Unwarranted Pessimism on UID By: Ashwini Kulkarni Vol XLVI No.16 April 16, 2011
Ashwini Kulkarni, Nashik, Post Graduation in Economics,
Worked with NGOs for last 15 years on rural development issues.
[Ashwini Kulkarni (pragati.abhiyan@gmail.com) works with the non-governmental organisation, Pragati Abhiyan, based in Nashik.]
Reetika Khera in “The UID Project and Welfare Schemes” (EPW, 26 February 2011) has opened a debate on the promise of the project of providing each Indian citizen a unique identification (uid) card. Specifically, she takes issue with the claim that the UID will facilitate the implementation of welfare schemes. It is a thought-provoking article but I do not share her extreme pessimism about the inability of the UID to improve the access of the poor to various welfare schemes and public services. Khera faults the UID for its likely failure to correct problems that it is not designed to correct and she under-appreciates the importance of the problems it will resolve.
The arguments here are based on my experiences in Maharashtra as an activist involved in trying to reduce corruption in the implementation of the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) projects. First, there is great value in having a UID document for someone who does not have access to welfare schemes due to the unavailability of the necessary documents. It may be true that having a UID will not obviate the need for applying for a bank account, a ration card or a job card, assuming that the delivery mechanisms for the existing welfare schemes remain unchanged. However, most Indians do not have a driver’s licence or a passport or a PAN card or a proof of residence that can serve as a basis for even applying for other necessary documents. It is possible that in the future the UID could suffice as a single identity card for multiple schemes such as pension schemes, Janani Suraksha Yojana, etc.
NREGA
For NREGA projects in any village, a labourer needs to be resident of that village in order to obtain a job card. This poses problems for members of nomadic tribes who reside in a place for a few months and then move on. As it stands, they do not have job cards. With a UID, they can work wherever they are and they can have a bank account which is accessible anywhere.
Khera does not think that the UID is needed for financial inclusion. She says that the transition to wage payments through bank accounts has been largely complete. However, as the ranks of new cohorts of labour join the pool, more bank accounts have to be created. Any system that makes it easier to open bank accounts should be welcome. Note also that most of the NREGA projects are being undertaken in a few select states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan. In other states, NREGA projects are less widespread. In Maharashtra, which is considered to be a relatively developed state, we are having serious problems in opening bank accounts for the labourers. I believe that UID will facilitate the process.
PDS
Does UID have nothing to contribute to the functioning of the public distribution system (PDS)? Khera is correct in saying that the real issue in the PDS is in the criterion for defining the “poor” and the UID cannot solve that problem. But whichever way the poor are defined, there is also the practical problem of including them in the net. Consider the multitudes living under bridges and on footpaths in cities or consider the nomads in rural areas. Such transients can seldom take advantage of the PDS network. Why? They were not counted by any BPL survey for the lack of any document that would prove their residency.
Suresh Sawant has been working with Rationing Kruti Samiti (RKS), an organisation across Maharashtra involved in having the PDS implemented. He says “Getting the migrants and the homeless ration cards without documents is the biggest hurdle. And so when the UID was announced, I welcomed it. When an individual has an identity card, it should be possible to get a ration card for him or her.”
Let me briefly recount a few cases that make the same point:
Consider a community of 300 families, mostly dalits, in Kombadbhuja village, Raigarh district. They have migrated from Marathwada to find work in a quarry. They have no voter cards, no ration cards, no birth certificates, no bank accounts…nothing to prove that they are Indian citizens. Their children cannot go to school, they have no access to any subsidised health benefits or to any subsidised foodgrains.
They get nothing from the government. The quarry owner is their only link to the world. It is possible that a new airport will be built displacing them from their new homes. But they do not have any proof to demand rehabilitation package of any kind.
Consider next a group of Pardhis from Marathwada living under Vakola flyover, near Vakola police station, Mumbai.
By any stretch of imagination it is difficult to call the place living quarters for anybody. But the group has been living there for two generations from before the flyover was built. There is no government scheme that can cover these people as they have no official address or identity.
There are innumerable people of this sort across India who are more vulnerable than most and who are in desperate need of government support. They need to be provided with a basic document that identifies them as citizens of India and therefore makes them entitled to certain privileges and support. Such a document should not depend on the mercy of a gramsevak or any other local functionary, who must certify a person as a bona fide recipient.
Khera concedes that “portability” is an indisputable advantage of the UID. She argues, however, that in the context of the PDS, portability does not mean much if the grain supplies do not match the population. In other words, the migrants can flash their ration cards which is pointless if there is not enough grain to meet their demand. This argument brings out the limitations of the PDS rather than of the UID.
