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

Monday, August 31, 2015

8635 - Right to privacy: It’s in our DNA - Asian Age

Aug 27, 2015




In Govind v. State of MP (1975), the Supreme Court held that ‘many of the fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to the right to privacy’. Subsequently, the right to dignity was held as a non-negotiable right... it is hollow without the right to privacy.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India is to pronounce whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right or not. A three-judge division bench hearing the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar project referred the matter to the Constitution bench on the request of the attorney-general, Mukul Rohatgi. 

Earlier, his argument before the apex court in defence of Aadhaar, that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right, triggered a storm. Adding grist to the mill, the Union government banned 857 porn sites, only to backtrack later before the Supreme Court, when the nation grizzled against it as invasion into their privacy. 

Realising its folly, the government told the court that it was not a totalitarian state and that it “does not intend to become the moral police of the people”.

When the AG pleaded before the court that right to privacy is not a fundamental right, he was basing his contention on the Supreme Court’s judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962), where the court held that “...when the Constitution makers have thought it fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of fundamental right to privacy, we have no justification to import it... by some process of strained construction.”

It appears that the Supreme Court was not aware of the debate on the issue in the Constituent Assembly. The Congress’ Kazi Karimuddin had moved an amendment in the Constituent Assembly on the lines of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, but it was defeated. However, Dr B.R. Ambedkar supported it: “I think it is a useful provision and may find a place in our Constitution.” Besides, the Preamble also talks of “fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual”.

In Kharak Singh’s case, Justice Subba Rao, among the five judges of the Constitution Bench, wrote in his dissenting judgment that right to privacy is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.

Later, the Supreme Court discarded the doctrine of strict interpretation of fundamental rights, and gave an expansive interpretation. In Govind v. State of MP (1975), the Supreme Court held that “many of the fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to the right to privacy”. In many subsequent cases, the right to dignity was held as a non-negotiable right. It is evident that the right to dignity is hollow without the right to privacy.

Right to privacy, thus, is an inalienable part of right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but it’s not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right.

Most common law Constitutions do not bequeath right to privacy to their citizens. In the US, courts did not protect this right until the fag end of the 19th century. This right was recognised when Charles Warren and Louis Brandeis published their seminal article, The Right To Privacy, in the Harvard Law Review (1890). Though hundreds of cases related to right to privacy came to the courts, the first higher American court to deal with this right was a New York appellate court in Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902). Chief Justice Parker ruled that the defendants had invaded what is called a “right to privacy”, in other words, the right to be left alone.

There is no consensus over the definition of privacy. For Professor Michael A. Weinstein, privacy is a psychological state, a condition of “being apart from others”, and for American jurist Charles Fried, privacy is a form of power, “the control we have over information about ourselves”.

Ancient Indian law-givers declared “Sarve sve sve grihe raja” (Every man is a king in his own house). Indian classical literature and epics expounded the law of privacy with this concept as the central theme, and the king, under a moral obligation to uphold dharma, had to respect the privacy of the citizen. In the Mahabharata we find how privacy was respected. Draupadi was the common wife of the five Pandava brothers. To avoid embarrassment, a rule was made that if any one of them happened to see Draupadi in company of another brother he would have to undergo banishment for 12 years in the forest as brahmachari. Once it so happened that while Draupadi was with Yudhishthira in a room, Arjun had to collect his weapons kept in that room. Not finding any alternative, Arjun intruded their privacy, violating the rule and presenting himself to undergo the prescribed punishment.

Indian traditions and customs have always respected this kind of privacy, and the Indian courts were ahead of British and US courts in protecting this right. In 1888, Chief Justice John Edge of the Allahabad high court observed, “In my opinion, the fact that there is no such custom of privacy known to the law of England can have no bearing on the question whether there can be Indian usage or custom of privacy valid in law.”

Advocating the right to privacy for British nationals, Professor Percy H. Winfield passionately appealed to the House of Commons in 1931 to follow the Indian law. Section 509 of the IPC, 1860, makes it a crime to intrude into the privacy of a woman. It was not imported from England, nor a novel contribution of Thomas Babington Macaulay, but was just a codification of a long established tradition in India.

Yet, the government is ready to introduce the DNA Profiling Bill in Parliament soon. The bill will give teeth to criminal investigations as it will allow the use of forensic science to identify a person using the unique signature found in his/her DNA. But there is no safeguard against the misuse of data proposed to be collected under the bill.

A group of experts headed by former Chief Justice of the Delhi high court, A.P. Shah, recommended a framework for a Privacy Act which would recognise all dimensions of the right to privacy and address concerns about data safety, protection from unauthorised interception, surveillance, use of personal identifiers and bodily privacy.

The Supreme Court has, in its interim order, directed that the Aadhaar number can be used for PDS and LPG subsidy, but is not mandatory for any other purpose. Thus reiterating that safeguards against the misuse of biometric details of people are necessary before they are collected.


The writer is a senior TV journalist and author

8634 - Biometric enrolment underway in WKH - Shillong Times

OUR REPORTER | SUNDAY, AUGUST 30, 2015

SHILLONG: In what can be termed as good news for residents of Meghalaya, the process of biometric enrolment for the National Population Register (NPR) has started in certain parts of the State.

Government officials on Saturday informed that the enrolment process was progressing well in West Khasi Hills and people were coming forward for getting themselves registered under the NPR.

“We will soon resume the enrolment process in Shillong,” they said.

The enrolment process had to be put on hold when pressure groups, including the KSU, opposed the decision of the State Government to go ahead with the NPR implementation in the State.

The contention of the pressure groups was that ‘doubtful residents’ will get the opportunity to get themselves enrolled under the NPR.

Despite assurances and clarifications from the Government that enrolment under NPR was not to be     tagged as enrolment for citizenship, the pressure groups remained adamant and even physically stalled the NPR enrolment process in some areas.
On the opposition of the pressure groups, the Government officials on Saturday asserted that they had asked the Government to conduct awareness about the NPR following which several awareness programmes had been organised across the State.

