Although telecentres have caught the imagination of government, their adoption is caught in a false pedagogy that treats entitlements as services and citizens as customers who pay service charges. The focus on putting a price on governance must be stemmed.Over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as the next big thing for socio-economic development. This hope is based on the fact that ICTs can accelerate decentralisation, transparency and citizen-centric participation, and through these revitalise and rejuvenate democracy. Certainly ICTs possess a transformatory power, but to understand the potential vis a vis development needs, a closer examination is needed.
In this article, I examine the 'telecentre', which - as an amalgam of many different technologies - appears to have caught the imagination of government, development practitioners, funding agencies and corporates alike. A telecentre is a public place where people can access computers, the Internet, and other digital technologies that enable people to gather information, create, learn, and communicate with others while they develop essential 21st-century digital skills. While each telecentre is different, their common focus is on the use of digital technologies to support community, economic, educational, and social development-reducing isolation, bridging the digital divide, promoting health issues, creating economic opportunities, and reaching out to youth for example. The above definition of a telecentre by Wikipedia quite aptly captures its essence.
There are literally thousands of telecentre initiatives that dot the country, most of which are a mix of government pilot projects, NGO-driven initiatives and private for-profit projects. Now the Government of India is getting into the picture in a much more structured manner and is rolling out 100,000 'Common Service Centres' (CSCs) for 600,000 villages as part of its National E-Governance Programme (NeGP).
The potential of telecentres
A telecentre has the ability to forge together initiatives that weave disadvantaged communities into the mainstream, initiatives which bring together divergent needs of a community and create opportunities which lead to overall social and economic development. Typically, a telecentre would start out by providing a pool of development services, providing information related to best practices related to agriculture, health, education, livelihood opportunities & computer education. In addition to this, it would provide utility bill payment services.
By doing this the telecentre lays the groundwork for different sections of the community to come together and take part in government activities. While one might be inclined to dismiss these activities described above as trivial, it must be kept in mind that this is but the first step towards connecting citizens with government.
The next step involves the telecentre providing information regarding development schemes, social entitlements, and lists of project beneficiaries. In most cases, this information is available online i.e. most state governments digitise development information and put out the information on the Internet, which can be accessed in real time. This is an important change in India, where procuring any kind of information is almost always shrouded in secrecy and riddled with corruption, especially in rural areas. In this scenario, the telecentre then becomes that 'safe -haven' where citizens come to access all this information.
There are also initiatives by the government to make e-governance a two-way process. For instance, the government has started putting together draft policy papers on the Internet and invites inputs as part of various consultation processes. Communities which are directly affected by government plans and policies have a real chance to provide input, when such solicitations are brought to their attention. Also, in many cases, individual telecentre initiatives run by government at the district level have well established online grievance redressal systems which allow citizens to make complaints against erring government officials/public servants; complaints which are directly looked into by authorities at the highest level.
Not to sit and admire these accomplishments at the risk of losing sight of the larger picture, but the possibilities described above would have been very difficult to imagine and enforce even a few years ago. The ability of ICTs (in this case, telecentres) to bypass traditional encumbrances thus goes a long way toward bringing about citizen participation in governance.
Making the offline connection
Of course, participating in governance is quite different from shaping governance (being involved in the policy planning process from scratch). So far we've looked at citizens being able to access information on development services and the ability to talk back to government. This is only the beginning; going further, the ability for citizens to create and shape policy and the role played by telecentres in this regard is an area whose potential is only now unfolding.
A major development in this regard is the concept of 'community informatics'. While plenty of information can be made available at a telecentre, the validity of such information can vary greatly. How can this be tackled? Could citizens themselves validate - or even create - data using their local knowledge, so that its veracity is improved? The most likely answer to this question lies in community informatics (CI), which is a simple yet effective and participatory mechanism. CI refers to the process of information gathering being undertaken by communities in a bottom-up, participatory and collaborative manner so that this information directly complements and or authenticates institutional data, which then feeds into policy in that relevant domain.
