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

Saturday, January 3, 2015

7136 - Strong administrative structure must precede GST implementation - Financial Express


December 31, 2014 7:42 pm

SUMMARY
The increasing use of Aadhaar-based direct benefit transfer and the proposed GST are the key reforms that presage good growth. However, the kinks in GST must be removed

Although it is too early to evaluate the reforms initiated by the NDA government, the direction and the speed with which the government has implemented these elicit hopes of better growth in 2015. While the global economy is expected to grow marginally, by 3.1% next year, India’s economy is likely to grow by 5.9%—the second-highest among the world’s large economies—as per a UN report.

The economic survey of India released by OECD expects GDP to grow by 5.4% this fiscal year and by 6.6% in FY16. The reforms have put India on a strong and sustainable growth path.
The Macroeconomic Vulnerability Index (MVI) which adds together the country’s inflation rate, current account deficit and fiscal deficit, constructed by the ministry of finance, indicates that in 2013 India was at the top of the pack on vulnerability with an index value of 22.4, well above that of other countries. Since then, India’s fortunes have improved and it demonstrated the greatest improvement in MVI. Currently, the value of the index is well above 15 (a value below 12 is recognised to be perhaps safer macroeconomic territory). It is expected the index would improve in 2015.

The reforms have been initiated in general and in the area of indirect taxes in particular. This is based on the premise that in addition to important reforms such as liberalising FDI in insurance, two game-changing reforms are on the horizon: (1) the increasing use of direct transfers, combining Aadhaar with the Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana, which could replace the government interventions in the economy in cereals, oilseeds, sugar, fertilisers, kerosene, coal, power, etc; and (2) the likely introduction of GST.

GST will create a buoyant source of revenue and place the fiscal position on a permanently solid footing. It will help in tax administration and reduce corruption in indirect tax collection. This will serve to make India more of a common market. The elimination of internal barriers to trade should be seen as a positive trade and productivity shock for the Indian economy. Much less recognised is the fact that GST will also be a redistributive exercise, transferring resources to the consuming states.

On many issues, especially GST, the economy-wide impact can only be realised if the states also implement reforms. It is now well recognised that many of the factors affecting economic development in India are no longer controlled by the Centre.
But the structural and administrative aspects of GST at both the central and state levels are very important. While GST rates will be uniform across the country, to give some fiscal autonomy to the Centre and states it has been designed to provide a narrow tax band over and above the floor rates of CGST and SGST. It is important that the variations in the tax rate are kept within limits. The proposed GST introduces the anomaly of having an origin-based tax on interstate trade. It proposes to levy a non-VAT-able Additional Tax, of not more than 1%, on supply of goods in the course of interstate trade or commerce for a period not exceeding two years or more, as recommended by the GST Council. While this seems to be taking care of the revenue loss to the producing states and the quantum of compensation the Centre has to pay, the existence of origin-based interstate tax along with GST needs to be looked into.

Then, there should be a thorough re-engineering of the department of GST at both the levels. Cross-verification of documents must be strengthened under the new regime. There is need for a proper audit plan to cover different economic activities and a large variety of taxpayers, classified according to the level of turnover of goods and services. Finally, the MIS has to be an integrated activity of the SGST and CGST offices.
The government is working on the GSTN, which can dramatically alter tax administration. All these reforms must precede the introduction of GST to realise its full benefits.

By Mahesh C Purohit
The author is Director, Foundation for Public Economics and Policy Research