[Reader-list] More than just proof of life- 139

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear All

In an opinion piece which appeared in the Indian Express today, Vikram
Mehta suggests, ' Government can surely build upon the various
identity cards that are already in place to secure these goals. After
all there is the PAN card; it identifies the tax payer; there is the
BPL card; it provides access to subsidies and other entitlements, etc;
there is the ration card — it offers food on concessional terms, etc.
I do of course appreciate that these cards cover only a fragment of
the population; that they essentially correlate economic condition to
economic entitlement and that they do not encapsulate the non-economic
facets of an individual’s identity. But these are inadequacies that
can be overcome through the incremental application of appropriate
technology. They do not require the start of a new project on the
scale envisaged.'

Furthermore he argues, 'We have to recognise that identity cards have
a chequered past. They can be and are used for important but innocuous
purposes like determining whether a person should be behind the wheels
of a car. They have also however been used for dastardly ends.
Identity cards were what enabled Nazi Germany to single out the Jews.
Information that empowers an individual does also empower a state.'

In a country of a billion people :) we now have at least two
individuals of some public standing who think that the whole UIDAI
exercise must dealt with a lot more caution and a lot less euphoria,
the other gentlemen being Bibek Debroy of course. Vikram Mehta's views
are important because he being the Indian head of large multinational
conglomerate a.k.a 'the enterprise' one do not necessarily expect him
to 'switch ranks' and argue in a skeptical, cautionary tone,
nevertheless such views even though they are not articulated in an
official capacity are more than welcome anytime....

Warm regards

Taha

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/more-than-just-proof-of-life/486002/0

More than just proof of life

Vikram S Mehta

Tags : Nilekani, illegal immigrants
Posted: Tuesday , Jul 07, 2009 at 0555 hrs IST

A project to provide Indians with a ‘unique’ identity can be variously
interpreted. Narrowly construed, it can be seen as an effort to
contain illegal immigrants; to strengthen security; to arrest
misappropriation, misrepresentation and misallocation. Broadly
defined, it can be regarded as the harbinger of radical social and
economic change; a first step in defining not simply who we are but
who we wish to be.

How will Nilekani interpret his remit? Will he steer the narrow course
or plunge into the broader unknown. I would hope the latter not simply
because against the backdrop of the social and economic consequences
of globalisation, technology and demography we Indians do need to
reflect upon our identity but also because if there is one person who
can “imagine” the positives of stretching an idea beyond its
conventional limits it has to be Nilekani.

A narrow construction of the remit will of course generate value. The
plight of Air India; the flow of red ink from the public sector oil
marketing companies, the lengthening shadows of power cutbacks — these
are just some of the glaring examples of wasteful expenditure,
distributive inefficiency and sloppy management. The identity project
should help arrest this haemoraging of public resources and avoidable
loss. It should plug the leaks that prompted Rajiv Gandhi to comment
that of Rs 100 allocated for poverty alleviation barely Rs 15 reached
the intended beneficiary. It should help squelch the middlemen and
vested interests that today sequester the subsidised petroleum
products like kerosene and LPG meant for the poor; that inflate
monthly wage bills by somehow adding fictitious names to the payroll;
that draw government compensation as teachers or health workers but
seldom enter a classroom or dispensary. And on the non-economic front
it should make it easier to segregate bonafide citizens from illegal
immigrants and strengthen the instruments of internal security.

The question is whether such a massive exercise is warranted for these
narrow purposes. Government can surely build upon the various identity
cards that are already in place to secure these goals. After all there
is the PAN card; it identifies the tax payer; there is the BPL card;
it provides access to subsidies and other entitlements, etc; there is
the ration card — it offers food on concessional terms, etc. I do of
course appreciate that these cards cover only a fragment of the
population; that they essentially correlate economic condition to
economic entitlement and that they do not encapsulate the non-economic
facets of an individual’s identity. But these are inadequacies that
can be overcome through the incremental application of appropriate
technology. They do not require the start of a new project on the
scale envisaged.

It is therefore to the broader remit that I turn for justification.
Amartya Sen explained that identity is not a unidimensional and rigid
attribute. People have multiple identities and it is a matter of
personal choice and circumstance that determines their dominant
identity at any particular point in time or place. A woman executive
in office may cloak herself with the identity of a professional. But
at home she may decide to doff that in favour of something that
signals motherhood and/or housewife. The point is that identity is a
fluid concept and whilst there are defining singular attributes like
nationality, religion, caste, language or profession, the lens through
which people see themselves and others reflect kaleidoscopic overlaps
of these attributes. Identity is a shifting composite and individual
behaviour reflects this composite.

The framers of our Constitution recognised this behavioural
relationship. They saw in the Constitution the opportunity to broaden
our identity and to thereby alter the dynamics of social relations.
Prior to it identity was defined essentially within a social context.
People knew their position within society. Caste determined who they
met, where they ate; whom they married, etc. Social identity
determined social rights. The Constitution stretched the context to
cover political rights. Whilst recognising the reality of caste it
supplanted it with the category of ‘citizen’ — a political identity
that signaled a new freedom and a new equality and which found
expression through the medium of universal adult suffrage. This was a
deliberate decision taken by people like Rajendra Prasad and Nehru —
individuals who knew what they wanted and who turned to the
Constitution to give expression to their vision. Of course social
identity did not dissolve, but from 1951 onwards it shared space with
political identity.

Mandal had an equally seminal impact on identity. For it elevated
caste from being something of largely local salience to something with
a national scope. It became a common badge of economic value. It was
the ticket to schools, universities, jobs, politics, etc. It joined
the panopoly of identities that dominate behaviour today.

We have to recognise that identity cards have a chequered past. They
can be and are used for important but innocuous purposes like
determining whether a person should be behind the wheels of a car.
They have also however been used for dastardly ends. Identity cards
were what enabled Nazi Germany to single out the Jews. Information
that empowers an individual does also empower a state. Ultimately
therefore what redeems a card is the vision and purpose for which it
has been designed.

Nilekani should therefore ask: What is the vision and purpose of his
project? Could it be to open the doors for Indians to push beyond the
Mandal era? And if so would it be practically possible to design the
system of collating and incorporating data in a way that triggers a
reassessment of the relative importance of the different attributes of
identity? Can the very process of determining identity lead to its
redefinition and thereby to changes in behaviour? Nilekani may choose
not to ask these questions but it would be a pity — indeed possibly a
lost opportunity, if he fails to appreciate that identities are not
simply expressions of the past or the present. They entail visions of
the future.

The writer is chairman, Shell group of companies in India. Views
expressed are personal