The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), headed by Nandan Nilekani, appears to have come up against persistent questioning after the Union finance ministry turned down a major funding request. One issue being raised is that UIDAI remains immune from many of the financial checks and balances that any government operation has to live with. The system may have been consciously designed so that it could get on with its work with minimum fuss and ponderous procedures. Conceivably, these questions are being raised now, after the body has been in existence for a couple of years, which may have something to do with the present state of the government. The confusion within it may have emboldened those who earlier thought it wise to lie low – the project has powerful backers – to now voice their misgivings. It is inconceivable that those who run UIDAI will be reluctant to subject it to the regular financial scrutiny that any large organisation, public or private, has to go through. What the new operation has going for it is that Mr Nilekani, former CEO of Infosys, has come into it with his eyes wide open and is savvy enough to know how to deal with jealousies and turf wars.
The questions, taken together, do not always make sense. While some are asking whether the amount of money being spent on the project is worth it, some government departments, like the one for rural development, are contemplating going in for their own biometrics-based identification system. To get the best value, it may be desirable to have one organisation develop an identification system for all which can then be used by different programmes. The issue of privacy, raised from day one and acknowledged by Mr Nilekani (he has said the country needs a policy to secure privacy), is being reiterated. The problem of identity theft in developed countries and resultant fraud is being cited to ask if it is wise to get everybody’s personal data on a central repository. The accuracy of the biometric system is also being questioned. While fraud resulting from identity theft is an issue in developed countries, the major issue in India is fraud in the public distribution system via spurious ration cards. A biometrics-based system in India, though not perfect, will certainly be a substantial improvement on anything else that can be devised. The money saved by vastly reducing misrepresentation loops back to the question of cost effectiveness. Surely, there are horses for courses. There could, however, be some genuine doubts about the link between UID and the National Population Register, which aims to tackle the issue of illegal immigrants. Those who like UID but not the Register (it can harass individual communities) would wish the two were kept separate.
