PRESS STATEMENT
National Security linked to Citizens Privacy, PAID NEWS responsible for
survival of illegal Biometric Aadhaar so far
MoUs of UIDAI superior
to Courts, Law and Constitution
Left Parties voiced
their concern but no united action so far
Review of 2015: Year of Lawlessness & Assault on Civil
Rights
Countries where rule
of law prevails, MoUs are subservient to law of the land. The implementation of Biometric Aadhaar underlines
that MoUs signed with Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) are superior to Supreme Court’s
orders, law and Constitution in India.
January –Fourth
Anniversary of the letter of Justice M. Rama Jois, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
addressed a letter to the Prime Minister in regard to the constitutional
impropriety of issuing Aadhaar Numbers by UIDAI even when the National
Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was pending before the Parliament
dated 19th January, 2011. But surprisingly, to the said letter, he
received a reply dated January 29, 2011 simply stating that the Prime Minister
has received his letter without replying to the points raised in his letter.
In blatant contempt of Parliament’s right, Supreme Court’s judicial
process, citizens’ rights, national
security concerns and existing laws, Indian Government’s Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) continued its collection of personal sensitive
information like Fingerprints and Iris Scans of all residents of India along
with other information for biometric Unique identity (UID)/Aadhaar Number under
the influence of World Bank’s eTransform Initiative, US Department of Defense,
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Accenture, Safran Group and Ernst
& Young.
February – A section of media remained
wedded to Paid News in myriad disguises continued to hide the fact that
fundamentally unique identity (UID)/aadhaar is not a proof of identity, it is
an identifier contained in the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of
UID/aadhaar numbers. Aadhaar is simply the brand name of UID Number. These
publications and news channels ignored what is admitted in central government’s
Paper on Privacy Bill. This paper states, “Data privacy and the need to protect
personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a
decentralized manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless
outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage.
However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID
Project. One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the
UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the
government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common
thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise
could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the
delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer.” This paper
prophetically infers that “Once this happens, the separation of data that
currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat
to the identity of citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private
persons will be forever abandoned.
March-
Third
Anniversary of
Socialist
Unity Centre of India (SUCI)-Communist Party’s submission of
3.57 crore
signatures against Aadhaar/UID and other issues to the Prime Minister.
SUCI (C) had submitted these signatures on 14th March, 2012 on the 129th
death anniversary of Karl Marx.
In an answer to a question raised on “Legal Framework and
Parliamentary Scrutiny Over Intelligence Agencies” by Dr Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament and Chairman,
Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs in the Lok Sabha which was
answered on 10th March, 2015, the minister’s reply revealed the plot
regarding the nature of work UIDAI and its Biometric Aadhaar is doing. The
question was: Will
the Minister of Home Affairs be pleased to state:-(a) Whether the absence of a
legal framework to govern the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) has prompted
the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other banks of the country to refuse
NATGRID an access to the database of its customers. He asked whether the
Government has any proposal to extend parliamentary scrutiny over intelligence
agencies of the country such as NATGRID, Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research and
Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
Haribhai Parathibhai
Chaudhary, the Minister of State for Home Affairs replied “There is no
information on the reported refusal of the RBI and other banks to provide
NATGRID an access to their database. As per Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)
mandate, the information/ data relating to Financial Sector has to be obtained
by NATGRID through Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). A nodal officer has
already been appointed by FIU to have interaction with NATGRID. The issue of accountability of Intelligence
Agencies like IB and RAW, and oversight mechanism including by a Parliamentary
Committee is the subject matter of a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in which the Government has taken a view that the existing oversight structure
is adequate. The matter is sub-judice at present. The NATGRID and Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) have not been declared as
Intelligence Agencies.” It is apparent that there is an implicit admission
about the role UIDAI and NATGRID play without formal declaration.
One
year of resignation Nandan Nilekani as UIDAI chairman. Nilekani had submitted
his resignation letter to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, three days after
formally joining Indian National Congress to contest Lok Sabha polls. Nilekani
joined Congress, a day after the party named him as its candidate from
Bangalore South. "Yes, I have resigned today," Nilekani told PTI on
13th March, 2014. Nilekani contested against five-time BJP MP Ananth
Kumar. In violation of Model Code of Conduct that was in force during the
elections, Nilekani advertised himself at the cost of public money.
One
year of Dr Vijay Shanakar Madan assuming the charge of chairmanship of UIDAI.
He had assumed charge on March 27th, 2014 after Nilekani’s
resignation.
April- First
Anniversary of Narendra Modi’s tweet saying, "On Aadhaar, neither the Team
that I met nor PM could answer my Qs (questions) on security threat it can
pose. There is no vision, only political gimmick" on 8th April, 2014 in
the aftermath of orders of Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court,
concerns raised by National Human Rights Commission.
In its central organ, Liberation,
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation [CPIML] carried an
article in its April 2011 issue titled ‘What's the 'Aadhaar' of the UID Scheme?’
concluded, “The UID(/aadhaar) scheme is a blatant attempt to convert a resident
into a number, the Indian population into a global market and then citizens
into subjects.”
In an editorial titled ‘Policy Watch: UID
Aadhaar Under Cloud’, Liberation argued, “Instead of spending thousands
of crores on doubtful technology and UID, the Government should spend on
expanding and universalising the social security net, so that the poor do not
have to keep proving their poverty credentials in order to access what is their
right” in January 2012 taking note of the report of the parliamentary standing
committee on finance on Aadhaar Bill. Its July 2013 issue recalled how
CIA-backed US corporations are involved in the UID/Aadhaar project and its
editorial reads, “We in India must demand that the Indian
Government protest against the violation of the sovereignty of India and the
privacy of its citizens by the USA, and put a moratorium on its own digital
spying and data-gathering plans….”
The Second Anniversary of four
page analysis of Proletarian Era, the central organ of Socialist Unity Centre of India
(SUCI)-Communist party denouncing the Unique Identity (UID)/Aadhaar
scheme as ‘subversion of democracy’. It had taken
note of the severe indictment of the UIDAI by the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Finance in its report placed before Parliament on December 13,
2011. According to the report, the UID/Aadhaar project has been conceptualized
“with no clarity of purpose” and “directionless” in its implementation, leading
to “a lot of confusion”. The Standing Committee also observed that while
framing of relevant law is under way, the continuance of the project is
“unethical and violation of Parliament’s prerogatives”. The collection of
biometric and personal data and issuing of UID numbers do not have any
statutory sanction until the Bill is passed by Parliament. The journal endorses
Parliamentary Standing Committee’s
report saying, “There is every merit in this observation.” The April 2013 issue
of Proletarian Era raised pertinent questions debunking the need for
UID/Aadhaar. The
party holds that “In the absence of a Constitutional provision or legal
framework, all the actions of the UIDAI are technically unconstitutional and
illegal.” This was a follow up of their submission of 3.57 crore
signatures against Aadhaar/UID to the Prime Minister.
