Should we oppose or Welcome Unique ID (UID) ? - Asokan Narakkal

A new discussion thread on UID ( i.e. on the Unique ID project headed by Mr.Nandan Nilekani ) is being opened here. The aim is to evolve a coherent approach to this very important issue through wide discussions. Until recently UID and related questions were largely a philosophical issue.  Nevertheless it did generate huge passions. History says that attempts to collect finger print details from the population led to widespread riots in some countries in the late nineteenth century. But back then people could agree to disagree and postpone decision making on ID to the future. Unfortunately it is no longer possible. The issue of UID has suddenly turned very critical and urgent. Hence this attempt. Welcome to the debate. To start with we will list arguments from different angles on UID.
Should we oppose or Welcome Unique ID (UID)?
 
1.         In more than one way the question of the need for UID and the question of the need for the widespread use of computers in society, economy and government or what is commonly called IT and e-Governance are related. UID is essentially an IT and e-Governance project at its core and has to be analysed as such. Hence this analysis has to go beyond the UID to IT and e-Governance too..
            Mr.Nilekani has come up with many points justifying UID. He has conceded some problems too. Now coming to the opposition to UID the major objections being raised against IT& e-Governance in general and UID in particular are:
 
A) It is unhealthy to propose technological fixes to what are complex sociological problems.  B) Expansion of IT and e-Governance further concentrates power in the hands of the already powerful minority including the digital haves. C) Functionality creep – The use of computers , even if restricted now to some specific sector for which it is deemed essential, will expand rapidly to other areas. Apart from these there is also the fear that expansion of IT, e-governance including UID will erode civil liberties and freedom. Libertarians are strongly suspicious of UID.
            When viewed in isolation most of these objections have merit. But in spite of   all such objections, a wide spectrum of governments ranging from the monarchy in Saudi Arabia to the erstwhile Maoist government in Nepal did go for widespread use of IT including some form of national ID. All evidence point to the acceleration of this trend. Apart from this many political parties, organizations and intellectuals who were vehement in their opposition to IT and to creation of big databases including by governments have gone silent. In fact the Republican Party in US, ideologically committed as they were to small government and decentralization, was dead set against any form of national ID and big broad based government databases. They were also against tracking of funds flow in banks, lest such information be used for regulation. But in the end the Republican administration headed by Mr.George.W. Bush was forced by the logic of circumstances to introduce the RealID Act. He also institutionalized tracking of funds flow in banks. Now the G-20 leaders are for regulation and tracking of funds flow at global level. There is also a proposal to introduce ID globally, i.e. Universal ID, may be by merging together national level ID databases. In some ways this is operational now itself for frequent international travelers.
            So this movement towards some form of ID based database and related tracking and surveillance systems is happening globally in spite of spirited opposition from a broad spectrum of libertarian intellectuals. Libertarians as well as liberals are unable to explain this glaring divergence between theory and practice.
2       The great scientist philosopher of twentieth century, Prof. Albert Einstein, once said ‘Man is a social animal’. He was referring to the essential interdependence of the individual and the society and the strains introduced in this relation by the excesses committed by the state as well as various individuals. He was arguing for a healthy interdependence of society and individual unlike the antagonistic attitudes prevalent then (and even now).
          Indeed the dynamics of the relation between man and his surroundings (including nature well as other human beings) had fascinated people throughout the ages. Modern environmentalism is clearly an expression of this concern. But back then technologies were primitive and people were closer to nature. The environmental issues did not arouse the passion as they do now. And the fascination of people by and large was on the relation between man and his fellow beings or society, with environmental issues always being there in the background. With the emergence of class society, the society in this equation was represented by the state and the focus shifted to the relation between the individual and the state.
          Throughout the history, the question of how to structure and restructure the relation between the individual and the state remained the major question and it still is. (Incidentally UID is an example of state’s attempt in restructuring this relation). Meanwhile throughout the ages the philosophically inclined speculated on this question endlessly. The wonderful ideas and insights generated by this speculation, at least some parts of it, have reached the present generation through epics, popular culture, religious teachings and literature. However most of these wonderful ideas had only limited impact on society’s progress. They remained largely utopian. Meanwhile the society progressed in spite of the great Utopians. The fundamental questions of the relation between the individual and the state (How much surplus to be extracted by way of taxes and how to use that surplus etc.) was largely decided by a complex interaction of various factors. One of the most important among these factors was the growth of productive forces and technology or the material basis of production. The other was of course class struggle. This story (history) continues even today.
          From this very brief historical overview of the evolving relation between the individual and the state, we can now go to examine the question of UID.
3.      The main reason why the issue of ID (Unique / National / Citizen) aroused massive passions in the past was because it kills privacy and anonymity of individuals through the interilinking of massive data bases. And by killing privacy and anonymity the introduction of UID amplifies the power of the state (and society) over the individual. Viewed this way UID is really a project addressing the same age old quest of how to restructure the relation between the individual and the state in a class society based on the changed material basis of production, the change being caused by the accelerating technological revolution.
          In the present case also the initiative for restructuring the relation between the state and the individual is being taken by the state. The state claims that it needs to implement UID and related databases to better protect society and itself against the numerous anarchists and anti state elements (including terrorists, tax dodgers, criminals, cyber criminals, spies, corrupt bureaucrats and what not). In fact the growth of technology has amplified the capability of criminal and anarchist elements to overwhelm the usually lethargic state machinery. This was very evident during the 2008 Nov 26 terrorist attack in Mumbai. A small band of terrorists using the latest tech gadgets available off the shelf was able to overwhelm the state machinery. This happened in spite of the heroism of many members of the security forces who laid their lives fighting the terrorists with very primitive weapons and technology. This contrast enraged the public opinion and forced the state to go for a massive up gradation of the system. UID project is part of this up gradation. In fact similar changes are underway in most major countries of the world. There are many reasons being advanced for this massive effort to restructure the relation between the individual and the state. These include increase in terrorism, cyber terrorism, tax evasion and many others. But the real underlying reason is the chain of massive changes in various sectors of the economy and society caused by changes in the material basis of production induced by the ongoing technological revolution. The massive blind social forces generated by these changes are causing degeneration of the old superstructure. This degeneration is accelerated by random attacks on key pillars of the state and economy by rogue elements who feel empowered by the new technology. The ensuing crises evidently forces sudden and massive changes.
4       The arguments given above do not by any means imply that we should wholeheartedly support and welcome the UID project as it is being implemented. Neither does it imply that we should totally oppose it. Rather the need is for a more nuanced and precise approach.
           
In fact there is an urgent need for a more realistic and precise approach towards, the effect of the so called IT or Knowledge Revolution. It is clear that driven by blind yet powerful social forces the Knowledge Revolution has already caused too deep a change in human society.  We are witnessing a new stage in the development of human society. Deep structural changes are unfolding in front of our eyes. We should also add that just as evolution of man from ape like creatures cannot be reversed, this new stage in the evolution of human society, also cannot be reversed, however much unhappy we are with its results now. The need evidently is to progress from this unhappy stage.
 
Let me point out that historical materialism can make better sense of this situation by explaining it as an ongoing transformation from the stage of oligopolistic capitalism to some type of state monopoly capitalism. This may take still more time but is being driven by  the strong yet blind social forces generated by interaction of class struggle and by the effects of the growth of science and technology.