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

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Jeebesh,

Thank you for your reply. As always, it was a pleasure to read your
thoughts. Although I get a feeling that you seem to compare ideas
which were the part of the Cold War in order generate an understanding
about so called newer notions like national identity cards.

On the other hand, rather than being as distinct as in 'now' and
'then' kind of a scenario, I'd like to see the percolation of these
ideas over the years in some sort of continuous fashion. We have to
acknowledge the fact much of the 'new', 'changed', 'transformed' world
we live in today is perhaps actually run by players, who are part of
some institutions. And these institutions have deep institutional
memories.

The suggestion on your part seems to be, that back then 'the enemy'
was recognized and its biographical, social and intellectual map could
be constructed and now this does not seems to be the case.

1. To a certain extent I agree with what you say but I do not think
that an argument like- now there is no enemy holds any water. I think
on the contrary the enemy or the idea of an overarching 'devil' is
more delicately constructed now. The case 'seems' remarkably different
yet there are too many patterns of similarity. It seems as if the
haves of the world have learned their lesson from the mistakes of the
cold war.

Therefore we are told again and again no one knows who is the
terrorist.  We are told no one knows where he comes from. No one knows
his past. He is a planner. A thinker. We are told. You tell me how
more clear can a biography of an enemy could be? The logic has become
crystal clear. While the resultant image has become fuzzy. Or is this
fuzziness deliberate?

Then there are those who would argue that the vacuum left by
communists have been filled by the growth of radical Islam. If the
global theater of military and media operations was Cuba, Gautamala,
El-Salvadore, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc then,  it has shifted to Iraq
and Afghanistan now. Smaller theaters too like Pakistan, Kashmir,
Persia, Palestine, Ethopia seem to occupy some legitimacy.  This where
the idea of enemy is mobilized and fought with. Strategic incidental
locations like New York, London, Madrid, Bombay or Delhi reflect a
mega screen like quality where the image of an enemy is continuously
projected. Mind you, the canvass offered by these large urban
metropolitan centers is huge.

It is true that Communists were readily identified but one has to
understand that West's relation to Islam is more complex and
historically much more deeper. I don't want to go into an argument of
the why's and how's of it, at this stage, but I am sure you understand
what I am trying to refer to.

Your second point was related to the idea of cost. The claim seems to
be that when the state expends huge volumes of money in a scheme it
results in a change in the dynamics of the discourse. There was a hint
of direct proportionality in this argument. Therefore you seem to be
concerned that - money invested in the name of safeguarding us from
insecurity might lead to a greater investment in making us stay in a
panicky condition. Because maybe the assumption was that it is panic
which is creating this business in the first place.

2. May I kindly ask which discourse are you referring to here Jeebesh?
Are you referring to the pubic discourse or policy or academic or news
media or political or general drawing room discussions?

For the sake of an argument I will assume that you were referring to a
general public discourse. Let me state that I don't buy your argument
which co-relates the scale of public spending resulting in an
outpouring of discourse or resulting in a change in any political or
discursive nature. The causality does not seem to match.

The reason being the following- I don't think that in India, there has
been any critical public discourse on or about of the largest
recipients of public money in the last sixty years. And I am of course
talking about the spending on the defense sector here. You have also
said that if defense spending were to increase you will panic.

Are Indians even bothered as to who gets their money so long as it is
asked for 'Defense' ? There seems to be an overriding concern that the
moment one starts talking about Defense one has to tread a very
careful line. India has fought three wars in last sixty years. Our
country's forces have the distinction of being part of the largest
occupying army in the world. This year's budget raised the plan outlay
for defense by a cool 34% to Rs.1,41,703 crore. Can you please refer
the names of five  prominent journalists of India of any medium who
have written any critical piece on defense spending? Is there any
general panic on public forums on this issue?

 Please tell me, how many articles, posts, replies, responses,
observations or comments have you posted Jeebesh on the Sarai list,
since it was inaugurated in 2000, which not only focuses on defense
sector alone but also articulates a clear conceptual co-relationship
between defense spending and a rise in the rhetoric of panic?

15,000 crore was the plan outlay for health in India and the plan
outlay for defense is 1,41,703 crore. Malaria is what should be
scaring us I think, given that, 935 people died of Malaria in India in
2008.
( http://www.nvbdcp.gov.in/Doc/mal-feb-09.pdf)

I wonder, why does this figure not shock people? Why is it that you
want to rely on a rhetoric of cold war and whatnot to articulate
panic? Whose panic are you talking about anyways? Clearly something is
wrong here isn't it.

Neither there is any sense of panic at the level of general public
discourse when too little money is spent ( as in health) nor there is
any sense of panic when too much money is deployed ( as in Defense), I
wonder why is that so?

Your final point seems to be the most Orwellian. But nevertheless it
is interesting. The private-companies-are taking-over argument.

My God!!! Their core operations are going to be merged. Now even the
lala will know who I am.  What should I do now?

This is what I call -panic- and not what's happening.

As you may have known mailing lists is what made Ogilvy. While writing
On Advertising he cites innumerable instances of how he would use
databases of names and addresses of consumers to send unsolicited
publicity and marketing materials. His co-conspirator in this exercise
was a guy named Gallup. The guy who made a living from collecting,
classifying, and using databases of harmless civilian consumers to so
that they could be persuaded to buy toothpastes.

On the one hand I think it would be good for a certain type of
business to avail of data of this kind. On the other hand we know of a
common practice employed by the US army particularly to buy mailing
lists from Ice Cream companies and other FMCG companies and merge this
data to generate up to date lists of civilians who could be asked to
serve in the army.

The point being just as it is necessary for a government to know who
is it governing so it is necessary for a private enterprise to know
who its end consumers are. Where is the panic here?

Did you panic while filling out the form for your Apple laptop or you
cell phone? I am sure you knew that this data is traded by companies.
If not then I do not know why should you panic if such data were to be
given or shared by your government to raise more public money?

I know you love cricket Jeebesh and I am sure you must have enjoyed
the recent IPL season but do you know how Lalit Mody the man behind
IPL came to an irrefutable conclusion that the idea of IPL will sell
in India?

Warm regards

Taha