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

Thursday, July 23, 2015

8278 - Solving public problems outside politics may be a better role for me: Nandan Nilekani - Economic Times

Malini Goyal & Indulekha Aravind, ET Bureau Jul 12, 2015, 06.03AM IST




Nandan Nilekani opens up on the challenges of the transition to politics, the trauma of losing an election, whether he would reenter politics and what he has learnt, from being in the government yet outside it. 

Edited excerpts:
Was the transition to becoming a politician difficult?
It was starker than the shift from running a company to heading Aadhaar. Politics involved being a much more public person. It's a high-contact activity and some people thrive on that, meeting hundreds of people and drawing energy from that. But for me that was quite challenging — you always have to be on call, you never have a moment to yourself to reflect. And then I realised my strength is not so much that as strategic problem-solving: to take a complex problem with many facets, and systematically address it over time very thoroughly. That's what Aadhaar was, and EkStep is also a classic example of this.

Does that mean you rule out returning to active politics?
There are two things. I feel I am better at getting into a complex problem and unravelling it over three to four years. Secondly, a lot of problem-solving can happen outside the system. This might be a better way to achieve my goal of getting things done.

How did you react to the electoral loss?
When you are contesting an election, you have to pump yourself up to win. You don't allow negative thoughts to enter because then you will lose the momentum. I didn't entertain any of that. Obviously, between the election and the result, one could sense there was something happening. Perhaps, I was on the wrong side of history. But still a loss is a loss, especially for someone like me who has managed to do many things successfully. In a way, it's a public repudiation, a public rejection.

Did it hurt?
I'm not used to losing, it's as simple as that. I asked other people and was told that losing elections can be psychologically traumatic. In my case, fortunately, even though I was traumatised for a few weeks, the fact that I found all these other things to do and ways to engage in which I could still have a meaningful impact without having a formal position helped... I think, now I am completely over all that.

Your lessons from working in the government yet outside it... 
The need for building a consensus around whatever you want to do is very important. Being in public life is about dealing with a multiplicity of stakeholders.
Everyone is pulling in different directions and wants instant results. And it all has to be sorted before the evening news. You have to manage all these forces and relentlessly focus on achieving something.

And on consensus building?
The first thing I did when I joined the government was to reach out to everybody. I met all the ministers, the secretaries.
I went to every state and met the chief ministers, the media, the activists, the lawyers.
You also design the solution so that it's minimalistic. When people try to solve a problem in public space, they mostly go with a big solution with a lot of bells and whistles, but then each bell and each whistle becomes a point of contention for somebody else. And the aggregate negative coalition sinks the idea. So what you need is a lightweight idea with minimal opposition that you can rapidly insert it into the system and scale it up.

Could you contrast your stint in UIDAI to working at Infosys?
One thing I learnt while being in the government was the bigger the idea, the lesser the opposition.

In Delhi, it's a very stratified system which is very difficult to break. For instance, if I go and say, my car is x but I want car x + delta x, it causes perturbation.
But if I go and say I want to reform the entire subsidy system, they will say go ahead and do it. Partly because they think you are talking through your hat. The other thing is you are fine as long as you don't invade someone's turf.

Were you approached to rejoin Infosys?

When I was invited by the prime minister in 2009 to join the government, my co-founders (at Infosys) were very supportive because they realised it was a chance to contribute to public service. Obviously, there were occasions when there was talk of my coming back but I felt that things had to move forward rather than getting someone from the past. So that really didn't lead anywhere.