear Arun
> > >> >
> > >> >The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real 
>issue.
> > >> >
> > >> >On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening 
>is
> > >> the
> > >> >Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large 
>corporates
> > >> and
> > >> >NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do 
>not
> > >> even
> > >> >have intention to do something substantive.
> > >> >
> > >> >Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
> > >> >partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government 
>largesse
> > >> >only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
> > >> >
> > >> >The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on 
>the
> > >> >government for evertything?
> > >> >
> > >> >Balaji
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Arun Mehta wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructures,
> > >> > > wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be
> > >> interested
> > >> > > in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all 
>we
> > >> > > have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The 
>government
> > >> is
> > >> > > indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two 
>years
> > >> > > after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of 
>anything
> > >> > > on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be 
>proved
> > >> > > wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government 
>bythe
> > >> > > time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, 
>than
> > >> I
> > >> > > expected.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value 
>of a
> > >> > > network is proportional to the square of its size? In other 
>words,
> > >> > > viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 
>instead
> > >> > > of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
> > >> > > business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! 
>People
> > >> > > surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they 
>do
> > >> > > with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able 
>to
> > >> use
> > >> > > a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune 
>time,
> > >> > > to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
> > >> > > condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
> > >> > > themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others 
>around
> > >> > > the world so ably demonstrate.
> > >> > > Arun
> > >> > >
> > >> > > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
> > >> > > Rural connect: The cooperative way
> > >> > > MOHAN MISHRA
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as 
>a
> > >> law
> > >> > > and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as 
>articulated by
> > >> > > Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
> > >> > > farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, 
>are
> > >> > > only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening 
>plight
> > >> of
> > >> > > agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural
> > >> disparities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
> > >> > > teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom 
>growth,
> > >> > > rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban 
>areas.
> > >> > > The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher 
>urban
> > >> > > volumes while large parts of rural India still remain 
>unconnected.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal,
> > >> connect-ing
> > >> > > the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing
> > >> interest
> > >> > > from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
> > >> > > problems of rural India using Information and Communication
> > >> Technology
> > >> > > (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and 
>announcements,
> > >> > > substantive results have been far and few.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
> > >> > > technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have 
>been
> > >> > > around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
> > >> > > Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > These are only some options to the challenge of connecting 
>villages.
> > >> > > Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
> > >> > > overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
> > >> > > sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of 
>rolling
> > >> > > out rural kiosks.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says 
>Dr MS
> > >> > > Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry 
>forerunner:
> > >> > > "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but 
>it is
> > >> > > more a question of social sustainability."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
> > >> > > computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean 
>that
> > >> > > solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so 
>much
> > >> > > to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the 
>nuances
> > >> > > in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
> > >> > > conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there 
>hasn't
> > >> > > been substantive work on field.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way
> > >> forward
> > >> > > may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
> > >> > > technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
> > >> > > transformation is Amul.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the 
>western
> > >> > > world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the 
>Amul
> > >> > > CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in 
>the
> > >> > > food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural
> > >> people,
> > >> > > fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to 
>the
> > >> > > grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in 
>rural
> > >> > > development.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
> > >> > > cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But 
>more
> > >> > > important, the principles of equity along with economic growth 
>are
> > >> > > embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
> > >> > > co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and 
>for
> > >> > > reducing disparities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Recognising the need for rural development, the government is 
>doing
> > >> > > its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 
>Common
> > >> > > Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
> > >> > > vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver
> > >> positive
> > >> > > re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative 
>effort
> > >> > > and participation from all quarters. Along with the government 
>and
> > >> the
> > >> > > co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
> > >> > > contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking 
>things
> > >> > > beyond limited CSR activities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at 
>rural
> > >> > > India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they
> > >> need
> > >> > > to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the 
>key to
> > >> > > sustain-able rural transformation.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > >> > > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > >> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >_______________________________________________
> > >> >wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > >> >wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > >> >http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > >> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > 
>http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5190242
> > Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss