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 1, 2015

7703 - Aadhaar cards for cows? 3 reasons why this vegetarian opposes the beef ban - First Post


Aadhaar cards for cows? 3 reasons why this vegetarian opposes the beef ban

by Lakshmi Chaudhry  Mar 31, 2015 12:52 IST

I am a vegetarian. I do not eat beef, or for that matter, chicken, mutton, or pork. It is difficult in the best of circumstances for me to summon up a firm opinion on all things meat. (More so, perhaps, since my dietary preference has little to do with either ideology or faith). Watching the fervent debate rage online, in the media, and in political circles over the beef ban in the past month,I often felt as bemused as I did the first time I watching the Super Bowl at a US college dorm.

That said, there is no doubt, however, about which side I support in this controversy which is now unfolding with the combination of ardour and absurdity that one has come to associate with the religious right in this country. This is so for a number of reasons.

One, it is impossible for any right-thinking person (pun unintended) to side, or even sympathise, with idiocy. The sheer foolishness of the Hindutva campaign to save the cow is illustrated by two recent bits of news.

The Times of India reports today:

"The Malegaon police, who last week registered the first case under Maharashtra's new law banning beef, have now issued a diktat to all owners of cows and bullocks in the township: submit to the local police station the photograph of each and every cow and bullock, so that police can keep the pictures in their files for reference just in case a criminal case crops up."


AFP.
Apparently, the cops plan to conduct "a census" in order to track and protect the cattle. Anyone who fails to "register" their cattle will likely end up like the Malegaon resident whose five cows were recently confiscated without an FIR or evidence of wrongdoing.

Given our Home Minister Rajnath Singh's support for the Maharashtra initiative, we can expect cows across the nation to soon enjoy the same privileges. A National ID for cattle. Quick, someone get Nandan Nilekani on it.

Two, dietary dictatorship is undemocratic. No democracy can or should impose the dietary beliefs of one group on all of its citizens.

The bottom-line is that a lot of Indians eat beef. And many of them are Hindu. As evidence, I could point to my various relatives and friends (a form of argumentation recently perfected by Jagdish Bhagwati in The Mint), but the religious identity or number of beef-eaters is incidental to the principle at stake. If even a small number of Indians eat beef (just because they like it) in a democracy, it should be legal. Anyone who mistakes freedom for the tyranny of the majority really needs to go back to school.

Besides, someone spare a thought for the rights of our caged tigers and lions who have been caught in the crossfire between an overzealous state government and angry traders. One side has deprived them of beef and the other of buffalo, reducing them to a diet of chicken.

And while we are on the subject of animals, villagers who live near the Kanha Tiger Reserve have long been forgiving of big cats who prey on their cattle (and livelihood). But their government shows no such compassion for humans who eat beef. A person can spend up to 7 years in jail in MP for eating the wrong kind of kebab, even as tigers maul gau mata at will. Such are the crimes against logic committed by this kind of cultural policing.

My third and last reason: The beef ban has little to do with compassion or even reverence for cows. Just look around you in any city, and you will see emaciated, half starved cattle wandering the streets, feeding on garbage. The reality is that raising cows is expensive, and most households who own cows cannot afford to do so. As Firstpost senior editor Pramod Kumar points out , the BJP governments -- in Maharashtra and elsewhere -- has no plans or funding allocated to the care of the cows 'saved' by the beef ban.

And, oh, if the Hindu right thinks that driving beef trade underground is any kind of solution, they are dreadfully mistaken. A PETA investigation, confirmed by the Independent, showed that the black market in beef results in the worst kind of animal cruelty, as cattle are beaten, tortured and brutally killed outside the purview of the state.

Besides, if Rajnath Singh really cares about cows, he may want to take a closer look at the practices of the Indian dairy industry which routinely starves calves to death, keeps dairy animals in inhumane conditions, pumping them full of hormones.

Or we could ban milk, as well, and cheese, and dahi. No? In that case, let's not be picking on beef and see the ban for what it is: the Hindutva right seizing on an excuse to promote its spurious 'Hindu rashtra' agenda. If we truly care for animals, let's push instead for more stringent regulations requiring humane conditions for all animals, be they raised for dairy or slaughter. 

Surely that is one agenda that all of us -- vegetarians, eggitarians, pork, beef or chicken eaters -- can all get behind.


CLICK ON TITLE TO SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE - Posted by