Publish Date : November 12th, 2012 | Print Article | Email Article |30 views
Beware of the deceptive ‘voluntariness’ of UID-Aadhaar taking citizens, States & parties for a ride by ‘vote buying’ through conditional e-payments. A recent paper of the World Bank reveals the ulterior motive behind UID related schemes.
The Policy Research Working Paper titled ‘Conditional Cash Transfers, Political Participation, and Voting Behavior’ brought out by World Bank in October 2012 “provides empirical evidence to support the notion that political participation and political views are responsive to targeted transfers.” It notes that inColombia, “During the 2010 presidential election voters covered by FA (large scale conditional cash transfer) not only voted more often, but also expressed a stronger preference (around 2 percentage points) for the official party that implemented and expanded the program… Another possible explanation is that FA (large scale conditional ash transfer) was strategically targeted and motivated by clientelism and vote buying.”
The launch of the biometric data based 12 digit Unique Identification (UID)-Aadhaar Number linked welfare schemes is being bulldozed with the 2014 elections in mind with the ulterior motive of altering the voting behaviuor of the citizens by creating a ‘universal identity infrastructure’ linked to ‘unified payment infrastructure’.
The launch exercise on October 20, 2012 stands exposed because it is officially admitting that UID-Aadhaar is mandatory contrary to what was claimed at its launch in Maharashtra on September 29, 2010. The changing of ‘voluntariness’ into ‘compulsion’ through threat of discontinuance of services has been roundly castigated by the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shri Yashwant Sinha headed Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance.
The Website of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) continues to claim that UID-Aadhhar is ‘voluntary’ and not ‘mandatory’. The million dollar question which Sonia Gandhi, Dr Manmohan Singh, P.Chidambaram, Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Nandan Manohar Nilekani need to answer is: how can Aadhaar be deemed ‘voluntary’ if service delivery is being made dependent on it. This is a grave breach of public trust. This is a deliberate exercise in deception. The proposed ‘electronic transfers of benefits and entitlements’ through ‘Aadhaar-linked bank accounts of the beneficiaries’ is crafted to make it mandatory.
The claim “Each Aadhaar number will be unique to an individual and will remain valid for life. Aadhaar number will help you provide access to services like banking, mobile phone connections and other Govt and Non-Govt services in due course” is fraught with creating a platform for convergence of Government and corporate sector as is aimed by the ‘Transformational Government’ project of the World Bank’s eTransform Initiative launched in partnership with the Governments of South Korea and France and six transnational corporations like Gemalto, IBM, Intel, L-1 Identity Solutions (now part of Safran Group), Microsoft and Pfizer.
The UID-Aadhaar related schemes is unfolding despite the fact that Parliament has not passed the National Identification Authority of India Bill (NIAI), 2010 proposed by the Indian National Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. It is noteworthy that the Sinha headed Parliamentary Committee in its report to Parliament has rejected UID and biometric data collection terming it as an illegal and an unethical project.
Ahead of the next Parliamentary elections, with the issuance of the 21st crore UID-Aadhaar Number and Aadhaar Enabled Service Delivery (AESD) on October 20, 2012 it contemptuously ignores Parliament, the Parliamentary Committee, the National Advisory Council and eminent citizens and the lessons from the belated report from the Planning Commission’s Group of Experts on Privacy dated October 16, 2012. What is evident is that there is
an open war declared on sensitive personal information like biometric data which includes finger prints, iris scans, voice prints, DNA samples etc. The fact is a centralised electronic database of citizens and privacy, both are conceptually contradictory.
an open war declared on sensitive personal information like biometric data which includes finger prints, iris scans, voice prints, DNA samples etc. The fact is a centralised electronic database of citizens and privacy, both are conceptually contradictory.
Besides influencing the voter preference, once the Planning Commission’s Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of 60 crore citizens is ready by 2014 and the related National Population Register (NPR) of the remaining 61 crore citizens is ready, it will emerge as a potential threat to minority communities of all sorts by some regime which finds them unsuitable for their political projects.
So far the entire political class has remained insensitive to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights about violation of the right to privacy and citizens’ rights. The case was heard publicly on February 27, 2008, and the unanimous decision of 17 judges was delivered on December 4, 2008. The court found that the “blanket and indiscriminate nature” of the power of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples, and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, failed to strike a fair balance between competing public and private interests and ruled that the United Kingdom had “overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation” in this regard. The decision is nonappealable. Unmindful of this, in India, the National databank of biometric data is unfolding which is proposed to be linked to the electoral database amidst the political myopia of political parties in the face of the onslaught of the foreign biometric and surveillance technology companies. The only saving grace has been Parliamentary Standing Committee that has taken on board studies done in the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later withdrawn in May 2010, where the problems were identified to include “(a) huge cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex;(c) untested, unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures, which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs.”
The claim “Each Aadhaar number will be unique to an individual and will remain valid for life. Aadhaar number will help you provide access to services like banking, mobile phone connections and other Govt and Non-Govt services in due course” is fraught with creating a platform for convergence of Government and corporate sector as is aimed by the ‘Transformational Government’ project of the World Bank’s eTransform Initiative launched in partnership with the Governments of South Korea and France and six transnational corporations like Gemalto, IBM, Intel, L-1 Identity Solutions (now part of Safran Group), Microsoft and Pfizer.