It may be mentioned that National Population Register (NPR) provides access to various government services and schemes through Aadhaar – unique identification number (UID).


Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2015/08/30/biometric-enrolment-underway-in-wkh/#TdO8MuhpIJuM751x.99

8633 - Delhiites get e-locker for papers - TNN


Ambika Pandit | Aug 29, 2015, 11.58 PM IST

NEW DELHI: A week into providing end-to-end online processing of document applications, the Delhi government's e-district portal also has on offer a first-of-its-kind facility for its registered users-that of digital lockers. Citizens can now digitally store revenue department certificates as well as identification documents including Aadhaar, voter ID and driving licence. The portal is accessible on smartphone and a mobile app is also on the way.

Users may upload documents and place digitally-signed certificates in the locker. Once a file is processed and certificate generated, the locker is the space where it goes to by default. The user can access his document through the unique password issued at the time of registration.

Digitally-signed certificates of 13 categories can be downloaded and authenticated online through a unique ID assigned to each person. These include certificates for marriage, birth, death, SC/ST and OBC, nationality, domicile, handicap, income, solvency, lal dora and surviving member. The digital locker may be updated with fresh documents. It enables permanence and security of critical documents.

"The portal also has a provision for online verification. This is a unique feature to prevent fraud and forgery. Any department wanting to verify the authenticity of a certificate can simply type in its unique number. Discrepancies may be reported to the revenue department," said Ankur Garg, district magistrate (southwest) in charge of information technology.

"Our aim is to substantially bring down delivery timelines. For now, citizen service counters are available at SDM offices to assist who do not have access to internet," Garg added.

Since it was activated, the E-District Delhi Portal has had over 15 lakh visitors and 7.35 lakh registered users. Total applications received stand at 7,60,114. The number of digitally-signed certificates downloaded was 21,207.


The portal guides the user to register with their Aadhaar or Voter ID number. Those who have neither must go to e-district counters in tehsils and subdivisions. On the list of essentials for those seeking to use the platform is a mobile number. "After registration, access code and password will be sent at the mobile number provided in the registration form. The registration needs to be completed within 72 hours," Garg said.

8632 - Don’t apply afresh, get changes carried out in existing Aadhaar - Tribune India

Posted at: Aug 30 2015 1:21AM


Anupam Bhagria
Tribune News Service
Ludhiana, August 29

Suvidha Centre daily receive around 10 applicants for Aadhaar cards. These applicants already have their Aadhaar cards but apply for new ones as they have shifted residence or got married. However the Unique Identification Authority of India does not issue two Aadhaar cards to the same person. They can simply get it reissued with amended details.

Charanjit Singh, District Coordinator of the UID Authority, Ludhiana, said: “If anyone shifts his residence or gets married, he or she need not to apply for a new Aadhaar card. The changed address or any other change can be carried out in the already issued UID number by just filling in a form.”

Such applicants can fill in a form at the UID counter at Suvidha Centre and pay a fee of Rs 15 for making the required changes. The applicant will be photographed again at the counter and his biometric finger prints are taken afresh. After that he is issued his amended Aadhaar.

The official said: “Now, whenever any applicant comes to us, we first ask him if he had already got one or is applying for the second time due to changes in his Aadhaar details.”

Visit UID centre in case you lose card

“In case a person loses his Aadhaar card or does not receive it by mail, he or she need not apply for a fresh one. The person concerned should come to us and give us his registered cell number or show his enrolment slip. The UID centre staff assist persons in getting to know the status of their Aadhaar cards and reissuing Aadhaar to those who have lost theirs cards. But an applicant has to personally visit the UID centre.

8631 - Haryana CEO stops collection of


TNN | Aug 30, 2015, 06.38 AM IST

CHANDIGARH: Haryana chief electoral officer (CEO) has stopped the collection of Aadhaar numbers from electors as part of the National Electoral Rolls Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP). It was also directed that no feeding or seeding of collected data would be done by any official connected to the NERPAP.

Haryana CEO Shrikant Walgad said that in compliance with the directions issued by the Election Commission of India, the Aadhaar data would not be collected from any other agency, data hub or organization of the central or state governments. Moreover, the data collected so far would not be used for any authentication or other purpose. Besides, all publicity material for NERPAP activities available on the chief election officer's website would be withdrawn. Information about the suspension of the activity would be displayed on the website and notice boards in the offices of district election officers (DEOs), electoral registration officers (EROs) and assistant election registration officers (AEROs).

On August 11, 2015, the Supreme Court had said in its orders that the production of an Aadhaar card would not be condition for obtaining any benefits. The Unique Identification number would not be used for any purpose other than the public distribution scheme.

8630 - No Aadhaar seeding with voter I-cards - Tribune India


Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 29

The Election Department has stopped the collection of the Aadhaar card data from the electors for seeding with the voter I-cards following a Supreme Court judgement.


“It has been decided that no collection of Aadhaar numbers from the electors or feeding or seeding would be done by any election authority or official involved with the National Electoral Rolls Purification and Authentication Programme,” said Haryana Chief Electoral Officer Shrikant Walgad.


He said in compliance with the directions issued by the Election Commission of India, Aadhaar data would not be collected from any other agency, data hub or organisation of the Central or state governments, nor would the data collected so far be used for any authentication or other purposes.


Walgad said the Election Commission had issued instructions for the maintenance of data security and confidentiality of the Aadhaar data already collected from the electors or government departments and agencies.



On August 11, the Supreme Court had said in its orders that the production of an Aadhaar card would not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen.

8629 - ESIC asks members to seed Aadhaar number with insurance - The Hindu

PUDUCHERRY, August 29, 2015

ESIC asks members to seed Aadhaar number with insurance

  • STAFF REPORTER
All persons, who have been insured under the ESI Act 1948 and those in possession of the Pehchan Card and those who are yet to register their particulars for issuance of the Pehchan Card have been asked to furnish their Aadhaar numbers so it can be seeded with their insurance numbers, according to a note from the Puducherry regional office of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation.

