How Aadhaar got its identity

To succeed mammoth, controversial government-promoted UIDAI programme demanded a start-up mind-set

The work and work space could not have been more typical of a start-up. The core team of UIDAI [Unique Identification Authority of India] operated in two different geographies. The tech team and the private consultants initially operated out of Bengaluru from a makeshift office in a fourth-floor apartment in Palm Retreat Towers on Outer Ring Road, before moving into a proper office on Sarjapur Road. In Delhi, the team was squeezed cadre by jowl into a small office in the Planning Commission building called Yojana Bhavan before eventually acquiring its own space in the Jeevan Bharati building at Connaught Place. 
 

People in the UIDAI tapped friends in other offices to use their conference facilities, just to have some place to brainstorm. Vendors visiting the makeshift UIDAI office in Bengaluru doubted that it really was a Government of India project and also whether a national project could lift off from the apparent chaos.

The Indian babudom, government officers, place enormous premium on markers: everything from the square foot count of office space to the number of phones to the towel on the chair is on the entitlement chart. At the Yojana Bhavan office, make do and make way were operating phrases. It didn’t matter because those who were there wanted to be there. And talent, says [Ram Sewak] Sharma [UIDAI’s first CEO], ‘came squarely because of Nandan [Nilekani, UIDAI’s first chairman]. He thinks ahead of time, he could draw talent.’ 
 

Those who wanted to ‘contribute’ sent emails and letters. Ganga [K, UIDAI’s first CFO] went through over 200 emails and letters to assess level, capability, interest. Among applicants from within government were also those who aligned opportunity with geography.

An Assam cadre officer from Karnataka wanted to be in Bengaluru. Another didn’t want to miss his slot at empanelment, the process of being promoted to the next level in the civil service, but was looking for a Mumbai posting. An officer from Andhra Pradesh posted in the North-East wanted to be placed in Hyderabad. Ganga considered factors that would enhance work–life balance and sifted accordingly; largely, the pragmatic approach delivered.
 

UIDAI received thousands of letters and applications from a wide variety of people. The applicants were from across services within the government and from outside, and many were from the Indian diaspora. Techies from companies like HP, Oracle, Intel as well as non-techies applied. There were those who wanted to join, those who wanted to consult and young graduates who wanted an exciting internship. This public–private partnership of skill sets was important, and it was possible only because, even at the very beginning, the chairperson and the CEO had striven to enable a participatory framework, right down to laying down guidelines for volunteers.

Aadhaar: A Biometric History of India’s 12-Digit Revolution Author: Shankkar Aiyar Publisher: Westland Pages:266, Price: Rs 350

Nilekani had written to the National Association of Software and Service Companies to lend talent at their cost. Many came on sabbatical from their parent companies, many as volunteers — some were hosted as consultants to the National Institute of Smart Government, a body co-founded by Nasscom. Frequently, the Delhi–Bengaluru or Delhi–wherever flight tickets and hotel bills were parked on Nilekani’s personal account.
 

There was no escaping the cultural conflicts. In the early days, the set-up was straight out of the sets of the Lucille Ball–Henry Fonda starrer Yours, Mine and Ours. Each brought their cheeky brood into the joint marital household, resulting in khatta-meetha clashes — the formal and self-knighted Sir brigade meeting the cool or, if you please, brash battalion. They had to consult and collaborate. Battles began, tussles ensued. Their differences stemmed mostly from context. Those from the private sector were taught to ‘take risks to get rewards’, like the annual bonus and upward mobility. Government, on the other hand, frowns on individualism, and inhibits risk-taking to preclude systemic shocks. 
 

Shankar Maruwada remembers that there was a lot of tension in the initial days. ‘There was a lot of judging of actions and words. Essentially it was about where you came from — the mindset matrix. For a lot of city slickers, government is not something one trusts. For bureaucrats, government is the only institution to trust. We think the corporate sector is transparent. Actually, the government is far more so — and that is how the checks and balances play out.’ Both sides slowly came to terms with their different ways of working and a gradual blending of mindsets began. 
 

The coming together of these creative minds produced sparks and many fires that had to be doused. Viral Shah provides a perspective. ‘The objective was to improve the life of a billion people. Once you have a goal like that, you don’t worry about the noise — and noise is a good thing in a democracy.’ UIDAI pioneers remember the multitude of mind-scuffles and word-scrimmages but they are now reluctant to recount the blow-by-blows, perhaps because many of those creative combatants are now friends. The personal bonding between some officers and techies enabled back-channels to resolve tensions. Doubtless, the clash of ideas and approach among UIDAI’s early titans continued, albeit a tad more amiably.
 

The chambers of the chairman and CEO were the epicentre, and the corridors the pathways of varying Richter-scale eruptions of the brainiacs. Sharma and Nilekani started laying bets with each other on how a particular issue or approach would play out. Ganga recalls with a smile that she would often be roped in to bear witness to their bets.
 

Says Sharma, ‘Initially, there were a lot of tensions. I was seen as the leader of the sarkari-types and Nandan of the private-types.’ The private-types would not think twice before shooting off a mail with a hunch, a wild idea, an opinion, to all and sundry. The sarkari-types used the preferred ‘proper channels’ route. The tension was not only about ideas or opinions but also the way work was to be organised.

One early sticking point was whether UIDAI should hold an open recruitment process or simply keep sourcing expertise. Nilekani, playing devil’s advocate, triggered a discussion by asking, ‘But is there enough talent in government?’ Sharma responded, ‘Whatever the faults of the system, it is an open system. I, a boy from a Hindi medium school in Uttar Pradesh, could make it only because the UPSC process, whatever its faults, was an open competitive process.’ Sharma won this one, his being an ethical argument for equal opportunity.
 

Another deliberation was about procurement processes. The government is notorious for delays in procurement. ‘UIDAI needs things yesterday,’ said Nilekani. Ganga emphasised, ‘All expenditure of public monies is open to scrutiny and [following proper procedure] is paramount.’ Ganga assured Nilekani that the procurement would be designed to meet all time deadlines. The procurement processes of UIDAI, the use of in-house trials for cost and proof of concept studies for outcomes, outsourcing the man-machine matrix and opting to pay for services, are among shared best practices within the Government of India. 
 

Through its approach to sourcing talent, UIDAI promoted the idea of diversity. Remember that in the government, the cadre (that is, the service and state an officer is attached to) is the reigning caste system. One of the things Sharma managed was to pull a diverse set of people together — an esoteric idea in government. As he now puts it, ‘Creativity lies at the junction of different disciplines, not in a homogenous group but in heterogeneous groups.’ 

Excerpted with permission