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

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

5406 - Number of beneficiaries of scheme for pregnant women drops by 82.6% in city - Indian Express


Written by Tabassum Barnagarwala | Mumbai | April 1, 2014 4:38 am

SUMMARY
Officials blame new rule since Jan last year that requires them to have Aadhaar cards, bank accounts.

The city has witnessed a drop of 82.6 per cent in the financial year 2013-2014 in the number of women beneficiaries under the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), a scheme under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) aimed at reducing maternal and neonatal mortality rate by “promoting institutional delivery” among poor pregnant women.

While 36,000 such women were provided monetary assistance in 2012-2013, only 6,245 received the assistance in 2013-2014, according to data from the BMC’s health department.
The JSY was launched in April 2005 by modifying the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS). According to the scheme, a woman below-poverty line (BPL) is entitled to a sum of Rs 600 for healthcare post-delivery.

“However, since January 2013, the central government has made it compulsory for civic authorities to issue a cheque in the name of the beneficiary instead of paying them in cash. Additionally, the woman must have an Aadhar card number linked with her bank account,” said Dr Padmaja Keskar, deputy executive health officer at the BMC.

With very few poor women having bank accounts, the number of beneficiaries saw a drastic drop this year. “Since several women did not have an Aadhar card, the government dropped that eligibility criteria in July 2013. It, however, continued to follow the policy of issuing cheques for payment to avoid misuse of funds,” Keskar added.

Twenty-five-year-old Reshma Sukhdare, who delivered a boy in June last year, said, “The hospital in which I was admitted had promised to give me money under Janani scheme. I even had a bank account in my name. But since I did not have Aadhar card, they later refused to give me the amount.” She said that despite several attempts to ask for cash or cheque, she could not receive the JSY assistance.

Twenty-three-year old Ratna, who also delivered a child in 2013, said, “The scheme is only on paper. Several slum-dwellers like me do not have the luxury of opening a bank account since it serves no purpose. Just to receive the JSY fund of Rs 600, we have to go through formalities and pay at least Rs 1,000 to open a bank account.”

However, Dr Almeida Fernandes, who runs a non-governmental organisation (NGO) working for on improving health of pregnant woman, said the step was necessary to check misuse of funds. “The idea of opening a bank account is good. We tried to help several women open their accounts. But many of them do not have an address proof, which is mandatory for opening an account. There is a need to change rules for poor people to avail of government schemes,” said Fernandes.

Dr Satish Pawar, director of Directorate of Health Services (DHS), said the state government had already sent a request for the same to the central government thrice so far.

“We asked the government to allow us to use bearer cheques as it can be encashed by the mothers. But the central government did not agree as rules cannot be changed for one particular state.”

According to Pawar, there has been a statewide decline in the total number of beneficiaries, but Mumbai has been worst hit.

tabassum.barnagarwala@expressindia.com