UIDAI — The number games

Since inception, Aadhar, India’s ambitious unique identity programme, has been facing criticism, and not without reason, from various quarters — civic groups, rights activists, and even bureaucrats and chief ministers. Privacy and security concerns have been raised, and the project has also not been spared what has now become a regular feature of Manmohan Singh’s tenure — intra-governmental sniping — with the home ministry and the planning commission splitting hair over it. Through it all, Nandan Nilekani, the high-profile head of the UIDAI, has been at his task, ploughing a lonely furrow.

The project has now caught the attention of Edgar Whitley, from the London School of Economics, who co-authored a study that led to the scrapping of a similar project in Britain and, ultimately, the deletion of all biometric data. Whitley’s argument is simple: if, with a population of 60 million, a developed country couldn’t succeed, what are India’s chances?

That is not to say we should not look at means of reaching the needy directly and ensuring that they get their due. Whitley’s argument is that there are better ways of ensuring this, like making sure all live births are registered — less than 55% are, today — and using that data to run state schemes.

The problem with the UID’s champions is that they seem to think that anyone who questions them is anti-national. It is time they set that attitude aside and dispelled doubts in an open manner. Otherwise, nothing can stop our project going the UK way, and the eventual loser will be the poor.