The note said that dependents of insured persons would not have to visit the Pehchan camps for their registration at ESIC once the Aadhaar numbers have been linked to the insurance number as all details available in the Aadhaar registration can be downloaded for Pehchan registration as well.
Entrepreneurs having factories and establishments under the jurisdiction of the Puducherry regional office of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation have been asked to obtain the Aadhaar numbers of all insured employees and submit them to the Regional Director, ESIC, Puducherry, added the note.

Dependents of such linked numbers need not visit the Pehchan camps as all details will be available in the Aadhaar registration




8628 - Can the Aadhaar juggernaut be stopped now? - Business Standard


By restricting the usage of Aadhaar to just two schemes, the Supreme Court seems to have missed out on the wide usage that Aadhaar has acquired in the last couple of years

Surabhi Agarwal  |  New Delhi 

August 29, 2015 Last Updated at 15:44 IST

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court passed an order on Aadhaar restricting its use by the government to just delivering cooking gas and food subsidy. It also said that the government must communicate widely that the unique identity number is not mandatory but voluntary. 

The impact of the order has been minimal so far with most schemes continuing to operate like earlier. However, the Aadhaar project which has found great support by the Narendra Modi government, suffered a jolt with this order. It greatly restricts the scope of the project which is slowly becoming ubiquitous in the country. 

While the advocates of privacy are hailing the move, supporters of Aadhaar are looking at it as another clog in the wheel in its journey which has been far from smooth. Though the court order which is in response to a petition that claimed that residents are being denied services for the want of Aadhaar may have addressed the main issue, it seems a little out of sync with the realities of today. 


The petition was filed in mid 2013 when less than half the country was enrolled under the project which justified the argument that a vast majority of people were out of the system. However, as government data shows almost 90 crore people have Aadhaar numbers now, which makes the “not everyone has Aadhaar” argument almost redundant. 

As far as restricting the usage of Aadhaar to just two schemes is concerned, the Court seems to have missed out on the wide usage that Aadhaar has acquired in the last couple of years – be its use in central government for attendance, in banks for opening accounts or delivering welfare schemes other than LPG and PDS -- some of which are proving to be hugely beneficial. If the intent of the Court in restricting the usage of Aadhaar is to tackle the privacy issue and therefore minimize the security concerns associated with it, then perhaps addressing the root cause of such concerns would be a better solution. 

ALSO READ: Is Aadhaar enough?

Despite the fact that the present government has lent massive support to the project, it has failed to pass the UID Bill in the Parliament which defines the penalties in case of a breach. The bill also provides a solid legal backing to Aadhaar which is so far being run on an executive order. The Privacy Bill which contained detailed dos and don'ts on data protection with sensitive schemes such as UID and NatGrid has also not seen the light of the day for the last three –four years despite being redrafted several times. 

If the government moves fast on these two legislations, it is maybe able to provide some comfort to the court as well as paranoid residents who are still not convinced about Aadhaar and its benefits. Perhaps, its time to address the issue once and for all. 

8627 - Aadhaar seeding a hassle

August 29, 2015


Aadhaar seeding a hassle

I am a 90-year-old government pensioner who has trouble with the concept of Aadhaar card seeding. My Aadhaar card could not record my fingerprint as my fingers have become soft due to old age. The bank where I get my pension could not seed my account with the Aadhaar card and my pension payment order does not ‘seed’ as well. For the last 32 years, I got my pension, filed my IT returns, and the bank never gave me any trouble. Suddenly, this seeding business has become a monster and despite the Supreme Court orders on Aadhaar linkage, no one except Election Commission seems to be aware of it.
S.V. Subba Rao
Banjara Hills

8626 - Over 10,000 get plastic Aadhaar cards - The Hindu

SALEM, August 29, 2015

  • STAFF REPORTER

A total of 10,482 people have received plastic Aadhaar cards from the Common Service Centres functioning in 12 blocks in the district. Those who have got Aadhaar number can get it converted to plastic cards by paying Rs. 30 at these centres. 

Those who have not, can pay Rs. 40 and receive it in card form.

The centres are run by Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation., are functioning from February 27. So far the centres have generated 42,685 Aadhaar numbers. The centres are functioning in Salem, Salem East, Salem West, Vazhapadi, Attur, Gangavalli, Yercaud, Mettur, Omalur, Sankari, Edappadi, and Pethanaickenpalayam.

The centres are authorised to provide certificates from revenue, and social welfare departments too.



8625 - TN Aadhaar drive covers 83%, but Chennai lags - TNN


TNN | Aug 29, 2015, 12.30 AM IST

CHENNAI: About 83.36% of people in Tamil Nadu have registered for Aadhaar, with Perambalur district recording the maximum coverage of 98% in the state. Chennai has been slow with 75.65% residents opting for Aadhaar so far and the coverage in Tirupur district has been the lowest at 72.74%. 

Census department joint director M R V Krishna Rao said 5.62 crore people have given their biometric and 5.23 crore have received Aadhaar cards. The state Census directorate now plans to target students at their schools. In many cases, parents have given their biometrics and Aadhaar has been generated, but, many children have been left out as they were in schools. 

The Census directorate is awaiting school education department's approval to commence work across the state. "There are around 1.34 students in Tamil Nadu. Of this, nearly 60 lakh students don't have Adhaar card. In most cases their parents have the aadhaar registration and have included the names of their children in the form but have not given the biometrics," said Rao. 

Census department teams would visit schools in villages and get the students to give the required details. "There are more than 20,000 schools in the state and it is not possible to visit each and every school. Thus we will be going a school in an area and ask all other schools to bring their students for biometrics. Children from 5 years can register for Aadhaar," said Rao. 

Sunday, August 30, 2015

8624 - City NGO's heap praises on Swati Maliwal - India Today

A group of sex workers at Delhi's infamous GB Road are now keenly awaiting their Aadhaar and ration cards, as promised by DCW chief.