CI also allows direct monitoring of government schemes by local communities. For instance, it is well known that the number of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families is often under-reported in government estimates, simply because governments are loath to be seen as presiding over great poverty. But under-counting doesn't eradicate poverty, and the sufferings of the uncounted are very real. CI can help them overcome such neglect; an enumeration process undertaken by the community itself would be more definitive in identifying BPL families, allowing it to challenge the empiricism of institutional data.
What role does the telecentre play in this process? While the actual data gathering and collation takes place offline, the telecentre is the space where the community (through volunteers) gathers and uploads the information on to computers. Where there is Internet connectivity and linkages to the government backbone network (State Wide Area Network), such data can directly feed into that system too, and be more representative than institutional data. Even if there is only intermittent connectivity, a printout of the data can be physically delivered to the government office where it gets processed and feeds into policy (Such work-arounds are being resorted to by quite a few pilot projects initiated by governments).
As governments move to a culture of e-governance, more and more data gets digitised and the opportunities for communities to participate in the overall development process increase exponentially. Once there is a certain regularity and comfort with this process, the telecentre becomes this space where people come to acquire information, hold community meetings, to an extent where government officials recognise this as an important platform and use it to interact with the community.
Thus, the telecentre acquires a certain credibility and legitimacy, by which it has the power to shape and change power equations within the community itself. In the Indian context, one gets to see pilot projects that have worked exactly this. There are specific projects which work exclusively with women's collectives, Dalits and other marginalised groups. By firmly keeping the ownership of telecentres with the constituencies they work with, many of the sponsor and volunteer organisations have managed to initiate a change in the power equations. And although there has been opposition from those sections of the community who are most likely to lose out, the changes are evident and sustainable.
A false pedagogy
At a very practical level, more development-domain departments (health, education) must be linked to telecentres in a way that citizens are in a position to benefit from entitlements that are met by these departments. This will go a long way in realising the potential of telecentres.
But there are shortcomings too. There is also an urgent need to challenge - and change - the 'efficiency' based pedagogy which is at play while describing the working of a telecentre. In the Indian context, telecentres (specifically those run by the government) have mainly been perceived as tools of e-governance. Some of the more famous initiatives are Akshaya (Kerala), Rural E-Seva (West Godavari- Andhra Pradesh) & Bangalore One (Bangalore). Telecentre functionaries describe these as 'one stop shops' where one accesses services like utility bill payment, procurement of digitized land ownership records and obtaining birth and death certificates (customers typically pay a service charge which is shared between the entrepreneur and the government department providing the service). Apart from the government functions, a telecentre may also run commercial functions like printing, photocopying etc.
The description of 'entitlements' as 'services', of 'citizens' as 'customers', and the notion of a 'service charge' are pointers towards this pedagogy. The focus of putting a price on governance is rather unfortunate and must be stemmed at the earliest. Telecentres should be thought of the same way as health centres, education facilities and roads - as public infrastructure.
What is most appalling is that nearly universally, the only kind of sustainability that ever gets talked about is that of financial sustainability - that the telecentre has to be in a position to fund itself in a matter of a year or two, and in this melee, concepts of community ownership, participation and social sustainability are thrown out the window. The 100,000 Common Service Centres the government is promoting through 'Public Private Partnership' model also suffer from this. The telecentres will be auctioned out to highest bidders, who in addition to providing government services can offer commercial services and in this way recover their investments. Clearly, that is an invitation to focus on the latter, although the purported purpose of the government in establishing the CSCs is the former.
Lessons from good telecentres While successful efforts are sadly rare, a few telecentre initiatives have done good work in bridging the digital divide and have positively impacted disadvantaged communities.
In an earlier paragraphs I wrote about the potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in development domains. I had specifically looked at the role that telecentres play in this regard. This article looks at existing telecentre initiatives that have done good work in bridging the digital divide and have positively impacted disadvantaged communities.
