IT is not often that a project so warmly welcomed by the leading decisionmakers of the country, both public and private, suffers such a steep loss of credibility in so short a period of time. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh flagged of the Unique Identification Number, or Adhaar, project and appointed former Infosys czar, Nandan Nilekani as the Chairperson of the UIDAI, the move was welcomed as visionary . Adhaar, it was claimed, was ‘symbolic of the new and modern India’ which had moved beyond roti, kapada and makan, even bijli, sadak and pani, to embrace the brave new virtual world of mobile telephony and the internet to help citizens access ‘services, benefits and rights’.
Even the estimated cost of the project, a staggering Rs 5000 crore, did little to dampen the enthusiasm. The pink press, usually skeptical, if not dismissive, of big ticket government schemes, saw in the UID project a spectacular wave of new investment and opportunity.
In less than three years since its inauguration , the dream appears cracked and the project is embroiled in deep controversy. While the Planning Commission has expressed concern about the UIDAI spending close to Rs 3000 crore to collect fingerprints, iris scans and photographs of a section of the population, and that too without due approval, the finance ministry has rejected the demand for an enhancement of budget from Rs 3023 crore to Rs 19,863 crore (figures from Frontline, 2 December 2011) so as to cover the entire population. The worse blow comes from the home ministry which has questioned the accuracy of the data collected, recommending that the Census Commissioner’s office should instead take over and complete the task.
Is this spate of criticism merely reflective of the suspicion that official schemes and pronouncements now generate, affecting otherwise worthwhile ideas and ventures? Are we being unduly hasty in writing an epitaph on what may essentially be teething problems? Possibly. But there is little denying that creating a biometrics based national data register has been attempted and given up elsewhere as unviable and that the UIDAI authorities need to answer the many worries of the critics in a public and transparent manner before going ahead. Not to forget that both the constitution of the UIDAI and the expenditure incurred have yet to receive parliamentary approval.
What is still shrouded in mystery is the real purpose behind the exercise. Or how, what was initially proposed as a national citizenship register, aimed at preventing illegal migration, has morphed into an all-purpose identification number, linked to multiple data sets, expected to address not just issues of security but increasingly the delivery of social welfare schemes. Worse, what was initially to be voluntary registration now threatens to turn mandatory, the absence of which would deny access to subsidized goods and services.
National identity cards are nothing new. Adding biometric data, iris scans and fingerprints, to what earlier was photographs, ostensibly to ensure uniqueness, is not only expensive but also demands extraordinary faith in the infallibility of the technology. Unfortunately for the promoters, both fingerprint and iris scan use is prone to error, reportedly as high as fifteen per cent, most affecting the very young and old, those engaged in manual labour, and with ophthalmic problems. So why rely on an unreliable technology, particularly since the implications of error (non or false identification) are so serious, most for those for whom the scheme is designed, the poor.
There are other fears – privacy and confidentiality concerns and the centralization and consolidation of what, so far, are discrete data holdings with separate entities in the hands of the state. Even if one does not buy into the Orwellian nightmare of a centralized computer with all data on all citizens that the more strident critics conjure up, a biometrics based unique identity number, electronically linked to personal data – financial, health, education, jobs and the list can be expanded – is too high risk a proposition to take on faith. Whether or not the UID number becomes the basis for entitlements under the NREG or PDS schemes or subsidized credit, health, education, housing – the primary reason why a regime keen to correct targeting errors and thus reduce fiscal deficit jumped at it – the potential for violating human rights and liberties is serious enough to force a rethink.
One should not dismiss legitimate concerns about either national security or improving the efficiency of our many welfare schemes. But surely falling prey to technological fantasies , just because they are proposed by people who many admire, is not the way. Nor is being obdurate about continuing, just because of moneys already spent. Not in a democracy.
Harsh Sethi
