UID and the not-so-civil society
The UIDAI has repeatedly emphasized its pro-poor mission, but it is unlikely to succeed without help from NGOs who work with the poor. For this, senior civil society leaders must endorse the project, writes Raju Rajagopal.
http://www.indiatogether.org/2012/apr/gov-uid.htm
04 April 2012 - "If Nandan is really interested in helping the poor, he can very well deliver truckloads of rations to their doorsteps tomorrow!" snapped a Supreme Court advocate known for his civil rights
work, when he heard that I was volunteering for the Unique ID project.
That was back in 2009 when the project had hardly begun, but the gentleman had already made up his mind that its mission was to dismantle our welfare programs. His unexpected retort had come as a wake-up call to me, for I had taken for granted that those who presume to speak for the poor would be the first to welcome an avowedly pro-poor project.
Little did I know then that civil rights activists would launch a scathing and sometimes coercive campaign to scuttle Aadhaar. They soon dominated the public discourse, evoking nightmare scenarios of massive
data misuse by the state. They framed the debate as
Nilekani-the-corporate-honcho vs. we-who-know-the-poor-better, effectively silencing those who favor the project. Sadly, they even misled the Parliament on key features of the project such as costs and reliability of biometrics.
Several respected civil society leaders joined in over time, citing data privacy and other concerns. While some declared the project a threat to welfare programs, others suggested a vast conspiracy by the government
("UID is a front for state surveillance"), or betrayed their own biases ("Eligibility is the problem, not ID"), or simply trivialised the project ("UID needs PDS more than PDS needs UID"). The project quickly became hostage to civil society's welfare politics - NO to targeted PDS, NO to cash subsidies, NO Aadhaar for MGNREGS, and so on.
As a civil society supporter of the project aptly observed, it was an uneven contest between the fears and suspicions of a vocal few vs. the rights of silent millions to be acknowledged and served by the state.
Unfortunately, the not-so-civil campaign of the vocal few also meant that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) hastily abandoned its early efforts to reach out to civil society.
Two and a half years down the road, the government has strongly reaffirmed that Aadhaar will be the backbone of its welfare reforms. The UIDAI is piloting real life applications of Aadhaar, such as opening
accounts for the unbanked; direct fund transfers to beneficiary accounts to cut down corruption by middlemen; reining in black market in cooking
fuel supply; etc. The naysayers have hardly made a dent on Aam Aadmi's perception of Aadhaar or her appetite to enroll in it. Barring operational hiccups in restarting field work, and expected challenges of
working with the National Population Register (NPR), the project appears to be on an irreversible course towards its next milestone of 60 crore enrollments by early 2014. (The other 60 crore enrollments are the
responsibility of NPR.)
In other words, Aadhaar is here to stay; and there is little doubt that over time it will accomplish its key objectives of creating a reliable and portable national ID system and helping rein in fraud in public subsidies. But fulfilling its oft-stated mission of including the
ID-less (i.e. those who don't have acceptable personal documents) is bound to be much more challenging.
The UIDAI is already on the back-foot with the Home Ministry on its initial efforts to enroll the ID-less; so it is highly unlikely to go out on a limb to include the homeless, nomadic and denotified tribes, internally displaced peoples, migrant workers, etc. as it had originally intended. (This was confirmed by its recent "refresh strategy," which places further restrictions on the use of Introducers to enroll the ID-less.) The NPR, on the other hand, does not even claim to reach out
to the ID-less, other than stating that it plans to enroll all "usual residents." Quite the contrary, its plan to display lists of residents in public places to invite "claims and objections" from the public could easily lead to exclusion of groups that are often seen as outsiders.
That is why I strongly feel that this is the time for civil society groups who work with poor and marginalised communities to break their self-imposed silence on Aadhaar and intervene proactively on behalf of their constituencies. They can do so by seeking (and even demanding) meaningful partnerships with the UIDAI and the states to enroll them; by acting as social auditors to monitor Aadhaar's progress towards
inclusion, and report on its usefulness (or hindrance) to the poor; and by envisioning Aadhaar-based applications for advocacy on their behalf.
They can also closely monitor the NPR's "social vetting" process to ensure that it does not lead to exclusion.
