| <<< PREVIOUS | Policy Matters:
Insight from Civil Society Engaging
with Science and Technology |
NEXT >>> |
Whenever we try to look at policy dimensions and policy perspectives, the one important thing that glares at us is the domination and circulation of certain sets of ideas and information. This is a problem because this domination shapes normative and foundational understanding, particularly of those who are not directly involved in grassroots work. If the educational system in turn nurtures such normative ideas, a large network of policy makers and policy interveners get educated (rather, schooled) with those very ideas and proposals. Thus the magnitude of the information nurtures a mindset, which then goes on to determine policy formulation and policy implementation.
Coming from a communications discipline, I would expect that all of us to try and balance, if not counter, the dominant perspective – so that youngsters and also policy makers are exposed to different perspectives. Whether or not they choose to adopt any alternative perspective, is of course a different matter.
Some of the background papers talk about the role of, and perspective in, the media. The authors show that even the media, which is the “resource space” in a polity, is prone to generating and disseminating information within the dominant paradigm. This is the other aspect that we need to address. Unfortunately today, the media in India, as elsewhere, is not inclined nor in a position to invest substantially in newsgathering operations at the grassroots. They feel that there is no incentive. They feel that they do not make good stories.
This is not necessarily so. Recently, the noted Indian development journalist P. Sainath won the Ramon Magsaysay award for journalism, literature, and creative communications arts for bringing to light the reality of poverty in India. He focused on the raging farmers’ suicides in the country. We may or may not agree with what he says but the fact is that media support in this case has been picked as being worthy of international recognition.
Regarding newsgathering operations, it is important to note that the media needs regular information and that is why media institutions need network support from people working in this field. Publicizing the activities of civil society is one aspect - that is the institutional dimension. Publicizing the broader dimensions of the intervention is what is equally important. Very often our annual reports are event-oriented. The perspectives on the issues that affect people are not very much evident -- particularly when one scans the mainstream media. Even in the local and grassroots media, a similar problem exists.
Today, grudgingly at least, the Government of India has to some extent accepted the need and relevance of community radio. Some of us in this room have actively campaigned and advocated for this cause. One of the important points that we argued was that knowledge is not the prerogative of academic institutions. It can be experiential. It can also be based on a layered understanding of local problems and solutions.
The second point that we argued for is a change in the approach where state and other agencies believe that information is something that is consumed by the reciever. Information is something that can be produced at the local level and Media has a significant role to play in the production of local information and linking it to macro-knowledge.
We have to change the situation, in terms of getting civil society to exchange views on problems. Even academics in this country are not really part of the policy processes. Except for very few people who are accessible within five km of Shastri Bhavan and the Parliament house, there is no real engagement with the several academic and civil society groups scattered across the country.
India is a large country and needs a planning system at the central level. If you are looking at local (micro) level solutions, diversity is the key.
| <<< PREVIOUS | NEXT >>> |