Baishali Adak   |    |   Mail Today   |   New Delhi, August 28, 2015 | UPDATED 11:17 IS

Delhi Commission for Women chairperson Swati Maliwal.


Several NGOs working for women's rights in the city and sections of marginalized women, who have recently come in touch with DCW chief Swati Maliwal, are pleasantly surprised.
"She has the will to do something positive," says Rishi Kant of Shakti Vahini, the NGO that helped her reach out to sex workers on GB Road. "On Thursday, she was back in the redlight district in a follow-up to her first visit. It shows she is determined to bring a change," he says.

Anu, an acid attack victim who met Swati a month back, is hopeful like. "She promised 35 of us free treatment at private hospitals and the Delhi government has already agreed. One girl even underwent plastic surgery recently. I am waiting for my turn. More than anything else, I want my face back," she says.

A group of sex workers at Delhi's infamous GB Road are keenly awaiting their Aadhaar and ration cards. Surekha* told Mail Today, "For women like us, it's a privilege to have a respectable identity, one that is recognised by the government. It wouldn't have been so important but for my kids. However, fear of revealing our profession, remarks and harassment keep us away from Aadhaar offices. Swati has promised us help."

Shabnam*, who works in the same kotha as Surekha*, informs us, "We know we can't earn enough from sewing, tailoring and the other options that the government is providing, but we will need them at a later age. Swati has said she will provide us training as well as a market."

For more news from India Today, follow us on Twitter @indiatoday and on Facebook at facebook.com/IndiaToday
For news and videos in Hindi, go to AajTak.in. ताज़ातरीन ख़बरों और वीडियो के लिए आजतक.इन पर आएं.

8623 - Kolhapur police team sent to TN to nab fake SMS racket culprits - TNN


TNN | Aug 28, 2015, 05.47 AM IST

KOLHAPUR: The Shahupuri police have sent a team to Tamil Nadu to trace the duo allegedly involved in cheating scores of people on the pretext of promising monthly earning of around Rs 30,000. The police said the duo has cheated more than 100 people to the tune of Rs. 80 lakh. 

A complaint against the duo was registered at the Shahupuri police station on August 23. 

According to the police, a team of four cops was sent to Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh to find the culprits after the incident came to the fore. However, the police found out that the addresses they had were fake. Now, the police have come across one more address of the culprits in Tamil Nadu. 

The duo had opened an office at New Shahupuri in the city four months ago. They used to contact people offering exciting returns over investments. They told people to deposit money with them and get double amount after 15 days. A person registered with the duo after depositing Rs 5,000. The duo then gave give him a package of 5,000 SMSes and around same number of contact numbers. The person had to send the messages to these numbers within 15 days. Once the victim completed the process, he used to get Rs 10,000 from the duo. 

People were asked to send messages about online advertisements and companies engaged in online shopping. Some messages were also about discount offers that they launched 

The police had recovered a photocopy of Aadhaar card of one of the culprits, which he had submitted to the flat owner while taking his residence on rent four months ago. The address on the Aadhaar card was of a place in Andhra Pradesh. 

According to the police, the complainants stated that the scheme worked initially and people used to get double the amount they had deposited with the company within 15 days. Thereafter, the number of registration with the company increased. The scheme worked well till 15 days ago. Since then, the registered members have not received a single rupee from the duo. Besides, the company's office was also closed since Saturday. 

The police said the number of complainants was around 50 earlier, which has gone up to more than 100. According to the police, the number is likely to increase further once people realise that they have been cheated.



8622 - Form policy for availability of essentials - The Hindu

August 28, 2015

Despite the orders of the Supreme Court that Aadhaar is not mandatory, governments, both Central and State, are showing unwarranted enthusiasm and aggression in linking Aadhaar to various functional aspects like visits to prisons, Civil Supplies etc. Authorities concerned should not blindly link every scheme with Aadhaar, especially for voters’ identification considering that the SC has made it clear that it can’t be made compulsory.
I.V. Prabhakara Rao
Vanasthalipuram

8621 - Aadhaar only for foodgrains, LPG, kerosene distribution - Hindu Business Line

Aadhaar only for foodgrains, LPG, kerosene distribution
OUR BUREAU

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 27:  

Based on the Supreme Court’s interim order of August 11, the Finance Ministry has said that the Unique Identification Number (UID), or Aadhaar, should be used only for the distribution of foodgrains, kerosene and cooking gas.
It has also said that seeding of Aadhaar numbers into a database will be voluntary. As on July 31, over 89 crore Aadhaar numbers have been issued.
According to a Finance Ministry office memorandum, the apex court order was in consonance with the Justice Wadhwa Committee report that deliberated the issue of use of biometrics to curb diversion and ensure that stocks under PDS reach bona fide beneficiaries. The memo further said the Oil and Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Ministries and all the public authorities concerned in States and Union Territories take prompt action accordingly.
It may be noted that the Supreme Court, in its order, had said neither obtaining nor production of the card should be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to citizens, other than the PDS scheme and cooking fuel.
Many seeded

In another order, the Ministry said a large number of Aadhaar numbers have already been seeded. The Ministry clarified that wherever a beneficiary voluntarily gives the Aadhaar number, it may be seeded in the database. However, “the use of Aadhaar number for delivery of services/benefits will be strictly as per direction of the Supreme Court,” it added.

(This article was published on August 27, 2015

8620 - Digital surveillance 'worse than Orwell', says new UN privacy chief - The Guardian



Joseph Cannataci describes British oversight as ‘a joke’ and says a Geneva convention for the internet is needed


Joseph Cannataci, UN special rapporteur on privacy, doesn’t use Facebook or Twitter and says it is regrettable people have signed away their digital rights without thinking about it. Photograph: Adam Alexander

Adam Alexander in Valletta
Tuesday 25 August 2015 04.50 AEST
Last modified on Tuesday 25 August 2015 16.20 AEST

The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.

Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being “a joke”, and said the situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.

He added that he doesn’t use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.

One thing that is certainly going to come up in my mandate is the business model that large corporations are using
“Some people were complaining because they couldn’t find me on Facebook. They couldn’t find me on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I’ve never felt the need for it,” Cannataci, a professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.

Appointed after concern about surveillance and privacy following the Edward Snowden revelations, Cannataci agreed that his notion of a new universal law on surveillance could embarrass those who may not sign up to it. “Some people may not want to buy into it,” he acknowledged. “But you know, if one takes the attitude that some countries will not play ball, then, for example, the chemical weapons agreement would never have come about.”

Cannataci came into his new post in July after a controversial spat involving the first-choice candidate, Katrin Nyman-Metcalf, who the Germans in particular thought might not be tough enough on the Americans.

But for Cannataci – well-known for having a mind of his own – it is not America but Britain that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: “That is precisely one of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism’s a joke, and a rather bad joke at its citizens’ expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?”

He said proper oversight is the only way of progressing, and hopes more people will think about and vote for privacy in the UK. “And that is where the political process comes in,” he said, “because can you laugh off the economy and the National Health Service? Not in the UK election, if you want to survive.”

The appointment of a UN special rapporteur on privacy is seen as hugely important because it elevates the right to privacy in the digital age to that of other human rights. As the first person in the job, the investigator will be able to set the standard for the digital right to privacy, deciding how far to push governments that want to conduct surveillance for security reasons, and corporations who mine us for our personal data.
Cannataci’s mandate is extensive. He is empowered to:
  • Systematically review government policies and laws on interception of digital communications and collection of personal data.
  • Identify actions that intrude on privacy without compelling justification. 
  • Assist governments in developing best practices to bring global surveillance under the rule of law. 
  • Further articulate private sector responsibilities to respect human rights.
  • Help ensure national procedures and laws are consistent with international human rights obligations.
Although Cannataci admits his job is a complex one that is not going to be solved with a magic bullet, he says he is far from starting from scratch and believes there are at least four main areas – including a universal law on surveillance, tackling the business models of the big tech corporations, defining privacy and raising awareness among the public. 
Advertisement


“I would say it’s impossible to achieve in three years. And it’s probably impossible to achieve even if the mandate is renewed to six years, if you’re trying to do too much. But I do think that – at least my view of things in a field like human rights – is the longer term view, right? The impact must be felt in the long term.”

However, Cannataci says we are dealing with a world even worse that anything Orwell could have foreseen. “It’s worse,” he said. “Because if you look at CCTV alone, at least Winston [Winston Smith in Orwell’s novel 1984] was able to go out in the countryside and go under a tree and expect there wouldn’t be any screen, as it was called. Whereas today there are many parts of the English countryside where there are more cameras than George Orwell could ever have imagined. So the situation in some cases is far worse already.

“The way we handle it is going to be the difference. But Orwell foresaw a technology that was controlling. In our case we are looking at a technology that is ever-developing, and ever-developing possibly more sinister capabilities.” Because of this, the Snowden revelations were very important, he said.

“They were very important. Snowden will continue to be looked upon as a traitor by some and a hero by others. But in actual fact his revelations confirmed to many of us who have been working in this field for a long time what has been going on, and the extent to which it has gone out of control.”

Cannataci, who works between his offices in Malta and the Netherlands, has set his sights on challenging the business model of companies that are “very often taking the data that you never even knew they were taking”. “This is one thing that is certainly going to come up in my mandate, which is the business model that large corporations are using,” he said.

“We have a number of corporations that have set up a business model that is bringing in hundreds of thousands of millions of euros and dollars every year and they didn’t ask anybody’s permission. They didn’t go out and say: ‘Oh, we’d like to have a licensing law.’ No, they just went out and created a model where people’s data has become the new currency. And unfortunately, the vast bulk of people sign their rights away without knowing or thinking too much about it,” he said. 
  • This article has been amended to correct an error introduced in editing.

8619 - Full text: Leading US academics urge Silicon Valley to be cautious in dealing with Modi government - Scroll .In


Digital India initiative ignores key questions about the collection of personal information and the near-certainty that such systems will be used to enhance surveillance, says statement.

Scroll Staff  · Yesterday · 09:00 am


With Prime Minister Narendra Modi due to visit Silicon Valley to promote his Digital India initiative late in September, leading South Asian experts at US universities on Thursday issued a statement urging information firms to be cautious of doing business with a government that has "on several occasions already, demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions".

The signatories include Columbia University's Akeel Bilgrami, Stanford University's Thomas Blom Hansen and the University of Chicago's Wendy Doniger.

Here is the full text of their statement.

As faculty who engage South Asia in our research and teaching, we write to express our concerns about the uncritical fanfare being generated over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley to promote 'Digital India' on September 27, 2015.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley highlights the role of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, and builds on this legacy in extending American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However Indian entrepreneurial success also brings with it key responsibilities and obligations with regard to the forms of e-governance envisioned by 'Digital India'.

We are concerned that the project’s potential for increased transparency in bureaucratic dealings with people is threatened by its lack of safeguards about privacy of information, and thus its potential for abuse. As it stands, 'Digital India' seems to ignore key questions raised in India by critics concerned about the collection of personal information and the near certainty that such digital systems will be used to enhance surveillance and repress the constitutionally-protected rights of citizens. These issues are being discussed energetically in public in India and abroad. Those who live and work in Silicon Valley have a particular responsibility to demand that the government of India factor these critical concerns into its planning for digital futures.

We acknowledge that Narendra Modi, as Prime Minister of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, has the right to visit the United States, and to seek American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However, as educators who pay particular attention to history, we remind Mr. Modi’s audiences of the powerful reasons for him being denied the right to enter the U.S. from 2005-2014, for there is still an active case in Indian courts that questions his role in the Gujarat violence of 2002 when 1,000 died. Modi’s first year in office as the Prime Minister of India includes well-publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary.

