[Reader-list] Few observations on questions asked in the Parliament on MNIC

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear All

As some of you might have noticed from the two dozens or so questions
which I have posted on the list so far and which pertains to the XIII
Lok Sabha session (1999-2004) regarding the subject of MNIC and
various other schemes of personal identification, that these questions
and corresponding answers perhaps suggest certain trends.

a) The GOI runs numerous schemes of personal identification.
b) These schemes reflect the bureaucratic division of various citizens
under different categories. For instance, pensioners, laborers, army
men and so on.
c) That from time to time the GOI apportions some money for the
management of these schemes.
d) More often than not, the money marked for such exercises is  either
not spent or is under utilized. For instance questions related to
under- distribution of voter id cards and under utilization of money
thereof suggests this systematic anomaly.
e) Over a period of time these schemes are viewed as inefficient
because of systemic corruption or because of inability of the
department concerned to focus on a task and deliver within a
predetermined time frame or other factors which were localized and
pertained to idiosyncrasies of geography or political environment at
the time of survey or logistical hiccups etc.
f) With a change in technological environment newer schemes are
proposed with a promise to cover all the failures of older schemes.
g)  Change of a method was also proposed in view of a need to project
an image of a responsible, concerned Government when the government of
the day was under pressure to handle situations based on notions like
'terrorism or illegal immigration' although no evidence exists which
proves inconclusively that introduction of a national identity card
scheme in a nation leads to eradication of either 'illegal
immigration' or 'terrorism'.
h) The Government which had already distributed a huge amount of
public funds under various personal identification schemes now starts
putting forth a view that there exists many identification cards and
there needs to be one document. If that is so then why was the need to
have so many identity cards earlier?
i) MNIC is proposed.
j) The final push for MNIC comes after a so called, 'feasibility
report' which was prepared by a 'Private Corporate Organization'. Why
a private organization? Is the Government of India which has a rich
history of carrying out census surveys dating back to 1871 see its own
departments as intellectually incapable of carrying out a mere
feasibility report. One wonders....why should government of India rely
so much on the intellectual arguments and empirical evidence
collected, collated and classified by a private corporate entity
(which I am sure must be visualized and presented in a cool. pretty
terrific manner through nice maps accompanying power points) ??? Why
should the Government distribute a part of public money to do a job
when it already maintains an entire department which could do the same
job and for which public money is already apportioned??? Do the office
of Registrar General of India lack required bureaucratic,
technological, theoretical or conceptual expertise to carry out a mere
feasibility report for MNIC??? If yes, then why does the GOI thinks
that the same department can be entrusted with the responsibility to
carrying out the actual census, distribution or maintainance for
MNIC???

Anyways...we don't know the contents of this report. I wonder what
were the premises or the lines of inquiry which this private corporate
organization took, which many people believe was Tata's software arm,
the TCS but one is not conclusively sure. Moreover,  the important
question is what were the parameters, the costing estimates and most
importantly so what were the limitations of introducing the MNIC which
this report might have suggested???

Warm regards

Taha