The last decade has seen an increased focus on secured forms of identification in security governance, leading to a massive growth and standardization in the application of biometric technologies globally. This article examines what is currently the largest biometric technology project in the world: the nationwide Unique Identification (UID) number system in India. It emphasizes the importance of investigating the postcolonial contexts of governance in which biometric technology is currently being applied. Approaching the Indian scheme as a discursive/practical assemblage of multiple actors and rationales, the article investigates three contexts within which the biometric project emerged: India’s Home Ministry, the Unique Identification Authority of India and a project focusing on the biometric identification of homeless people in Delhi. In particular, the article examines the various targets of intervention constructed in the discourses and practices of the national ID scheme. It is argued that the practice of biometric identification is produced as a solution to a wide array of problems of governance, both as a means of financial inclusion and as a method of surveillance.

Targeted financial sanctions regimes and regulations on 'dirty money' put banks on the front line in securing financial circulation. This is the context in which banking actors face the challenge of juggling with hundred of sanction, watch and regulatory lists. In light of that list mania for banking policing, list appears to have become the security device of choice in the everyday life of the financial industry across the world. Instead of reducing the complexity of security-finance dynamics to a zero-sum game (securitization of finance vs financialization of security), the article rather aims to question the critical role of lists in the cross-colonization of finance and security. Drawing on empirical research in the United Kingdom and India, the article adopts an 'analytics of devices' to think of and analyse banking policing practices through the instrumentation that makes these practices possible and stable over time. It argues that banking appropriation of security lists both (re)configures lists 'social identity' and banking actors' power-relations in the fields of finance and security. Ultimately, the analytical focus on lists appropriation sheds new light on what securing circulation means in finance.

Chapter six discuss the notion of ‘the local‘ through the history of governance in colonial and post-colonial India. The authors focus on ability of liberal governance to adapt to local culture. They discuss Ilan Kapoor's integration of postcolonial theory with debates on development and use this to identify what could make the liberal peacebuilders more open towards the idea of greater inclusion of local voices. The authors suggest that emphasis should be put on socio-cultural sensitivity. This entails that the international interveners should familiarize themselves with the context as much as possible. They invite critical analysis of the main issues at stake, which would be aimed against relevant theoretical debates. The authors also call for attention to the distribution of resources that are usually limited in conflict settings. They conclude that as long as subjective norms and interests of the peacebuilders are harmonised with local culture and practices - not creating tensions - they can be legitimately promoted.

No abstract

No abstract