[wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
Balaji G
balaji_g1947 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 6 11:35:09 UTC 2006
Hi John, Vickram, Vijay and all
Vickram has rightly summed the issue as
> "The lack of design of a mechanism to spend the money is at fault".
So it is do with money.
And distortions to the game begin here.
John has zeroed it further to
> "whats required is an effective and sustainable building mechanism-"
And that remains the million dollar question, which no one has been able to
solve, except for some clues in Mr Mishra's article.
Let us pause, and ponder if there is and where is the hope ?
Having said so, I also say that finding solutions is imperative. As Vickram
says, design of solutions-mechanisms for money have to be found, and these
have to be found amidst all the givens i.e. Lack of interest of corporates
and private industry, performance of government inititaives, etc.
What should these mechanisms be ? I have my doubts on the scaling of
community based approaches, but one must develop the area further, as well
as explore other mechanisms. Hope is in strenghtening the energies of
communities as against burdening them with another development task, which
is easier done by Government and moneyed industry.
Balaji
>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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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#a5197954
Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
More information about the wsfii-discuss
mailing list