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

Sunday, August 7, 2011

1515 - Dear Manmohan Singh: BPL households don’t think cash transfers will be better than the PDS - KAFILA

JULY 23, 2011
by Shivam Vij
 
Given below is the text of a letter written by research scholars and student volunteers to the Prime Minister of India. Given below the letter is a table listing the findings of the survey that the letter speaks about.

21 July 2011

Dr. Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India

Respected Prime Minister,

We are a group of research scholars and student volunteers who have just spent three weeks surveying the Public Distribution System (PDS) around the country. We are writing to share a few thoughts on the National Food Security Act in the light of this experience.

Our survey covered more than 100 randomly-selected villages spread over nine states (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh). We inspected the local Fair Price Shops and interviewed more than a thousand “BPL” households. Oblivious of the heat or rain, we reached the country’s remotest nooks and crannies and spared no effort to understand people’s situation and views.

This survey points to an impressive revival of the PDS across the country. In all the sample states, with the notable exception of Bihar, there have been major initiatives in the recent past to improve the PDS and these efforts are showing results. Most of the sample households were getting the bulk if not the whole of their foodgrain entitlements under the PDS (up to 35 kgs per month, at a nominal price). The days when up to half of the PDS grain was “diverted” to the open market are gone.

We also found that the PDS had become a lifeline for millions of rural households. A well-functioning PDS virtually guarantees that there is always food in the house. This is an enormous relief for people who live on the margin of subsistence, and a welcome support for everyone. It is a big step towards the end of hunger, which has blighted this country for centuries.

The bad news is that the BPL list is very defective. In many states, entire communities have been left out, and almost everywhere, there are enormous exclusion errors. This has severely reduced the effectiveness of the PDS as a tool of food security. Therefore, we support the case made recently by a group of academic economists for a “near-universal PDS”, whereby all households are entitled to food subsidies unless they meet well-defined exclusion criteria.

The said economists also believe that there is a strong (though unspecified) “theoretical case” for cash transfers as an alternative to the PDS. We discussed this proposal with the respondents, and found that a large majority opposed it. The reluctance was particularly strong in areas with a well-functioning PDS, and among poorer households. Further, we felt that the reasons they gave for opposing cash transfers were generally quite thoughtful and convincing.

In most cases, the reasons pertained in one way or another to food security – an overwhelming concern for poor households. For instance, many respondents were worried that money might be misused or frittered away. Where markets are distant, they wondered where they would buy grain, and how they would cope if there is a sudden increase in local food prices. Even where markets are accessible, there were apprehensions, such as a fear that traders might raise prices if the PDS is closed. Similarly, the local bank was often said to be too far, overcrowded, or difficult to handle. Many respondents had a bitter experience of the banking system in the context of NREGA wage payments. In contrast, the familiarity and convenience of the local Fair Price Shop were widely valued. It is only in areas where the PDS was not working, notably Bihar and parts of Uttar Pradesh, that we found substantial interest in cash transfers as a possible alternative.

Accordingly, we urge you to ensure that the National Food Security Act includes the strongest possible safeguards against a hasty transition from food entitlements to cash transfers.

We do recognize, of course, that there is enormous scope – and urgent need – for further improvements in the PDS. We have some suggestions on this too, and would be glad to discuss them with you at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Anindita Adhikari (independent researcher, Patna)
Ankita Aggarwal (independent researcher, Delhi)
Megha Bahl (Delhi School of Economics, Delhi)
Pooja Balasubramanian (St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai)
Balu (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi)
B. Lakshmi (Kirori Mal College, Delhi)
Manish Choudhary (Hindu College, Delhi)
Sakina Dhorajiwala (Jai Hind College, Mumbai)
Jean Drèze (University of Allahabad)
Anchal Dutt (Law college, Delhi University)
Aashish Gupta (University of Allahabad)
Aparna John (independent researcher, Delhi)
Purava Joshi (St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai)
Samyuktha Kanan (IIT, Madras)
Reetika Khera (IIT, Delhi)
Sirus Joseph Liberio (University of Mumbai)
Radhika Lokur (St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai)
Aleesha Mary Joseph (St. Stephen’s college, Delhi)
Swathi Meenakshi (Anna University, Madras)
Karuna Muthiah (independent researcher, Dindigul)
Bijayani Mohanty (independent researcher, Bhuwaneshwar)
Rajkishore Mishra (independent researcher, Bhuwaneshwar)
Kuber Nag (IIT, Madras)
Sudha Narayanan (Cornell University)
Soheb Niazi (Jawharlal Nehru University, Delhi)
Gaurav Poddar (St. Stephen’s college, Delhi)
Raghav Puri (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore)
Aakriti Rai (St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai)
Kshama Raj (University of Hyderabad)
Alamu Rathinasabapathy (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi)
Sambhu Sahu (independent researcher, Bhuwaneshwar)
Ria Singh Sawhney (Law college, Delhi University)
Trishna Senapaty (Delhi School of Economics, Delhi)
Kanika Sharma (Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Delhi)
Ujjainee Sharma (Delhi School of Economics, Delhi)
Dipa Sinha (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi)
Neenu Suresh (Law College, Delhi University)
Chitrank Upadhyay (Zakir Hussain College, Delhi)
Jijo Vadukoot (University of Mumbai)
Eklavya Vasudeva (Law college, Delhi University)

PDS Survey 2011
Selected Findings

 A detailed survey of the PDS was conducted in nine Indian states in May-June 2011 by student volunteers. Two important findings:

1. Evidence of a major revival of the PDS across the country (even in states like Orissa and Uttar Pradesh). Main exception: Bihar.

2. Where PDS works, people much prefer food to cash transfers.
Click on Link to view a table listing the findings of the survey that the letter speaks about.

a “Full quota” refers to PDS grain entitlements of sample households, based on official norms. Additional grain quotas supplied in response to recent Supreme Court orders have been accounted for in Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh; other states did not lift this additional quota. For Orissa, figures pertain to rice only (wheat entitlements are not clear).

Note: The survey was conducted in 106 random-selected villages, spread over two districts in each sample state. It covered 1,227 BPL households (including “Antyodaya” households and related categories). The figures are provisional and subject to minor revisions.