230 - Historical Reasons against UID/Aadhaar Project

MEDIAVIGIL
Mediavigil believes that without democratisation of communication and the right to communicate, the freedom of expression is meaningless.It attempts to take note of environment and public health issues where governments and corporations provide sanitised information. It also keeps track of ecology and health issues. To know more about it, visit :www.toxicswatch.com, toxicswatch.blogspot.com, banasbestosindia.blogspot.com

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project

To

Mrs Sonia Gandhi
Chairperson
& Members
National Advisory Council
New Delhi

Subject-Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project

Madam/Sir,

This is to place on record our deep sense of appreciation for National Advisory Council (NAC) which has reportedly disapproved the structural basis being laid out for future authoritarianism. Unmindful of massive opposition by citizens, the Union Cabinet cleared the introduction of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament on 24th September. This happened in a tearing hurry even as the NAC was examining the UID proposal. This was uncalled for and it provides robust grounds for scrutiny.

Not only that fearing the outcome of the NAC deliberations and its inferences, Nandan Nilekani avoided NAC to escape having to answer the questions about UID on 30th August, 2010. It appears that the chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has roped in Prime Minister to help him wriggle out by launching UID on 29th September in Maharashtra in order to present a fait accompli of sort to the NAC.

In such circumstances, it is indeed a relief to know that the NAC is opposed to UID//Aadhar project.

It is quite sad that both the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI Authority and PM’s Council are in such a great awe of a regressive idea that so far it has failed to examine the reasons of governments of US, Australia and UK to scrap similar projects. So much so that even as the Bill will be introduced in the Indian Parliament, the British Parliament will be scrapping it because the democratic mandate of UK citizens and all the democracies is against such an invasive project.

One Noble Prize winner too has underlined how it raises questions of personal liberty. Other world renowned social scientists have termed it as akin to allotting “prisoner numbers” to citizens. This is quite worrisome that in such a context our political leaders in general are so frozen in their passivity that they are not reaching out to sincerely address and respond to the gnawing concerns about a project that have fascist roots.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then and International Business Machines (IBM)’s role with its punch card and card sorting technology. The way UID project is being bulldozed in the name of PDS, Education, Public Health, NREGA and now migrant workers is highly dubious.

Unique Identity (UID) Number is a rare project which has unleashed the concept of massively organised information as means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups, minorities and political adversaries. It appears that Nilekani, the co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India's second largest software company, has misled the key functionaries of Government of India into believing that he is deeply concerned about reaching the poorest of the poor with a 16-digit card (4 numbers are hidden?) to liberate them from poverty.

This proposed UID legislation authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that will be issued to every resident of India but has failed to provide for provisions that precludes abuse of such a database for invading citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of choice by national and transnational corporations like Vedanta and IBM. The legislation poses one of gravest threat imaginable as far as citizens’ right is concerned. It will damage citizens’ sovereignty beyond repair and has the potential to cause holocaust like situation in future through profiling of minorities, political opponents and ethnic groups.

UID/Aadhar project gives a sense of déjà vu. It is the same path which IBM (International Business Machines), the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand traversed for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer – that made the automation of human destruction possible. This is a matter of historical fact and not an opinion. Indeed in the words of historian Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history" and the lessons from history present a compelling reason against the UID/Aadhar project.

Therefore, we urge you to recommend and encourage our government to abandon the UID/Aadhar project like the governments of UK, Australia and US have done to safeguard and honour the non-negotiable rights of citizens.

Yours Sincerely

Gopal Krishna
Member
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com

Prakash Ray
Convener
Jawaharlal Nehru University Researchers Association (JNURA)
New Delhi
Mb:9873313315
E-mail- pkray11@gmail.com

Note: Members of National Advisory Council include:
Prof M. S. Swaminathan
Dr Ram Dayal Munda
Dr. Narendra Jadhav
Prof. Pramod Tandon
Dr. Jean Dreze
Ms.Aruna Roy
Shri Madhav Gadgil
Shri Naresh C. Saxena
Dr. A. K. Shiva Kumar
Shri Deep Joshi
Ms. Anu Aga
Ms. Farah Naqvi
Shri Harsh Mander
Ms Mirai Chatterjee
with Smt. Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, National Advisory Council

224 - An Open letter toSmt. Sonia Gandhi & NAC on UID/Aadhaar

Posted on September 26, 2010 by bargad 0

An open letter to Smt Sonia Gandhi and NAC on UID/AADHAAR

To
Mrs Sonia Gandhi
Chairperson
& Members
National Advisory Council
New Delhi
 
Subject-Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project
 
Madam/Sir,
This is to place on record our deep sense of appreciation for National Advisory Council (NAC) which has reportedly disapproved the structural basis being laid out for future authoritarianism. Unmindful of massive opposition by citizens, the Union Cabinet cleared the introduction of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament on 24th September. This happened in a tearing hurry even as the NAC was examining the UID proposal. This was uncalled for and it provides robust grounds for scrutiny.
 
Not only that fearing the outcome of the NAC deliberations and its inferences, Nandan Nilekani avoided NAC to escape having to answer the questions about UID on 30th August, 2010. It appears that the chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has roped in Prime Minister to help him wriggle out by launching UID on 29th September in Maharashtra in order to present a fait accompli of sort to the NAC.
 
In such circumstances, it is indeed a relief to know that the NAC is opposed to UID//Aadhar project. It is quite sad that both the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI Authority and PM’s Council are in such a great awe of a regressive idea that so far it has failed to examine the reasons of governments of US, Australia and UK to scrap similar projects. So much so that even as the Bill will be introduced in the Indian Parliament, the British Parliament will be scrapping it because the democratic mandate of UK citizens and all the democracies is against such an invasive project.
 
One Noble Prize winner too has underlined how it raises questions of personal liberty. Other world renowned social scientists have termed it as akin to allotting “prisoner numbers” to citizens. This is quite worrisome that in such a context our political leaders in general are so frozen in their passivity that they are not reaching out to sincerely address and respond to the gnawing concerns about a project that have fascist roots.
 
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler’s arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then and International Business Machines (IBM)’s role with its punch card and card sorting technology. The way UID project is being bulldozed in the name of PDS, Education, Public Health, NREGA and now migrant workers is highly dubious.
 
Unique Identity (UID) Number is a rare project which has unleashed the concept of massively organised information as means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups, minorities and political adversaries. It appears that Nilekani, the co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India’s second largest software company, has misled the key functionaries of Government of India into believing that he is deeply concerned about reaching the poorest of the poor with a 16-digit card (4 numbers are hidden?) to liberate them from poverty.
 
This proposed UID legislation authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that will be issued to every resident of India but has failed to provide for provisions that precludes abuse of such a database for invading citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of choice by national and transnational corporations like Vedanta and IBM. The legislation poses one of gravest threat imaginable as far as citizens’ right is concerned. It will damage citizens’ sovereignty beyond repair and has the potential to cause holocaust like situation in future through profiling of minorities, political opponents and ethnic groups.
 
UID/Aadhar project gives a sense of déjà vu. It is the same path which IBM (International Business Machines), the world’s largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand traversed for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination with its punch card and card sorting system — a precursor to the computer – that made the automation of human destruction possible. This is a matter of historical fact and not an opinion. Indeed in the words of historian Benedetto Croce, “All history is contemporary history” and the lessons from history present a compelling reason against the UID/Aadhar project.
 
Therefore, we urge you to recommend and encourage our government to abandon the UID/Aadhar project like the governments of UK, Australia and US have done to safeguard and honour the non-negotiable rights of citizens.
 
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Member
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
 
Prakash K Ray
Convener
Jawaharlal Nehru University Researchers Association (JNURA)
New Delhi
Mb:9873313315
E-mail- pkray11@gmail.com

220 - The Kitchen Cabinet -by Priya Sahgal- India Today


The NAC members with the Prime Minister.

By Priya Sahgal, September 18, 2010

It is the most powerful club in the Manmohan Singh Government. And no, this is not the Cabinet comprised of elected members of Parliament, neither is it the Planning Commission presided over by the prime minister's best friend. Instead, it is the National Advisory Council (NAC), a think-tank comprising a handful of left-leaning liberals, civil rights activists, an agricultural scientist, a philanthropist and social welfare workers. Quite an unlikely bunch to walk the corridors of power in a Government led by a free market economist. What gives the NAC the power to veto any government bill or find fault with the implementation of a Cabinet decision is the simple fact that its headed by the all-powerful Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
 

Despite the NAC being reconstituted only three months ago, it has already rejected the draft bills of two of the UPA-II's trophy legislations, the National Food Security Bill and the Communal Violence Bill and is busy preparing its own version of these which will then be circulated for the Government to "work on". Some NAC members have criticised the implementation of two of the UPA's flagship legislations, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, while others have taken potshots at the Naxal policy, the UID scheme and the plan to set up an Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC). Little wonder that the joke at Raisina Hill is that the prime minister has outsourced dissent to the NAC. Only Manmohan is not laughing. Instead, he takes every little note handed out by the NAC very seriously. He can't afford not to. Even if it means that his economics takes a sharp U-turn from capitalist to socialist and he is left shepherding a Government where the social sector gets more priority than economic reforms.

The Prime Minister seems to have outsourced dissent to the NAC, which is more critical of the Government's policy than even the Opposition. It is Sonia's platform to showcase her socialist vision for the country

The NAC is clearly Sonia's favourite governance accessory. When she had opted to stay out of government in 2004, she was looking for a credible platform to shape government policy. More so in UPA-I when the Left was hijacking the Government's socialist agenda. So she came up with the idea of her own advisory think-tank and filled it with left-leaning activists. "One of the reasons for winning the 2009 elections was the pro-poor measures implemented by the UPA, such as the MGNREGA," points out Cabinet Minister Ambika Soni. Both the MGNREGA and RTI were drafted by the NAC. Soni laughs at the NAC being regarded by some Cabinet ministers as a "jholawala" (a term used for Leftists) outfit. "Is the idea of food security for all a jholawala slogan?" she asks.
Soni says, "Look at the US healthcare bill that promises healthcare to all. The US is a capitalist economy, yet it has realised the importance of welfare programmes." And both Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have been quick to learn the lessons from the NDA's "India Shining" fiasco-elections are won, not by GDP figures but by welfare programmes. With the NAC leading the way, the Government is too busy embracing poverty packages to celebrate growth figures. "How can you ask if the Government is doing "enough" for the poor when it is actually making things worse for them whether it is by hoarding 60 mt of food per year or by freezing the wages of MGNREGA workers, or by displacing forest dwellers on behalf of mining corporations," says Jean Dreze, development economist and social activist at the NAC, adding, "the Government has lost the plot on MGNREGA


 Sonia at a tribal rally

This is the platform from where Sonia hopes to showcase her vision for the country. "The UPA believes in inclusive growth. Our role in the NAC is to make sure that it is truly inclusive growth and that the Government enacts pro-poor legislation. We make sure that the ground realities are brought to the notice of the Government so they know whether their policies are being implemented or not," says Mirai Chatterjee, member NAC and director at the NGO SEWA (Self Employed Women's Organisation). According to Chatterjee, the next big-ticket agenda for the NAC, and hence for the UPA, would be health security for all. "The National Rural Health Mission has made good headway but there are some gaps at both the policy and implementation levels and our role is to bring these out," she says.
Another area of concern for some NAC members is the Government's handling of the Naxal problem as well as the UID scheme. Although these have not yet come up officially on the NAC agenda, this has not stopped individual members from airing their views. As Harsh Mander, another NAC member and social worker said, "We're all intelligent individuals with views". But suddenly there is a premium on these views because of the NAC tag. So, when Mander told the prime minister that the Government was losing the war on Naxals during a courtesy call, Manmohan made it a point to ask him why.

Under Sonia's guidance, the NAC is pushing forward an ambitious social sector agenda, shifting the focus of the Manmohan Government from economic reforms to development issues in a bid to woo back the party's rural votebank.

Aruna Roy and Jean Dreze, arguably Sonia's favourite civil right activists, have recently shot off a letter to Rural Development Minister C.P. Joshi, criticising the plans to link the UID card with MGNREGA. They have also spoken publicly against the entire UID scheme, calling it an invasion of privacy. Now a harassed Nandan Nilekani, who is heading the project, is scheduled to make a presentation to the NAC before his project hits an identity crisis. "We are not a decision-making body but an advisory body. There are a number of such councils constituted by the prime minister, only this gets a greater profile because it is chaired by Sonia Gandhi," reasons Mander.

219 - UID gets nod despite objections - Hindustan Times

New Delhi, September 25, 2010

Even as a large section of the civil society, intelligentsia and even some members of the Sonia Gandhi-led NAC have raised objections to the UID identification and registration, the Union cabinet on Friday approved the proposed National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, which makes UIDA a statutory body.

In an open letter sent to Gandhi on Thursday, on eve of NAC meet, the Right to Food Campaign while pressing for universalisation and identification of all the poor objected to use of UID kind segregating technology. “No use of technology for identification purpose which can violate the civil liberties and human rights of the people,” the campaign said.

“There is no real informed debate on the project which has enormous potential of segregating the population (based on few parameters). It is a matter concerning people at large—public money being spent to profile common public,” a NAC member earlier told HT.

“There are some objections to the project from some members. Though I am not rejecting the project out, we have to see what kind of safe guards we have in place against the concerns,” Harsh Mander, another NAC member told HT.

216 - A unique liberal dilemma - Yahoo News

Fri, Sep 24 05:49 AM
There are reports that Congress President Sonia Gandhi will lend her considerable political weight by being present at the launch of the UPA government's ambitious UID programme which seeks to give a single, unique identity number to all Indians in order to establish better state-citizen interface. In these politically charged times, with sections of the Congress sounding more coherent as opposition than the BJP, the Congress president's endorsement of the UID programme will indeed have great political significance. Of late, there is increasing opposition to the project by a small but influential section of civil society which has raised questions relating to potential violation of privacy and infringement of personal liberty by the state apparatus which might be tempted to abuse its access to the lives of citizens through the UID system.

Recently, Amartya Sen also lent some weight to such concerns by saying the UID project does raise questions of personal liberty.

Therefore, it is critical that Sonia Gandhi display unambiguous support for probably the most ambitious programmes undertaken by the UPA government so far. In fact many members of the National Advisory Council (NAC), which she heads, are highly sceptical about the UID programme. So this is one issue where Sonia Gandhi may differ with many members of NAC.

It is also interesting that among the first few UID numbers handed out will be to people living in Mumbai slums. In some ways a vast majority of the Mumbai slum-dwellers represent India's "mobile republic". As per official data, there are close to 250 million migrant workers in India who are on the move to seek jobs away from their village or place of birth. Mumbai possibly has the largest population of such subjects, most of whom are self-employed and relatively poor. So the symbolic importance of the UID launch in Mumbai slums must not be missed.

It must be clearly recognised that the emerging structure of India's economy is an unique one where 45-50 per cent of those incrementally gaining employment are self-employed. These self-employed citizens are largely poor and are considerably mobile in seeking work. The UID programme will particularly cater to some of these emerging structural realities of India's political economy. All current forms of identifications are based on specific geographical location, such as ration card, voter identification, driving licence, etc.

The UID will therefore be the only authentic, mobile identification number for over 250 million poor Indians on the move. Today banks invariably refuse to open accounts for migrant workers in big cities on the pretext that they don't have a permanent address. The UID will come as a great relief to this lot.

Some of India's liberal and enlightened citizens, who are ever so suspicious of the state's intentions, view the UID exercise as a "techno-commercial fantasy" which will not succeed. Indeed, there is a lot of cynicism around the project. However, for over 600 million poor, the physiological needs of survival clearly precede other philosophical/ intellectual concerns relating to loss of privacy felt so acutely by a section of liberal civil society.

One is not for a moment suggesting that the concerns over the UID project impinging on personal liberty are totally invalid. Simply put, there are the 600 million poor who, in the words of political scientist Partha Chatterjee, depend crucially for their survival on being able to choose tactically when to become visible and be counted by the state. This can be seen in government-led social sector programmes like rural employment guarantee, and targeted health and education services. The poor will certainly want mobile identities to be able to "become visible" at different locations across the country.

The rich, in contrast, want to largely remain out of the state's sight. In fact, it is likely that the creamy layer of society, which is economically and politically empowered, will not opt for the UID number. This lot has only limited interface with the state in their everyday life. They have access to private education, health, electricity and even security. They possibly depend on the state only for critical public goods such as clean air and water, since it is not easy to privately organise these.

Is there a contradiction between the majority of the poor seeking a sense of freedom by wanting to come under the state's radar and the others wanting to keep the state at bay while using it surreptitiously, when required? This paradox has been captured by Isaiah Berlin, one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century, in an essay where he explored "two concepts of liberty".

One concept of liberty, called negative freedom, is represented by the notion that individuals are totally free in society without any constraints or interference from others. The other concept — described as positive freedom — denotes submitting oneself to some collective form of self-determination, such as democracy. Even the 18th century French political philosopher Rousseau believed individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one's community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the "general will".

Of course, liberals argue that even in a democracy, driven by the general will, the government must actively create conditions for individuals to achieve self-realisation. This is seen in the form of constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, movement, etc in liberal constitutional democracies. In the context of the UID project, bringing a new privacy legislation will denote a measure of negative freedom gained by individuals who want to guard against an "oppressive state".

Overall, there is always a striving to achieve a balance between positive and negative freedoms in a modern democracy. The unique identity project, once implemented, will also be tested in terms of the balance our constitutional democracy achieves between positive and negative freedoms this massive exercise creates. Its legal-political complexity cannot be denied as it seeks to create an official identity to empower over a billion people. Therefore, one must debate but avoid passing a premature judgment over the question of loss of privacy and personal liberty at this stage.

Before he died some years ago, Isaiah Berlin had said the only question that still remained unresolved in his mind was, "where should individual desires end and the needs of the collective begin?" This philosophical problem is not so easily resolved.

The writer is Managing Editor, 'The Financial Express'

mk.venu@expressindia.com