The good news regarding these initiatives is that they have clearly demonstrated extensive links between development sectors and technology. These initiatives have ensured that there is a sustained focus on development without being overawed by the technology. These initiatives refuse to see access to development services as a revenue generation activity. A key factor in these projects is that they are either run by the state administration or by NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations). The telecentres have extensive links with the community and hence address the all important question of decentralisation and accountability.
Sadly, such initiatives are few and far between and are not often highlighted. The good work done by three of these initiatives is described below.
The M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF)
This project is amongst the oldest ICTD (ICT for Development) interventions in India. The MSSRF telecentre initiative was started in 1992 to provide technology impetus in development domains. Over the past decade or so, this initiative has extended beyond Pondicherry and Tamilnadu to other states such as Orissa and Maharashtra.
The foundation follows a 'hub and spoke' model for its telecentre initiative with a designated number of telecentres christened as Village Resource Centres - VRC (spokes). These spokes are linked to a centrally located Village Knowledge Centre - VKC (hub). A typical telecentre is run by knowledge workers who are usually drawn from the village itself. A knowledge centre provides information on government schemes, and broadcasts regular news bulletins.
Information about government schemes is available in the local language and in electronic form so people can get information for themselves. In case some piece of information is not available, the village knowledge workers try to procure that information from the village knowledge centre, where staff search for the information and relay it back to the resource centres. The centre also conducts computer training for villagers.
There is no formal setup between the information workers and the government regarding procurement of information regarding government schemes and services. Instead, an informal understanding between them allows the workers to get this information. Because the centre is a storehouse of information, it attracts people of the community, thus giving it legitimacy. The government also realises the importance of the centres and whenever the villagers need to be mobilised for any particular cause, the VRC becomes the space for doing so.
MSSRF is guided by several major principles, including:
Inclusion: Traditionally MSSRF sets up its telecentres in rural areas. They do this after consultations with different constituents of the community. One of the MSSRF's key focus areas is inclusion; they do not open telecentres in spaces that are seen to be exclusionary. In many cases, the telecentre is intentionally opened in areas inhabited by disadvantaged sections, forcing residents from the 'upper strata' of society to come to these places. This does help change the power equations, albeit slowly.
There have been cases in the past where the opening up of telecentres in areas dominated by uppers castes have resulted in restricted or no access to Dalits. Those telecentres have hence had to be discontinued. However, this was the case when the MSSRF initiative first started. Things have now changed such that inclusion of disadvantaged communities is a pre-requisite for the opening of a telecentre in any area.
Social Sustainability v/s financial sustainability: The real contribution of MSSRF in the entire telecentre debate has been in the aspect of financing. It is perhaps the first institution to explicitly state that financial sustainability is not the underlying or over-riding principle of telecentre initiatives. MSSRF clearly believes that a telecentre exists to serve the citizens and a price cannot be put on access to knowledge. This key principle has guided and continues to guide the working of MSSRF.
People do recognise that a dole-out approach won't work for long. When we ask people how the telecentres will survive if and when MSSRF withdraws, they chuckle and reply that they will get funding through the Panchayat, other village institutions or voluntary contributions if necessary. This will ensure funding for the knowledge workers and activities associated with the centre.
Community monitoring and ownership: The MSSRF initiative also addresses the all-important question of community monitoring and ownership. The monitoring and evaluation of the centre is undertaken by a joint committee comprising of MSSRF staff and people drawn from the village itself. This committee comes together every few months to discuss the current activities of the telecentre, areas that need to be strengthened and ways to strengthen them, and future activities.
With regard to ownership, MSSRF has been constantly training the information workers on the managerial aspects of running the telecentres. This gives them confidence so if and when MSSRF does withdraw, the trained workers can run the centres smoothly.
This initiative is one of those rare examples that successfully combines the issues of financing, community monitoring and ownership. This initiative thrives and will continue to do so because it caters to the information needs of the local people, gives them a sense of ownership of the initiative, and the chance to shape its running. This makes the centre indispensable to the lives of the community.
