![]() |
||
|
||
For: Subhash Bhatnagar (ed.), Information Technology in Developing Countries (Ahmedabad, 2001) Grassroots
ICT Projects in India*
Preliminary
Hypotheses
Kenneth
Keniston
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Few concepts have spread as rapidly as “digital divide” and with it, the hope of using modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) to promote development. Groups as diverse as the G8 at Okinawa, the United Nations, foundations, national, state and local governments, and private companies have seized upon the hope that the use of ICT’s could enable even the poorest of developing nations to “leapfrog” traditional problems of development like poverty, illiteracy, disease, unemployment, hunger, corruption, and social inequalities so as to move rapidly into the modern Information Age. But the hopes so widely expressed are largely built on an empirical vacuum. We know little about the factors that make for effectiveness or ineffectiveness of grassroots ICT projects in developing nations. Thus, critics can point out that the cost of creating a working Internet connection in a developing nation is the same as that of providing immunization against six fatal childhood diseases to thousands of children. Others have argued that the introduction of ICTs into communities otherwise unchanged will merely heighten existing inequalities. But instead of comparative research to counter or address such claims, we have “stories” – to be sure, largely true stories of successes - from which trustworthy generalizations are impossible. At least fifty grassroots projects are currently using modern ICT’s for development in India. A few of these projects (e.g. Dhar, Pondicherry) have been publicized; the great majority has not. Surprisingly, these projects have rarely been studied; no comparisons have been made between them; they are not in touch with each other; lessons learned in one project are not transmitted to others; appropriate technologies are rarely evaluated; financial sustainability, scalability and cost recovery are seldom addressed; and the opportunity to learn from the diverse, creative Indian experience is so far almost entirely wasted. The comments below derive from an ongoing study of grassroots ICT projects in India. They are based on site visits as of early 2001, on the observations and comments of Indian colleagues and friends, and on a careful reading of the descriptions of projects I have not yet visited. They are preliminary hypotheses, which I am currently testing, modifying, or changing on the basis of further research in India. About all, I hope they will be useful to Indian researchers, who can study these issues more intensively than my own superficial survey. 1. There is more
talk than action. Plans abound; on the ground realities are much
fewer. International, national, state, and local projects and conferences
are a dime a dozen. Only a
few have substance so far. 2. Nothing is anywhere nearly as simple as it
seems. Almost every project is late and runs into unexpected difficulties.
One example: the officer involved in computerizing land records in
one Indian state recently said more than half of them are legally
contested, or in the names of dead people, or illegible, etc, - hence
not computerizeable. Yet computerizing land records is on the agenda
of almost every Indian state. It would be interesting to know how some states,
which claim to have done it, have succeeded. 3. The goal of financial sustainability is rarely
achieved. Granting that initial start up costs have to be borne
by someone, very few projects even plan for long-term sustainability,
and even fewer achieve it. But there are exceptions: the Dhar-Gyandoot
Project in M.P. is close. The Pondicherry Project has received a further
grant with the goal of attempting to become self-sufficient. E.I.D.
Parry, which provides inputs for agri-business, has set up a series
of info-kiosks in villages, partly to provide better information to
farmers about agricultural inputs, harvesting of sugarcanes, and other
matters. And some projects, once the initial public or NGO funding
disappears, simply disappear as well. Example: an Apple project for
rural health workers in Rajasthan a few years back, which was only
recently taken up again by CMC (Hyderabad). 4. Information
technology should not be simply identified with computers and Internet. Some of the most inventive
uses of IT involve radio, television, and embedded chips, potentially
useful satellite inventories, etc. The classic example is the use
of automated butterfat assessment equipment in Gujarat, which has
radically simplified the process of evaluating milk and paying dairy
farmers. 5. Starting by consulting at the grassroots is
essential. Top down projects simply do not work, and end up by
providing information that people don't really need or use, or providing
it at an incomprehensible level of technical detail and terminology. 6. The information
people initially say they need, may not always be what they end up
using. In the M.S. Swaminathan, Pondicherry Project, for example,
male farmers originally said they needed information about agriculture;
it fact, their largest single usage of village info-kiosks was to
get information about government programs. Both forms of e-governance are difficult and costly
to implement. They also run into strong resistance, since they eliminate
middlemen and others whose jobs and incomes depend upon the relative
inaccessibility of government documents. 10. E-commerce,
in the sense of customer-to-business on-line buying within India,
is probably many years away for a majority of Indians. But the
operational, internal computerization of small and medium businesses
has already begun in the larger cities, with notable gains in efficiency.
At the Union level, the computerization of the railroad reservation
system and the banking system are notable examples of Indian successes.
If small business software packages were available in local languages,
some observers believe small and medium size merchants in cities,
towns, and villages would quickly adopt them. 11. Commercially
funded ICT networks have considerable promise. For example Warana
Project in Maharastra, though heavily funded initially by the state
of Maharastra and by Delhi, is currently funded by the sugar cane
cooperative in the area, and offers tangible benefits to sugar producers
and to sugar cane growers.. The E.I.D. Parry project in Nellikuppam,
Tamil Nadu is funded by Parry, which expects advantages in terms of
improved information to their producers about best agricultural practices.
ITC-IBD has set up a series of IT “chaupals” for soya, shrimp and
coffee farmers with the goal of reducing the costs of production that
currently go to middlemen. In such cases, commercial interests may
justify the expense of establishing rural info-kiosks, which can also
provide much general information in addition to specific product information.
