E-governance: You’re doing it wrong.

Bhoomi – the sparkling e-governance program in India. A well-polished showcase for modern democracy. It was almost too good to be true.

Since 2001, Bhoomi’s land records account for nearly 20 million property titles in Karnataka, a state in southern India. Before Bhoomi, the work was done by hand. Local officials alone could draft property titles (Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops, RTC), which was necessary to obtain subsidies, loans, and insurance. Now, all the data is digitalized and centralized on a LAN network, connecting agencies which span the 177 districts of the state. You only need to go to a kiosk where a government employee will take care of the transaction. A screen shows the client all the actions taken, leading supposedly to greater transparency.

The World Bank, a fervent supporter of the project, was already raving about it in 2004:

The Bhoomi project (…) shows that making government services available to citizens in a transparent and efficient manner can empower them to challenge corrupt and arbitrary bureaucratic action. It also illustrates how well designed e-governance projects can be used to take discretion away from civil servants and provide benefits to rural farmers.

It’s almost impossible to find a dissonant voice among all of the laudatory comments on official Indian websites. However, all is not sunshine and rainbows in the land of Bhoomi. A study, silenced for months before being made public in 2007, cuts through the public discourse. The study shows how the data, although based on good intentions, had been monopolized by land developers (either by the state government, private companies, or both) without the knowledge of rural citizens. Worse still, it goes on to show that the primary objectives of Bhoomi (to reduce corruption and administrative delays) had not been achieved.

Contacted by OWNI, the controversial creator of Bhoomi, Rajeez Chawla, made only vague and evasive statements.

Bhoomi e Governance

Corruption and delays: We can do better

By reducing and centralizing the number of people involved in drafting an RTC, corruption – far from being diminished –  stayed the same or even increased. Bhoomi kiosk employees, now in charge of relative large areas of land, are no longer subject to villages’ social pressures – making their greed unchecked.

Among the six districts (taluks) studied around Bangalore, the results are confirmed again and again. For example, in one of the target neighborhoods, securing the legal transfer of a property title required an average commission of somewhere between 500 to 5,000 rupees (between 7.5€ - 75€). Under Bhoomi, the bribe has risen to a minimum of 3,000 to 5,000 rupees (45€ to 75€), and it’s able to reach up to 15,000 to 20,000 (225€ to 300€).

The system hasn’t become any quicker than the bureaucracy of yesteryear, as proven by those navigating the system. For the smallest request, a farmer has to make his way numerous times to the agency, and the process can take anywhere between two to four months.

Helping big business flourish

Bhoomi highlights one of major risks of Indian development: land ownership. The program is trying to usher Karnataka into the era of globalization, but they also want to attract big businesses. And that’s where it hurts. On the road to expansion, big business interests are in opposition with the local populations who have no desire to leave their land, and see right through promises of indemnification.

The land ownership question is particularly poignant in Bangalore. The capital of Karnataka is the Indian equivalent to Silicon Valley, a hub for information technology(IT) conglomerates. The local governments believes it’s vital to facilitate the development of these companies, especially geographically. Infosys, Reliance Global, and ITC Infotech, to name the largest, are based in the city. These flagships of the national economy are the motor behind India’s growth. Karnataka authorities began constructing an “IT Corridor” several years ago. The area has grown to a zone equivalent to 1.5 times the size of Paris and is reserved exclusively for IT companies.

Locating vulnerable territories

By centralizing property management, Bhoomi helps land developers easily obtain information – and also helps to locate vulnerable territories. The goal of the terrain’s overhaul is to look as attractive as possible to foreign investors, even at the locals’ disadvantage. Farmers no longer have any weight or bartering power.

Between 60% to 70% of the rural population lives on state land because of their failure to pay taxes (pada). Because of their low incomes, small farmers generally do not have the means to lift the burden of this status (via paying bribes or fines). Under Bhoomi, intermediaries approach farmers and offer to lift their pada. In exchange, they put their names or the names of their client on the title. As pada land is classified as sarakari (public) in Bhoomi, the acquisition is made ​​much easier.

When the state wants to attract investors

The state of Karnataka plays a crucial role. Contrary to the private sector, public organizations (such as the Karnatake Industrial Area Development Board, or KIADB) have the power to consolidate many small parcels of land into one large parcel.

The KIADB has the right to acquire any territory that interests an IT company. All they have to do is notify the landowner, and afterward it’s extremely difficult for him to oppose the seizure of his land. According to figures from 2005, the KIADB empowered by authoritarian laws, bought land from farmers at 18,000 to 23,000 euros per hectare, whereas the market price is between 120,000 to 420,000 euros per hectare.

Public organizations take advantage of these laws regularly to take possession of more land than necessary. The majority of these acquisitions just grease the wheels of India’s corruption machine. Since 2009, the KIADB has procured 37,000 hectares of farmland. Only 2,400 were returned for real projects.

The Bhoomi lesson: Go beyond open data

If we truly want an open government, we will always have the heavy task of correcting fundamental and persistent inequality. It doesn’t matter how well it circulates, information alone isn’t enough.

In a recent forum, the American magazine Wired chastised Bhoomi as an example of problems with open data. The program made a valiant effort to harmonize and digitize paperwork. Yet e-governance is proving to be a formidable tool in the hands of the forces that shape Karnataka for today and tomorrow. Only a small number of the citizens have the skills to decipher and use the information. The digital revolution can not – under any circumstances – dispense with social justice, otherwise it risks harming those whom it’s supposed to protect.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Illustrations: Flickr CC Clara Giraud Alexandre Marchand