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

Friday, May 6, 2011

1267 - Survey in Delhi shows slum women prefer ration to cash transfers - Source - The Hindu


Gargi Parsai
 
What they want is a strengthened PDS run by self-help groups, not backed by politicians
Slum women want halt to Delhi's pilot project to introduce cash transfers in PDS

Ration will at least provide them something to eat, while cash is subject to inflation

NEW DELHI: A survey has shown that majority of slum women do not want cash transfers or smart cards system for procuring subsidised foodgrains under the public distribution system (PDS). They prefer a strengthened PDS that functions well, preferably run by self-help groups or cooperatives rather than owned by front-men of politicians.

“Introduction of cash transfers or smart cards is a move to restrict the number of below povertyline population in the PDS. When we were hoping for a universal PDS system under the proposed National Food Security Act, this seems like a move towards privatisation and end of the minimum support price to farmers,” representatives of the Ration Vyvastha Sudhar Abhiyan along with the Right to Food Campaign, Bhalswa Lok Shakti Manch, Jagori, Chintan, Parivartan, Association for Social Justice and Research and the Centre for Advocacy and Research said here on Thursday.

Giving the example of the Delhi government's pilot project to introduce cash-transfer system in PDS, they said: “The plan must be halted now and here as what Delhi introduces is replicated in the country.”

Not taken into confidence

What has irked these women is that majority of the beneficiaries were not taken into confidence or informed about the drastic change that was introduced in the presence of the United Nations Development Programme officials (as conveyed through an RTI application). “We are told that SEWA-Bharat [Self-employed Women's Association] conducted a survey amongst 150 PDS beneficiaries in a colony in west Delhi for the Delhi government and said they were okay with cash transfers.”

Addressing a press conference here, they said: “We decided to do a larger survey in 14 areas of Delhi, amongst nearly 600 beneficiaries, and came up with the core finding that people prefer rations than cash in hand. At least this way we can eat something with chutney and do not have to buy from the market,” said Santosh.

Cancellation of ration cards

She said that already the Delhi government had cancelled 1.72 lakh ration cards in 2008. “In August 2010, another 65,000 ration cards were cancelled in the name of providing new biometric cards, but that has not happened. Systematically we, the slum dwellers and rehabilitated people, who were moved away from our hutments during the Commonwealth games, are being pushed out of the system. If the systems were working well in rural India, why would we come to cities? Everybody wants a life of dignity,” she said.

Reena, a widow, said she had an Antyodaya Anna Yojna card. “When I applied for a change of the name of the head of the family after my husband died last year, I found that they had cancelled my card.”

Survey

Quoting from their survey of a sample of 593 ration card holders, Bimla, Sarla and Santosh said 99 per cent women wanted “rations, not cash” in their hands as they feared that cash would get spent on priority or an immediate need of the moment, be it for a health emergency or a celebration, if not on liquor etc. The survey was carried out in 14 areas of East, South, North-East and North-West Delhi.

Deepa Sinha, a member of the Right to Food Campaign, pointed out that cash transfer would not solve the problems besieging the PDS, nor ensure food security in a country where 70 per cent women suffered from anaemia and every second child was malnourished. “It will not protect the poor from inflation and will be difficult to implement in the absence of a wide network of banks in rural areas.”

Unaware of cash transfer

The survey revealed that most respondents were unaware of the cash transfer scheme. When told about it, most opposed it. About 84 per cent felt that inflation would soon reduce the value of cash and experience had shown that no revision takes place or takes place after long years, as in the revision of pension.

Also, most women said that they had no control over the manner in which money was spent in a household and more often than not, cash was spent on immediate needs, not necessarily on foodgrains. That decision was taken by a male member — be it a father, husband or a son.