It
came to light as per a RTI reply of April 2015 that out of 83.5 crore aadhaar
numbers issued so far, only 2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 % comprised of them who did not
have a pre-existing ID proof. It shows how Indians were taken for a ride. It
must be recalled that Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister had distributed
Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar numbers among the villagers of Tembhali
village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on 29th September 2010. It was
claimed, “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties in identification, by
providing a nationally valid and verifiable single source of identity proof.
The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of
biometric attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the
number”. This shows that the claim in the Supreme Court on 29th September that
“poor and those who had no other form of identity” are targets for aadhaar was/is
wrong.
National
Human Rights Commission in its submission to the parliamentary committee stated
that the legitimate rights of the beneficiary citizens can get excluded.
Second Anniversary of
article titled My Call
Detail Records and A Citizen’s Right to Privacy by Arun
Jaitley as Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha. It must be recalled that
referring to the incident of surveillance of his mobile phones, in an article
published in Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu & English (Source: http://www.bjp.org),
he wrote, “Firstly, every citizen in India has a right to privacy.
His right to privacy is an inherent aspect of his personal liberty.
Interference in the right to privacy is an interference in his personal liberty
by a process which is not fair, just or reasonable. A person’s Call Detail
Records can throw up details of several transactions. In the case of an average
citizen it can reflect on his relationships. In the case of a professional or a
business person it can reflect on his financial transactions. In the case of a
journalist it can reveal the identity of his sources. In the case of a
politician it can reveal the identity of the person with whom he has regular
access. Every person has ‘a right to be left alone’.”
Jaitley added, “In a liberal society
there is no place for those who peep into the private affairs of individuals.
No one has a right to know who another communicates with him. The nature of
communication, the identity of persons being communicated with and frequency of
communications would be a serious breach of privacy….This incident
throws up another legitimate fear. We are now entering the era of the Adhaar
number. The Government has recently made the existence of the Adhaar number as
a condition precedent for undertaking several activities; from registering
marriages to execution of property documents. Will those who encroach upon the
affairs of others be able to get access to bank accounts and other important
details by breaking into the system? If this ever becomes possible the
consequences would be far messier.”
Revealing how power clouds human intelligence, Jaitley and
his ministerial colleagues do not comprehend messier consequences of breach of
privacy anymore. He wrote the article on April 17, 2013. It is available on BJP’s
website demonstrating the gulf between what is preached and what is practiced.
May –First
Anniversary of Narendra Modi’s U turn on 12 digit biometric aadhaar number
which admittedly poses threat to national security after 21st May, 2014 when
BJP led coalition became the ruling party at the centre. Considerations other
than truth have given birth to Modi government’s faith in biometric aadhaar.
The issuance of aadhaar numbers to large number of residents of India does not
make it a program in national interest.
E.A.S.
Sarma, former Secretary to Government of India wrote to the Prime Minister
saying, “It is bizarre that the government should first collect personal
information from unsuspecting citizens as a trustee and then surreptitiously
pass on the ownership of such information to a private agency, guided more by
the profit motive than the public interest. It is equally bizarre that the
government should demote its own role to that of a customer of the private
company in seeking access to the information base. All this amounts to a gross
breach of the trust reposed by the citizens in the government. The proposal
becomes all the more dubious in view of the monopolistic status sought to be
given to the private agency 'owning' the citizens' information in its hands. I
feel that the proposal is an ominous one as it would involve an outright
handing over of the citizens' private information to a few private agencies
whose motives could never be gauged and who have no accountability to the
legislature. It is a proposal that should be rejected forthwith without any
hesitation.” He concluded saying, “I get the uncomfortable feeling that it
forms part of a more dubious scheme being contemplated by your
government."
June-
Fourth Anniversary of the submission of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
to Yahswant Sinha headed Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on ―The
National Identification Authority of India (NIAI) Bill, 2010 on 29th June, 2011.
The major issues discussed during the sitting broadly related to nature,
objective and beneficiaries of aadhaar number; possible discrimination and
specific provisions that are required to be built in; safeguards needed for
securing the stored information by the proposed National Identification
Authority of India; implications of the provisions of the Bill on the
individual‘s right to privacy, etc. On being asked to comment on the
implications of the provisions of the Bill on the individual‘s right to
privacy, NHRC inter alia informed the Committee in their post-evidence
reply as follows:- “….the right of privacy presupposes that such information
relating to an individual which he would not like to share with others will not
be disclosed. It may be mentioned that the right of privacy is not an absolute
right……”
In the matter of
National Identification Authority of India (NIAI) Bill, 2010, “NHRC’s views on
the NIAI Bill, 2010″ in the Human Rights
Newsletter (Vol. 18 No.8, August 2011) reveals that UID/Aadhaar Number has
dangerous ramifications. NHRC argued for
“need for protection of information” and “the possibility of tampering with
stored biometric information” in paragraph 5 (page no. 7 of the NHRC
newsletter) and “disclosure of information in the interest of national
security” mentioned in paragraph 9 (page no.8 of the newsletter).
July- Sixth Anniversary
of meeting between A Raja, Union Minister for Communication and Information
Technology and Nandan Nilekani. They had interacted on 22nd July,
2009.
Ref: http://photodivision.gov.in/IntroPhotodetails.asp?thisPage=342
Raja’s ministry was the focal point for UIDAI and UID/Aadhaar.
This ministry has regained the mandate to look after UIDAI in the current BJP
led government.A Raja was the minister from 18th May, 2007-31st
May, 2009. Raja is an accused in the 2 G spectrum scam who "wanted to
favour some companies at the cost of the public exchequer" and
"virtually gifted away important national asset(s).”
First Anniversary of
the meeting between Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister and Arun Jaitley, the
Defence, Finance and Corporate Affairs Minister and Nandan Nilekani, an electorally defeated Congressman and
former head of UIDAI. Following their meeting on 1st
July, 2014, the new government announced that aadhaar enrolment should cover
100 crore Indian residents by the end of 2015. Prior to the election and post
election, Nilekani campaigned and promoted aadhaar using every marketing trick
in the book amidst bitter criticism from the civil society groups, opposition
parties including BJP, multi party parliamentary standing committee on finance
and the judiciary.
Planning Commission appears to have been used to pilot it
only to give Biometric Aadhaar an innocent garb and to mouth unconvincing
claims about benefits of biometric identification in delivery of social welfare
schemes. Wittingly or unwittingly, the merger of these schemes with biometric
identification have done to use the former as a fish bait at the behest of Big
Data companies. Such moves must be seen in conjunction with creation of
National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) with National Intelligence Grid
(NATGRID). The reports of FICCI and ASSOCHAM underline it. These measures
reveal that government is increasingly fearful of the people.
One year of presentation by Dr Vijay Shankar Madan, the
Acting Chairman, UIDAI before Prime Minister on July 5, 2014.
August- New Indian Express
wrote an editorial titled End of Privacy is Death Knell for Indian Democracy
5th August, 2015. Election
Commission of India (ECI) issued an order dated 13th August, 2015 withdrawing
from linking of biometric aadhaar with Voter Identity card exposes his
misleading claims. ECI’s order demonstrates that Aadhaar is not all critical
for a welfare state based on democratic elections. ECI’s compliance with
Supreme Court’s verdict in letter and spirit is an affirmation of individual
choice of the voters which gives meaning to democracy unlike illegitimate and
legally questionable UIDAI. The order of ECI demonstrated that UIDAI’s
contention and government’s efforts to link its services to aadhaar is
flawed.