Under Mr Modi’s tenure as Prime Minister, academic freedom is also at risk: foreign scholars have been denied entry to India to attend international conferences, there has been interference with the governance of top Indian universities and academic institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Indian Institutes of Technology and Nalanda University; as well as underqualified or incompetent key appointments made to the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Film and Television Institute of India, and the National Book Trust. A proposed bill to bring the Indian Institutes of Management under direct control of government is also worrisome. These alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country.

We urge those who lead Silicon Valley technology enterprises to be mindful of not violating their own codes of corporate responsibility when conducting business with a government which has, on several occasions already, demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions.

Meena Alexander, Distinguished Professor of English, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York

Arjun Appadurai, Paulette Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University

Anjali Arondekar, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, UC Santa Cruz

Fredrick Asher, Professor of Art History and South Asian Studies, University of Minnesota

Paola Bacchetta, Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies University of California, Berkeley

Sarada Balagopalan, Associate Professor of Childhood Studies, Rutgers University, Camden

Radhika Balakrishnan, Prof of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University

Shahzad Bashir, Professor of Religious Studies, Stanford University

Manu Bhagavan, Professor of History and Human Rights, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York

Mona Bhan Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology DePauw University

Srimati Basu, Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky

Prashant Bharadwaj, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego

Nilanjana Bhattacharjya, Faculty Fellow, Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University

Nandini Bhattacharya, Professor of English, Texas A &M University, College- Station

Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History, Purdue University

Amit R. Baishya, Assistant Professor of English, University of Oklahoma

Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy and Director, South Asian Institute, Columbia University

Purnima Bose, Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University-Bloomington

Christopher Candland, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College

Paula Chakravartty, Associate Professor, Gallatin School, & Department of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University

Shefali Chandra, Associate Professor of South Asian History Washington University, St. Louis

S. Charusheela, Associate Professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell

Partha Chatterjee, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Columbia University

Indrani Chatterjee Professor of History and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Swati Chattopadhyay Professor History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara

Marty Chen, School of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and Affiliated Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Design

Rohit Chopra, Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University

Elora Chowdhury Associate Professor & Chair, Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Massachusetts, Boston

E. Valentine Daniel, Professor of Anthropology, Colombia University

Monisha Das Gupta, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa

Jigna Desai, Professor of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University of Minnesota

Pawan Dhingra, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University

Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

Bishnupriya Ghosh, Professor of English University of California, Santa Barbara

Huma Ahmed-Ghosh, Professor and Chair of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University

Durba Ghosh, Associate Professor of History, Cornell University

Sumanth Gopinath, Associate Professor of Music Theory, School of Music, University of Minnesota

Nitin Govil, Associate Professor of Cinema & Media Studies, University of Southern California

Paul Greenough, Professor of History and Community and Behavioral Health and Director, South Asian Studies Program, University of Iowa

Inderpal Grewal, Professor of South Asian Studies, Yale University

Sumit Guha, Frances Higginbotham Nalle Centennial Professor of History, University of Texas, Austin

Thomas Blom Hansen, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for South Asia, Stanford University

Syed Akbar Hyder, Associate Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Nalini Iyer, Professor of English, Seattle University

Priya Jaikumar, Associate Professor of Cinema and Media Studies, University of Southern California

Pranav Jani, Associate Professor of English, Ohio State University

Sheila Jasanoff, Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Arun W. Jones, Associate Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University

May Joseph, Professor of Social Science, Pratt Institute

Priya Joshi, Associate Professor of English and Associate Director, Center for the Humanities, Temple University

Sampath Kannan, Henry Salvatore Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania

Suvir Kaul, A.M. Rosenthal Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania Waqas Khwaja, Professor of English, Agnes Scott College

Naveeda Khan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University

Nyla Ali Khan, Visiting Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman

Satish Kolluri, Associate Professor of Communications, Pace University

Ruby Lal, Professor of Middle East and South Asian Studies, Emory University

Sarah Lamb, Professor of Anthropology and Head of the Division of Social Sciences, Brandeis University; Co-Chair of South Asian Studies

Karen Leonard, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of California, Irvine

David Lelyveld, Professor of History, Emeritus, William Paterson University

Jinee Lokaneeta, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Drew University

Ania Loomba, Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania

David Ludden, Professor of History, New York University

Ritty Lukose, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and South Asian Studies, the Gallatin School, New York University

Sudhir Mahadevan Assistant Professor of Film Studies, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of Washington, Seattle

Tayyab Mahmud, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Global Justice Seattle University School of Law

Sunaina Maira, Professor of Asian American Studies, University of California, Davis

Bakirathi Mani, Associate Professor of English Literature, Swarthmore College

Rebecca J. Manring, Associate Professor of India Studies and Religious Studies Indiana University-Bloomington

Monika Mehta, Associate Professor, Department of English, Binghamton University

Jisha Menon, Assistant Professor of Theatre and Performance Studies, Stanford University

Kalyani Devaki Menon, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University

Sally Engle Merry, Silver Professor of Anthropology, New York University

Raza Mir, Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson University

Deepti Misri, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies University of Colorado, Boulder

Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Chair and Distinguished Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies, and Dean’s Professor of Humanities, Syracuse University

Satya P. Mohanty, Professor of English, Cornell University

Megan Moodie, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz

Projit B. Mukharji, Martin Meyerson Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Studies, History & Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania

Madhavi Murty, Assistant Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz

Vijaya Nagarajan, Associate Professor of Theology & Religious Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, University of San Francisco

Gyanendra Pandey, Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of History, Emory University

Carla Petievich, Visiting Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Sheldon Pollock, Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University Kavita Philip, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

Vijay Prashad, George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History, Trinity College

Jasbir K. Puar, Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University

Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Professor of Law and Development, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

R. Radhakrishnan, Chancellor’s Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of California, Irvine

Gloria Raheja, Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota

Junaid Rana, Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Anupama Rao, Professor of Anthropology, Barnard College

