Themes > Current Issues
26.09.2006
India is Online but Most Indians are Not
C.P. Chandrasekhar
To
bridge India's widening digital divide, the Government is focusing on
increasing physical access to computers connected to the Internet. In
a recent policy initiative, it has promised to put in place in rural India
a hundred thousand Common Service Centres (CSCs) - broadband-enabled computer
kiosks that will offer a range of government-to-citizen and business-to-customer
services, besides providing sheer access to the Internet.
The CSCs, which are expected to begin servicing all of India's 600,000 villages by March 2008, will cost a massive Rs. 5,742 core, of which the Central and State governments will outlay Rs. 856 crore and Rs. 793 crore respectively, with the remaining Rs. 4,093 crore expected to come from the private sector. With the economic viability of these service centres uncertain, especially in the poorest regions, this programme may remain incomplete for many years to come. But if successful, it would amount to a major step forward from the supply side, to help rural India exploit whatever potential the Internet holds in the Indian context.
The catch, however, lies elsewhere. Even if physical access to working computers and connectivity in the form of communications links are established, there is no guarantee this will actually connect India's villagers to the information-rich, interactive world of the Internet. The principal bottlenecks to effective use may lie elsewhere. This is illustrated by the still limited Internet usage in the country and the huge variations in available estimates of the number of Internet users.
According to Computer Industry Almanac Inc., an Internet consultancy, India ranked fourth in 2005 (after the United States, China, and Japan) in terms of the absolute number of Internet users. The figures provided by this source for these four countries were 198 million, 120 million, 86 million, and 51 million respectively. In most cases CIAI's figures are drawn from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which collates official data drawn largely from national governments. Thus, going by this respectable source, India is indeed significantly online when compared with the rest of the world. In fact, Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics (www.internetworldstats.com), a data warehouse on the Internet, places the number of Internet users in India in September 2006 at 60 million (compared with 207 million for the U.S., 123 million for China, and 86 million for Japan).
The problem, of course, is the limited penetration these high figures imply in relation to India's population. Even if we go by Internet World Stats, Internet penetration of the population in India amounts to 5.4 per cent, as compared with 69.3 per cent in the U. S., 67.2 per cent in Japan, and 9.3 per cent in China. This would still give cause for comfort, but for the fact that numbers yielded by independent surveys being conducted in India point to much lower figures.
Quite recently, two divergent figures have emerged from two such independent surveys. One, conducted jointly by the Internet and Mobile Association of India and IMRB International, has reported that the number of Internet users in urban India in September 2006 stood at 37 million, up from 33 million in March 2006. This is way below the 60 million figure reportedly quoted by the ITU for the same period. It is indeed true that the ITU cites country-wide estimates, while the IMRB survey relates only to urban India. But if that were the explanation, then India's rural-urban digital divide seems minor - a conjecture that flies in the face of a host of other evidence on the matter.
The point, however, is that the IMRB survey was launched only early this year. The agency that has been tracking Internet use for a number of years now, based on a much larger sample, is the National Readerships Studies Council (NRSC). An autonomous division of the Audit Bureau of Circulation, NRSC conducts the National Readership Study (NRS), which also tracks media habits of different kinds including Internet usage.
The figures on Internet usage yielded by different rounds of the NRS point to a much lower level of usage and a more modest rate of growth. Its 2006 survey estimates that the number of individuals who accessed the Internet in the three months preceding the date of the survey, stood at 13 million, having increased marginally from 10.8 million in 2005. What is noteworthy is that of these 13 million users, only 1.8 million lived in rural areas. Not only are the estimated number of users about a fifth of that cited by the ITU and the estimated rates of growth in usage much lower, but the rural-urban digital divide appears to be extremely sharp, especially when compared to the relative populations of the two sectors. Further, while the growth of the number of internet users in urban India was 35 per cent over the previous year, the number of users in rural India seems to have stagnated.
It is by no means clear what accounts for these sharp differences in the estimates. One reason is of course the reference period used. While the ITU defines an Internet user as a person with access to the worldwide network, without specifying when and for how long she needs to have used it, the NRS specifically identifies those who have accessed the Internet at some point during the previous three months. In fact, the NRS also provides estimates of those who accessed the net in the previous week, which stood at 9.4 million as opposed to the 13 million who accessed the net at some point in the previous three months. As is to be expected, the shorter the reference period, the smaller the number of users.
