We need vox populi corroborating on the improved efficiency of Passport department not TCS, which is just an instrument for that. Tomorrow it will be someone else. Don't blame the gun for the crime.

Partly because of disinterest in the media, adequate attention is not drawn to the complexity of developmental change. The same malady is responsible for media being "guided" to blame private Companies by Bureaucracy eager to absolve itself of the responsibility. But truth is, the 3rd "P" is structured in an unequal and one sided manner between the 1st and 2nd "P"s. In the long run Government may even argue PPPs have failed and loudly wish for the days when Public sector held the "towering heights" of the economy.

If the media can "guide" the public to stop treating the Government servants as sacred goats and articulate the demands of people (like yourself) for accountability and improved service delivery, the public demand may make PPPs work.

There is a matching amount of stupidity in the Private sector too, but I doubt if there exists any Corporate Quixote who will stick his head out and say outrightly that he has a solution to the deficiencies in the Government system. Outright privatization may work, but the culture of PPPs still faces silent resistance similar to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The public especially the middle class is trained to place its trust in the Government. To that extent, the tendency to blame the private is almost a reflexive response. In my opinion, you are connecting the wrong dots.

I reiterate that agreeing to lay the ultimate blame with the private for poor Government services is tantamount to conceding that Governments can "outsource" their responsibility through PPPs. As a trustee of the public, a Government that does that has no right to exist. Sadly, media that perpetuates this falsehood is doing a disservice to the public.

@Anonymous the guy who blames me for posting here

I read Governance now, which is a compliment to Samir and all others at Governance Now. If you think all news is planted, what are you trying to prove by posting so many links? The author here is not so vocal about criticizing the first "P" of the PPP for Passport Seva Kendra and instead chose to highlight only the shortcomings of TCS.

I do not hold a candle to TCS or any particular Private firm, but certainly take an exception to what in my opinion is censure of only the Private party. Tell me which one of the news links you've sent lays the blame solely on the Private party. I only asked the Author to go study and tell which of the parties has failed to meet the commitments.

Just as you find the author "fair, balanced and objective", I have a different opinion of the author. We do not share the same opinion, but I will defend your and indeed Samir's right to "have" an opinion. But if you ask me, Samir is more than anything, guilty of lazy editorializing just as you are guilty of rushing to fight for non existing causes. I am touched by your affection for the author, but do write back if you have something to add to the central argument we are having here, which is about the locus of accountability for administrative reform through e-Governance. If it is still not clear to you, I am arguing that Government holds the ultimate responsibility and ownership.

@Anonymous the guy who is trying to wake me up

I defend your right also to dream that I have called a blog post as "ten commandments", and the PSK project as "deliverance". I am sure you've heard about that Benjamin Disraeli quote about statistics. You can bathe in numbers or visit the nearest PSK and form your own opinion.

1. I am only saying things have somewhat improved for the citizen through the PSK project, though i share your frustration about lack of steady and sustainable progress.
2. That blog post is a perspective written primarily to bring some reality check to the PSK project.
3. I trust the views in that blog post on the PSK project more than Samir views here because the blog author's wife is closer to reality than Samir evidently ever was.
4. As for most of the reports posted by that other guy, they are journalistic accounts from mainstream media which largely identify the problem ( poor or often pathetic service delivery) but do not go further to probe the causes and affix the responsibility ( Pass port Department/ TCS)I agree with all those accounts, but none of them add much to the crux of the issue
5. My argument here is Samir is wrong in merely identifying "TCS" alone and being silent about the Government, because the owner of the project is Passport department. If Samir is writing for Dainik Jagran, I would have not minded it so much. But since he is "editorializing" as an e-Governance expert, I expect him to first read the inter-se responsibilities of TCS and Government on the PSK project and then research and write about who has come up short and in what aspect. If he cannot do that, his opinion is no different from the rest of us.

I enjoyed the discussion guys.

Best regards

I think more than the author you need to follow the passport seva issue. The link you have posted has no substance and appears to be a made out story. Majority of the news which comes in today is paid news and independent journalists are subdued by the false allegations / propaganda from anonymous people like you. You also need to read the following stories along with your own cooked up story.

72-hour passport service yet to start
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/72-hour-passport-serv...)

Chaos reigns in new Passport Seva Kendra
(http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Bangalore/article444455.ece)

Online passport project faces teething troubles
(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6112820.cms)

TCS passport project facing glitches
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/software-services/TCS-passp...)