Velcheru Narayana Rao, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University

Kasturi Ray, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies/Co-Director, South Asian Studies, San Francisco State University

M.V. Ramana, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Sumathi Ramaswamy, Professor of History, Duke University

Chandan Reddy, Associate Professor of English, University of Washington, Seattle

Gayatri Reddy, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago

Parama Roy, Professor of English, University of California, Davis

Sharmila Rudrappa, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin

G.S. Sahota, Assistant Professor of Literature, University of California, Santa Cruz

Yasmin Saikia, Hardt-Nickachos Chair in Peace Studies & Professor of History, Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, Arizona State University

Arun Saldanha, Associate Professor of Geography, Environment and Society University of Minnesota

Juned Shaikh, Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Santa Cruz

Nitasha Tamar Sharma, Charles Deering McCormick Professor of Teaching Excellence and Associate Professor of African American Studies and Asian American Studies, Northwestern University

Elora Shehabuddin, Associate Professor of Humanities and Political Science, Rice University

Bhaskar Sarkar, Associate Professor of Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

Priya Satia, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University

Aradhana Sharma, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Wesleyan University

Snehal Shinghavi, Associate Professor of English and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Ajay Skaria, Professor of History, University of Minnesota

Shalini Shankar, Chair and Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, Northwestern University

S. Shankar, Professor of English, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Amritjit Singh, Langston Hughes Professor of English, Ohio University

Mytheli Sreenivas, Associate Professor of History and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Ohio State University

Rajini Srikanth, Professor, English, University of Massachusetts Boston Nidhi Srinivas, Associate Professor of Nonprofit Management, The New School

Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Harvard University

Banu Subramaniam, Professor, Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago

Raja Swamy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee Tariq Thachil, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University

Ashwini Tambe, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Maryland, College-Park

Vamsi Vakulabharanam, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Jyotnsa Vaid, Professor of Psychology, Texas A&M University

Sylvia Vatuk, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of Illinois, Chicago

Kamala Visweswaran, Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego

Kalindi Vora, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego

Bonnie Zare, Professor of Gender & Women’s Studies, University of Wyoming

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in


8618 - Faculty Statement on Narendra Modi Visit to Silicon Valley


As faculty who engage South Asia in our research and teaching, we write to express our concerns about the uncritical fanfare being generated over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley to promote “Digital India” on September 27, 2015.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley highlights the role of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, and builds on this legacy in extending American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However Indian entrepreneurial success also brings with it key responsibilities and obligations with regard to the forms of e-governance envisioned by “Digital India.”

We are concerned that the project’s potential for increased transparency in bureaucratic dealings with people is threatened by its lack of safeguards about privacy of information, and thus its potential for abuse. As it stands, “Digital India” seems to ignore key questions raised in India by critics concerned about the collection of personal information and the near certainty that such digital systems will be used to enhance surveillance and repress the constitutionally- protected rights of citizens. 

These issues are being discussed energetically in public in India and abroad. Those who live and work in Silicon Valley have a particular responsibility to demand that the government of India factor these critical concerns into its planning for digital futures.

We acknowledge that Narendra Modi, as Prime Minister of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, has the right to visit the United States, and to seek American business collaboration and partnerships with India. 

However, as educators who pay particular attention to history, we remind Mr. Modi’s audiences of the powerful reasons for him being denied the right to enter the U.S. from 2005-2014, for there is still an active case in Indian courts that questions his role in the Gujarat violence of 2002 when 1,000 died. 

Modi’s first year in office as the Prime Minister of India includes well publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary. 

Under Mr. Modi’s tenure as Prime Minister, academic freedom is also at risk: foreign scholars have been denied entry to India to attend international conferences, there has been interference with the governance of top Indian universities and academic institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Indian Institutes of Technology and Nalanda University; as well as underqualified or incompetent key appointments made to the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Film and Television Institute of India, and the National Book Trust. 

A proposed bill to bring the Indian Institutes of Management under direct control of government is also worrisome. These alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country.

We urge those who lead Silicon Valley technology enterprises to be mindful of not violating their own codes of corporate responsibility when conducting business with a government which has, on several occasions already, demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions.

Signed,

Meena Alexander, Distinguished Professor of English, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York

Arjun Appadurai, Paulette Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University

Anjali Arondekar, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, UC Santa Cruz

Fredrick Asher, Professor of Art History and South Asian Studies, University of Minnesota

Paola Bacchetta, Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies University of California, Berkeley

Sarada Balagopalan, Associate Professor of Childhood Studies, Rutgers University, Camden

Radhika Balakrishnan, Prof of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University

Shahzad Bashir, Professor of Religious Studies, Stanford University

Manu Bhagavan, Professor of History and Human Rights, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York

Mona Bhan Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology DePauw University

Srimati Basu, Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky

Prashant Bharadwaj, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego

Nilanjana Bhattacharjya, Faculty Fellow, Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University

Nandini Bhattacharya, Professor of English, Texas A &M University, College- Station

Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History, Purdue University

Amit R. Baishya, Assistant Professor of English, University of Oklahoma

Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy and Director, South Asian Institute, Columbia University

Purnima Bose, Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University-Bloomington

Christopher Candland, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College

Paula Chakravartty, Associate Professor, Gallatin School, & Department of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University

Shefali Chandra, Associate Professor of South Asian History Washington University, St. Louis

S. Charusheela, Associate Professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell

Partha Chatterjee, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Columbia University

Indrani Chatterjee Professor of History and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Swati Chattopadhyay Professor History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara

Marty Chen, School of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and Affiliated Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Design

Rohit Chopra, Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University

Elora Chowdhury Associate Professor & Chair, Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Massachusetts, Boston
E. Valentine Daniel, Professor of Anthropology, Colombia University

Monisha Das Gupta, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa

Jigna Desai, Professor of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University of Minnesota

Pawan Dhingra, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University
Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

