maraa

Community Radio, is a subject which is gaining popularity thick and fast in the world of development and social communication. The top down communication models of the 70’s have lost their sheen considerably, and the new keywords are inclusion and participation. While there is no doubt about the potential of the medium, and enough “success stories” to demonstrate its feasibility, there is very little to cheer about with the Indian story.

Before harping on the lackadaisical movement, let us for a moment establish what is definitely positive. India is perhaps the only country in the South East Asian region to have a separate and distinct policy for community radio. Countries like Nepal do not distinguish between commercial and community radio, in spite of more than 15 years of history. A strife stricken Sri Lanka places community radio squarely under the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation. While stations like Kothmale CMC has shown remarkable participation, the station manager, technical manager etc are all ‘employees’ of SLBC, and all advertising revenue goes back to SLBC. In recent years, the pressure to consolidate the advertising pie for CR has only increased steadily.

Secondly, the Indian policy places community radio within the framework of article 19 of the Indian Constitution which enshrines the freedom of speech and expression. This means that it recognizes the fundamental right of communities to express themselves, and further recoginses community radio as a legitimate tool for expression. In contemporary development communication debates, Amartya Sen has also said that giving a voice to the voiceless is a form of development. In this sense, the Indian policy is an admirable one and has already inspired a similar policy in Bangladesh.

Thirdly, and this is not a popular opinion, the Indian policy, allows for a maximum of 100 Watts ERP (Effective Radiated Power) and maximum 30 meters height for the tower. This on a FM band gives about an average of about 10-12 kilometer radium of coverage. In a diverse country like India, it could be dangerous to have community radio stations with a large coverage area. It could actually lead to local and regional media monopolisation and eventually an exercise in cloning All India Radio. We already have Low Power FM AIR stations, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Lastly, the policy explicitly states that the community radio’s management structure should be reflective of the community it seeks to serve. This is an excellent addition to the policy which aims to give political power to communities through ownership and management of media. Only participation is not enough to give rise to ownership. Formal community ownership is an aim which has been formalised through this policy.

Having said all this, there is a lot which can be done without in the same policy. And it is these that I would like to focus on in this piece. It is perhaps of these obstacles that today a less than 100 community radios are on air, and this in spite of a statement by the Government in 2006 expecting 4000 radios in the first year!

The most obvious and glaring inconsistency in this policy is the prohibition on news and current affairs. This condition defies logic since the policy does not go on to define what constitutes news and current affairs. By deliberately keeping notions of news very vague, the government has left a loophole for penalizing community radios which fall out of favor. It is obvious that there are two streams of thought which have dictated this line. First, this is the age of coalition politics, and be it BJP or the Congress, the national parties are dependent on their “allies” for forming the government. However, each “ally” is also looking at increasing their tally, either to form the government themselves, or to claim key ministries in the cabinet. This automatically means that the powers at the Centre do not want local politicians (Panchayat level/District/State) to use the tool politically. Many states today in the country are dominated by smaller parties, and they will only be strengthened by exploiting community radio. The other is a psychological reason, which is the colonial hangover of paranoia and mistrust of its people. The government knows that in a few years, it will be impossible to monitor content. Today, cable operators are being quickly phased out, and satellite television is replacing the old network. This makes content easier to monitor. Also today privatized media is hostage to advertisers, and does not have a political mandate. If there are 5000 community radios, then it would be impossible to practically monitor or regulate them beyond a point. The only practicality is to chart out a broad guideline and leave it at that. Those who are caught violating will be made examples of. This only reinforces the lack of trust in the common man by the government. We are still governed by draconian laws like Indian Telegraph Act, 1855, and this news prohibtion is just another manifestation of colonial thinking.

Another huge problem which is not directly about the policy but equally critical is the licensing procedure both in letter and spirit. All applicants are required to send the applications to Delhi and subsequently appear personally in Delhi. This is expensive and inconvenient for grassroots groups in other parts of the country. Once they come to Delhi, they are asked to appear before a screening committee, comprising of UN agencies, donor agencies, Planning Commission etc. One doesn’t know on what basis this committee is constituted, and moreover, these applicants are not given any help in terms of what they should be prepared for. There have been reports of how random questions are asked of applicants. For example: “Do you have enough money to put an AC in your radio?” This makes one wonder about how the executive and legislature sees this particular tool. Further, there is a clear distinction in procedures between NGOs and universities. NGO’s applications take nearly a year and half to get processed, while universities’ applications take about 6-7 months to get processed. Again, this is indicative of the fundamental mistrust of the government in civil society institutions. This in spite of a screening committee, and clearance by a whole host of ministries, including Home, Defence, etc. The policy clearly mentions deadlines for each department to clear the application, but these deadlines are often ignored, without communication to the applicant. This means that people have to wait really long to get a simple broadcasting license. Ironically, it is also true that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is very understaffed as far as community radio is concerned. This means that files, reports, surveys etc are all misplaced or lost regularly, further delaying the process.

Even if NGOs do make it through this process, there is a heavy distortion of data regarding the technology available for community radio. There are two parts to the technology. One is the hardware, and the other software. Regarding hardware, the government has only highlighted quasi-governmental bodies like Bharath Electronics (BEL) or WEBEL, and has made it very difficult for indigenous manufacturers like NOMAD to become authorized dealers. This is as far as transmission is concerned. Also people don’t know too much about tried and testd equipment as far as production equipment is concerned. There needs to be more discussion and sharing of experiences as far as production equipment is concerned.Moreover, indigenous manufacturers like NOMAD also need to start implementing their open sourcing philosophy, and actually start building capacities of various technical personnel in radios. This capacity building cannot stop at mere handling of issues with transmitters, but also sharing the actual design blueprint of the transmission. This is the only way to democratize hardware.