Supreme Court’s
interim order dated 11th August, 2015 in the matter of 12 digit biometric
unique identity (UID)/aadhaar number was
issued 11 days ahead of 109th Anniversary of the
publication of the South African colonial government’s draft Asiatic Law
Amendment Ordinance which made Mahatma Gandhi to launch his first SATYAGRHA
because it required all Asians including Indians in the Transvaal region of
South Africa, eight years and above, to report to the Registrar of Asiatics and
obtain, upon the submission of a complete set of fingerprints, a certificate
which would then have to be produced upon demand. The move proposed stiff
penalties, including deportation, for Indians who failed to comply with the
terms of the Ordinance. The Ordinance was issued on 22nd August, 1906. Knowing
the impact of the Ordinance and effective criminalisation of the entire
community, Mahatma Gandhi then decided to challenge it. Calling the Ordinance a
'Black Act' he mobilised around 3,000 Indians in Johannesburg who took an oath
not to submit to a degrading and discriminatory piece of legislation. Biometric
aadhaar case demonstrates how 'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat
it'.
Referring to Supreme
Court’s interim order dated 11th August, 2015 in the matter of 12 digit
biometric unique identity (UID)/aadhaar number as “travesty”, Economic and
Political Weekly (EPW), one of the most globally reputed academic journals published
since 1949 has written a pithy and noteworthy editorial in its recent issue
saying, "The biggest failing of the Court’s interim order however is its
own unenforceability. The only recourse that a citizen has against a government
agency violating the Supreme Court’s order is to approach the Supreme Court
itself in Delhi with a contempt petition, and hope for relief. This is simply
out of the question for all but a negligible proportion of the country’s
population. The likely effect will be that the use of the Aadhaar number,
uncontrolled by law and carried on with reckless disregard for privacy
concerns, will be expanded slowly but surely in defiance of the Court’s
order."
Its editorial titled
“A Legal Vacuum” is available at http://www.epw.in/editorials/legal-vacuum.html
Coincidentally, this
order of the Court came ahead of Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech of
2015 wherein he claimed, “we have introduced LPG subsidy with direct benefit
scheme in which jan dhan yojna and aadhar scheme was used and black marketing,
intermediators etc were chucked out of the system. And thus approx 15,000 cr
money was saved through this scheme” appears to be pregnant with far reaching
implications for judiciary, executive, legislature and citizens. Such claims of
savings due to Biometric Aadhaar are bogus given the fact that total estimated
cost of the entire Aadhaar project has not been disclosed so far. The EPW editorial unequivocally states, “The
Supreme Court has failed to protect citizens from government illegality on
Aadhaar.” editorial of Economic and Political
Weekly (EPW) that underlines colossal failure of Supreme Court in protecting
citizens from biometric aadhaar surveillance. The editorial refers to Supreme
Court’s order on Privacy as “travesty”, a farce, sham, charade, caricature,
parody & mockery.
Citizens’ opposition to UID/aadhaar has a historical context. It is linked
to more than a century old world famous 'Satyagraha' of Mahatma Gandhi in order
to oppose the identification scheme of the government in South Africa.
Biometric profiling is inherently dangerous because it tracks individuals based
on their religious, behavioural and/or biological traits. History is replete
with examples wherein such profiling has been used for genocide, holocaust and
violence against all kinds of minorities.
September- On September 15, 2015, Nandan
Nilekani wrote an article arguing that biometric Aadhaar can bring political,
social and economic democracy in the country. Having built a “positive
coalition of people who have a stake” in the success of biometric profiling
based Aadhaar, he has disclosed that 'there is a huge coalition of
organisations, governments, banks, companies, others who have a stake now' in
the future of the biometric Aadhaar database. The idea was/is to 'create a
positive coalition that has the power to overpower or deal with anyone who opposes
it,' including the Supreme Court, Parliament, concerned political parties and
peoples' movements. It is clear that the motivated definition of 'political,
social and economic democracy' that he is offering is constructed to suit the
interest of his coalition partners, not citizens.
Second Anniversary of
Supreme Court’s order dated 23rd September, 2013 in JUSTICE
K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD)& ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 494 OF 2012 by the bench of Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Justice S.A. Bobde wherein it
directed, “no person should suffer for not getting the Adhaar card inspite of
the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when
any person applies to get the Adhaar Card voluntarily”.
One year of presentation
by Dr Vijay Shankar Madan, Acting Chairman, UIDAI titled
“Digital ID for Benefit and Service Delivery to Billion Plus People” at the
International Joint Conference on Biometrics held during 29th
September – 2nd October 2014 at Clearwater, Florida, USA providing
seven misleading features of biometric aadhaar. He made indefensible claims
about “Uniqueness – Ensured through biometric attributes” The fact is that the
fallibility of biometric attributes has been admitted in the contract
agreements which UIDAI has signed with foreign companies. The claim of
uniqueness of biometric data is a “postulate” which has been found inherently
fallible. Besides the terms "biometric information" and
"demographic information" have not been clearly defined.
Dr
Madan falsely claimed in his presentation that biometric aadhaar is “Compliant
with IT Act” and it is “Consent Based”. This is highly misleading. The
legislative framework to govern aadhaar is National Identification Authority of
India Bill which is yet to be passed. It is noteworthy that Section 46. (1) of
the Bill proposed that “No court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under this Act, save on a complaint made by the Authority or any
officer or person authorised by it.” The fact is that aadhaar is coercion
based. Since the aadhar number is to be used and applied "for delivery of
various benefits and services", a citizen who does not have one may be
denied access to these, while a resident, who may not be a citizen, would have
access if he had obtained an aadhaar number. The claim that issuance of an
aadhaar number has not been made compulsory is deceptive because residents who
do not obtain one may find themselves at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those who do.
This coercion is being done by linking the government departments with Central
ID Data Repository (CIDR) of UIDAI. It robs the democratic rights of citizens.
Dr Madan
claimed that aadhaar is “low cost”. The fact is that admittedly cost comparison
has not been done. The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance revealed that the cost of aadhaar identification scheme has not been
compared with the cost of providing existing forms of identity. Madam claimed
that aadhaar is “inclusive”. The written submission of National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) revealed that it excludes people. It stated that “the
possibility of discrimination cannot be ruled out” because every resident is
entitled to obtain an Aadhar number, but UIDAI does not say that it would be
issued to all citizens. Madan admitted that aadhaar will not “replace all other
IDs.” If that is indeed the case where was the compelling need for aadhaar.
Dr Madan
claimed that “Data remains federated and any transfer from one silo to another
will require approvals as per law.” The fact is there is no law to stop
transfer of data to other agencies as is evident from the contract agreements
between foreign companies and UIDAI and the ongoing linking of electoral
database with aadhaar.