12. The market
for "indigenous crafts" is a niche market in a few rich
countries. E-commerce from countries like India to Europe, the
United States, or Japan has enormous logistic problems.
It is not a realistic solution to the use of IT for poverty alleviation
for any but a tiny fraction of Indians. For example, the recent claim
of one state government that millions of local women are to be involved
in the export of local crafts turns out to be a promissory note that
is likely never to come due. Furthermore, if it does turn out that
there is a big market in wealthy countries for an “indigenous” product,
local crafts people are almost always beaten out by industrial producers. 13. A successful
commercial IT sector does not necessarily “trickle down” to ordinary
Indians. Proposals by state governments to develop “information technology for the masses” often
place primary emphasis on developing software technology parks, improving
education at the higher levels of information technology, etc. These
are laudable and necessary goals if India is to continue its astonishing
growth rate in information technology. But there is little evidence that the growth of the
software industry is reflected in improved living conditions, more
schools, greater justice, better health, more jobs, or other benefits
for ordinary Indians. The development of the Bangalore region goes
hand in hand with the persistence of Karnataka as one of the poorer
states in India. Critics of Chief Minister Naidu in Andhra Pradesh
claim that his stress on information technologies has not helped relieve
the poverty of the average citizen of the state. One project, however,
Nilgiri Networks, has created a software center in Ooty with the goal
of spreading the benefits of the IT boom to outlying regions. 14. Apparently
“technical decisions” concerning IT regulation, bandwidth allocation,
pricing mechanisms, transmission standards, etc., can have profound
effects on whether or not information technologies benefit ordinary
Indians. Professor Jhunjhunwala at IIT – Madras has given many
examples in his writings. One case is the requirement that ISP providers
guarantee to “cover” an entire state. This effectively precluded local
entrepreneurs from providing Internet connectivity in small and medium
towns. It thus stood in the way of an Internet service provider phenomenon
akin to the local initiatives that have helped spread satellite television
rapidly in India. Analysis of the impact of technical, regulatory,
and technological decisions on “IT for the common man” is largely
absent. 15. The wheel
is constantly reinvented. I can identify at least four dozen "grassroots
projects" in India, some of which I have visited. The people
in these projects are not usually in touch with each other, rarely
publish or write anything about what they are doing, and - if they
are public officials - are constantly transferred here, there, and
everywhere. There is little accumulation of knowledge, not even the
most preliminary kinds of on-the-site evaluation, little possibility
of learning from the successes and failures of other projects.
The kind of expensive, detailed evaluation that the
Grameen Bank cell phone project in Bangladesh has undergone is unlikely
at this point. (And in any case, the research concludes the project
works financially because of the unusual regulatory structure and
financing of telecom in Bangladesh.) But we desperately need efforts
to learn from comparative studies of existing projects what works,
what does not work, how local conditions affect outcomes, etc. 16. You cannot believe a lot of what you are told.
At one meeting, for example, the audience was told that satellite
water temperature data for the Bay of Bengal is being provided to
offshore fisherman. A member of the audience asked why this information
had only been available for two out of the last 365 days. The speaker
replied, "Cloud cover". Other projects that are publicized
turn out, on a site visit, to have closed, or not yet to be in operation,
or to have deteriorated from their stated original goals. 17. Until the
costs of the "last mile", of basic IT devices, and of local
language software are brought down, the goal of "wiring India”
will remain unachieved. My heroes in this area are Ashok Jhunjhunwala
at IIT-Madras, Vijay Chandru and his colleagues at the Indian Institute
of Science, and Rajeev Sangal of the IIIT-Hyderabad. They are doing
world class work on lowering the cost of the "last mile",
on producing a low cost ($200) "Simputer", and on sophisticated
machine translation of India’s languages. The India-Linux movement
is also lively and enthusiastic; projects like the Simputer project
use Linux because it is simple and free. But they run into obstacles,
not least of all with GOI regulations, with multinationals, and with
companies that have a financial interest in having India import European,
Japanese, or American technologies. Low-cost technological solutions alone are of course
not solutions to the problems of development, but they are prerequisites
for IT in India. 18. The "IT
for the masses", "bridging the digital divide" movement
has an inordinate amount of exaggeration and wishful thinking.
But there are in fact real cases of IT projects that actually help
poor people in India to meet their basic needs and assert their fundamental
rights. We need to define the characteristics of those projects and
try to spread the word about what works and what does not. I trust it is clear that I am not convinced that ICTs
are invariably, or even usually, the best answer to poverty, injustice,
illness, inequality, discrimination, exploitation, hunger, etc. But
at the same time, I think that Bill Gates overstates his point when
he says poor people need medicine and not computers. The challenge
is to learn if, when, and how information technologies (of all kinds)
can be the most cost-effective means to help people, especially poor
people, meet their basic needs and assert their fundamental rights. * The project as of mid-2001 had been supported from
a variety of sources; including a Nippon Electric Company grant
administered by the Provost’s Fund at MIT and the Ford Foundation
(New Delhi). I am grateful for the many project directors and workers
and citizens who have generously taken time to explain their work,
to colleagues who have added their insights, to Prof. Roddam Narasimha,
F.R.S., Director of the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS),
Indian Institute of Science, and to my colleagues at NIAS for the
warmth of their hospitality.
|
||