TCS may get the boot for passport glitches
(http://www.deccanherald.com/content/77910/tcs-may-get-boot-passport.html)

Mangalore: Passport kendra fails to impress
(http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=185130)

Mangalore: Long queues in front of Passport Seva Kendra
(http://www.mangaloretoday.com/mt/index.php?action=mn&type=1014)

Mangalore: Protestors vent their fury at Passport office for dismal services
(http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...)

Little seva at Passport Seva Kendras
(http://expressbuzz.com/cities/bangalore/little-seva-at-passport-seva-ken...)

DK Youth Congress protests against inaccurate service by Pass Port Office
(http://www.mangaloretoday.com/mt/index.php?action=mn&type=1083)

Passport Seva Kendra is of 'no help'
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hubli/Passport-Seva-Kendra-is-of...)

Blog - Passport Renewal through Seva Kendra
(http://www.mohanbn.com/blog/passport-renewal-through-seva-kendra0

Little seva on Day 1
(http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article&sectname=News%20-...)

PSKs are only of token help
(http://www.deccanherald.com/content/77879/psks-only-token-help.html)

From your writing it appears that you do not have any concerns with e-governance but a strong enemity with the author and you think this as a platform to settle scores with him. Why otherwise you would have not left comments on numerous other news sites and choose time to write in details here on various non issues.

I as a reader like the views on this website as they are fair, balanced and objective.

@Samir

Let me make an attempt at putting matters into perspective here. I agree my comments on Samir have crossed the line which is wrong. I offer my apology if I have hurt the author’s feelings. The intention on my part is only to show my disappointment with his commentaries about e-Governance rather than to cast aspersions about his integrity. The Author writes from his considerable familiarity with e-Governance projects and his own experiences. As a reader, I request him and Governance Now to consider this as a plea to come up with a better analysis and editorializing that what is on offer now.

I am sure Samir will agree positive stories by him about Private sector in the past, do not give him a privilege to indulge in slanted allegations. If Samir has spoken to some of the Organizations that he refers to, he should have mentioned that they have chosen not to respond. It is a standard practice in journalism, and I fail to see why he chose not to do it. I assume it is due to ignorance about journalistic practices.

Regarding the CSC Scheme, I agree with Samir when he says it is squarely the fault of Private Sector (SCAs) who went in for negative bidding. In many places such SCAs eventually gave up, and had their contracts terminated. So to continue with the rant about the mistakes of SCAs is akin to flogging a dead horse. The NLSA is a Consultant/ Facilitator for the CSC Scheme. IL&FS is also from the Private sector, and has no mandate to directly provide Government or Business services and enforce the compliance of other stakeholders of CSC Scheme. Anyone familiar with CSC Scheme will know this. So, I maintain that the last sentence in question no 4 of the above article attributes a responsibility that does not exist and then raises a rhetorical question about why are penalties not levied for failure on this front. This I think is a motivated statement.

Coming to the Passport project, the issue of resistance to change is primarily an administrative reforms challenge. ICTs or I.T. Firms like TCS have no magic wand. If the Government transfers the onus of change management to a Private Party through a contract, it amounts to outsourcing the responsibility of Government Administration to Private parties. There are many things Private Sector can do well, but getting the elephantine Indian bureaucracy to dance is not one of them. Notwithstanding what the Government did, it is dangerous for democracy, if media like Governance Now uncritically accept and perpetuate the myth (Like Samir does) that “Change Management” is the responsibility of TCS and not the Passport department. Government contracts are usually framed in a way to shift the onus to Private parties. Here it would have helped, if instead of recycling media reports from Bangalore, he actually did a field report to state which deliverables have not been met by TCS.

Plz read this

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Arc...

I am also, like Samir, a decade long follower of e-Governance projects in the country. Yet, like blind men trying to figure out the elephant, we speak from our own perspectives. I only ask that he be more circumspect about his assumptions and substitute his views with more objective analysis. That it is an opinion piece, only enhances the responsibility of the Author to be objective.

As for the PPP stake in NISG, may I refer to the clause 6 (ii) of the same document which states that “Such shares not taken by any existing Shareholder can only be taken by any other entity specified in article 5 herein above within their respective overall limits.” So it is possible that during that stage, the Civil Society Organizations and FIs did not show interest in NISG and that’s how NASSCOM and IL&FS have come to hold their stake. e-Governance may be hugely important for those of us engaged this domain, but back then and even today in mainstream imagination NISG is not so valuable for investing money. I support Samir, if he proposes the participation of wider number of stakeholders in SPVs and Organizations like NISG. But from the article, it seems to me, that he holds a bias against those Organizations ( whom he has named) who have come forward at that time to take a stake in NISG and would rather have it undone. This is not correct, and to me appears to be a proposal being floated with ulterior motive.