Another huge area of need is the need to publicise. Today almost every NGO/Community is aware of something like NREGA or even RTI. Even the UPA government cited these two acts as success stories of their term. Similarly, it would be of great help if the government publicised and promoted community radio with equal if not more vigor. Communication and expression needs to be given pride of place if we are to democratize the process of development. Today, there are people even in IT & Telecom Ministry, or WPC (the wing which gives frequency to CRs) who don’t even know about the existence of such a policy, much less civil society actors. There are areas like Chattisgarh, areas in the North East, or Rajasthan, where not even a single application has been filed for CR. The applications have been coming mainly from Delhi and Tamil Nadu. Most of the radios are universities. This is a related problem. Universities are well networked and have good access to financial resources. Thus they know about the policy or are told about it and asked to apply. In this way, most of the available frequencies are being allocated to universities. Of course, campus radios can play a huge role, but there needs to be healthy balance between campus, NGO and agricultural centers in terms of licenses given. Such problems have led to silent and cold wars between campus radio and NGOs. This division will only further weaken a movement which is yet to take off.

Lastly, allow me to move the focus a bit to the NGOs who actually have received the license. A quick perusal of the Ministry’s website will reveal that all the NGOs who have obtained the Wireless Operating License (WOL) are large NGO’s whose accounts are comparable to finances of some of the smaller states in India. These NGOs are usually working in several countries or at least several states in India, have head offices in multiple Metro cities, and have huge programs which work with lakhs and lakhs of people. They are as institutionalized as our infamous bureacracy, and have very little potential of community participation. This is perhaps even worse than not having a policy. Today what is happening is NGOs are setting up community radio stations investing lakhs of rupees, and then using it as a tool to enhance their existing NGO programmes. The radio then becomes a one way propaganda tool. Not very different from how Hitler used the radio in Nazi Germany. NGOs are somehow immune to the idea of participatory communication. The idea still persists that communities are one-dimensional cardboard cut outs, who only have problems, and it is only the NGOs who have the relevant solution in the form of projects. Thus the radio is a handy tool which can inform the people about these projects and bring about awareness. Instead of spending money on salaries of field coordinators, who had to go to each village and mobilise people for meetings etc, now a single message on the radio can mobilise people. That’s what community radio is being limited to. We need an urgent re-configuration and re-imagination of radio from the civil society. Information and knowledge is power. But the key question is who is creating information for whom. The very central core idea of CR is that you hand over this power to the communities. NGOs merely facilitate the process through becoming license holders. This is where the policy line “The structure of the management should be reflective of the community it seeks to serve” becomes so important.

Also we need to think strongly about who exactly is applying. Community radio when in the hands of such big NGOs, totally defeat the purpose of such a tool. The most “marginalized” communities which development often speaks of, like adivasis, dalits, people with disabilities, people with AIDS, senior citizens etc, still don’t have access to community radio. The word community is not homogeneous. There are wheels within wheels so to speak. There are communities who are relatively poor, by the middle class standards, but are middle class by some others’ standards. This means that they are probably just above BPL, are a part of some micro-credit organization, their children are all going to schools, the family usually has a small piece of land. The adivasis are still being discriminated against. The dalits are still ignored, and the senior citizens are still being thrown out of their homes as they are a “burden”. Nothing has changed. It is to these communities that radio needs to cater to.

For this, there are several changes one needs to work towards. This means that first of all, we need to talk to people’s movements who are actually engaging with these communities and their challenges. We need to tell them about this policy, and help them through the application process. We need to make available hardware and software which is less than 1.5 lakh rupees in total. Moreover, we need to mobilize financial resources which can subsidize capacity building. It is only when community radio comes in to the hands of the people, that it will start becoming a true movement.

Another crucial change which needs to happen for the movement to really take off is representation for community radios of this country in a political sense. Community Radio Forum was started in Jan 2007, registered as a Society. Today it has less 50 members, and hasn’t had a single election. As a member of the Forum, I must also take responsibility for the collective inaction. Today, there are some urgent steps which need to be taken. Firstly, all existing community radio stations must be sent material about the Community Radio Forum, its activities and benefits for members. This should feed in to a massive membership drive. In a period of six months, a democratic process should be undertaken where new blood should be introduced to the CRF. An election to determine who will lead the CRF will make a huge difference in galvanising the process. Further, more impetus needs to be given to actual practitioners to participate in the CRF rather than advocacy activitists, or capacity builders. We have done our job by putting pressure for a policy and in a small way by building capacities of people. The common concern has been the lack of skill in dealiing with the government, or lack of English in dealing with the press/international agencies. However, we must stop being protective about our practitioners and let go. It is only when practitioners take the plunge that we will get experience. Advoacy activists, trainers, teachers etc, should ideally take the backstage at this phase of community radio, or the movement will surely suffer death by implosion. Practitioners who have leadership skills need to be identified by consensus and be given guidance through fellowships and other opportunities. This will happen only if the CRF pumps in money to get practitioners to meet more often and share and exchange common challenges, positives, and experiences. This will result in a vibrant Forum.

This Forum should then take strict self regulatory action regarding community participation, programming, management, financial practices etc. If NGOs or universities are using the label of community radio to mobilize funds, or just using it as a propaganda tool, then CRF should be empowered to take disciplinary action against such members. The government should collaborate with the CRF to enable such self regulatory action. Censorship and regulation by the State itself are unhealthy and dangerous signs for a “democratic” country.

I’m sure that it is only then that we as actors in this community radio movement will be able to tackle such cancerous issues. Until then, we will have to be satisfied with the mere rhetoric of community radio to benefit the rhetoric of development!!