The UIDAI, on its part, must acknowledge that it can't promise on the one hand that everyone has the right get Aadhaar and on the other hand place insurmountable hurdles to enroll. It must signal its seriousness about inclusion and data privacy, and respond positively to any fresh overtures from civil society. And, it must expand (not shrink!) the Introducer concept - which could very well raise the hackles of the Home
Ministry yet again! ThinkUID.org, of which I am part, has made specific suggestions in this regard in a recent letter to Nandan Nilekani.
As for civil society leaders who have opposed Aadhaar, their constructive engagement with the government has been crucial to bringing about landmark social legislations such as MGNREGS, RTI, RTE, and soon Food Security. They must apply the same standard of constructive engagement on Aadhaar and acknowledge that their endorsement is critical to the success of the project vis-à-vis the ID-less.
At the end of the day, they mustn't be seen as letting distant fears and conjectures forestall the only initiative to come by in decades that promises to drastically change the way we manage our public subsidies.
Instead, they can bring their considerable experience to bear in shepherding a national data privacy law tailored to our unique circumstances.
There has been much hype both in India and abroad about Aadhaar being a 'game changer.' For it to come even close, all the key players - government and private agencies providing public services, the business community, and the civil society - must first be on the same playing field and must be together willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a government determined to reform its welfare programs. The project will
be a true game changer only when a majority of our poor and ID-less have been Aadhaar-enabled, have access to formal financial services, and can look forward to receiving those welfare benefits that have long eluded them on account of being non-existent in the eyes of the state.
⊕
Raju Rajagopal
04 Apr 2012
Raju Rajagopal writes for ThinkUID.org, an information portal on Aadhaar. He served as the volunteer Civil Society Outreach Coordinator for the UIDAI in 2009-10.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Gopal Krishna <krishna1715@gmail.com> wrote to editors@indiatogether.org:
Dear Editor,
The piece 'UID and the not-so-civil society' by Raju Rajagopal hides the fact that Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has rejected the UID/Aadhaar project on legal and ethical grounds in its report presented to the Parliament. The project faces two PILs in Mumbai and Chennai High Courts, one civil suit in Karnataka and how UID was rejected by UP electorate which was promised by Rahul Gandhi as the panacea for combating corruption. It ignores the fact that 3.67 crore people submitted a memorandum to the PM seeking scrapping of Aadhaar and other anti-people policies on March 14, 2012.
It hides the fact that as recently as on March 28 (reported in The Pionner), the Parliamentary Committee warned Planning Commission for pursuing the UID/Aadhaar project. The Committee gave the Commission 10 days time to reply in the matter of its acts of omission and commission. It hides how on March 30, 2012 five private sector heroes including N Nilekani & Capt Raghuraman of National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) wrote against established systems and processes. Raju Rajagopal feigns ignorance about it although it was reported on the front page of Indian Express. Will he explain how is NATGRID related UID, pro-poor?. Companies are profit making machines (Peter Drucker), its proprietors and shareholders remain embarrassment challenged and propose "profit making but not profit maximising companies with public purpose" (Nilekani's proposal for National Information Utilities).
Raju Rajagopal's piece appears to be a public relations work for the project proponents and biometric technology providers. It is based on assumptions and not on facts. It seems to be an outreach exercise aimed at marketing a product.
thanks
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
ToxicsWatch Alliance
New Delhi
Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb: 9818089660
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Raju Rajagopal <rajurajagop@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Krishna,
I appreciate your response to my article "UID and the not-so-ciivl society" in India Together.
The object of this particular article was two-fold, as I made clear upfront:
Little did I know then that civil rights activists would launch a scathing and sometimes coercive campaign to scuttle Aadhaar. They soon dominated the public discourse, evoking nightmare scenarios of massive
data misuse by the state. They framed the debate as
Nilekani-the-corporate-honcho vs. we-who-know-the-poor-better, effectively silencing those who favor the project. Sadly, they even misled the Parliament on key features of the project such as costs and reliability of biometrics.
Several respected civil society leaders joined in over time, citing data privacy and other concerns. While some declared the project a threat to welfare programs, others suggested a vast conspiracy by the government
("UID is a front for state surveillance"), or betrayed their own biases ("Eligibility is the problem, not ID"), or simply trivialised the project ("UID needs PDS more than PDS needs UID"). The project quickly became hostage to civil society's welfare politics - NO to targeted PDS, NO to cash subsidies, NO Aadhaar for MGNREGS, and so on.
