[wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?

Sun Jul 16 11:26:11 UTC 2006

Heh Bjarke, good to hear from you :)

Keep up the good work!

And I look forward to your report and wisdoms, and hopefully further 
dialogue.

John

>From: "Bjarke at DjurslandS.net" <bjarke at djurslands.net>
>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>
>CC: 'Gregers Petersen' <gregers at momu.dk>, 
>klavs at langkaergaard.dk,Admin at Boevl.dk
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:54:42 +0200
>
>Dear John Wilson !  :-)
>
>As an answer for now to your mail beneath, concerning reporting, strategy,
>design etc. from DIIRWB, I just want you to know that the DIIRWB staff of
>about 15 half or full time members are right on track with many-many
>initiatives. I will be back on that when I get some more time or when
>relevans makes it a need. It might be of special interest for you that I am
>working on a 50 pages study for InfoDev called "Lessons learned from the
>DjurslandS.net experience". There is a lot to learn for beginners to 
>prevent
>"child diseases", and that was in the first place the reason that we
>established DIIRWB. You get the study as soon as it is finished :-) - Right
>now I am drowning in reports and applications with close deadlines . . .
>
>With smiles :-)
>Yours Sincereley
>Bjarke
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "john wilson" <johnresearch at hotmail.com>
>To: <wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>Cc: <balaji_g1947 at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 3:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>
>
>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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >View this message in context:
> >http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5131521
> >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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss