Category Archives: New Governance

Efficiency in governance is desirable, achievable (Governance Now)

How process science and technology can help achieve the objective of minimum government, maximum governance

Link to the article

Leave a comment

Filed under New Governance

The Realities of Twitter Democracy!

In September 2011, as the then editor of Dataquest, I wrote an editorial, The Opportunities and Threats of Facebook Democracy. While Dataquest was one of the first publications to do a cover story on how social media was effectively used in the fight against corruption earlier that year (in April), and had celebrated the new power that social media had given to the common people, in this editorial, I had warned against attaching too much importance to the voice emanating from social media by the leaders and policy makers. My reason, of course, was the low penetration of social media. In a large diverse democracy, jumping into conclusion based on what a small section of people belonging to a particular socio-economic section say, was a potentially dangerous and suicidal thing to do, I argued.

The reason I called it Facebook Democracy was that a lot of the campaign by India Against Corruption was actually carried out on Facebook. It was the main mobilization platform.

Since then, Twitter has been used by politicians very effectively to drive their messages. Many politicians and political parties have taken professional help for that purpose. All of us know the power of #pappu and #feku campaigns. While penetration of Twitter is still miniscule compared to the size of  Indian electorate, some politicians have managed to have a very large fan following, going up to more than a million. And there are at least ten Indian politicians on Twitter who have more than a lakh followers. Considering that not more than 100 million Indians are online, those numbers are not unimpressive.

Unimpressive they may not be. But as it turns out, most of these followers are fake.

Social media management platform maker, Status People, actually provides a way to check your (and others’) fake followers. I actually checked out the the fake followers of the top ten Indian politicians on Twitter by number of followers and checked how many fake followers they have. 

And can you imagine what the average looks like?

It is 59%.

That is, as much as 59% of the followers of these politicians on Twitter are fake. And typically, the bigger the number of followers, the bigger is the percentage of fake followers, though there are small exceptions.

Here is the table.

Politician Twitter Handle Total Followers Fake Followers (%)
Shashi Tharoor @shashitharoor 1756468 62
Narendtra Modi @narendramodi 1560092 65
Dr Manmohan Singh @pmoindia 538323 55
Sushma Swaraj @sushmaswarajbjp 447766 52
Arvind Kejriwal @arvindkejriwal 314614 54
Omar Abdullah @abdullah_omar 274937 54
Subramanian Swamy @swamy39 165408 42
Ajay Maken @ajaymaken 151118 55
Derek O Brien @quizderek 149448 38
Varun Gandhi @varungandhi80 118728 52

The numbers are as on 1st May 2013

And here are some realities.

  • Narendra Modi, the potential PM candidate of BJP, heads the list in terms of  percentage fake followers, with 65% of his followers being fake.
  • As many as 8 of the 10 in this list have more fake followers than they have genuine followers. Derek O’ Brien and Subramanian Swamy have the lowest percentage of fake followers in this list.

What Does This Mean?

This, of course, does not suggest that politicians are doing something deliberate to create fake profiles/followers. And since there is not much to choose between different parties, it is not a political statement that one is making. In fact, many politicians themselves will be shocked to know this.

For that matter, there is not too much of a difference between politicians and other celebrities when it comes to the percentage of fake followers. I did check that for a couple of them. In case of Amitabh Bachchan, 73% Twitter followers are fake. For Shah Rukh Khan, that number is 70%.  But in case of celebrities, it is a reaching out to the fans, so it does not matter how many fans follow them.

For politicians too, it is a great platform to get their message across, engage with media and at least a certain section of people, who are using this medium. The problem begins, when, their PR managers try to make us believe that they are great leaders because of the large fan following. That is when we get it completely wrong.

In fact, fake followers is just one part. The above platform, Status People, also measures how many of the followers are inactive. For each Twitter profile, it divides the followers into three parts: fake, inactive and good. When you take just those followers that it terms are good (who are real and active), the total followers number drops drastically.  Here is the above list of politicians with their “good” followers.

Politician Twitter Handle Good % Good Followers
Shashi Tharoor @shashitharoor 10 175647
Narendtra Modi @narendramodi 10 156009
Dr Manmohan Singh @pmoindia 16 86132
Sushma Swaraj @sushmaswarajbjp 16 71643
Arvind Kejriwal @arvindkejriwal 14 44046
Omar Abdullah @abdullah_omar 13 35742
Subramanian Swamy @swamy39 21 34736
Ajay Maken @ajaymaken 12 18134
Derek O Brein @quizderek 22 32879
Varun Gandhi @varungandhi80 13 15435

The numbers are as on 1st May 2013

So, in effect, Shashi Tharoor’s active are just 1.75 lakh Twitter users, not 1.75 million.  The prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has just 1.5 lakh followers, not 1.5 million. Varun Gandhi just has 15,000-odd  active followers.

In short, these numbers denote their actual sphere of influence. Except for Tharoor and Modi, these numbers are in thousands; in a country of a billion. And when you combine this to the fact that Twitter reaches only a certain class of people, it follows quite logically that extrapolating the influence/opinion of Twitter to the real world is not a great idea. Not yet.

1 Comment

Filed under Digital Economy, New Governance, Policy & Regulation, Social Media, Technology & Society

Why A Hasty Approach May Derail the Direct Cash Transfer Scheme Completely

The UPA government has announced the Direct Cash Transfer (DCT) scheme, with an eye on the elections. As expected, the opposition has cried foul,  terming it “bribe” to the voters.

That is politics. And not really the topic of discussion here. In fact, this piece is not even about the economics of it. Economists agree that it is more efficient to pass on the benefits to the deserving directly through cash transfer than indirectly through subsidies. In any case, the government has been talking about it for quite some time. The Budget Speech in the last two years have referred to it explicitly. Many studies internationally have shown that they have, by and large, had a positive effect.

The points that I raise here are not about the politics or economics of DCT but the implementation hurdles that remain. Because even with this limited rollout, it could be the world’s biggest such project. Rushing in to implement may create problems that could shake off people’s confidence on the scheme. This could lead the opponents to project it as a faulty idea per se.

So, here are some of the issues.

1. What about those without the bank accounts? India has less than 25% of people in rural areas, who have access to bank accounts. How will they get the benefit? Does it mean that some of them—those who have bank accounts—will get it and others will not get it? That will be as anarchical as it could be. And the backlash could be severe.

2. How will subsidies and DCT co-exist, even if for a limited period? The government says that the scheme will be fiscal-neutral as it will replace subsidies. Practically, how will that happen, especially in fuel (kerosene), food, and fertilizers? Till all the people are in a position to get the benefit of DCT (today, those who do not have Aadhaar or bank account will not be able to get it), the government cannot touch the public distribution system. Which means it cannot effectively cut  subsidies. So, the mechanism has to be in the point of contact (ration stores and the like) to ensure that some beneficiaries do not avail both the benefits, which is next to impossible, as of now. So, the government will continue to run both for the foreseeable future. And surely, it will not be fiscal neutral.

3. What are the alternate channels of supplies? While it is good to say, on paper, that by getting the money directly, the beneficiaries, can opt to buy the products from anywhere, no one is clear what is that anywhere. In many areas, no alternative supply and distribution channel exists. So, how will cash help them?

4. How do you ensure that the money is spent on those products and services for which is intended? How does the government ensure that the money is spent on the products and services that intends to subsidize? In some countries, these subsidies are conditional and are given to women. There is no such plan in India. So, in many families, where men spend a lot of earnings on alcohol and such things,  more cash means more money to get drunk. The possibility is very real in India.

The issues raised here are not meant to argue against the implementation of DCT.

But the fact remains that changing the entire subsidy regime requires a lot of thought and preparation. The government started on the right note by appointing a task force to suggest the ways and means of implementing this.

The task force, headed by Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, UIDAI, submitted a detailed report, recommending creation of what it called a Core Subsidy Management System (CSMS) to implement the new subsidy regime.  The task force foresaw the gap that exists in the payment system reach and recommended this

Since it may take a while for the payment systems in the country to gear up for direct transfer of subsidies, an intermediate step may be considered where the subsidy difference is transferred to wholesalers/retailers in the first phase, and only later on to customers.

But the government has disregarded it and has announced DCT right away. Also, there is no news on where the rollout of CSMS has reached.

With all its good intentions, the government will have only itself to blame, if the whole idea backfires.

Leave a comment

Filed under Digital Economy, Inclusive India, Indian Economy, New Governance, Policy & Regulation, Uncategorized

Officially Open: India Launches Open Data Beta Site

India has finally launched the beta version of its open data site, data.gov.in. The site is part of the country’s plan to provide open and transparent access to data collected by various government departments and agencies, as outlined in the recently formulated  National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy – 2012 (NDSAP-12).

The stated advantages, as envisioned by the policy, include maximization of use of data, avoidance/minimization of duplication of efforts on collection, facilitating integration by leading to common standards, providing ownership information, faster and better decision making, and of course, equitable access to information by all citizens.

Ever since the then Federal CIO of the United States started in May 2009, many counties have launched similar sites. India is the latest country to join the bandwagon.

The data.gov.in site has debuted with 13 raw datasets provided by seven departments and four apps provided by four departments. As part of the plan, data management offices are being created in each of the departments to be headed by a senior official called data controllers. Five ministries/departments have already identified their data controllers, whose names are available in the site. These are Department of Public Enterprises under the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Disinvestment under Ministry of Finance, Department of Fertilizers under Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, and Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises. The departments will be responsible for uploading the datasets directly, for which NIC is helping them by providing training and technical help. It is conducting a workshop on 5th October focused on this.

India, however, is not a part of open government partnership, a consortium of more than 50 countries. The initiative was started by nine countries, including India, but India withdrew just before launch. India was reportedly “concerned about the Independent Review Mechanism” which opens participating countries for reviews by outsiders.

However, India has been supporting the open government community by helping create what is called an open government platform—an easy-to-use toolbox that allows smaller countries to go for similar portals without worrying about technical challenges. The platform was launched in last March.

The launch of data.gov.in marks a new chapter in governance. It is a pity that it has got almost no mention in the media, especially when corruption and the role of public institutions are being debated so intensely.

In the US, the opening up of government data to public has seen innovative applications being created by third party organizations using the data (maximizing use).

Many say a more laudable goal in India would be the avoidance of duplication of efforts and resources in collecting data. This, however, is a lofty expectation to have from a transparency initiative like this, because it is not lack of availability/knowledge but personal ego battles and/or lack of coordination between departments that are the reasons for this duplication of efforts and resources. A recent example is the tussle between Home Ministry and the UIDAI on collecting data for National Population Register and Aadhaar.

But the private sector, academics researchers, and NGOs/advocacies can surely benefit from getting easy and timely access to government collected data. With analytics and data vizulazation becoming the hottest areas in technology, an initiative like this could not have been more timely.

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under New Governance, Policy & Regulation

Do We Need a Wikipal?

Politically speaking, the decision by Anna Hazare to disband Team Anna and take up the fight through electoral politics is both good news and bad. Good because it upholds the supremacy of electoral democracy—which was being pooh poohed by the likes of Arvind Kejriwal just a few months back. But what I feel bad about—and I am not a supporter of M/s Bedi and Kejriwal—is that an experiment to take an alternate route has failed. Yes, despite the power of Facebook and Twitter to support it this time around, as many of us never forgot to add. But as I have pointed out many times, including in this blog (Digital divide is now political…), reach of social media—or for that matter Internet—is too limited to fight a successful battle against the government and the system.

So, do I mean to say that we have little hope—as long as we have a democracy and as long as we, as a people, are not completely honest, we will have to tolerate this large scale, systematized corruption?

Not necessarily. But if we have to really find a solution to the problem of corruption, it has to be taking a different approach that fundamentally changes certain key parameters, not taking the same path again and again.

The big proposed entity called Lokpal—that is thought to be the panacea for all ills by Anna and his supporters—is nothing but yet another costly addition to the already overburdened system. If the Legislature, Judiciary, the Executive and the Press could not do it, by what logic do we expect yet another new body with its base in Delhi to eradicate corruption? The demand has been for more power to it. There is no logic given by anyone how more power itself will translate into more effectiveness in checking corruption. After all, the members would be people from amongst us. Why should one believe that they would be more honest than you and me—and our politicians and bureaucrats?

The problem is we are seeking a solution in the old, centralized model with a set of people having absolute power over everyone. Just that instead of being called MPs or ministers or secretaries or editors, they would be called Lokpals.

What if we take a fundamentally new approach? Instead of trying to check corruption by instilling fear of punishment after the act of corruption is done, what if we can ensure that corruption is minimized by making it more difficult to do it, i.e instilling fear of getting caught while doing it. That should be done by bringing in transparency.

Such transparency is possible only when there is easier access to information by a wider section, ideally members of the general public.

Two fundamental principles are cornerstones of this approach: one, instead of centralized systems, we go for decentralization; and two, instead of giving real power to people, we give it to a computer system.

Decentralization does not necessarily mean chaos. Wikipedia—despite whatever limitations it may have—has shown us how the collective power of people can be credible and dynamic at the same time. But to ensure that we prevent mobocracy and chaos, there has to be defined rules and processes (as in Wikipedia) and massive information infrastructure to store, forward, and process information. That requires a powerful (ideally distributed) computer system.

As everything becomes available to a wide set of people, the system will ensure that few dare to indulge in violating the rules. A person may not fear another person; but everyone fears the public.

We have seen that happening in cricket. The third umpire—though there is a person whose name is associated with it—is actually a computer. The replay is on a huge screen for the world to see. And technology ensures that there is no intended wrong decision. The same principle will work here.

In a technology-enabled system, the information itself will have the power to make everyone exercise restraint. A huge computing plaform—lets say a supercomputer—can, on a continuous basis, monitor for exceptions. There can also be ways and means to lodge anonymous complaints by the whistle blowers. Initially, people may misuse it to trouble opponents, but soon, the system will take care of itself. If the processes and technology are good, a false complaint will result in calling out the bluff. By moving from an investigation mode to a prevention mode, the system itself will become more “less corrupt”. There will be experts, advisors, information analysts—from any walk of life. But the power will not lie with them; it will lie with the computer in particular and the whole system in general. The system would be fault tolerant and designed to learn from experience.

Of course, any such system can be effective only when there is a lot of information generated electronically. That means a lot of government processes need to be automated. Thankfully, that is increasingly happening. That will supplement the reactive mechanism of the Wiki model by a proactive check on processes and exceptions. In such a scenario, RTI would be seamless and would be like a Google search.

Instead of instilling fear of punishment after the corrupt act is done, it would instill fear of exposure while doing corruption. So, not only would one get caught but would get caught before he/she gets any benefit out of that.

Such a system will ensure the following

  • Any exception is caught and reported, almost in real time
  • All information is stored in multiple locations so if something that cannot be brought to public notice in real time because of sensitiveness of the issue, they can be exposed in future by the system. Remember WikiLeaks?
  • Ensure speed and efficiency in addition to transparency

By making all the citizens participate, we would give collective responsibility to everyone while rigorous processes with technology underneath ensuring that there is no chaos because of that. This will still not be able to eliminate corruption but will make it far more difficult to do corruption, thereby significantly reducing it.

What do we call such a system? Did you say Wikipal?

2 Comments

Filed under Digital Economy, New Governance, Policy & Regulation, Technology & Society

Will Aadhaar be the Same with PC as FM?

Well, if media reports have to be believed, P Chidambaram, the Union home minister is all set to return as the finance minister. It does not sound too surprising, considering PC has been one of the best finance ministers that India has had in the recent past. What is more, his track record in the home ministry has been anything but spectacular.  Not only has he failed to achieve much, his tenure has seen continuous friction of his ministry with the states.  In short, his transfer from the finance ministry to home ministry has neither been good for the economy of the country nor for its politics. So his return should be good news for most.

Except those strongly backing UID/Aadhaar.

His dislike of the project—or rather the way it is being rolled out—is well-known. Not only has he disagreed with UIDAI’s way of collecting data, he has written to the prime minister multiple times complaining about it. It is in his insistence that the cabinet discussed in January the possible security loopholes in the way UID was collecting data and decided that while  NPR and UIDAI would use the biometric data collected by each other, in case of discrepancies between UIDAI and NPR data, NPR would prevail.

Again, as recently as last month, he had written to the PM that UIDAI was not cooperating with Registrar General of India (RGI), which was working on the NPR. This is what Mint had reported, quoting from the letter.

“The decision of the cabinet is crystal clear and I am unable to comprehend the reluctance of UIDAI to allow the NPR camps and to accept the NPR data. I had taken these issues with Nandan Nilekani, chairman, UIDAI, dated 14.05.12. The home secretary (R.K. Singh) has also discussed the issue at length with the UIDAI director general and mission director. However, despite our best efforts, issues remain unresolved,” he said.

It is difficult to believe that once he takes charge of finance ministry, his opinion about the Aadhar project would change drastically.

The question is: will it impact the effectiveness of UIDAI?

While it is true that UIDAI is part of the Planning Commission, the reason it became the government’s flagship program so soon is because of strong support from the former finance minister Pranab Mukherjee. Not only did Mukherjee generously provided for the funding of the project in three of his budgets, he made it the basis (aadhaar) of most of the government programs. There were nine reference to Aadhaar in Mukherjee’s budget speech this year. Whether it is for subsidy being credited directly to beneficiary’s bank account, creating a more efficient public distribution regime by creating a PDS network, or for disbursement of government payouts—such as MG-NREGA payments, pensions and scholarships—the finance minister seemed confident that Aadhaar could be leveraged as a platform to deliver. National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI) even created the Aadhaar Payment Bridge Systems.

In short, while the UIDAI chairman Nandan Nilkeani created a new generation platform in form of Aadhaar, it is Mukherjee who was instrumental in making it the flagship platform of all developmental activities in India. So much was Mukherjee’s liking for Nilekani that he made him head some half a dozen task forces, groups, and committees entrusting him with most changes. I wrote about it in a post in this blog earlier called The Importance of Being Shri Nandan Nilekani. Mukherjee had even gone to the extent of openly backing Nilekani on PDS reforms when the food ministry was ignoring the recommendations of a committee headed by him.

From there, it would be quite a change for Aadhaar/Nilekani if Mukherjee is succeeded by someone who very recently complained so strongly about the project to the prime minister, taking the name of its chairman.

Things would probably have been a little different had the UIDAI been a independent statutory body. A proposal to make it one was rejected by a Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by Yashwant Sinha a few months back. Interestingly, in its report, the Committee had extensively quoted news reports about the home ministry’s objection to/criticism of Aadhaar to justify its decision.

Both Chidambaram and Nilekani have proven track records. The country will benefit if they work in tandem. Another conflict in the government is the last thing that we want in the time of this apparent policy paralysis. Not only will it make another fresh and fairly successful experimentation in the government go astray, any drastic change in the path will make very wrong signals to international community. After 2G decision and GAAR, the last thing the country would like to see is going back on UID plans.

1 Comment

Filed under Digital Economy, Inclusive India, Indian Economy, New Governance, Policy & Regulation, Technology & Society

National Citizen Database/Unique ID: Is Chidambaram Speaking the BJP Language?

It is ironic. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) may be baying for his blood after Madras High Court rejected Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s Plea in his Lok Sabha election case, but the minister is actually fighting a bitter battle within his own government to implement a plan that was, by all means, envisioned by the BJP.

A large section of media has reported that the home minister has complained to thePrime Minister about the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) (part of Planning Commission) not cooperating with the Registrar General of India (RGI) (under Home Ministry) in a letter. Both are collecting biometrics based data of people–UIDAI for issuing Aadhar numbers and RGI for its National Population Register (NPR)

In a report today, this is what Mint said

In his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last week, Chidambaram accused the Nandan Nilekani-led UIDAI of not following the 27 January cabinet decision where it was agreed that the purposes of UIDAI and the home ministry-led National Population Register (NPR) project were different. Under this truce, both projects were to continue simultaneously and each would use the biometric data collected by the other. Also, in case of discrepancies between UIDAI and NPR data, NPR would prevail.

“Despite these directions from the government of India, UIDAI is objecting to the conduct of the NPR camps in certain states and is also refusing to accept the biometric data of NPR for de-duplication and generation of (the) Aadhaar numbers,” he said in the letter, which was reviewed by Mint.

“The decision of the cabinet is crystal clear and I am unable to comprehend the reluctance of UIDAI to allow the NPR camps and to accept the NPR data. I had taken these issues with Nandan Nilekani, chairman, UIDAI, dated 14.05.12. The home secretary (R.K. Singh) has also discussed the issue at length with the UIDAI director general and mission director. However, despite our best efforts, issues remain unresolved,” he said.

On the face of it, the fight seems to be about the data collection. But there is a bigger issue. And no, it is not about ego clash between Chidambaram and Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Or if it is, we do not know that. The big issue is that while both UIDAI/Aadhar and NPR are collecting data for creating citizen databases, their objectives are entirely different. And hence the details vary. While it certainly is a laudable idea that there should be no duplication of efforts and national resources for doing similar kind of work, it requires more than a cabinet meeting to pan out how that could be done. Else, the cabinet decision is like a patchwork; pushing the dirt under the carpet.

Without getting into too much details, there are certain important differences that must be pointed out.

One, the sacrosanct thing in the Aadhar number  is the number. There is a card but that is like a PAN card. The card is just a piece of plastic. It is the number that matters. On the other hand, the citizen card would be like a passport (or so it is believed). It is not just the number but the physical document that is important.

Two, the Aadhar number is not mandatory; the citizen card would be mandatory. That is a major difference.

Three, the Aadhar number—since its main aim is to facilitate the smooth access to services like banking—could be issued to anyone residing in India, even a foreigner. The citizen card of NPR is a proof of citizenship.

The above two characteristics of UID together ensure that the Aadhar number is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to citizenship of India. That is the whole purpose of the resident identity card of NPR.

These differences are fundamental. The Aadhaar project was launched by UPA to ensure financial inclusion, which was a big requirement for achieving social inclusion, UPA’s top election promise. The way in which NPR is being projected suggests that central to it is security. “The resident identity card programme was launched in India’s nine coastal states after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. The home ministry is seeking to extend the scheme to the rest of the country and has sought Rs. 6,700 crore to fund the program,” reported Mint.

Interestingly, this is what was originally BJP’s idea. In a story that I did in Dataquest, way back in January 2010, I had pointed this out. Calling it “Inclusion Vs Security”, I argued that while the central idea behind BJP’s national citizen database was security, it was inclusion that drove UPA’s agenda when it created UIDAI.   “While it is true that it was the NDA government that had taken the first step on creating a national identity system, its objective was entirely different,” I wrote. I cited an August 2003 press release issued by PIB on this.

“Illegal migration has assumed serious proportions. There should be compulsory registration of citizens and non-citizens living in India. This will facilitate preparation of a national register of citizens. All citizens should be given a Multi-purpose National Identity Card (MNIC) and non-citizens should be issued identity cards of a different color and design. This should be introduced initially in the border districts or may be in a 20 Kms border belt and extended to the hinterland progressively. The Central Government should meet the full cost of the identity card scheme”.

This is exactly what Chidambaram’s home ministry is now talking about. In fact, even in 2009, BJP’s Elections Manifesto had an IT vision in which a lot of emphasis was laid on this (MNIC).  It claimed that the centrepiece of the implementation of the BJP’s IT Vision is the Multipurpose National Identity Card (MNIC). This is what the vision document said.

We would amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, to combine the offices of the Registrar General of the Census of India and that of the UIAI to set up a Citizenship Regulatory Authority of India (CRAI). The CRAI would be responsible for maintaining a National Register of Citizenship (NRC), and keeping it current up to the minute.

This is what the BJP IT vision said further.

The amended Citizenship Act would make it mandatory under law for all citizens to acquire an MNIC, and parents of newly born infants would have to apply for one for their child, immediately after the baby’s birth.

So, whether it is the “mandatory” requirement, NPR (BJP’s NRC) or starting with coastal areas (BJP’s border belt), the home ministry idea is an exact reflection of what BJP wanted. In fact, these differences were also the basis of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance headed by BJP MP and ex FM Yershwant Sinha for sending back the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010. “The Committee have received a number of suggestions for restricting the scope of the UID scheme only to the citizens and for considering better options available with the Government by issuing Multi-Purpose National Identity Cards (MNICs) as a more acceptable alternative,” it noted. MNIC was BJP’s phrase.

What Chidambaram’s home ministry is doing is to reintroduce BJP’s plan under a different name. Not surprising considering Chidambaram has been a hardliner when it comes to security.

So, which one is a better objective? There is no straight answer to that question. But as I had pointed out in another story, The Politics of Identity, in Dataquest after the Sinha-headed committee sent back the bill, “the primary objectives of the two projects, though their means are the same, are completely different. To measure one with the yardstick of the other, is not just unfair but would never yield any result.”

Even if one can debate this versus that, it is too late to do that as the government has decided to go for both. The good idea is that someone is thinking about minimizing on the national resources. But that is easier said than done.

While I did point out the fundamental differences between the two projects above, there are some more differences that have come the way that the two are being implemented. And while they are less sacrosanct to be changed, they need to be examined before one tries to work out a synergy.

One, UIDAI, in its wisdom, has decided that it would respect citizen’s privacy, something that is traditionally not a big issue in India but increasingly, citizens are getting more concerned about their privacy. UIDAI has taken a proactive stance on that. So, it is looking at collecting only the essential information for identifying and no more. NPR wants to have all the information and still operates with philosophy that government has all the rights  over citizen. While that is essential for somebody trying to ensure security, it should happen only when the government ensures that there is no information leakage.

Two, UIDAI has taken a mission/marketing approach rather than a typical government mandated top-down approach. It has marketed the program, got buy-ins from partners and has shown the benefits accrued to each stakeholder such as banks, telcos and state governments because of Aadhaar. By doing so, not only has it created a feeling of ownership, it has managed to share the cost of collection of data. NPR wants to do a massive centralized exercise.

While it is true that both are trying to collect similar data and hence should cooperate with each other to avoid wasting of national resources, it cannot just be wishful thinking. It has to be planned out properly. One thing about Aadhaar project is that, all its small flaws notwithstanding, it is fairly thought through program. It is halfway. The Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has emphasized its significance many times. Most of the development programs of the government now use Aadhaar as a platform. In fact, this year’s Budget speech had as many as nine reference to Aadhaar. So, you cannot do something that creates problems for UID project. That will affect all these development programs.

But NPR, even though it is an original BJP idea, is an important requirement too for security. And the fact that the government has decided to pursue it with all seriousness means going back in not an option. Certainly, duplication of efforts is certainly not a great idea.

The two projects have no option but to find synergies. But it cannot just be wishful thinking. It has to be thought through further. It requires more than a cabinet meeting or a letter by the Prime Minister for that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Digital Economy, Inclusive India, New Governance, Policy & Regulation, Technology & Society