[Reader-list] On the business of E-Governance.

[Jeebesh]

On 07-Jul-09, at 5:30 AM, Taha Mehmood wrote:

Dear Taha,

If i understand you correctly, you ask the following questions.

i) How do i claim that in our times "security panic" is more porous,  
dispersed and widespread, qualitatively different from the panic  
created by an earlier epoch of "cold war".?

ii) Does cost of production of the I card regime have a bearing on my  
using many adjectives to call it wrong?

iii) How come it is being termed as a "security enterprise" and  
"hidden", when it is openly being advertised and shown off.?

I am trying to think, what could have made me make this assertions.

Let me try.

I) The panic produced by cold war had a focal point and definition of  
the "enemy". Its location and presence was noticeable, trackable and  
available in speech. It was between States and thus managed with an  
"industrial-military" mega structure. It was drawing on huge social  
resources to produce these structures and faced enormous social  
protests on all sides of the fronts. Most of cold-war popular  
oppositions were against this complex that came up in the name of  
protecting people.

Going through the wiki cold war project, it becomes apparent that the  
cold war was built on parameters of State to State relationships of  
antagonism, collaboration, attrition, alignments and sabotage. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Unknown-importance_Cold_War_articles&until=Crocker%2C+Chester

In todays "security panic", the enemy is spectral. Who is the enemy?  
Where will they come from? Strangely also, speechless. This speech  
vacuum is filled in by all kind of strategist voices from all sides.  
It is an "enemy" whose biography is impossibly to construct. And, as  
of now almost no State will own up to any alignment with these  
enemies. These are figures who are outside the classical security  
discourse. So the discursive panic is more.

Within this context we could maybe locate the ease of the way State is  
able to announce this project of card for all. It may get consent now  
than say, 2 decades back.

II) Cost of production is always a point in discussion. Especially  
since it is an expenditure made in the name of public good (safety and  
welfare). If State suddenly spends 50% of its budget on say standing  
army, what would you say? I would panic. Simple, it means a form of  
mobilization that is going to effect social life in very deep ways. It  
happened in 20th century. People who panicked thought a differently  
from people who stoically said, let it unfold.

Cost incurred into something changes the political and discursive  
dynamics. We know it from our experience of big dams, SEZ, etc. Same  
will happen with this I-card project. Do you hear anything critical or  
another way of looking at JNURM?  It is on roll and its effect on  
urban life will be felt after a decade.

The present small hope that still lingers about the popularity of this  
project is that it is not yet named after a "great leader". Maybe  
still there is a fear of tarnishing the name if associated with this  
grand scheme :)

iii) All "panics" do produce "enterprises" around them. The  
Identification card has been launched as an enterprise. My request was  
yo not lose sight of that in this discussion. It is a huge state  
spending to a sector of the industry which has been badly hit by  
global downturn. Since WTO etc makes it difficult for direct subsidies  
to companies it is through these moves that States will keep it  
afloat, in the hope of next upturn.

Hidden? Why do i say hidden? An apparatus of this kind has to be  
secretive. The database has to be protected. These are not highways  
being built. Build and leave. Here these companies will have core  
divisions merged with State apparatus. These companies became powerful  
in earlier era. (Lockheedmartin etc.). A kind of apparatus will come  
in operation almost in stealth that will become impossible to  
understand, comprehend and discuss.

A heavily bloated welfare discourse in europe was instrumental in  
consolidating the I-cards in many of these countries.  Not sure what  
it achieved. (though somehow it managed to overturn the deep suspicion  
and fear of identification that came up with WWII experiences). But  
this discourse of welfare will be under deep strain now with pressure  
of immigration and it would be most interesting how the earlier  
identification regimes cope up with these pressures.  Either become us  
or be out of it is now almost the mainstream political language in  
many countries of europe. Lets see. it is still unfolding.

And on the other hand do you remember Rwanda and I-card?

Hope this made some clarifications.

love
jeebesh