When I opposed Aadhaar in 2010 , I was called a BJP stooge. In 2016 I am still opposing Aadhaar for the same reasons and I am told I am a Congress die hard. No one wants to see why I oppose Aadhaar as it is too difficult. Plus Aadhaar is FREE so why not get one ? Ram Krishnaswamy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mahatma Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. Mahatma Gandhi

“The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty -Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

“There is merit in the complaints. You are unwittingly allowing snooping, harassment and commercial exploitation. The information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation.” -A three judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said in an interim order.

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan describes UID as an inverse of sunshine laws like the Right to Information. While the RTI makes the state transparent to the citizen, the UID does the inverse: it makes the citizen transparent to the state, she says.

Good idea gone bad
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha

“What is Aadhaar? There is enormous confusion. That Aadhaar will identify people who are entitled for subsidy. No. Aadhaar doesn’t determine who is eligible and who isn’t,” Jairam Ramesh

But Aadhaar has been mythologised during the previous government by its creators into some technology super force that will transform governance in a miraculous manner. I even read an article recently that compared Aadhaar to some revolution and quoted a 1930s historian, Will Durant. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP

“I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” Jairam Ramesh, Rajya Saba April 2017.

August 24, 2017: The nine-judge Constitution Bench rules that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty” and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the World; indeed it's the only thing that ever has"

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” - Edward Snowden


Here is what the Parliament Standing Committee on Finance, which examined the draft N I A Bill said.

1. There is no feasibility study of the project]

2. The project was approved in haste

3. The system has far-reaching consequences for national security

4. The project is directionless with no clarity of purpose

5. It is built on unreliable and untested technology

6. The exercise becomes futile in case the project does not continue beyond the present number of 200 million enrolments

7. There is lack of coordination and difference of views between various departments and ministries of government on the project


What was said before the elections:

NPR & UID aiding Aliens – Narendra Modi

"I don't agree to Nandan Nilekeni and his madcap (UID) scheme which he is trying to promote," Senior BJP Leader Yashwant Sinha, Sept 2012

"All we have to show for the hundreds of thousands of crore spent on Aadhar is a Congress ticket for Nilekani" Yashwant Sinha.(27/02/2014)

TV Mohandas Pai, former chief financial officer and head of human resources, tweeted: "selling his soul for power; made his money in the company wedded to meritocracy." Money Life Article

Nilekani’s reporting structure is unprecedented in history; he reports directly to the Prime Minister, thus bypassing all checks and balances in government - Home Minister Chidambaram

To refer to Aadhaar as an anti corruption tool despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is mystifying. That it is now officially a Rs.50,000 Crores solution searching for an explanation is also without any doubt. -- Statement by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP & Member, Standing Committee on Finance

Finance minister P Chidambaram’s statement, in an exit interview to this newspaper, that Aadhaar needs to be re-thought completely is probably the last nail in its coffin. :-) Financial Express

The Rural Development Ministry headed by Jairam Ramesh created a road Block and refused to make Aadhaar mandatory for making wage payment to people enrolled under the world’s largest social security scheme NRGA unless all residents are covered.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

8978 - Ex-servicemen's SOS for Aid Draws a Blank - New Indian Express

By Tiki Rajwi
Published: 19th October 2015 06:39 AM

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The fate of nearly 4,000 applications for financial assistance submitted by ex-servicemen from Kerala that were rejected by the Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB) continues to hang in limbo. Renewed attempts by the Sainik Welfare Department, Kerala, to get the applications cleared have hit a wall. On its part, the KSB has accused district-level Sainik Welfare officials in the state of not scrutinising applications to see whether they met the eligibility criteria.

“We submitted 150 applications afresh, but the KSB has turned them down saying that they want a consolidated list and not small bunches,” a top department official said. A letter from Joint Director (Welfare Schemes), KSB, dated October 6 reads: “You are requested to forward consolidated RSB (Rajya Sainik Board or state units) as per time lines enunciated per scheme and not piecemeal or district lists.”

With the issue threatening to spin out of control, Capt (Retd) K K Govindan Nair, Director, Sainik Welfare, convened an urgent meeting of Zilla Sainik Welfare Officers in Ernakulam the other day.

The KSB had returned the nearly 4,000 applications on the grounds that they did not meet criteria such as bank accounts with either State Bank of India (SBI) or Punjab National Bank (PNB), IFS code, Aadhaar number, e-mail ID and mobile phone number. Majority of the applicants are between the ages of 65 and 90, and most lack bank accounts in either SBI or PNB, or other requirements such as an Aadhaar number.

What is shocking is that the thousands of rejected applications had been submitted to KSB over the past two years. Take for instance, the rejected application received by the Sainik Welfare Department on October 9. This particular request had been submitted on November 25, 2013, and dealt with a  World War II veteran’s daughter’s plea for financial assistance for orphans. After sitting on the application for two years, the KSB discovered that the ex-seaman had served in World War II and was not covered in the category for the purpose of this scheme. The covering letter which accompanied the returned application reads: “Further, it has been noticed with concern that ZSWO (Zilla Sainik Welfare Officers) at district-level are not scrutinising the applications as per eligibility criteria and policy guidelines, resulting in wrongful gain to ineligible persons. This also could be indicative of some malpractice at the lower level.”