SATISH JHA
Date: Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Date: Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM
U I DAI - Technology may be too important a matter to be left to..
Its interesting that the debate about whether the man should walk towards the cliff is being snarled in the little observation whether the shoelaces are strong enough..
The U I Die (UIDAI) approach is intrinsically of a piece with what has defined India for the past six decades.. A gross inability to understand its priorities as a nation, doing what THEY want to do by themselves and for themselves
leaving the "us" behind because we the people have shown little capability to understand how this nation is run.
While a few wise men may acknowledge their limitations, most of us are prone to believe we know the truth, we know how the world works and so we debate and that clearly keeps the world going.
So, let us begin with a little questioning..
Why does a government do what it does?
Who comprise the government?
What motivates these folks?
What are the triggers for any decision?
If that does not help us find our answers, how about starting with a clean slate and first ask what is being done?
What should be the criteria of doing anything?
Does it stand the test.. and so on..
All these questions seem to precede how will it be done.. I have spoken to about a dozen technology leaders of the past couple decades in the country and the majority seems to think its a waste of money, it is not required at all, it
will not help, there are easier ways to do it, in any case the kind of sums being talked about are closer to the rationale that may have been given for the Iraq war.. and so on..
A few who seem to go along with it seem to be luke warm about it at best..More in resignation than supporting the idea.. Some say only the very naive will believe that it will solve any problem..
The way we address a scenario usually determines who we are..
May be here is an opportunity to pause and ask the first question first..
Do we need it? Why? At what price? To what benefits?
What are the alternative ways we may spend these
resources? Or just concede that a PM can do anything s/he choses.. without the fear of a post-mortem..
