[cr-india] AMARC AsiaPac interview

[Vickram Crishna]

Ashish Sen, AsiaPac head of AMARC, is interviewed in the current issue of RadioandMusic by Aparna Joshi, following the recent meeting in Bihar, supported by Action Aid.

It is an interesting interview, lengthy enough to cover several important matters. I have excerpted a few, with my comments inline.

Technology: "There needs to be more information disseminated about the availability
of appropriate and low cost technology in setting up community radio
stations. For instance, very few are aware of NOMAD technology that is
authorized manufactures of low cost transmitters. Most of us are aware
only of BEL and WEBEL (also authorized dealers) whose costs are far
steeper and beyond the reach of the aam aadmi. If community radio is to
assert itself as a “voice for and of the voiceless” there needs to be
greater impetus given towards providing and accessing low cost
technology.
"

Comment: It is a pity that Ashish does not mention the possibility of DIY construction, something that actually helped his own VOICES aided community media station, Namma Dhwani, to come up, using cable radio, at a time when the government, sans policy, proscribed community broadcasting. While there are places in India where cable radio is not an option, because of the local population's geo-spatial, economic and gender distribution, it is still a viable and relatively inexpensive solution for many. In addition, self-made TXs are far cheaper than any manufactured set, and also encourage entrepreneurship (what Nehru called self-reliance) in construction and maintenance. 

Sure, the Nomad sets are 'authorised' (and represent an international effort to promote CR), but why has the government imposed the need for authorising particular manufacturers, instead of simply publishing standards and allowing Indians to help themselves? This is particularly poignant considering the interview talks about the meeting in Bihar, which is where the use of a DIY Tx led to an international outcry against Indian government policy on CR, leading to the amendments that finally kicked off true grassroots stations. Later in this interview, Sen talks about the need for strengthening the CR Forum, and I wish he had spelt out how this would help bring about self-reliance.

C for campus or community?: "...the single window clearance should be applicable for   ngo/cbo applicants alike and not just for campus radio applicants.
There needs to be more inclusiveness – both in spirit and practice –
within the sector. While respecting differences between campus
community and grass roots community stations, we need to build bridges
between both to ensure a vibrant community radio climate in the
country.
" 

Comment: In fact, the attitude of the government (both the Wireless Adviser office and the I&B ministry) has been directed in exacerbating differences between these two forms of public radio, perhaps in order to prevent them from chipping away at PB's remaining domain. Or maybe they are just ornery, eh?

Rural/Urban divide: "The relevance of community radio in rural and remote areas is not
disputed. But we also need to ensure that we do not lose sight of the
wood for the trees. Community Radio has a vital role to play in
addressing urban poverty and providing the urban poor and less
privileged communities with a powerful voice."

Comment: As has been pointed out on this list by others, some cities have as many as 3 campus stations jostling around each other, with no space yet given for any other form of grassroots 'voices'. Apparently the vision of a community-driven media service has not yet penetrated our worthy (and unelected, do I need to point out?) panjandrum's consciousness, despite so many years of desperate advocacy. 

Frequency allocation: "The paucity of frequencies for community radio stations, as articulated
by official quarters, is worrying and needs to be reviewed." 

Comment: In fact, The Wireless Adviser openly allots only three discrete frequencies for CR, and completely ignores the paucity of actual usage of this band across the country. I recall someone (was it Sajan?) had advocated using this list to monitor FM usage across the country, and I think that is a very practical idea. Publishing such usage in the format of a distribution map will go a long way in making up the gap in information dissemination (unfortunately still a defining characteristic of the government). Without such action, it is fairly obvious that the office of the Wireless Adviser has absolutely no intention of taking proactive action to promote CR in India (be it in the form of community and/or campus radio stations. 

Commercial is another story, since we witness pains taken to enable nationally owned or promoted stations to maintain the same frequency across the country, presumably as a moneysaving branding exercise. Incidentally, in other countries such as the US, I believe such stations have a four letter callsign, not a frequency. When the move to digital broadcasting takes place, this question - or should I say opportunity? as in golden goose - will no longer be relevant).

In late 1871, one of Bombay University's first engineering graduates, Samuel Nagavkar, joined the PWD in the erstwhile Mysore State. An upright man, he is quoted as later advising a son-in-law, who was about to take up a government post, that 'dishonesty did not consist only in being corrupt, but that a man who did not put forth his best effort in the discharge of his duties was "guilty of gross dishonesty." ' I fear that till today, this is observed more in the breach. 
  
News: "The ban on news. This contradicts and inhibits some of the key
objectives of community radio which seeks to provide local/community
information for local/community needs. Further, it is not clear what
constitutes news."

Comment: I mentioned in an earlier post what the government view on this is, as stated at the Ahmedabad consultation: acceptable news on non-government stations (including commercial, I assume, since they also languish in a grey area) consists of announcements, unlike on the government-owned channels. I suppose 'my sister's wedding' announcement will be allowed, but no comments on what the guests wore, or who showed up. Announcing the tsunami about to hit will be ok, but nothing about the hoarding of stocks by the unscrupulous, or sale by them of donated relief supplies, once said tsunami has passed, and decimated the listening audience.

Monitoring of news: Ashish does not make any suggestions. However, several of us in this list have suggested this activity be devolved down to the local level, especially given the vibrancy of the local language and culture, without knowing which it is impossible to assess the value of the content. Needless to say, this is pretty well anathema to the Centre, which remains adamant about surrendering any effective power to the States. I see no reason why the States need be involved, actually, since the Centre can directly appoint local luminaries for this vocation. In any case, such monitoring is only meaningful in case of complaints, and even as it stands, recorded content (up to 3 months old) need only be sent to the Centre (in transcribed and translated form, mind you) in such an eventuality. This is not my opinion, I am repeating what I heard at the consultation.

Quality of the CR Policy: "The need to review and extend the transmitter range especially in
hilly terrain. (The current policy does take cognizance of this to the
extent that it indicates that exceptions to the current 100 watt range
can be made depending on the terrain). There is need to also reconsider
the validity of mobile broadcasting especially in the context of
emergencies and disaster situations. 
Another constraint is linked to the age of the NGO applicant.
Currently, the policy permits NGOs that have been in existence for
three years to be eligible for licenses. However, in areas vulnerable
to floods and famines, there are credible and community based NGOs that
have come up in the recent past."

Comment: Again, Ashish seems focused on transmitter power (which is, incidentally, irrevocably linked to costs), rather than effective range. Multi-modal broadcasting (combining data and voice in modules) is cheaper and more robust for such situations, and promotes a variety of entrepreneurial talents in addition to the valuable skills involved in content management that typify the traditional CR deployment. Mainstream media provides precious few opportunities for serious comment on community radio, unsurprisingly, and each opportunity ought to be maximised. 

Revenue generation: "Sponsored programmes that are relevant to the community and development
or educational could be other sources of revenue generation."

Comment: Actually, sponsored programmes are specifically disallowed on CR. I think we need to focus on total cost of operations and total community earnings rather than looking at blinkered revenue models that derive from 'organised' revenue stream visions. By its very nature, a community is not organised, and any effort to organising it leads to internal politics. Failure to recognise this seminal fact will doom any grassroots community initiative, whether or not encouraged (and these are not) by the government.

Looking ahead: "A core group has been formed to take the (Bihar consultation) endorsement forward."

Well, that is good news. Will this group be aligned directly with the CR Forum?

Vickram
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20081229/7f66bd6a/attachment-0001.html