The uniqueness of individuals begins in the body. Faces, ear-shapes, irises, fingerprints and some kinds of genetic material are all supposedly objective markers of that elusive thing called ‘identity’ that every human being possesses. But to what extent does a person possess his own identity? When, by 2014, all foreigners in the United Kingdom, including Indian nationals settled in the UK for 50 years, are issued identity cards by the British home office, with their biometric details stored in the cards, then to whom would all these ‘identities’ belong? With a whole range of personal information stored in the country’s “Big Brother” database, many would say that the ownership of identity is as much the State’s as the cardholder’s. Foreigners are hardly going to be left with a choice in this matter. But among UK nationals, the scheme is proving to be singularly unpopular, and a band of “refuseniks”, running into many thousands, has already begun to form. The main argument against the ID card is founded on the violation of civil liberties. A database open to the government and to sundry hackers is not likely to make people secure, which defeats the purpose of the cards. Besides, it is proving to be an inordinately expensive scheme.

Unpleasant, humiliating and dangerous as the idea of such a card may sound, this may be the right time, especially in India, to wonder whether the world may have become sufficiently unpleasant, humiliating and dangerous to warrant such a scheme. The breakdown of trust on such a scale is, indeed, some sort of a failure of civilization. Moreover, such a measure should come with increased accountability on the part of governments and security establishments to evolve technologies and ethics that would do justice to the nature of the information being entrusted with them. Politically, ethically and economically, it would be a grave challenge for any government to meet.