The Opposition parties at the Centre and in the States appear to be in the dark about these attempts at re-plumbing the electoral ecosystem and a complicit section of civil society seems guilty of practicing ‘the economics of innocent fraud’. The results of the October 2012 World Bank paper find that “voters respond to targeted transfers and that these transfers can foster support for incumbents”. The UID-Aadhaar and unified payment infrastructure proposed is an act in designing political mechanisms to capture pre-existing schemes for political patronage in spite of the absence of ‘legislative mechanisms’.
Corroborating the concerns of the citizens, the Parliamentary Committee has noted that the Government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available.” The Committee expressed its anxiety that, the way the project had been run, “the scheme may end up being dependent on private agencies, despite contractual agreement made by the UIDAI with several private vendors.”
Corroborating the concerns of the citizens, the Parliamentary Committee has noted that the Government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available.” The Committee expressed its anxiety that, the way the project had been run, “the scheme may end up being dependent on private agencies, despite contractual agreement made by the UIDAI with several private vendors.”
The Parliamentary rejection of this scheme came in the aftermath of the Statement of Concern issued in the matter of the world’s biggest data management project, Unique Identification (UID) /Aadhaar Number scheme and related proposals like National Intelligence Grid by 17 eminent citizens led by Justice V R Krishna Iyer. The NIAI Bill, 2010 which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on December 3, 2010 after the constitution of the UIDAI and appointment of Nandan Nilekani as its Chairman in the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister without oath of secrecy. The Bill sought to provide statutory status to the UIDAI which has been functioning without the backing of law since January 2009. At present UIDAI is functioning without any legislative mandate.
One day ahead of the launch of UID in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on September 29, 2010, the statement of eminent citizens had asked for the project to be put on hold till a feasibility study was done, a cost: benefit analysis undertaken, a law of privacy put in place and the various concerns of surveillance, tracking, profiling, tagging and convergence of data be addressed. None of this has happened till today. The Parliamentary Committee endorsed these concerns and recognised that the project cannot carry on till this is set right. Many countriesUK, China, USA, Australia and the Philippines have abandoned such identity schemes.
Nandan Nilekani, as a member or Chairperson of multiple committees of several Ministries, has been trying to push for the adoption of the UID, and for the re-engineering of current systems. There have been attempts to withdraw services such as LPG and other essential commodities if a person has not enrolled for a UID. The State Governments and citizens have been kept in dark about the harmful ramifications of the world’s biggest data management project and how it linked with hitherto undisclosed other proposed legislations and initiatives. The UID number and related proposals pose a threat to both civil liberties as well as our natural resources like land as is evident from the Land Tilling Bill and Nilekani’s book that aims to create a common land market to reduce poverty.
Nandan Nilekani’s promotion of Hernando de Sotto’s book ‘The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else’ through his own book ‘Imagining India’ arguing that national ID system would be a big step for land markets to facilitate right to property and undoing of abolition of right to property in 1978 in order to bring down poverty! Nilekani and the UPA government should be asked as to explain the inexplicability of such assumptions.
Schemes like UIDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and UK. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. In the UK, the Home Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it would otherwise be `intrusive bullying’ by the State, and that the Government intended to be the `servant’ of the people, and not their `master’. The Supreme Court of Philippines struck down a biometric based national ID system as unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India.
The Parliamentary Committee observes, “The clearance of the Ministry of Law & Justice for issuing Aadhaar numbers, pending passing the Bill by Parliament, on the ground that powers of the Executive are co-extensive with the legislative power of the Government and that the Government is not debarred from exercising its Executive power in the areas which are not regulated by the legislation does not satisfy the Committee. The Committee are constrained to point out that in the instant case, since the law making is underway with the bill being pending, any executive action is as unethical and violative of Parliament‟s prerogatives.” The committee also observed that a National Data Protection Law is “a pre-requisite for any law that deals with large scale collection of information from individuals and its linkages across separate databases. It would be difficult to deal with the issues like access and misuse of personal information, surveillance, profiling, linking and matching of data bases and securing confidentiality of information etc.“
In a significant development following rigorous deliberations, an Indian development support organisation founded in 1960, Indo-Global Social Service Society (IGSSS) disassociated itself from UID Number project which was being undertaken under Mission Convergence inDelhi. Withdrawal of IGSSS that works in 21 States of the country merits the attention of all the States and civil society organisations especially those who are unwittingly involved in the UID Number enrollment process.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee considered the NIAI Bill, 2010 presented its report to the Parliament on December 13, 2011. The reported rejects biometric data based identification of Indians. The report is a severe indictment of the hasty and `directionless’ project which has been “conceptualised with no clarity of purpose”. Even the functional basis of the Unique Identification Authority of India UIDAI is unclear and yet the project has been rolled out. The Standing Committee found the biometric technology `uncertain’ and ‘untested’. The error rate could end up excluding up to 15 per cent of the population. It has also come to light that even iris scan keeps changing and is unreliable. Yet, the UIDAI has gone on with the exercise. Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) had appeared before the Parliamentary Committee to give its testimony on the UID BIll.
The electoral engineering underway through conditional cash transfers will distort fair electoral practice and harm electoral democracy irreparably. Most political parties including the constituents of UPA and non-UPA parties have been caught unawares into implementing the UID-Aadhaar related schemes programme which is designed to their political disadvantage in the States. In view of these indisputable facts, the Election Commission must act to ensure a level playing field for all the political parties especially the non-UPA parties and non Congress parties.
