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, July 2, 2014

5620 - The Aadhaar tragedy - Rediff


June 26, 2014 12:07 IST

The BJP would seem just the sort of party that would embrace Aadhaar. Every other page of its manifesto makes some reference to changing governance in this country. So why is there no discernible difference in the positions of the BJP-led government towards Aadhaar and the dysfunctional approach of Chidambaram under the United Progressive Alliance, asks Rahul Jacob. 

There has been a recent surge in very satisfied customers at Food World supermarkets in Bangalore who praise the staff for being efficient and professional and for the fact that long queues are non-existent.

Food World has not cracked a new retail management code. Rather, this is an innovation in governance: these customers are people with ration cards who have been able to buy inexpensive rice, wheat and sugar at the stores, thanks to a new Karnataka government initiative. They cannot help counting their blessings, because they are accustomed to government-run ration stores.

This Indian Express report came just a few days after news last week that Aadhaar is likely to be transferred to the home ministry to ensure that those with Aadhaar cards are bona fide citizens. This is a backward step, a reversion to the mindless turf battles of the Congress-led government where P Chidambaram’s home ministry questioned the need for Aadhaar using similarly warped logic.

Aadhaar was always about transferring benefits to those below the poverty line in an efficient and transparent way. It could have worked like the United States's social security number. The pilot programme involving transferring cash to the accounts of Aadhaar users to compensate them for buying gas cylinders at open-market prices worked well, despite some teething problems and having been rushed through. That is about the only litmus test that ought to matter.

As with any project that is revolutionary, Aadhaar would have hit roadblocks. Yes, there would have been implementation problems in its completely online system, because internet connectivity in many parts of rural India is a problem. And not just in our villages: on Tuesday, a demo by Google of the new range of voice commands for smartphone users foundered because the internet connection went down -- in the ballroom of The Oberoi in New Delhi.

There was, in any case, an ecosystem of entrepreneurs, inspired by the Aadhaar rollout seeking to provide, say, Bluetooth access to people in villages powered by solar energy to get around the connectivity problem and help people open bank accounts.
Of course, in this country with more than its fair share of people scamming the system, the definition of who was poor would have been abused. Nor should anyone be excluded from legitimately receiving benefits just because they did not have an Aadhaar number. These are all reasonable objections and in the full glare of public scrutiny, Aadhaar would have had to deal with them.

But the home ministry makes none of these objections. It proposes to put the names of those with Aadhaar numbers on neighbourhood notice boards and then invite comments on whether they are citizens or not. This Kafkaesque approach, called "social vetting", sounds just a little impractical. (Memo to my neighbours: you may not know me because, like most people, I am in the office much of the day, but please vouch for the fact that I do strange aerobic exercises in the park in the morning.)

The Bharatiya Janata Party would seem just the sort of party that would embrace Aadhaar. Every other page of its manifesto makes some reference to changing governance in this country. ‘Our government will be a government of the poor, marginalised and left behind’, it says, in a prelude to its promise of delivering poverty alleviation programmes through ‘convergence, transparency and efficiency’. On another page, it promotes e-governance for being ‘easy, efficient and effective’. Among the most energetic states in Aadhaar enrollment and experimentation in the past few years have been the BJP-ruled ones such as Gujarat and Jharkhand (which was later under President's rule).

Given all this, why is there no discernible difference in the positions of the BJP-led government towards Aadhaar and the dysfunctional approach of Chidambaram under the United Progressive Alliance? The common thread is that, as Sir Humphrey Appleby often reminded us in the TV series Yes Minister, governance often has little to do with the people.
Then there is a problem peculiar to Lutyens' Delhi: most of the people who offer loud opinions have staff to do their shopping and have never been anywhere near a supermarket or kiraana store, let alone a ration shop. Those of a more conspiratorial bent believe there is an industry of smartcard providers eager to benefit from the vacuum created by disabling Aadhaar.
The BJP manifesto also offers clues in a section labelled ‘External Security - Its Boundary, Beauty and Bounty’. It promises ‘punitive measures to check illegal immigration’. This is laudable, but is it not then inconsistent to also be allowing unilateral entry to Bangladeshi trucks as the commerce department is planning to do, even if that furthers the cause of our $5 billion in cross-border trade?

What Aadhaar sought to do was create a system where the, erm, ‘bounty’ of subsidies was redirected from unscrupulous middlemen to the rightful beneficiaries. Instead, in the real and imaginary battle against Bangladeshi immigrants, we are now apparently prepared to throw out a biometric system that has enrolled about 639 million citizens at laser speed so that we can continue to dehumanise hundreds of millions of India's poorest citizens by making them queue and beg and petition for the paltry benefits the State sends their way.

Image: Village women stand in a queue to get themselves enrolled for the Unique Identification database system at Merta district in Rajasthan. Photograph: Mansi Thapliyal/Reuters.