NISSAT has been experimenting with various models of library network development. The feasibility studies conducted by the CMC Ltd. for the Calibnet and Delnet, recommended an OPAC model in which the libraries were expected to fully automate their operations. The computerized catalogues so developed were to be collated to produce a union catalogue, and the individual libraries and the central host systems were to be inter-linked in a star configuration through leased lines and X.25 switches located in various geographic clusters. After giving it a serious try, the design was abandoned. In short the high costs involved, non-availability of leased lines, low preparedness of the librarians and the participating institutions had largely influenced this conscious departure. Thereafter, email, local catalogue database development, union list of scientific serials, physical inter-library lending had been the major activities of libnets at Ahmedabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Mysore and Pune. The technology change in the recent years has been more rapid. Most of the libnets, but not all, have been making efforts to utilize this new regime of Internet and intranet technologies. For the others more complacent the union catalogue of monographs continues to be the be all and end all of network development.
The libnet activities had been with two types of network managers; one, classy computer communication specialists and the other, computer literate librarians (even `seeing' is `knowing'). The experience shows that the first category of managers do not (or do not bother ?) interact with the librarian community. As a result, while a network gets developed, the contents aspects are neglected. The other kind of managers range from club librarians to specialists with variable management and computer background. Usually they understand the library business, but their computer knowledge is limited to a few software packages and the knowledge of computers communication is next to nil. These limitations are not much of concern because such hi-tech skills are readily available in the market place. What is of concern is the tendency to pose that they know a lot. They collect records from various libraries, create a union catalogue and claim the union database as their own. Growing over adventurous, they put a user interface on a standard software product, give a new name, and claim it as their own creation. Jargons are thrown indiscriminately in meetings and conferences to establish themselves as experts and intimidate fellow librarians. Tall claims are made, and people in high places having little time to crosscheck the veracity usually go by such rhetorics.
That helps the librarian-cum-network managers to get into various committees of the government where by increasing the decibel level they get an opportunity to project self image and extract considerations for themselves. More dangerous is their inclusion in the selection and assessment committees. When one is on the other side of the table, one is free to ask questions. The questions may be tough and trendy but the concerned board member is not responsible to know the answers. Poor librarian interviewees cannot fire back even if they want to because it is likely that they would face the same interviewer in some other selection / assessment board as well.
Not being satisfied with masquerading as a celebrity, the sights are set higher. Hobnobbing with the library managers of Indian units of foreign countries, and foreign missions in India, visits abroad are managed. The foreign outfits find this as an easy way to find a place in the Indian library system. Few foreign trips confer on them the international status and thereafter, there is no need to look back.
Megalomania sets in. Self image projection comes before the development of the net and its partners. The networking efforts start drifting. But the librarians remain where they were. Users of the nets, already forgotten, are pushed to darker corners and any opposition is gagged promptly, if unsuccessful at that, the Head of the institution is reported that the dissident is non-cooperative and his work lacks technical quality.
How long such a fiasco should continue ? When would the librarians wake up and stake the intellectual and commercial rights of the results of their own efforts on computerization of the library catalogue? And refuse to be fooled and cowed down before big mouths, and assert themselves.
— A Lahiri
