Page 318 - Culture Technology Communication

Language, Power, and Software 301

ever, I must note my disqualification: the solution to the problem of
local software will obviously not come from American academics, but
from the collaboration of South Asians in both public and private
sectors interested in this problem, and perhaps from alliances with
the multinational firms that today dominate the software market in
South Asia. Here I can only offer a few suggestions.
The long-term potentials of the South Asian market need to be
more accurately assessed. Although the present installed base of
both telephones and computers is low in South Asia, the growth of
the South Asian middle classes is rapid. Firms that project five, ten,
or twenty years ahead are likely to be winners. Long-term projec-
tions could be the basis for rational economic investments in local
language software.
In India, the role of the states will be central to localization. Ex-
isting policy in India requires the use of local languages in each
state. As these states move toward the computerization of basic op-
erations like electoral rolls, drivers’ licenses, land records, or the in-
terconnection by Internet of district offices, local language software
will be necessary. This demand will probably precede and exceed the
demand from individual computer owners. (In the United States,
two-thirds of all PC sales are to institutions, not individuals.) Serv-
ing this market from the state governments will require major in-
vestments in local language software.
Standardization of language codes is a prerequisite for local lan-
guage operating systems and applications. The Government of
India, multinationals, and major Indian software firms need to co-
operate in developing broadly accepted standards for the major In-
dian languages and in persuading programmers in India and abroad
to use these same coding standards for each Indian language. ISCII
may be adequate. But if, as some claim, ISCII has inadequacies, es-
pecially for the Southern Indian languages, then corrections need to
be made rapidly. The standardization of local language codes needs
to be a priority for the Government of India, and the several author-
ities of that Government that today deal with local language soft-
ware need to be brought together and instructed to produce unified
standards on a firm deadline.
Local language software and multimedia should be actively pro-
moted both by the central Government of India and the governments
of the local states. If local language “content” on the Internet and the
Web continues to be absent, this will be an insuperable obstacle to
local language information exchange. One positive role of govern-
ment is to encourage (and finance, through start-up grants) projects