Dr
Madan claimed that “a random 12-digit (aadhaar) number ...can act as a primary
identifier throughout the life of an individual….This is done to an accuracy
of above 99.9%.” But the Report on Biometrics Design Standards for
UID Applications, UIDAI Committee on Biometrics exposes the veracity of his
claim. The report states, “there is also data to suggest that quality drops
precipitously if attention is not given to operational processes….Empirical
data has highlighted several non-technical factors that can impact accuracy.”
It further admits, “Retaining efficacy while scaling the database size from 50
million to a billion has not been adequately analyzed. Second, fingerprint
quality, the most important variable for determining de-duplication accuracy,
has not been studied in depth in the Indian context.”
Other
presenters at the Florida conference included Shukri Ali Al Braiki, Director,
Population Register Department, Emirates Identity Authority (EIDA), UAE who
gave a presentation on “The UAE Population Register and ID Card Program:
Achievements and the Challenges Ahead”. There was a “Panel Session on Large
Scale Identification Systems” chaired by: Nalini Ratha, IBM T.J. Watson
Research Center, USA who gave a presentation. The other panel members who gave
presentation included Michael Garris, National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Stéphane Gentric, Safran Morpho, William G. Mckinsey,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Charles Y. LI, International
Business Machines (IBM). The conference was sponsored by companies like
Lumidigm, part of HID Global, nilesen, Safran Morpho, 3dMD, Cognitec, Cross
Resolve, Digital Signal Corporation, IB Integrated Biometrics, M&C and SRI
International. It was supported by Hong Kong Polytechnic University, University
of South Florida and University of Surrey. Notably, most of the agencies
participating in the conference are involved in the implementation of aadhaar
identification scheme.
October- Fifth
Anniversary of Central Government’s Approach Paper for Legislation on Privacy
dated October 13, 2010. This paper admits, “India does not currently have a
general data protection statute” as per information received from Union
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions through Letter Reference
No.071/1/2010/-IR dated October 18, 2010. Till date admittedly, there is no
data protection statute. This Paper also dwelled on the threat to privacy from
UID/Aadhaar.
In
contempt of Supreme Court’s repeated orders from September 23, 2013 to 15th
October, 2015, an advertisement of Government of India has appeared in
newspapers with Prime Minister’s smiling face urging the Indians to give their
children between 0-5 and 5-18 years the gift of unique identity – biometric
profiling based Aadhaar number. The advertisement is available at
http://tinyurl.com/pv32fn6 at
the website of The Times of India. Court’s latest order dated October 15th,
2015 has kept the use of the Aadhaar, “purely” on “voluntary” basis, restricted
to MNREGA, old age pension scheme, provident fund and Prime Minister's Jan Dhan
Yojana, over and above PDS and LPG distribution schemes allowed earlier.
Children do not figure in any of these schemes allowed by the Court on “purely
voluntary” basis given the fact that the ration card is made in the name of the
head of the family. Reacting to government’s deceptive advertisement, Major
General (retd) (Dr) Sudhir Vombatkere, one of the petitioners in the aadhaar
case said, “Children enrolling for Aadhaar cannot be said to be voluntary”.
Citizens Forum for
Civil Liberties (CFCL) submitted a petition Parliamentary Standing Committee
(PSC) on Information Technology on the subject of "Vulnerability and
threats from online biometric-electronic aadhaar database, USA’s Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act (CISA) & disclosures". It has drawn its urgent
attention towards the Report of PSC on Information Technology on Cyber Crime,
Cyber Security and Right to Privacy, and Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act
(CISA) in the US Senate which is being opposed by 22 technology companies
including Apple, Google and Twitter on privacy grounds.
Second Anniversary of
the statement of Communist Party of India (CPI) trying to impose it as objected to biometric aadhaar being illegal and
unconstitutional if it was made compulsory for every social benefit. Its
statement dated September 28, 2013 reads: “The
Secretariat of the Communist Party of India, welcomes the judgement of Supreme
Court that Aadhar Unique Identity Card is not mandatory for Social Benefit
Schemes. CPI and Left are fighting on this issue for quite some time. Union
Government was vague without clarifying whether it is mandatory or voluntary.
But in practice it was trying to impose it as compulsory for every social
benefit. It was illegal and unconstitutional. This judgement of the Supreme
Court is a big relief to the people in the country.”
The same is available here:http://www.communistparty.in/2013/09/supreme-court-on-aadhar-card.html?q=aadhaar
November- Harvard National Identification
Conference had a discussion on “21st Century Identification
Systems: Data, Politics, Protection!” wherein Ajay Bhushan Pandey, Director
General, UIDAI participated and Nandan Nilekani gave a speech at Harvard
Kennedy School followed by discussion on “Inclusion and Exclusion: Ethical and
human rights implications of identification systems in the context of
statelessness”. It is not clear whether Pandey and Nilekani learnt any lessons
from Government of USA abandonment of its biometric Real ID program like
biometric Aadhaar.
Sixth Anniversary of disclosures on aadhaar and UIDAI by Wikileaks merits
attention because it revealed government’s real motives. Wikileaks leaked a
confidential document of UIDAI titled ‘Creating a unique identity number for
every resident in India’ on 13th November, 2009. It revealed, “One way to
ensure that the unique identification (UID) number is used by all government
and private agencies is by inserting it into the birth certificate of the
infant. Since the birth certificate is the original identity document, it is
likely that this number will then persist as the key identifier through the
individual’s various life events, such as joining school, immunizations, voting
etc.” This paved way for all round surveillance adversely impacting political
rights of present and future generations and making right to civil liberties
extinct.
Fifth Anniversary of Nilekani being given ID Limelight
Award at the ID WORLD International Congress, 2010 in Milan, Italy on 16th
November wherein Safran Morpho (Safran group) was a key sponsor of the ID
Congress. Its
subsidiary, Sagem Morpho Security Pvt Ltd has been awarded contract for the
purchase of Biometric Authentication Devices on 2nd February, 2011
by the UIDAI. Similar award has already been given to a Pakistani official who
is involved in a similar exercise through National Database and Registration
Authority (NADRA), Pakistani Ministry of Interior. The involvement of similar or
same companies in both India and Pakistan has not been ruled out as yet.
Earlier,
on 30 July 2010, in a joint press release, it was announced that “the Mahindra
Satyam and Morpho led consortium has been selected as one of the key partners
to implement and deliver the Aadhaar program by UIDAI (Unique Identification
Authority of India).” This means that at least two contracts have been awarded
to the French conglomerate led consortium. Is it a coincidence that Morpho (Safran
group) sponsored the award to chairman, UIDAI and the former got a contract
from the latter?
Citizens Forum for
Civil Liberties (CFCL) submitted a petition addressed to Dr Shashi Tharoor,
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on External Affairs on the
subject of "Disclosures by Mr Assange, Mr Snowden and deleterious
implications of transnational communication and surveillance companies for
India’s foreign policy."
