[Reader-list] an imc in india?

[geert]

From: "Sheri Herndon" <sheri at indymedia.org>

> hi,
> 
> i'm wondering what you all think about some of this.
> 
> best,
> sheri
> 
> ----------
> From: Sivaraman Balachandran <sivbala at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
> To: new-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> Cc: vidhi.parthasarathy at teldta.com
> Subject: [New-imc] resurrecting india imc
> 
> my comments. sorry for the delay in responding
> 
> >I am very concerned with the idea of having folks in
> >the U.S. create an IMC
> >for people in India, and then trying to get them to
> >use it.  It sounds like
> >there are independent media folks already in India -
> >I am wondering why we
> >are pushing an IMC on them.  I LOVE the IMCs but I
> >think if the independent
> >media somewhere is already strong, we should feel
> >like we have to push our
> >brand of OP on them...
> 
> 1.i don't think this is a case of "us" pushing an
> "imc" on them. it is interested folks (all indian so
> far), who may be living in the u.s. for the time
> being, who have the time and resources, that are
> taking initiative. the folks resurrecting the
> india-imc are not representative of all indians.  but
> the same probably holds for indian media collectives
> (folks that have time and fairly costly resources such
> as computers, internet access, etc).  the same holds
> for most imc's, given the discussions of increasing
> diversity in imc collectives.
> 
> 2.vidhi traveled to india trying to hook up with media
> collectives/activists groups.  the feed back she got
> was they they were swamped and didn't have time to
> start an india imc, but are supportive of vidhi's
> actions to start one.
> 
> 3.we have contacted several media collectives located
> in india, including sarai, pukar and others, to be
> involved in the imc-india collective so it has local
> representation.  we're waiting to hear from them.
> 
> 
> >I really think that an IMC needs to be created
> >totally from the ground up
> >in order to function effectively in our network.  It
> >seems to me that there
> >are very few success stories of IMCs that were
> >created by outsiders and
> >handed off to local DIY journalists anywhere...
> 
> 4.agreed.  we're trying to connect with groups in
> india. one caveat:  if no one steps up from india to
> take an imc on, would the collective be opposed to
> people from other locales taking it on until someone
> steps up?  it already seems like like activist groups
> are way too overloaded there as it is.
> 
> >This is why I would oppose immediately linking to
> >India IMC
> 
> 5.i appreciate the concerns above, but vidhi filled
> out the imc application "so ya wanna be and imc"  last
> fall - it was approved and the india imc site went up
> - also last fall - before our current process for
> approving imc's.  the site was hidden, but not
> deleted, during vidhi's travels to india last winter.
> if a site was approved by an older process, though ad
> hoc, shouldn't it remain approved?  that's why i think
> the india site should be grandfathered back in and at
> least given the opportunity to be full fledged imc
> site. and we agree to follow through on filling out
> necessary paperwork (unity, membership, ed policy,
> etc).  
> 
> 
> >I wanted to chime in that I agree with Sheri's
> >report. With over a billion
> >people living in India, I don't think one website is
> >very representative
> >... especially since many US states that are like a
> >twentieth the size of
> >India have 3 or 4 local sites. I would support a
> >local IMC from wherever in
> >India, though.
> 
> 6. although india has a billion people, 400 million
> can't read. of the remaining, the percantage that can
> read english, and have internet access is pretty
> small.  i think the one website issue is more
> comparable to u.k (maybe 65 million) or germany (80
> something million).  i also want to point out that
> outside of america and canada, and australia, 16 out
> of 18 imc sites are country based - some pretty big,
> including mexico, brasil, u.k. and germany.
> 
> >i agree with chris' concerns here.  i think it is how
> >we have primarily
> >functioned (with the exception of congo).  it's also
> >somewhat explicit in
> >the draft criteria:
> 
> >b. Have a committed membership substantial enough to
> >sustain a functional
> >IMC, 
> >c. Have open and public meetings (no one group can
> >have exclusionary
> >"ownership" of an IMC),
> 
> >with regard to india, both seem to be relevant.  for
> >turkey, c seems more
> >applicable, as well as the excellent comments evan
> >made earlier.
> 
> 
> 7. we're working on b.  confident it will happen soon.
>  we've got four folks and growing.  i have no idea why
> c is a conern with india imc.  please clarify.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc