Why this Blog ? News articles in the Wide World of Web, quite often disappear with time, when they are relocated as archives with a different url. Archives in this blog serve as a library for those who are interested in doing Research on Aadhaar Related Topics. Articles are published with details of original publication date and the url.
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
Friday, December 29, 2017
12565 - Jharkhand hunger death: A girl died crying for food. Her family is now accused of shaming India - Scroll.In
Monday, October 24, 2011
1726 - Development with Brutality - EPW
On 5 October 2011, the police and security forces fired at people celebrating Durga Puja in Roing town of Lower Dibang Valley district, Arunachal Pradesh. At the time of writing, nine students have been hospitalised with serious injuries and are reported to be in a critical state.
The context behind this particular act of state-terror is the forthcoming public hearing for the Dibang multipurpose project slated to be held on 24 October 2011 in Roing town. Arunachal has been identified for a slew of dams on its rivers and the 3,000 megawatt (MW) Dibang project is among the bigger ones (with the proposed dam being the world’s tallest concrete gravity dam at 288 metres). Other projects are slated for the Siang and Subansiri rivers. The resultant dislocation and destruction of local populations and ecologies is expected to be large and has led to strong opposition from the people. The central and state governments have only offered vague and, as has been shown almost always in other cases, doubtful assurances about relief and rehabilitation.
The growing opposition to these dams has not stopped the government from proceeding with its plans. In 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laid the foundation of the Dibang multipurpose project even though it had yet to get environmental clearance and as such, according to the laws of our land, was not yet cleared for construction. By this one act, the top executive authority of the country had shown that he was willing to forgo even the basic formality of following the rule of law when it came to such “development” issues.
The chairman of the Roing Zilla Parishad, Chiliko Meto, has gone on record to state that the Maoist threat has been planted by the district administration to mobilise additional troops for a “forceful conduct of the public hearing”.
The public hearing for the 2,700 MW Lower Siang Valley project is also slated for 18 October and is being similarly opposed by the local people, especially those downstream. The chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Jarbom Gamlin, has been a strong votary of these dams and for developing the entire 50,000 MW worth of hydropower the state supposedly sits on.
Unfortunately, despite so much popular opposition and many obvious alternate policy choices, governments in India, both at the centre and the states, have managed to only push “development” projects which dislocate without compensation and destroy without regeneration. This is clearly unnecessary, unsustainable and often, illegal. It is a moot point why this destructive “development” path is clutched so obstinately but it is increasingly becoming clear that this can be continued only with the help of ever greater repression and brutality.
The State, Prejudice and the Marginalised
The adivasis of Vachati village in Tamil Nadu secure justice for state violence conducted two decades ago. The judgment by the principal judge in Dharmapuri on the Vachati incidents of 20 June 1992 finally punishes the law enforcement agencies for at least one event of what has become a horrific pattern in parts of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka since the 1990s – the brutal persecution of adivasis, particularly the “denotified tribes”, dalits and other marginalised groups.
revenue and forest departments of the Government of Tamil
Nadu were pronounced guilty of various crimes, with 17 of
them guilty of rape. All the 269 officials who had been arraigned as accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had probed the incidents in the village after the Madras High Court directed it to do so in 1995, were found guilty, but 54 of them have since died. (See “When Public Servants Came Calling at Vachati”, pp 32-33 for the details of the atrocities and the follow-up.)
meticulously investigate the claims of the adivasis, justice would never have been delivered – even if it has taken 19 years for it to be handed down.
through was to be repeated in the forest tracts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu where the sandalwood smuggler Veerappan was believed to be operating. The justice Sadashiva panel of the National Human Rights Commission brought to light incidents of human rights violations that had been perpetrated in the mid-1990s by the joint task force that had been constituted by the two states to capture Veerappan. Some compensation was eventually awarded to the victims of state violence but few of the police officers involved were
punished; they were instead later promoted.
If it was sandalwood smuggling and operations against Veerappan that featured violence against adivasis in northern Tamil Nadu and the forest areas abutting Karnataka and Kerala, atrocities against dalits were legion in southern Tamil Nadu during the 1990s. The Supreme Court punished 82 police officers for their role in perpetrating violence against dalits in Nalumoolaikinaru in the same district in 1992 and ordered compensation to be paid to the victims.
organisations – either led by dalit parties or mass organisations of left parties – to achieve justice for state violence in many of these cases.
Apart from continuously mobilising the victims these groups
have effectively used provisions of the law that offer protection to the marginalised groups to obtain succour from the courts. This is as much a credit to these organisations as it is an indictment of the Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu. The metamorphosis of the Dravidian parties from rationalist, anti-caste and social justiceprofessing organisations to patronage-dispensing machines that are reliant on upper caste bodies for support is widely known.
torture those who speak out against the excesses and illegalities of the State, whether it is Binayak Sen or Lingaram Kodopi and Soni Sori, on the other there is a growing trend where the institutions of the State are used to push the vested interests of one section of the population – those who consume high energy and high cost industrial products and profit out of its investment, production and distribution. If the State insists on using its institutions, not as neutral actors in society as is expected of them but rather as partisans in this increasingly gruesome war over lives and livelihoods, then it will find, sooner rather than later, that the legitimacy of these institutions and of the State itself stands hollowed out.