E-Gram - Gujarat
The E-Gram telecentre initiative is a relatively new one, having started in 2001 and piloted in one district of Gujarat. It has since then been extended to all districts of Gujarat. The project aims to digitise all the Panchayats in the state. An E-Gram centre is typically located in a public space, usually a Panchayat office. The centre has a computer with or without an internet connection, and a printer.
The centre is operated by a Village Computer Entrepreneur (VCE), typically a youth from the village who has technical knowledge. The centre offers services like printouts of land records, payment of electricity bills, issue of caste certificates, and information on government schemes. A certain amount is charged as user fees for availing these services, except for the provision of information on government schemes. The user fee is shared between the Panchayat and the VCE
While the aim of E-Gram was to digitise panchayats, it has achieved that and much more (which is why this initiative stands out and must be replicated):
Gram Mitras and E-Gram: As part of its mandate to bring in more decentralisation, the Gujarat government has also initiated a scheme which involves the appointment of 'Gram Mitras' (Friends of the village) in the areas of heath, education, agriculture, development & social justice. This scheme has close links with the E-Gram initiative. These Gram Mitras are not employees but are contracted, and their job is to go from house to house collecting details of a family's health, finances and so on. This information is compiled in the form of a family data sheet called a 'Kutumbh Patrak'.
Once this information is compiled, the Gram Mitras return to the E-Gram and in conjunction with the VCE, digitise this information. A printout is then taken and submitted to the taluk level office, which has a complete record of village level information. Through this data, families eligible for government entitlements are identified, and information regarding these entitlements is relayed back to them through the Gram Mitras.
While the current arrangement involves mostly offline links, there are plans to provide connectivity with the state wide area network. This will enable the VCE to enter the data on local computers, enabling the data to be automatically available to the administration at the taluk and the secretariat. Citizens on their part will be able to track their records and the entitlements available to them. Clearly, this aspect of the initiative is something that needs to be highlighted and replicated in other initiatives as well.
Outsourcing and E-Gram: Civil society groups contend that government must be held responsible for its actions and that outsourcing of any government work amounts to dereliction of duty. While this may be true, the E-gram case study presents a different side to this view, one which must be considered.
E-Gram operations are outsourced. A private technology company is responsible for the upkeep of the equipment and the supervision of the VLE. However, unlike the Common Service Centre Scheme (CSCs) where private companies own the telecentre and look upon it as a commercial venture, the example of E-Gram is refreshingly different.
The private company in charge of running the E-Gram only has the mandate of ensuring that the specified functions of the telecentre are being executed. The company has a representative at the taluk, district and secretariat level, and their performance is monitored by the district and state administration. The company is contracted for a certain time period and is paid accordingly; it is not expected to make money from citizens.
When we talk about PPP (Private Public Partnerships), this is the kind of partnerships that I would like to see, where the rein of control still lies in the hands of the government, and governance is not seen as a commercial venture. E-gram stands out in this respect. However, with the coming of CSCs with their accent on revenue generation, and the eventual merging of E-Gram into CSCs, one can only hope that the gains made by this initiative hold out against CSCs.
Akshaya - Kerala
The Akshaya telecentre project initiated by the Kerala administration has been much studied, and findings regarding this initiative have been varied. But two things regarding this project stand out:
This was probably the first project that brought together different government departments to provide a range of schemes/entitlements across a single counter.
The second and important point being that when the project was initially launched, there was a concerted effort to recruit those disadvantaged as telecentre entrepreneurs, including women and the youth.
A few years down the line, the results have been mixed with a few centres closing down, and some doing reasonably well. This result has not deterred the administration, which has reserved 33% of the centres for women during the expansion phase in the remaining districts.
Going forward ...
These are the stories of the few ICTD telecentre initiatives that continue to inspire hope. They demonstrate that development projects when implemented in the right way with the right technologies can bring about a tremendous difference in the lives of communities. They also demonstrate that ultimately, it is only political will that decides which way a project will turn out.
No comments:
Post a Comment