I agree the comment about employment of Samir is unwarranted, and apologize for it. I am particularly irked by the last comment from Samir that he is “no authority to start legally mandated administrative reforms which is the domain of the government only…” Opinion pieces should be written by people who have considerable familiarity about the reform that various stakeholders are trying to bring about and can analyze objectively where things are going wrong. As someone who reads him fairly regularly, I find Samir often views e-Governance initiatives as “projects” which are either a “success” or a “failure” and focuses his energy on nailing the blame on someone than deeply engaging with the logic behind such interventions, and the underlying issues of change and capacities of stakeholders. So, while I am happy to see someone writing about such issues, I am disappointed by the tunnel vision that characterizes such reports.

@anonymous

In my defense, the author’s biases, not to speak of the fact that he is often out of depth, when he holds forth about various issues of e-Governance are all too visible for those who have read him. I have already apologized for speculating on his intentions in writing the way he does. Clearly as he said, it is none of my concern.

I expect anyone editorializing on e-Governance to strive for objectivity. It is important to state here that I respect Governance Now and Samir too for playing an important role in discussing about such issues. My disappointment is mainly due to the fact that the quality of reporting and editorials leave much to be desired. We all learn from our mistakes if we have the courage to own up to them, and I wish Samir the best in his efforts.

As for me criticizing you, I have better things to do than badmouthing people. Based on his writings, I stand by my views that he does not understand the role of an SPV vis-à-vis the Private partner and finer details of many projects he writes about. I will be thankful if he proves me wrong later on. I don’t think it is wrong to ask someone in the media business to be thorough with his facts and analysis. I wish him well.

Dear Ankur,

Thanks for your message. Your comment on my piece gives me an opportunity to write more about the bitter truth on e-governance. Also, your message is a consolation to me as it is a proof enough that there are individuals who are reading all of my writings. But you have not referred to multiple positive stories done by me. However your this message reminds me of a saying that if you don’t like the message shoot the messenger, which appears to be your effort at this stage. I would like to elaborate my views on concerns raised by you.
The first issue appears to be about PPP in e-governance projects and you have highlighted two organizations. I would like to clarify that both the organizations were contacted for their feedback(their side of story as you put it). For one of the organization various officials at Noida, Bangalore and Mumbai refused to comment and while the other organization had told that they will not be commenting on the project at as per the instructions of their client.
Anyways when we talk about Government services in CSC project, the Government of India was very clear in their policy that the G2C services are not available at present and therefore the whole concept of subsidy was introduced. (It is another issue that the subsidy model as introduced is further issue of debate). It was a public knowledge that State Data Centres were not in place, the backend processes were not computerized and that the implementation was to be done through state governments. In such circumstances the private partner was to calculate risks involved in the project and bid accordingly. In my submission it was squarely the fault of private sector not to do a proper risk analysis and go for negative / zero bidding. If a company whether NLSA or SCA has delayed or given deficient services it should be held accountable for their deficient performance.
With regards to passport project also the private partner was well aware of constraints and risks. The issues of resistance to change are in built in all e-governance projects. If still the private player was unable to achieve the outcomes it was squarely the failure of change management strategists within the private sector. I will not share the multiple press reports on the issue but request you to visit the link
(http://www.mangaloretoday.com/mt/index.php?action=mn&type=1083). These pictures speak louder than words about the inconvenience caused to citizens. If the leaders of the ruling party in centre had held protests in Mangalore than there are serious issues within this project implementation. Anyways so far I had just written an opinion piece on the subject.
With regards to PPP stake in NISG, I would like to draw your attention on Articles of Association of NISG which is clear that under the 51% stake of private sector in NISG - NASSCOM will have only 10%, other Industry Associations will have 10%, Civil Society to have 10%, Financial Institutions to have 10% stake and others to have rest 11% stake. All this is well substantiated and can be referred at the link http://www.nisg.org/AOA.pdf . I have only mentioned that NISG has failed to attract private sector equity beyond IL &FS and Nasscom (I don’t have anything against these two equity holders) since 2003. My discussions on NISG had been limited to the same.
In my current role I am just reporting the both sides of e-governance implementation in the country and incase I was looking for appeasing the private companies as claimed by you I would have just sung the praise of private sector as done by many publications. Anyways decision on my employment is mine and that of my employers. I don’t think any anonymous individual has any right to comment on same.
Also I am no authority to start legally mandated administrative reforms which is the domain of the government only, but if after four years of NeGP the same is not happening, then DIT needs to do serious introspection.