Mr Satish Jha is an accomplished man. He has been a journalist, editor of a national newspaper, a manager, a consultant, policy analyst and much more. He writes well. But then while responding to my intervention, he has not countered any one of my statements, and yet I am sure he would have made many readers think he has. That is why the Tamil saying I quoted must be remembered always. Whatever we hear from whoever, we must try to reach the truth.
Mr Jha begins his argument with " There are some ideas that stir the imagination. Or we cannot explain why it caught the attention of as many people all over the globe in such a short time." I never questioned that a low-cost device is useful and can help spread education. [Incidentally, all kinds of things become popular quickly. Mere popularity is not of much value.] If we look at it as an idea of a low-cost computing device the credit, I guess, should go to the IISc professors who thought of the Simputer. And Mr Jha certainly knows why the Simputer did not really pick up and become a big-time technological breakthrough. I do not know about Dell taking the idea from MIT, but certainly Simputer was thought of years ago. So if we had to celebrate an idea, we should have celebrted the Simputer. If I may ask, did not Simputer stir the imagination of Mr Jha? That the Simputer is on the beach and some other product is on the hilltop is relevant in the context of business, but not in the plane of valuing ideas or creativity. Mr Jha is intelligent enough to understand the context in which 'top down' and 'bottom up' are used. No one says that we can build computers through a bottom up approach. Surely we cannot build sophisticated technologies by mobilizing thousands of villagers in rural India. When people talk about bottom up, they mean a consultative process. The question they ask is: "Have we assessed the actual needs of the people whom we want to serve? Have we consulted the potential end users?" Such questions are important even in marketing industrial products (for profit), but all the more important in development. The use of 'the hot air' analogy, I thought, was not decent. I think even if we disagree with someone we could still be polite. Incidentally, use of such phrases will make one thing that Mr Jha does not believe at all that anything can be bottom up. That I am sure is not true. [Incidentally, failing to appreciate the need for following 'bottom-up' approaches cost MIT Media Lab (in India) a bit.] No one questions a sturdy portable low cost device can be helpful. The issue is should we announce a (non)-product with such fanfare at such a major internatinal event. Shouldn't we have waited till a few machines are ready to be despatched? If the idea and the product are so great that they could stir the imagination of the entire world, why do we need a Kofi Annan to release them in an international conference? Mr Jha writes: "To say that the money spent on this project could be better spent elsewhere reflects a mindset of utilising money as per some policymakers wish.. It is an entrepreneurial spirit where some people have come together to support the idea because they believe it "may" work. Those who look at it as something that is crowding out other expenditure are picking a leaf out of central planning book.. Should we not shed that mind set?" When Larry Press put forth the issue of choices before a poor country, he did not question the value of enterpreneurial spirit. Mr Jha is using his ability to use words to set up a nonexistant enemy and shoots him down. If the MIT team is free to have their ideas, should not the people and governments in poor countries have the right to choose what is in their best interest? Why should we tell them that they have a poor mindset? This is a classic case of the top down way of thinking. The poor may choose the 100 dollar computer as the best option, or allocate a part of their resources to invest in it. But they should not be denied the right to choose. And by the way, what is wrong with the central planning book if all it says is you allocate your resources optimally among different possibilities? I think it is sound economics. "Sometimes we need to take a step backwards and ask if we are asking the right questions. Often the progress we may make will depend on the questions we ask. And if only we begin to probe from the point of what impact it may have, what assumptions it reflects, we may cut down the journey to reaching any goal we may set". No problems here. If ever the 100 dollar computers reach the poor children, certainly it would make a difference. Mr Jha would like those who have entered the debate to suggest any alternative product which may yield better results. I was not talking about the 100 dollar machine as inferior to other machines. My concern was about the premature publicity of a non-product. Incidentally, I was one of the earliest to wish Prof. Negroponte and the MIT team all success. I have great admiration for MIT, for it is the first higher educational institution in the world to make available its courseware for free on the web. Let me once again wish all success to the One Child One laptop project all success. And thank Mr Jha for commenting on my views. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
