The Community Radio Sector in the country might seem set to grow — and yet, there are a number of issues that remain unaddressed. The licensing procedure, for instance, has its set of challenges. So, is there a dichotomy in the government’s plans for the growth of the Community Radio sector in the country on the one hand, and the lack of measures that might serve as an impetus in that direction?

Ram Bhat, Vice President of AMARC Asia- Pacific attempts to answer this question.

It is indeed true that the CR sector in India is set to grow. However, the contours of this growth are worth a closer look in order to gauge whether this growth is sustainable, and whether it is in line with the objectives of the community radio movement which began in the aftermath of the much feted 1995 Supreme Court judgment (Cricket Association of Bengal Vs I&B, Govt of India).

In terms of pure numbers, the quantum of rejected applicants exceeds those who have been awarded licenses. Now the rejections could be traced to a number of reasons, several of which are attributable to the applicant and not the policy. However, there are also many who have not been able to cope with the complexity of the licensing procedure; those from conflict, border and coastal areas; those who have received foreign funding etc. These indicate a need for procedural reform in the policy space. With a few applications finally getting cleared from Chhattisgarh in early 2014, we may well see some reform take place in this area sooner than later.

Amongst those who have been awarded a Letter of Intent (LOI), the number of applicants who are awaiting frequencies (about 250 applicants) exceeds those who are operational (about 160 CR stations). This indicates that while I&B has been proactive in clearing licenses, their counterparts at MoCIT have been slow in allocating frequencies. There are fundamental and important reasons (related to spectrum allocation design) for this semi-paralysis – reasons which I shall not go into, for they are outside the scope of this article.

In terms of the qualitative aspects of growth, it is important to identify the areas of growth, and the beneficiaries of this growth. This would give a more nuanced perspective on the opportunities and challenges that may lie ahead for the sector.

In terms of financial opportunities the amount of funding available to CR sector from State and Central governments has increased dramatically. This funding has come in from advertisements (via DAVP), sponsored programmes (DAVP and directly from Ministries), as well as from CR Support Scheme (I&B Ministry). This augurs well for the CR sector as it indicates concrete commitment from the State towards a fledgling sector, although it doesn’t augur that well for the financial independence of the sector.

However, community radio stations still don’t receive funding for programming that communities wish to broadcast. Sponsored programmes are often based on external priorities, whereas CR Support Scheme does not support programming. Perhaps, in the future, further liberalization of the financial terms in the policy, or creating an independent fund can mitigate this problem.

As a result of uneven growth in limited areas, the growth and benefit of community radio in terms of media ownership and community management, has not trickled down as well as one hoped it would. However given that the government has been open to periodic review and policy reform through multi-stakeholder process in place, I am hopeful that we can address this in the coming months.

As listeners/audiences and active participants in the media, I think the CR sector has fared much better. We have seen anecdotal evidence of how marginalized community representatives, especially women and youth have had opportunities to speak out and express themselves. However, more can be done in this area too.

There is a serious divide in terms of the geographical spread of community radio in India. The FM sector (AIR, commercial FM and community radio) have saturated in top radio markets (urban areas) whereas all three sectors have more or less deserted rural areas. This is because of lack of demand from remote or rural areas or because applications from those areas have been delayed or rejected for various reasons. This divide needs to be addressed seriously in so far as it will ultimately defeat the broader objective of the CR movement. Those who need a voice and those who need access to information the most, are often left out, even in the CR sector.

On the other hand, grassroots community groups in urban areas are being told that frequencies are unavailable. There is a real and present danger of urban community radio stations being crowded out of the top radio markets.

Communities in remote, rural and hilly areas, as well as marginalized communities living in urban areas need to be given opportunities. This implies that demand has to come from these areas. This can only be achieved through a mix of strategic awareness workshops in these areas, as well as a prioritization in licensing procedure which seeks to benefit the marginalized ahead of other prospective licensees.

This kind of prioritization implies some kind of discretionary allocation of licenses and spectrum. In the aftermath of the 2G scam, discretionary allocation has become anathema – in spite of a reassuring opinion of the Supreme Court (vis-a-vis the Presidential Reference). Unless this roadblock is removed, I would be willing to wager that communities will not be able to directly own spectrum or management of the radio.