Bishnupriya Ghosh, Professor of English University of California, Santa Barbara

Huma Ahmed-Ghosh, Professor and Chair of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University

Durba Ghosh, Associate Professor of History, Cornell University

Sumanth Gopinath, Associate Professor of Music Theory, School of Music, University of Minnesota

Nitin Govil, Associate Professor of Cinema & Media Studies, University of Southern California

Paul Greenough, Professor of History and Community and Behavioral Health and Director, South Asian Studies Program, University of Iowa

Inderpal Grewal, Professor of South Asian Studies, Yale University

Sumit Guha, Frances Higginbotham Nalle Centennial Professor of History, University of Texas, Austin

Thomas Blom Hansen, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for South Asia, Stanford University

Syed Akbar Hyder, Associate Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Nalini Iyer, Professor of English, Seattle University
Priya Jaikumar, Associate Professor of Cinema and Media Studies, University of Southern California

Pranav Jani, Associate Professor of English, Ohio State University

Sheila Jasanoff, Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Arun W. Jones, Associate Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University

May Joseph, Professor of Social Science, Pratt Institute

Priya Joshi, Associate Professor of English and Associate Director, Center for the Humanities, Temple University

Sampath Kannan, Henry Salvatore Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania

Suvir Kaul, A.M. Rosenthal Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania Waqas Khwaja, Professor of English, Agnes Scott College

Naveeda Khan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University

Nyla Ali Khan, Visiting Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman

Satish Kolluri, Associate Professor of Communications, Pace University

Ruby Lal, Professor of Middle East and South Asian Studies, Emory University

Sarah Lamb, Professor of Anthropology and Head of the Division of Social Sciences, Brandeis University; Co-Chair of South Asian Studies

Karen Leonard, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of California, Irvine

David Lelyveld, Professor of History, Emeritus, William Paterson University

Jinee Lokaneeta, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Drew University

Ania Loomba, Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania

David Ludden, Professor of History, New York University

Ritty Lukose, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and South Asian Studies, the Gallatin School, New York University

Sudhir Mahadevan Assistant Professor of Film Studies, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of Washington, Seattle

Tayyab Mahmud, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Global Justice Seattle University School of Law
Sunaina Maira, Professor of Asian American Studies, University of California, Davis

Bakirathi Mani, Associate Professor of English Literature, Swarthmore College

Rebecca J. Manring, Associate Professor of India Studies and Religious Studies Indiana University-Bloomington

Monika Mehta, Associate Professor, Department of English, Binghamton University

Jisha Menon, Assistant Professor of Theatre and Performance Studies, Stanford University

Kalyani Devaki Menon, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University

Sally Engle Merry, Silver Professor of Anthropology, New York University

Raza Mir, Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson University

Deepti Misri, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies University of Colorado, Boulder

Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Chair and Distinguished Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies, and Dean’s Professor of Humanities, Syracuse University

Satya P. Mohanty, Professor of English, Cornell University
Megan Moodie, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz

Projit B. Mukharji, Martin Meyerson Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Studies, History & Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania

Madhavi Murty, Assistant Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz

Vijaya Nagarajan, Associate Professor of Theology & Religious Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, University of San Francisco

Gyanendra Pandey, Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of History, Emory University

Carla Petievich, Visiting Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Sheldon Pollock, Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University Kavita Philip, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

Vijay Prashad, George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History, Trinity College

Jasbir K. Puar, Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University

Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Professor of Law and Development, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

R. Radhakrishnan, Chancellor’s Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of California, Irvine
Gloria Raheja, Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota

Junaid Rana, Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Anupama Rao, Professor of Anthropology, Barnard College

Velcheru Narayana Rao, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University

Kasturi Ray, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies/Co-Director, South Asian Studies, San Francisco State University

M.V. Ramana, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Sumathi Ramaswamy, Professor of History, Duke University

Chandan Reddy, Associate Professor of English, University of Washington, Seattle

Gayatri Reddy, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago

Parama Roy, Professor of English, University of California, Davis
Sharmila Rudrappa, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin

G.S. Sahota, Assistant Professor of Literature, University of California, Santa Cruz

Yasmin Saikia, Hardt-Nickachos Chair in Peace Studies & Professor of History, Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, Arizona State University

Arun Saldanha, Associate Professor of Geography, Environment and Society University of Minnesota

Juned Shaikh, Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Santa Cruz

Nitasha Tamar Sharma, Charles Deering McCormick Professor of Teaching Excellence and Associate Professor of African American Studies and Asian American Studies, Northwestern University

Elora Shehabuddin, Associate Professor of Humanities and Political Science, Rice University

Bhaskar Sarkar, Associate Professor of Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

Priya Satia, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University

Aradhana Sharma, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Wesleyan University

Snehal Shinghavi, Associate Professor of English and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin

Ajay Skaria, Professor of History, University of Minnesota

Shalini Shankar, Chair and Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, Northwestern University

S. Shankar, Professor of English, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa 

Amritjit Singh, Langston Hughes Professor of English, Ohio University

Mytheli Sreenivas, Associate Professor of History and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Ohio State University

Rajini Srikanth, Professor, English, University of Massachusetts Boston Nidhi Srinivas, Associate Professor of Nonprofit Management, The New School

Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Harvard University

Banu Subramaniam, Professor, Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago

Raja Swamy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee Tariq Thachil, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University

Ashwini Tambe, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Maryland, College-Park

Vamsi Vakulabharanam, Associate
Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Jyotnsa Vaid, Professor of Psychology, Texas A&M University

Sylvia Vatuk, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of Illinois, Chicago

Kamala Visweswaran, Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego

Kalindi Vora, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego

Bonnie Zare, Professor of Gender & Women’s Studies, University of Wyoming


“Narendra Modi address on 24 April 2014 (2)” by Narendra Modi – Shri Narendra Modi addressed rallies in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia 

Commons – 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narendra_Modi_address_on_24_April_2014_(2).jpg#/media/File:Narendra_Modi_address_on_24_April_2014_(2).jpg