December- Third Anniversary of the statement of Communist Party of
India (Marxist)-CPI (M) objecting to UIDAI’s links with US companies having
links with US intelligence agencies. In a statement titled, “Aadhar
Compromised” dated December
5, 2013 reads: “The report that the
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has tied up with a US company
with CIA links is a matter of deep concern. According to a report in the
Economic Times, a US company, MongoDB, is providing the software to manage the
data base for the registration of Aadhar. One of the investors in this
company is the CIA. Earlier too, the UIDAI had entered into contracts with
the US based company, L-1 Identity Solutions, and another French company for
the Aadhar project. The collection of personal data and biometrics of all
Indian citizens through the Aadhar programme has been made available to the
United State’s agencies through the employment of these companies. It is now
known through the Snowden files that the US authorities have been suborning all
data through US telecom and internet companies. The Indian government and
the UIDAI has compromised the vital data collected of Indian citizens by
such tie-ups. The UIDAI collection of data has no legal basis. It is also
being used illegally to make the Aadhar number compulsory for delivery of
social services and subsidies. The Polit Bureau demands the cancellation of the
tie-up with foreign companies and a suspension of the Aadhar scheme till
Parliament deliberates and decides on its future and, if required, a
legislative enactment.” The same is available at http://www.cpim.org/content/aadhar-compromised
Second Anniversary of the speech of Prof. Tarun Naskar, Socialist
Unity Centre of India (Communist)-SUCI (Communist) MLA prior to unanimous
passage of the Resolution on Aadhaar by West Bengal Assembly dated December 2,
2013. It reads: “Supporting the government resolution on making mandatory the aadhaar
card for the subsidy of cooking gas, I want to put my views a bit. The Central
Government has resorted price hike reducing the subsidy on cooking gas which
results acute economic pressure on lower and middle class. There should be no
any role of a public welfare state in the arrangement of up and down of the
prices of petroleum products in the international market. I strongly protest
this policy of the central government. It may be mention here that the claim
about the loss of the oil companies is not true at all, because the amount of
profit of all the private oil companies including Bharat Petroleum, HP and
others is increasing every year. The protest of aadhaar card should be on more
ethical ground as it has been protested keeping in mind the view of the
resolution of the government. We do not know how the data base collected
through the images of eyes and face including finger prints of all ten fingers
of all the people will be utilized. It has come to our knowledge that these
data are out sourced to different domestic and foreign companies. Beside it, no
legislation has been enacted to make 12 digits adhar cards. The respective
Parliamentary Standing Committee has in the mean time termed it as “unethical
and violation of Parliament’s prerogatives”. Because, this kind of legislation
has never passed in parliament. This is a project where there is still no
feasibility study, there is no cost – benefit analysis. The abuse of power for
ulterior motive, spying on political opponents, subversion of basic human rights
and harassing activists of democratic rights are regular features in our
country, the use of these data base is suspicious. Beside it, in the mean time
when High Court of Punjab and Haryana right from Andhra Pradesh has given their
verdicts against it and recently even the Supreme Court did not support the
government’s policies, how the policy of the Central Government be supported.”
This is the English translation Prof. Tarun Naskar’s submission in
Bengali in West Bengal Assembly.
Ninth
Anniversary of the formation of an Empowered Group of Ministers (E-GoM)
comprising of A Raja, the Union Minister, the minister-in-charge responsible
for UID and others. Prime Minister had constituted the E-GoM on 4th
December, 2006.
One of
the earliest documents that refer UIDAI is a 14-page long document titled
‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd
and submitted to the Processes Committee of the Planning Commission (set up in
July 2006) finally emerged. This document envisaged the close linkage that the
UIDAI would have with the electoral database. The records related to creation
of UIDAI, be it from the Union Cabinet, Prime Minister’s Council on UIDAI,
E-GoM, GOM and Committee of Secretaries need to be put on record to enable the
Supreme Court to examine their legality. The Court has not examined them as
yet. Central Government has failed to submit all the records in the matter of
creation of UIDAI.
After
accepting the Lifetime Achievement Award at the third Express IT Awards
on 7th December, 2015, Nandan Nilekani said, “I am
delighted that the NDA government has embraced Aadhaar and given it so much
momentum. When I left Aadhaar, we had 600 million cards, now there are 940
million. It will reach a billion mark in the next three to four months”.
Economic Times (ET) View reads, “The government
needs to ensure that Aadhaar results in more efficient delivery of benefits to
the intended users. If by linking all benefits, the government can demonstrate
a perceptible reduction in leakages, corruption in the delivery system by
reducing middlemen, and improvements by ensuring better accountability of all
government benefits, that should be proof enough for the Supreme Court” on 31st
December, 2015.
It is apparent that
such awards are an exercise in quid pro quo. These newspapers keep
publishing advertisements from UIDAI promoting Aadhaar. The news reports on Aadhaar
and related awards seem to fall in the category of Paid News.
Imphal Free Press wrote
about Biometric Aadhaar saying, “This is one of the most successful and
ambitious campaign in the present generation to befool both the illiterate as
well as the literate ‘educate’ population of the country with an ad of
‘Unique’” on December 11, 2015. Notably, Assam and Meghalaya appear to be the most
enlightened among the States which have less than 2 % enrollment. It is apparent that there are still some
publications and websites that do not succumb to temptations of Paid News and
uphold truth in their work.
These developments need to be looked at in the backdrop of RTI replies
and disclosures by Wikileaks in this regard.
In the matter of RTI application seeking complete
copy of contract of UIDAI with M/s L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric
Technology signed on August 24, 2010 and copy of contract of UIDAI with M/s
Accenture for Biometric Technology dated September 1, 2010, on October 14,
2014, Vijay Bhalla, Deputy Registrar, Central
Information Commission (CIC) wrote a letter on behalf of Sharat Sabharwal,
Information Commissioner, CIC to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
& Deputy Director, UIDAI stating, “I am directed to convey that you should,
within two weeks of the receipt of this order, provide to the Appellant the
limited information i.e. financial quotation/price by the third party firms in
the subject tender as disclosure of it would not inflict any harm to the
competitive position of third party firms at this stage when the contract have
already expired.”
Responding to this letter written on behalf of Sharat
Sabharwal, Information Commissioner, CIC to UIDAI, Subrata Das, the CPIO &
Deputy Director, UIDAI wrote to the RTI Appellant on October 22, 2014 in
compliance with the CIC decision on the second Appeal hearing dated September
30, 2014.
UIDAI’s letter reads, “The requisite letter in compliance
with the CIC decision is as under:
(i)
financial quotation/price quoted by M/s Accenture
Services Pvt Ltd is Rs 2.75/ (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for
Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services
(ii)
financial quotation/price quoted by M/s L1 Identity
Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd is Rs 2.75/ (inclusive of taxes) as a unit
price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services
This
reply implies that for each of the Indian residents targeted for aadhaar
enrolment, the taxpayer through the central government will have to incur the
cost of Rs 2.75 to the companies in question. This is significant because this
is not a one-time cost but each time de-duplication of aadhaar number is done,
the cost will be incurred.