As a civil society supporter of the project aptly observed, it was an uneven contest between the fears and suspicions of a vocal few vs. the rights of silent millions to be acknowledged and served by the state.
Unfortunately, the not-so-civil campaign of the vocal few also meant that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) hastily abandoned its early efforts to reach out to civil society.
Two and a half years down the road, the government has strongly reaffirmed that Aadhaar will be the backbone of its welfare reforms. The UIDAI is piloting real life applications of Aadhaar, such as opening
accounts for the unbanked; direct fund transfers to beneficiary accounts to cut down corruption by middlemen; reining in black market in cooking
fuel supply; etc. The naysayers have hardly made a dent on Aam Aadmi's perception of Aadhaar or her appetite to enroll in it. Barring operational hiccups in restarting field work, and expected challenges of
working with the National Population Register (NPR), the project appears to be on an irreversible course towards its next milestone of 60 crore enrollments by early 2014. (The other 60 crore enrollments are the
responsibility of NPR.)
In other words, Aadhaar is here to stay; and there is little doubt that over time it will accomplish its key objectives of creating a reliable and portable national ID system and helping rein in fraud in public subsidies. But fulfilling its oft-stated mission of including the
ID-less (i.e. those who don't have acceptable personal documents) is bound to be much more challenging.
The UIDAI is already on the back-foot with the Home Ministry on its initial efforts to enroll the ID-less; so it is highly unlikely to go out on a limb to include the homeless, nomadic and denotified tribes, internally displaced peoples, migrant workers, etc. as it had originally intended. (This was confirmed by its recent "refresh strategy," which places further restrictions on the use of Introducers to enroll the ID-less.) The NPR, on the other hand, does not even claim to reach out
to the ID-less, other than stating that it plans to enroll all "usual residents." Quite the contrary, its plan to display lists of residents in public places to invite "claims and objections" from the public could easily lead to exclusion of groups that are often seen as outsiders.
That is why I strongly feel that this is the time for civil society groups who work with poor and marginalised communities to break their self-imposed silence on Aadhaar and intervene proactively on behalf of their constituencies. They can do so by seeking (and even demanding) meaningful partnerships with the UIDAI and the states to enroll them; by acting as social auditors to monitor Aadhaar's progress towards
inclusion, and report on its usefulness (or hindrance) to the poor; and by envisioning Aadhaar-based applications for advocacy on their behalf.
They can also closely monitor the NPR's "social vetting" process to ensure that it does not lead to exclusion.
The UIDAI, on its part, must acknowledge that it can't promise on the one hand that everyone has the right get Aadhaar and on the other hand place insurmountable hurdles to enroll. It must signal its seriousness about inclusion and data privacy, and respond positively to any fresh overtures from civil society. And, it must expand (not shrink!) the Introducer concept - which could very well raise the hackles of the Home
Ministry yet again! ThinkUID.org, of which I am part, has made specific suggestions in this regard in a recent letter to Nandan Nilekani.
As for civil society leaders who have opposed Aadhaar, their constructive engagement with the government has been crucial to bringing about landmark social legislations such as MGNREGS, RTI, RTE, and soon Food Security. They must apply the same standard of constructive engagement on Aadhaar and acknowledge that their endorsement is critical to the success of the project vis-à-vis the ID-less.
At the end of the day, they mustn't be seen as letting distant fears and conjectures forestall the only initiative to come by in decades that promises to drastically change the way we manage our public subsidies.
Instead, they can bring their considerable experience to bear in shepherding a national data privacy law tailored to our unique circumstances.
There has been much hype both in India and abroad about Aadhaar being a 'game changer.' For it to come even close, all the key players - government and private agencies providing public services, the business community, and the civil society - must first be on the same playing field and must be together willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a government determined to reform its welfare programs. The project will
be a true game changer only when a majority of our poor and ID-less have been Aadhaar-enabled, have access to formal financial services, and can look forward to receiving those welfare benefits that have long eluded them on account of being non-existent in the eyes of the state.
