In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

The UIDAI has taken two successive governments in India and the entire world for a ride. It identifies nothing. It is not unique. The entire UID data has never been verified and audited. The UID cannot be used for governance, financial databases or anything. It’s use is the biggest threat to national security since independence. – Anupam Saraph 2018

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

In the Supreme Court, Meenakshi Arora, one of the senior counsel in the case, compared it to living under a general, perpetual, nation-wide criminal warrant.

Had never thought of it that way, but living in the Aadhaar universe is like living in a prison. All of us are treated like criminals with barely any rights or recourse and gatekeepers have absolute power on you and your life.

Announcing the launch of the # BreakAadhaarChainscampaign, culminating with events in multiple cities on 12th Jan. This is the last opportunity to make your voice heard before the Supreme Court hearings start on 17th Jan 2018. In collaboration with @no2uidand@rozi_roti.

UIDAI's security seems to be founded on four time tested pillars of security idiocy

1) Denial

2) Issue fiats and point finger

3) Shoot messenger

4) Bury head in sand.

God Save India

Monday, August 2, 2010

372 - Chhattisgarh’s food for thought

Interesting that Chattisgarh has solved the PDS problem even without any Aadhaar. If GoI was to legislate Zero tolerance of corruption we need not spend thousands of crores on Aadhaar; but with such a legislation we may not have any parliamentarians or babus left to rule the country :-).
........................................................................................ 
Chhattisgarh’s food for thought
 

While our leaders debate expanding food security in theory, Chhattisgarh presents ready evidence
Biraj Patnaik



After years of systemic neglect, the Public Distribution System (PDS) is back in the news. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) now realizes that this much-maligned government programme—providing subsidized foodgrains through a chain of more than half a million fair price shops (FPSs)—is critical to the success of the proposed National Food Security Act. So the nation should note that over the past six years, the state of Chhattisgarh has scripted a remarkable, but largely unnoticed, PDS turnaround. Thanks to its governance reforms, this “Chhattisgarh model” of PDS reforms continues to win admirers among policymakers.

The reform was initiated in 2003 after the Supreme Court commissioners’ office and the Right to Food Campaign reported, through detailed surveys, the wide-ranging corruption in foodgrain distribution. One key reason for this leakage was the privatization of the FPS network. In 2001, the government had added almost 5,000 private traders as FPS dealers, ostensibly to increase the outreach of the PDS. In reality, this was a cynical move to extend political patronage—local elite invariably ran the FPSs. The first reform, then, was to cancel all private FPS dealers in a single stroke and hand them over to cooperative societies, panchayats, women’s self-help groups and other public bodies.


Photo: Ramesh Pathania / Mint
After the initial euphoria of de-privatization, it became apparent that more drastic changes were required. FPSs depended on private transporters to get grains into the shops. The state food and civil supplies corporation undertook the doorstep delivery of foodgrains to each of the shops. Chhattisgarh also used its own finances to increase FPS commissions fourfold, allocating Rs40 crore to recapitalize all the shops—their working capital needs could then be met without their having to pilfer foodgrains to make up the deficit.

In 2007, grass-roots surveys by the Right to Food Campaign brought out a startling fact. Though rice was now reaching the shops, the poor’s access to the subsidized rice remained limited. Only 1.9 million families were listed as being below the poverty line (BPL): The Union government released foodgrains only for these households. The state government decided to double the number of households which were receiving foodgrains, also reducing the rate at which rice was sold to the BPL households to Rs3 per kg. Chief minister Raman Singh launched the Chief Minister’s Food Security Scheme and made it his government’s flagship programme.

Simultaneously, state-wide drives were undertaken to eliminate nearly 300,000 bogus ration cards. All the 3.7 million ration cards were reprinted centrally through the creation of a database, which a llowed both photo identifications and bar codes. As an additional measure of transparency, each BPL household had its details painted on the house, the entire list of card-holders prominently painted on the panchayat building too.

To curb leakages during transportation, all the trucks carrying PDS commodities were painted in bright yellow colour: Consumers could alert the food department in case this truck was found unloading foodgrains at any location other than FPSs. Global positioning systems were installed in the trucks as well. That wasn’t the only good use of technology: The government used SMSes to alert those who registered for this service to the quantity of foodgrains and the registration number of the truck carrying it. A toll-free helpline was set up to receive and, more importantly, redress complaints.

Chhattisgarh made an annual fiscal commitment of close to Rs1,800 crore for this programme and enforced a zero-tolerance policy on corruption. A number of senior officials from the state food and civil supplies corporation were booked under the Essential Commodities Act, with arrest warrants issued against them. This had a salutary effect in reducing corruption: The latest survey by the Right to Food Campaign in a sample of 650 villages (excluding the Naxal-affected pockets in south Bastar and Dantewada) showed that 92% of respondents received their full quota of foodgrains; 96% had their ration cards in their possession (compared with 58% in 2004); 97% of the respondents were satisfied with the food quality.

Many states have subsidized rice schemes for the BPL households. The only difference Chhattisgarh made was to add the highest level of political commitment. If politics is all about numbers, the evidence from this state is clinching. In parliamentary and assembly elections, in which the Bharatiya Janata Party won, many a seasoned political commentator felt that it was paddy rather than the lotus that seemed to have bloomed here. What, then, are the lessons that the UPA can learn from these reforms—something that should form a critical part of the National Food Security Act?

First, an expanded PDS, with universal or near-universal coverage, stands a much better chance of succeeding rather than one driven by minimalist BPL quotas. A scheme only for the very poor will always remain a very poor scheme. Second, privatization that just strengthens the local elite should be done away with; instead, it’s government machinery that should be strengthened. Third, a majority of leakages occur much before the foodgrains reach FPSs: An excessive focus on the “last mile”, with solutions such as smart cards and unique IDs, will change little on the ground.

Fourth, political will and good governance need to translate into specific reform steps. You know you have it when you are willing to prosecute offenders without fear or favour and you commit your best human resources to strengthen a programme. As the last general election showed, the states (Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh) where political parties successfully managed to break the anti-incumbency factor had expanded their PDS. What greater incentive can there be for reforms than success at the polls?

Biraj Patnaik is principal adviser to the commissioners of the Supreme Court in the Right to Food case and has been involved with PDS reforms in Chhattisgarh since 2003. The views expressed here are his own. Comments are welcome at theirview@livemint.com