A Response of Professionals in Information Kerala Mission to the points raised in the study commissioned by the Free Software Foundation - Page 7
 
Previous Page

III. Facts stranger than Fiction

1. The Swiss Connection

There has been an interesting addition to the draft report in the form of an anonymous press release (referred to as addendum report hereafter) circulated on 24/07/2004 and later publicly presented to the media the same day by the authors of the report. Records were produced alleging connivance of the Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) through Cap Deck with IKM to sabotage FSF initiatives. The intention was clearly to link the current debate to the issue of foreign funding to decentralisation from various agencies including SDC and to see if a new colour could be given to the polemics. The following are the facts relating to the development of local body applications with FSF:

  1. Shri C.K. Raju, then Associate Professor, KILA puts up a proposal for development of a free software application for Panchayats on 26/12/2001.
  2. The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, forwards the proposal to IKM for examination. The section on finance in the project says "The work would be purely voluntary in nature and is not expected to incur any major software development overheads. Minor development cost overhead can be met from the funds reserved for Software development under Cap Deck Project."
  3. Director, IKM recommends the proposal of Shri C.K. Raju with the following remarks:
    1. Use of free software should be pursued to curb monopolistic practices and to avoid technology over-dependence
    2. There are problems in large scale implementation of the project with local deployment in terms of the resources available for free software.
    3. The proposal for implementation of free-software application should be attempted on an experimental basis.
  4. LSGD issues an order authorising KILA to undertake the work in a Grama Panchayat in Trissur District vide G.O (MS) No.30/2002/LSGD dated 24/01/2002 in consultation with the Director of Panchayats. 
  5. The Director of Panchayats authorises KILA to approach Mulankunnathukavu Grama Panchayat in Trissur District for implementation
  6. Shri C.K. Raju puts up a proposal for financial support to Cap Deck on 27/05/2002.
  7. Cap Deck rejects that on ground that the proposal was vague, budget was not clear, the methodology was imprecise and outputs were not apparent. Why then put the blame of this on IKM? Whose interest does FSF protect by purposefully linking IKM with the foreign funds controversy relating to Kerala decentralisation?
  8. Interestingly Shri C.K. Raju had raised the allegation that he was not in a position to complete his development (which he never started) on grounds that IKM had put difficult clauses in the Government Order[i], now goes back saying that the issue was SDC’s denial of funds. If SDC had done injustice why this was never brought to light earlier? Why was this not brought out even in the event of the controversy of not allowing free software at Pattanchery Grama Panchayat[ii]? Why were allegations made that IKM had put forward difficult conditions? Were the difficult conditions the following, as described in the Government order?
    1. KILA shall consult IKM for software requirement specification
    2. The software should be compatible with the software already developed by IKM
    3. Software already developed by IKM need not be developed again by KILA
    4. The work of software development should be completed by 31/03/2002. 
  9. If Panchayat applications were so simple and if they could have been done easily on a voluntary basis why was this not pursued for last three years?
  10. If resources were indeed the constraint, (it could not have been since the technical proposal to the department maintains otherwise) why was it not brought to light even when more than four lakh rupees were spent for awareness building on open source using Cap Deck funds?
  11. How and why did the predominantly voluntary work supposed to be initiated at KILA using the free software foundation network and the technical expertise of KILA later on transform into a consultancy assignment to be undertaken with Cap Deck support?
  12. Finally is Shri Raju anti foreign fund and so much concerned about foreign strings? If so why did he approach Cap Deck for funds for training and software development? Is FSF also against foreign funds?
  13. Why was free software applications not deployed even in KILA during the two years of Shri Raju’s stint in KILA, when nearly twenty five lakhs were made available for infrastructure strengthening in KILA, of which twenty lakhs was from Cap Deck?
  14. Who has prevented the server and clients procured for Mulankunnathukavu Grama Panchayat from being issued to the Panchayat? Did Sri Raju fear that IKM software would be installed on these computers if they are taken to the Panchayat? Is this why the computers are lying idle in KILA for the last several months?

...Next PageIII. 2. Glaring Misses on IKM Activities

[i]       The G.O. referred here is G.O. (MS) No. 30/2002/LSGD dated 24.01.2002
      On Wednesday 19 January 2003, C.K.Raju is quoted in the user group FSF-Friends as having written: "My worry is that if the policy directive, now, gets to qualify with recommendations from IKM (as the technical body of Local Self Government Department), there can't be any hope, as there is already a Government Order that came throughIKM, allowing a pilot project on Free Software, back as Dec 2001, but where clauses forcefully inserted by IKM made the work impossible.", posted at http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-January/000598.html.

[ii]      http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2002-October/000207.html where C.K.Raju cheered the journalist who brought out the story of Pattenchery Grama Panchayat and its interest in free software.