⊕
Raju Rajagopal
04 Apr 2012
Raju Rajagopal writes for ThinkUID.org, an information portal on Aadhaar. He served as the volunteer Civil Society Outreach Coordinator for the UIDAI in 2009-10.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Gopal Krishna <krishna1715@gmail.com> wrote to editors@indiatogether.org:
Dear Editor,
The piece 'UID and the not-so-civil society' by Raju Rajagopal hides the fact that Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has rejected the UID/Aadhaar project on legal and ethical grounds in its report presented to the Parliament. The project faces two PILs in Mumbai and Chennai High Courts, one civil suit in Karnataka and how UID was rejected by UP electorate which was promised by Rahul Gandhi as the panacea for combating corruption. It ignores the fact that 3.67 crore people submitted a memorandum to the PM seeking scrapping of Aadhaar and other anti-people policies on March 14, 2012.
It hides the fact that as recently as on March 28 (reported in The Pionner), the Parliamentary Committee warned Planning Commission for pursuing the UID/Aadhaar project. The Committee gave the Commission 10 days time to reply in the matter of its acts of omission and commission. It hides how on March 30, 2012 five private sector heroes including N Nilekani & Capt Raghuraman of National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) wrote against established systems and processes. Raju Rajagopal feigns ignorance about it although it was reported on the front page of Indian Express. Will he explain how is NATGRID related UID, pro-poor?. Companies are profit making machines (Peter Drucker), its proprietors and shareholders remain embarrassment challenged and propose "profit making but not profit maximising companies with public purpose" (Nilekani's proposal for National Information Utilities).
Raju Rajagopal's piece appears to be a public relations work for the project proponents and biometric technology providers. It is based on assumptions and not on facts. It seems to be an outreach exercise aimed at marketing a product.
thanks
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
ToxicsWatch Alliance
New Delhi
Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb: 9818089660
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Raju Rajagopal <rajurajagop@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Krishna,
I appreciate your response to my article "UID and the not-so-ciivl society" in India Together.
The object of this particular article was two-fold, as I made clear upfront:
1. Anti-UID activists are losing their public relations battle against Aadhaar on the ground and Aadhaar is here to stay; and
2. Enrolling the millions of ID-less will be a challenge for the UIDAI (and NPR) unless all parties work together to make it happen.
At a personal level, I feel that even if Aadhaar meets all of its other objectives in better managing welfare services, the second objective is crucial -- hence I continue to talk about that issue to anyone who is willing to listen.
I am sorry if I disappointed you by not talking about a host of other issues. As you are no doubt aware, those issues have been addressed in fair amount of detail on our website,ThinkUID.org, by me and my colleagues. I have also written on the issue of NPR and "national security" in the Mint. Please see references below:
On "UID = NATGRID" conspiracy theories: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?n=128
On how activists exaggerated the cost of the project: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?n=110
On how the parliamentary committee was miseld on the results of biometric studies: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?n=124
On the No-to-UID hoax signature campaign: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?Type=News&n=195
On NPR and "national security issues": see http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/13004312/The-AadhaarNPR-conundrum.html and
http://www.livemint.com/2012/02/02235827/Aadhaar-NPR-and-the-art-of-co.html?h=B
Please do take the time to read them and feel free to respond to any of our points.
Let me end by saying that you are absolutely right on one count: I do speak on behalf of the project proponents! As we make it clear on our website, we are unabashed supporters of the idea of Aadhaar, but we do not necessarily support UIDAI, the organization, in everything it does or says.
I am sorry if I disappointed you by not talking about a host of other issues. As you are no doubt aware, those issues have been addressed in fair amount of detail on our website,ThinkUID.org, by me and my colleagues. I have also written on the issue of NPR and "national security" in the Mint. Please see references below:
On "UID = NATGRID" conspiracy theories: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?n=128
On how activists exaggerated the cost of the project: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?n=110
On how the parliamentary committee was miseld on the results of biometric studies: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?n=124
On the No-to-UID hoax signature campaign: see http://thinkuid.org/SubPage.aspx?Type=News&n=195
On NPR and "national security issues": see http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/13004312/The-AadhaarNPR-conundrum.html and
http://www.livemint.com/2012/02/02235827/Aadhaar-NPR-and-the-art-of-co.html?h=B
Please do take the time to read them and feel free to respond to any of our points.
Let me end by saying that you are absolutely right on one count: I do speak on behalf of the project proponents! As we make it clear on our website, we are unabashed supporters of the idea of Aadhaar, but we do not necessarily support UIDAI, the organization, in everything it does or says.
Good luck with your PILs!
Best Regards,
Raju Rajagopal
Best Regards,
Raju Rajagopal