However, the IMRB survey makes a distinction between “active users” who used the Internet at least once in the 30 days preceding the date of survey and “ever users.” According to its estimates, the number of active users in urban India stood at 25 million in September, up from 21.1 million in March. These figures too are way above those yielded by the NRS.
In sum, we have no clear idea about the number of Internet users in the country and their extent of use of the medium. The problem in India relates not just to the Internet but to the IT sector as a whole, information on which comes largely from interested sources supported by the private sector. This is a major lacuna. China, a country of similar proportion, has for many years now been conducting regular six monthly surveys of Internet usage. The surveys are conducted by the China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC at http://www.cnnic.net.cn), which is a not-for-profit organisation under the Ministry of Information Industry administered by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Independence from the industry and a degree of autonomy make this a credible source of information. Definitions are clear, and much more stringent: CNNIC defines an Internet user as one who uses the Internet at least one hour per week. It runs a professional survey that is transparent. Even though some may argue that the Chinese Government's interest in the Internet is political, this is definitely a model for statistical purposes. India too needs to create a state-sponsored autonomous body to track both Internet usage and the information technology industry.
As of now, the nature of diffusion of Internet technology suggests that there are two routes through which the technology can impact on the quality of life. Elite users, who use the technology to share information and analysis in crucial areas such as the environment, health, corporate practices, and labour conditions, can debate, develop, and contribute to creating international best practice standards in the relevant area. These can provide the basis for national policy and for mobilisation of public opinion nationally and internationally to change policy regimes. This would be the top-down, trickle-down means for the technology to influence human development. The other route would be for the technology to be diffused, leading to use by and participation of the disadvantaged in the formulation and implementation of policies, as well to the direct provision of improved services that affect the quality of their lives. This is the more democratic face of the technology and the best manner in which it can be used to advance human development goals. Unfortunately, the current extent and pattern of diffusion of the technology in the country is such that it is the first of these that overwhelmingly predominates and is likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The Government's e-governance programme with the CSCs as its vehicle seems to suggest that it wants to promote the second route. But to do so successfully, it must know where the technology stands, what its rate of diffusion is, and what determines the pace of diffusion. The minimum requirement for that is credible information. When armed with that, it may find that the solution to the digital divide lies not principally in increasing hardware access but in some other areas, such as education. That could change priorities, save money, and deliver better results.
This appeared as an edit page article in The Hindu, Sep. 25, 2006.
The CSCs, which are expected to begin servicing all of India's 600,000 villages by March 2008, will cost a massive Rs. 5,742 core, of which the Central and State governments will outlay Rs. 856 crore and Rs. 793 crore respectively, with the remaining Rs. 4,093 crore expected to come from the private sector. With the economic viability of these service centres uncertain, especially in the poorest regions, this programme may remain incomplete for many years to come. But if successful, it would amount to a major step forward from the supply side, to help rural India exploit whatever potential the Internet holds in the Indian context.
The catch, however, lies elsewhere. Even if physical access to working computers and connectivity in the form of communications links are established, there is no guarantee this will actually connect India's villagers to the information-rich, interactive world of the Internet. The principal bottlenecks to effective use may lie elsewhere. This is illustrated by the still limited Internet usage in the country and the huge variations in available estimates of the number of Internet users.
According to Computer Industry Almanac Inc., an Internet consultancy, India ranked fourth in 2005 (after the United States, China, and Japan) in terms of the absolute number of Internet users. The figures provided by this source for these four countries were 198 million, 120 million, 86 million, and 51 million respectively. In most cases CIAI's figures are drawn from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which collates official data drawn largely from national governments. Thus, going by this respectable source, India is indeed significantly online when compared with the rest of the world. In fact, Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics (www.internetworldstats.com), a data warehouse on the Internet, places the number of Internet users in India in September 2006 at 60 million (compared with 207 million for the U.S., 123 million for China, and 86 million for Japan).
The problem, of course, is the limited penetration these high figures imply in relation to India's population. Even if we go by Internet World Stats, Internet penetration of the population in India amounts to 5.4 per cent, as compared with 69.3 per cent in the U. S., 67.2 per cent in Japan, and 9.3 per cent in China. This would still give cause for comfort, but for the fact that numbers yielded by independent surveys being conducted in India point to much lower figures.
Quite recently, two divergent figures have emerged from two such independent surveys. One, conducted jointly by the Internet and Mobile Association of India and IMRB International, has reported that the number of Internet users in urban India in September 2006 stood at 37 million, up from 33 million in March 2006. This is way below the 60 million figure reportedly quoted by the ITU for the same period. It is indeed true that the ITU cites country-wide estimates, while the IMRB survey relates only to urban India. But if that were the explanation, then India's rural-urban digital divide seems minor - a conjecture that flies in the face of a host of other evidence on the matter.
The point, however, is that the IMRB survey was launched only early this year. The agency that has been tracking Internet use for a number of years now, based on a much larger sample, is the National Readerships Studies Council (NRSC). An autonomous division of the Audit Bureau of Circulation, NRSC conducts the National Readership Study (NRS), which also tracks media habits of different kinds including Internet usage.
The figures on Internet usage yielded by different rounds of the NRS point to a much lower level of usage and a more modest rate of growth. Its 2006 survey estimates that the number of individuals who accessed the Internet in the three months preceding the date of the survey, stood at 13 million, having increased marginally from 10.8 million in 2005. What is noteworthy is that of these 13 million users, only 1.8 million lived in rural areas. Not only are the estimated number of users about a fifth of that cited by the ITU and the estimated rates of growth in usage much lower, but the rural-urban digital divide appears to be extremely sharp, especially when compared to the relative populations of the two sectors. Further, while the growth of the number of internet users in urban India was 35 per cent over the previous year, the number of users in rural India seems to have stagnated.
It is by no means clear what accounts for these sharp differences in the estimates. One reason is of course the reference period used. While the ITU defines an Internet user as a person with access to the worldwide network, without specifying when and for how long she needs to have used it, the NRS specifically identifies those who have accessed the Internet at some point during the previous three months. In fact, the NRS also provides estimates of those who accessed the net in the previous week, which stood at 9.4 million as opposed to the 13 million who accessed the net at some point in the previous three months. As is to be expected, the shorter the reference period, the smaller the number of users.
However, the IMRB survey makes a distinction between “active users” who used the Internet at least once in the 30 days preceding the date of survey and “ever users.” According to its estimates, the number of active users in urban India stood at 25 million in September, up from 21.1 million in March. These figures too are way above those yielded by the NRS.
In sum, we have no clear idea about the number of Internet users in the country and their extent of use of the medium. The problem in India relates not just to the Internet but to the IT sector as a whole, information on which comes largely from interested sources supported by the private sector. This is a major lacuna. China, a country of similar proportion, has for many years now been conducting regular six monthly surveys of Internet usage. The surveys are conducted by the China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC at http://www.cnnic.net.cn), which is a not-for-profit organisation under the Ministry of Information Industry administered by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Independence from the industry and a degree of autonomy make this a credible source of information. Definitions are clear, and much more stringent: CNNIC defines an Internet user as one who uses the Internet at least one hour per week. It runs a professional survey that is transparent. Even though some may argue that the Chinese Government's interest in the Internet is political, this is definitely a model for statistical purposes. India too needs to create a state-sponsored autonomous body to track both Internet usage and the information technology industry.
As of now, the nature of diffusion of Internet technology suggests that there are two routes through which the technology can impact on the quality of life. Elite users, who use the technology to share information and analysis in crucial areas such as the environment, health, corporate practices, and labour conditions, can debate, develop, and contribute to creating international best practice standards in the relevant area. These can provide the basis for national policy and for mobilisation of public opinion nationally and internationally to change policy regimes. This would be the top-down, trickle-down means for the technology to influence human development. The other route would be for the technology to be diffused, leading to use by and participation of the disadvantaged in the formulation and implementation of policies, as well to the direct provision of improved services that affect the quality of their lives. This is the more democratic face of the technology and the best manner in which it can be used to advance human development goals. Unfortunately, the current extent and pattern of diffusion of the technology in the country is such that it is the first of these that overwhelmingly predominates and is likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The Government's e-governance programme with the CSCs as its vehicle seems to suggest that it wants to promote the second route. But to do so successfully, it must know where the technology stands, what its rate of diffusion is, and what determines the pace of diffusion. The minimum requirement for that is credible information. When armed with that, it may find that the solution to the digital divide lies not principally in increasing hardware access but in some other areas, such as education. That could change priorities, save money, and deliver better results.
This appeared as an edit page article in The Hindu, Sep. 25, 2006.
© MACROSCAN 2006