A
communication titled ‘Biometrics Stir the Pot in the UAE’ dated 22nd
November, 2003, sent by some unidentified US official from Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates (UAE) to Group Destinations Arab Israeli Collective, Secretary of
State, US and Dubai, UAE and to undecipherable location named ‘RUCNFSC CFSC SA
COLLECTIVE’ merits attention. This communication was brought to light by
Wikileaks. Its import can be appreciated only if its following text is read:
“The
Public Affairs and Consular Section in Abu Dhabi hosted a Press Briefing on the
fingerprinting of NIV applicants at the US Embassy. In addition, Deputy Chief
of Mission (DCM) and Consular Chief briefed the Director of Consular Affairs at
the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on the new Fingerprinting Procedures
at the Embassy. Newspapers published accurate, informational stories and the
Director of Consular Affairs expressed his understanding. Although one UAE
official has refused to be fingerprinted saying he was being treated like a
"Criminal," the UAE's majority Third-Country Nationals (TCN) are
taking it all in stride, already subject to fingerprinting and retinal scans by
the UAE and Emirate-level Governments.”NIV stands for Non-Immigrant Visas
(NIV).
This reporting of UAE’s response to fingerprinting and retinal scans sounds
like the reaction of different ministries of Government of India and Indian
media, most of whom like their UAE’s counterparts did “accurate, informational
stories.” But unlike the one official in UAE, who refused to be fingerprinted,
in India, one did not learn about any civil servant who refused to enroll for
biometric identification in the pronounced manner.
The communication further revealed that a foreign team installed fingerprinting
collection devices on 23rd October, 2003 at the interview windows in
conjunction with the consular section's routine computer upgrade schedule.
After the installation, the consular section began collecting fingerprints from
the required NIV applicants on 2nd November, 2003.
It is noteworthy that US embassy officials are reporting even the work of
plumbers of fingerprint machines and installation of biometric devices to
Secretary of State and their intelligence allies in Arab States, Israel and to
undecodable locations. Do Indian officials, senior political leaders and
concerned citizens realize its import?
The
Wikileaked communication informs that journalists and photographers from all
UAE’s English and Arabic dailies were called for briefing them “about the new
biometric collection procedures” so that public is informed about it. This
communication informs: “journalists focused primarily on the appropriateness of
fingerprinting and questioned whether or not the fingerprinting was focused on
Arab and Muslim audiences. Vice Consul responded that this was not the case,
and, as reassurance, showed journalists the stacks of old computers the Orkand
team has just finished replacing with new Pentium IV systems. (Comment: we
recommend other posts do the same if possible, as this seemed convincing to the
journalists present.)”
It goes on report that following this briefing to media, on 6 November 2003,
journalists published stories based on the information provided to them
including “the implementation of fingerprinting solely based on routine
maintenance schedules and mentioning Frankfurt, Brussels, San Salvador, and
Guatemala City as the first Fingerprinting Posts.”
This
shows how journalists are/ were taken for a ride because they were made to
believe that it was just a routine case of replacing old equipments with new
equipments. It appears that the same tactics has been replicated in India in
the matter of Aadhaar, National Population Register (NPR) and other places
where biometric identification is being made mandatory.
On
9th November, 2003, there was a meeting with the Director of
Consular Affairs at the UAE‘s MFA, wherein the Director expressed “his
understanding of the need to move towards biometrics to enhance the security of
the United States. He briefly commented on the retinal scans in place at UAE
ports of entry for certain categories of visitors to the UAE, in particular
workers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. He expressed satisfaction that
fingerprinting did not apply to A- 1 and A-2 visa categories.”
It
is clear yet again that the biometric devices are getting installed not because
of any domestic compulsion of the Asian or African countries but because
countries like US want it installed. This also demonstrates that those wielding
diplomatic and official immunity do not hesitate to barter away their citizens’
rights if their temporary individual rights and privileges remain intact.
This cable from US embassy in UAE records that “public reaction to the
initiation of fingerprinting of NIV applicants has been mixed. The UAE
population is more disturbed by the prospect of fingerprinting than the UAE's
majority TCN population. Consular staff have not received complaints from TCN
applicants, who have their fingerprints taken for residence visas and IDs by
federal and emirate-level governments. Certain TCNs are also subject to retinal
scans at UAE airports.” The TCN population refers to Third-Country Nationals. A
TCN is an employee who is not a citizen of the home or host countries.
It
reads “Reaction by UAE nationals, on the other hand, remains mixed. The vast
majority of UAE national student and tourist visa applicants have complied
quietly and calmy when requested for their fingerprints. The prospect for
turmoil with government officials and prominent UAE nationals, however, remains
to be seen. One UAE senior university administrator official, the subject of a
Class A Visa referral, refused to come to the embassy and told pas staff that
he "would not be treated like a criminal." This reaction only
stresses the continuing need to inform applicants that biometric capture
capability not only enhances national border security to the benefit of US
citizens and permanent residents, but increases the safety and security of
visitors to the United States as well.”The communication reveals that promoters
of biometric devices were expecting some “turmoil” but as things unfolded they
were happy to witness unquestioned obedience of government officials and
prominent UAE nationals like in India.
A secret cable, which was created on 17th December, 2009 and
Wikileaked on the 23rd April, 2011 revealed that like in UAE,
the US’ State Department is deeply curious about UID, India's biometric data
based identification program. It asked its embassy in India to provide
information about the progress or status of the Indian biometric ID card's
development and deployment and wished to know “India's strategic plan for
utilizing biometric ID card technology in the military, law enforcement, and
private sectors.”
It sought to know as to which government agencies will be responsible for overseeing
the implementation of the national ID card biometric collection strategy, how
do authorities plan to utilise the biometric ID card at India's borders, ports,
and airports, which foreign countries and/or corporations are assisting in the
development of the ID card, which biometric systems (i.e. fingerprints, facial
recognition, iris scan, etc.) will be incorporated into the card, what prompted
development of the ID card, which company is providing the biometric collection
devices, storage, and matching database equipment, which organizations/agencies
within India will have access to information gathered by the biometric ID card
collection devices, what systems, databases, or portals will the named
biometric ID card collection devices in India communicate with, will the ID
card be accepted for passport applications, what types of anti-fraud measures
do Indian authorities plan to incorporate in the issuance process and what
security features are planned for the ID card, will the card be International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) compliant and will it use any encryption and
any efforts to "spoof" or defeat biometric enrollment, such as
fingerprint alteration.
The
cable asked these questions but it prefaced it with few observations. It reads:
“Washington analysts read with keen interest recent press reports about a
proposed biometric national ID project in India …the project has been billed at
recent trade conferences as the largest biometric enrollment ever proposed and
is the biggest biometric initiative anticipated in 2010. Despite
promised improvements, the cards would provide, analysts are concerned the
program could present a vulnerable target for regional extremist groups -- such
as Lashkar e-Tayyiba -- who could obtain fraudulent Indian ID cards
during the large-scale enrollment for use in travel or as breeder
documents to apply for passports.”
This
cable gives the impression that US agencies have been following the project
from its incubation stage.
It
underlined that with regard to answers to the questions posed that “results of
these requirements will be incorporated into a strategic assessment for senior
US policymakers on the regional implications in South Asia of the biometric ID
program.”
Another
cable dated 4th September, 2008 released by Wikileaks reveals that
US Ambassador to India met with Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek
Singh Ahluwalia on 2nd September, 2008 wherein the name of would be
chief of UID/ Aadhaar, Nandan Nileakni figured for a Sub-group of US-India CEO
Forum for educational collaboration which was to provide a report after the
elections. Notably, this cable from New Delhi was sent to Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council, Secretary of
Defense among others. Notably, Nileakni was one of the eight members of
National Knowledge Commission (NKC) headed by Sam Pitroda who advocates
identification and tagging of every object in India through his Public
Information Infrastructure initiative.
US
Embassy’s cable for the week of 29th June to 2nd July
2009 notes that the UID “project is expected to cost about Rs1,500 billion
($31.5 billion), and technological challenges in creating tamper-proof smart
cards capable of handling Indian conditions are expected. According to press reports,
the GoI may exclude private companies from participating due to the large
amount of confidential information involved in the program. The public sector
company Bharat Electronics Ltd has already issued over 120,000 smart cards
under a GoI pilot project to establish a multipurpose national identity card,
and is likely to be one of the key players.” It is noteworthy that eventually
Indian government did not exclude private companies.
With regard to the National Smart Card Identification System, the wikileaked
cables reveal that “Joint Secretary (Telecom) JS Deepak told Econoffs that the
first meeting between Additional Secretary of Department of Telecom Subodh
Kumar, Nandan Nilekani, chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of
India (UIDAI) and founder of Infosys, and Indian telecom service providers was
held on 24th September to discuss the roll-out of the unique identification
(UID) program. Earlier this year, the GoI set up the UIDAI to implement a
Unique Identification card project, which will own the database of residents
along with their biometric information….Joint Secretary Deepak noted that
despite the inherent challenges posed by the massive scale of this program, the
introduction of UID will transform the way Indians do business in the areas of
Government-to-Citizen interaction. He said the ID would be useful for a
multitude of purposes, including elections, taxation, national security, and
banking. Deepak, a former USAID employee responsible for global social
programs, was enthusiastic about the UID's potential to greatly reduce
'leakage' in government subsidies and benefit payments, including the NREGA
program, and for its ability to also transform provision of education and
healthcare.” Econoffs refers to US Embassy’s Economic Office. This
communication was sent from New Delhi as part of its report for week of 21st
to 24th September, 2009. It is noteworthy that Deepak’s credential
as former employee of United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) has been mentioned. Earlier, Bolivia and Russia have expelled USAID
from their countries. In Pakistan in protest against drone strike there
Pakistani Punjab government has refused to accept US aid. US based agencies reportedly supervised Cuban
twitter like program- ‘ZunZuneo’-using front companies based in Cayman Islands
and other places for cooking unrest there. Interestingly, the $1.6 million
spent on it was channeled in the name of an unspecified project in Pakistan
since 2009.
While the background behind the operationalization of the biometric ID project
reveals the opaque manner in which it took off, ramifications of launch of such
projects demonstrates its true colours. In the book, Paper Citizens, its author Kamal Sadiq records, “In Ivory Coast, a
national identity card scheme was central to a national politics that slid into
civil war”. This issue became a major factor in the civil war given the fact
that ruling party and opposition party held diametrically opposite views on
documentary citizenship.
The
insistence of documentary citizenship based on national identity card has also
given birth to the business of fake identity cards, identity thefts and
imposters. Dwelling on the situation in African countries like Nigeria, Ivory
Coast and Zambia, in a 2001 paper “Disenfranchising the North through the
National Identity Card scheme” Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa, general editor of Weekly
PYRAMID – The Magazine said, “In most of the organized world identity cards
have never been election requirements” and concluded, “The ID card is a much more
benign form of genocide if it gets to pass.”
The
distinguishing identity of citizens and non-citizens is getting blurred because
of the idea of documentary citizenship based on biometric identification being
deeply planted by US and EU based security agencies and companies. This leads
to creation and naturalization of 24X7 continental and transboundary
surveillance on human movement that opens the possibility wherein national ID
card would be a ticket to the loss of much of personal freedom and intergenerational
and intra generational rights.
Non-BJP
and other non-Congress opposition parties do not realize that like Ivory Coast,
a civil war can happen in India too because of biometric and electronic
identification. All the international agencies, which are involved in promotion
of unique identification (UID) through Planning Commission, Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA), residential addresses and land titles in India were involved
there as well.
Non-Congress and
non-BJP parties must resist subjecting of citizens to biometric surveillance
through the ongoing merger of aadhaar, NPR Voter ID card and the Electronic
Voting Machines. The servility of the Congress and BJP towards agencies like US
National Security Agency (NSA) and their infantile reactions in the face of
evidence that the entire union cabinet was under NSA’s surveillance must be
remembered as one of the dark chapters of Indian history. In its abject
meekness Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) did not hide even an iota of information
from the NSA but it is reluctant to share its correspondence with Nandan
Nilekani under the Right to RTI Act.
The role of Ministry
of Telecom in conceptualizing or launching UID/Aadhaar program under A Raja’s
tenure as its minister in charge merits examination by the central government
if national interest is to be protected given the fact that “Surveillance is based on a system of permanent registration.
It is a decisive economic operator” as underlined by Michel Foucault, in his book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison.
Not surprisingly, scholars like Ashis Nandy, the author
of The
Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under colonialism have referred to UID/Aadhaar number as prison number.
Jurists like Dr Usha Ramanathan say, “The challenge to
the UID project is, of course, much more than privacy. Much, much more.
Convergence, surveillance, national security, matters of personal liberty, the
power the data controller wields over the data subject, the inversion of the
relationship between the state and the citizen, exclusion, data as property,
the failure to make a law, the deliberated flouting of court orders, the
conversion of voluntary enrolment into mandatory enrolment on threat of being left
out, untested biometrics, no informed consent about the uses to which the data
will be subjected, the absence of an exit option to get out of the UIDAI data
base, the lack of accountability if there is a failure in the system and
someone suffers in consequence, the handing over of the NPR data to the UIDAI
which will then ‘own’ it (according to the notification that set it up) ….”
Dr Ramanathan wrote that the idea of seeding has been put
to rest by the interim order of Supreme Court which categorically states: “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 (for PDS and for
fuel).” Seeding in various data bases will, by this order, have to cease
forthwith. So, the Election Commission’s exercise in seeding their data base
with the UID number will have to stop. So, too, for instance, the sharing of
the NPR data with the UIDAI. This is an important privacy protection that the
court has ensured till the petitions challenging the UID project is finally
heard and decided. The only exception that the court has made, unsolicited it
would seem, is in the event of a court directing the use of the data ‘for
purposes of criminal investigation’. The UIDAI has been proclaiming that their
data is incapable of being used for criminal investigation; but it seems the
court has not paid heed to this cry of protest. The government’s denial of
the existence of the fundamental right to privacy is, of course, not innocent
at all. This happened at the same time that the government was arguing in
another court down the corridor that privacy was the reason it wants to retain
the defamation clause in criminal law. It is also the time that it is
considering the passage of a Human DNA Profiling Bill, aspiring to create a DNA
Data Bank.”
Biometric Aadhaar and related
programs are giving a birth to a modern biometric based Prison for residents of
India at their own expense facilitated by the propaganda unleashed by
transnational commercial czars who are conquering public space and media with
Paid News and other allurements. Did media inform about the emergence of a
police state in Germany in the 1930s?
The complicity of a large section
of media must be seen in the context of Statement of Concern issued by Justice VR Krishna
Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian, K.G.Kannabiran,
Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food
Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan, S.R.Sankaran,
Retired Secretary, Government of India, Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant, Upendra
Baxi, Jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Uma
Chakravarthi, Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar,
Film Maker, Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB,
and Association for Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and
Association for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD and Justice A.P.Shah,
Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi at Press Club of India, New Delhi on
28th September, 2010 which was largely boycotted by imbedded media. Taking
note of rejection by Aadhaar like projects by Australia, China, UK, USA and
other countries the statement sought halting of the Aadhaar project.
That section of media whose owners
promote Paid News ignored the Public Statement issued in October 2015 Prof.
Anil Sadgopal, Scientist, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE),
Bhopal, Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran, Director, Council for Social Development,
Hyderabad, Prof (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health
(CSMCH), Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU), Dr Meher Engineer, Scientist, former
President, Indian Academy of Social Science, Kolkata, Ram Bahadur Rai, noted
journalist, Dr Babu Rao Kalapala, Scientist, formerly with National Institute
of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India
Progressive Women Association (AIPWA), Prof D M Diwakar, Professor of
Economics, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, Arun Kumar, former
Member, Press Council of India, Indian Journalists Union, General Secretary, Bihar
Working Journalists Union & President, The Times of India Newspaper
Employees Union, Patna, Sankar Ray, veteran journalist, N D Jayaprakash,
Disarmament Researcher & veteran activist seeking justice for victims of
Bhopal disaster, Qaneez Sukhrani, urban affairs analyst, Pune, Kshetrimayum
Onil, Lead Coordinator, REACHOUT, Manipur Shabnam Hashmi, social activist,
Anhad, Irfan Ahmed, General Secretary, All India Tanjin-e-Insaf, Bihar, Guman
Singh, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh, Dr Umakant, Human rights
advocate & independent scholar, PT George, Intercultural Resources, Delhi, Wilfred
D’ Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi, Prakash K Ray, Editor, bargad.org,
Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Venkatesh
Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Dr Vikas
Vajpayee, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH), JNU and Rohit
Prajapati, social activist, Gujarat. The Public Statement against aadhaar and
Human DNA Profiling Bill was released at Indian Women Press Corps, New Delhi.
A Dalit activist who
was one of the eminent citizens who signed the statement said, "This
project wants to fix our identities through time. Even after that we are dead.
The information held about us will be fixed to us by the UID number. Changing
an identity will become impossible. We are working for the eradication of the
practice of manual scavenging, for rehabilitation of those who have been
engaged in manual scavenging, and then leaving behind that tag of manual
scavenger. How can we accept a system that does not allow us to shed that
identity and move on? How can a number that links up databases be good for
us?"
Meanwhile, a Supreme
Court bench of 5 judges, Chief Justice of India H L Dattu, M.Y. Eqbal, C.
Nagappan, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy heard the case of 12 digit biometric
aadhaar identification number project and passed the order on 15th October.
After hearing the 12 digit biometric aadhaar number case, Supreme Court’s Bench
ruled that “We impress upon the Union of India that it shall strictly follow
all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from 23.09.2013." In this regard Supreme Court’s order of 24th
March, 2014 in the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Vs Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Case is most categorical as it leaves no room for
ambiguity. This order dated 8th December, 2014 has been relied upon by Central
Information Commission (CIC) to give its decision in File
No.CIC/SS/A/2014/000518. Its decision is available at http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2014_000518_M_143631.pdf
Supreme Court bench of
5 judges reiterated, "We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card
Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is
finally decided by this Court one way or the other." The Court has issued
repeated directions since 23rd September, 2013 till 16th October,
2015 to this effect. On 11th August,
2015, the Court had directed that "Union of India shall give wide
publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television
networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card; The
production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits
otherwise due to a citizen”. This has not been complied with in letter and
spirit.
In
an interview, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks informed Imran Khan about
the grave act of omission and commission. Assange said, “…we discovered a cable
in 2009 from the Islamabad Embassy. Prime minister Gilani and interior minister
Malik went into the (US) embassy and offered to share National Database and
Registration Authority (NADRA) – and NADRA is the national data and
registration agency database. The system is currently connected through
passport data but the government of Pakistan is adding voice and facial
recognition capability and has installed a pilot biometric
system as the Chennai border crossing, where 30,000 to 35,000 people cross each
day. This NADRA system is the voting record system for all voters
in Pakistan. A front company was set up in the United Kingdom – International
Identity Services, which was hired as the consultants for NADRA to squirrel out
the NADRA data for all of Pakistan. What do you think about that? Is that a…?
It seems to me that that is a theft of some national treasure of Pakistan, the
entire Pakistani database registry of its people.” The interview is available here.
In a related
development, National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), Ministry of
Interior, Pakistan is also undertaking a similar exercise. Is it a coincidence
that both the countries are undertaking the exercise at the same time? Will it
prevent drone attacks and the ignominy of mouthing verbal opposition to such
assaults on its sovereignty? The core question is: what has improved in Pakistan
due to NADRA’s citizens’ database except facilitating precision targets by
drones? It must be noted that Biometric Aadhaar too is about creating unique
resident identity like Pakistan’s version of biometric exercise for citizens’
identity card which was completed by NADRA, ministry of interior, Government of
Pakistan and their database has been handed over to US Government.
Was
NADRA made accountable for this theft of national treasure of Pakistan? Will
census commissioner & registrar general of India be made accountable if
“rich data assets” are stolen or sold? Has anyone been made accountable till
date?
Claims of UIDAI and the central government is an exercise in
articulation of empty words. Given the fact that some 91,000 of USA’s
classified pages reached the website of Wikileaks in 2010 reveals how such
claims of security and privacy are mere hollow claims with no privacy law in
the country. Union Ministry of Planning, the nodal ministry for aadhaar
informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that concerns sharing
of data, surveillance and profiling is being addressed by a proposed
legislation on privacy. The committee observed that the enactment of such data
protection law is a "pre-requisite for any law that deals with large-scale
collection of information from individuals and its linkages across separate
databases." The law has not been enacted till date. Thus, the claim of
UIDAI and the central government is bogus. The need for "protection of
information" is recognized in theory but there is no provision for
relief/compensation to the wronged person. The transfer of biometric and
demographic data to foreign companies for seven years as per contract
agreements with UIDAI exposes the untruthfulness of this claim. This has
compromised national security in an unprecedented manner.
Taking note of these
court orders of Supreme Court, it is high time states and other agencies
unsigned the MoUs they have signed with illegal and illegitimate Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In 2016, States ruled by opposition
parties should pave the way for protection of national security and civil
rights instead of waiting for the Court to tell them how to act with political
imagination to safeguard hard earned political rights.
For Details: Gopal
Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb: 08227816731,
09818089660, E-mail:1715krishna@gmail.com
