Now Gujarat & other States must withdraw
from MoU signed with UIDAI
Illegitimate and illegal biometric identification
of citizens like prisoners should be stopped
Lawyers, students, citizens should
boycott biometric identification against bribing of voters
SEPTEMBER 28, 2013: After Statement of Concern by
eminent citizens like Justice V R Krishna Iyer , adverse report of the multi
party Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, the judgment of the Punjab
& Haryana Court, the order of National Human Rights Commission to the Union
Home Secretary Affairs, the admission of
a complaint regarding illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional subordinate legislation
for biometric Aadhhar/UID by Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation,
in a series of statements on Twitter, Narendra Modi, the Prime Ministerial
candidate of BJP and Gujarat Chief Minister has asked the Indian National
Congress led Government, “Were all states on board on Aadhaar?” in the aftermath
of the Supreme Court ‘s order of September 23 rebuking the Government for
making it mandatory.
Modi said, “When the SC raised these points, the
PM must tell nation that did all states and departments approve Aadhar? But you
just spent huge money. You need to answer nation for that. What the Supreme
Court said today, I raised the similar point three years ago. I told him to
convene a National Security Card meeting, consult Chief Ministers, but he did
nothing. Nation wants to know from the PM how much money was spent on Aadhar
card? Who gained from it? What about the questions the SC raised?” As an
immediate follow up, Gujarat Government must withdraw from the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU), it signed with the Unique Identification Authority of
India (UIDAI).
In a letter dated Jun 25, 2011, Citizens Forum
for Civil Liberties (CFCL) had written to Gujarat Chief Minister pointing out
threats to national security and civil leberties from the UID number. The
letter had urged him to withdraw from the attached MoU that was signed by Shri
V. N. Maira. IAS. Principal Secretary (Planning), General Administration
Department, Gujarat Government on June 9, 2010. CFCL urges Government of
Gujarat and all the State Governments, especially the ones ruled by the non-Congress
parties to withdraw from the MoUs they have signed with UIDAI. So far they have
failed to apply their legal minds to it the way they did in the case of
National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC). They have failed to appreciate that
UID, NPR, NCTC and National Intelligence Grid is linked and is being linked
with Census and Voters’ database.
Unmindful of threat to federalism most States
including Jharkhand, Bihar, Odisha, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal have
signed a MoU with UIDAI. Surprisingly, the States which were quite vocal about threats
to federal structure from Union Home Ministry‘s National Counter Terrorism
Centre (NCTC) and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) that integrates 21 sets
of databases have been caught unawares by the creation of UID’s Centralized
Identities Data Register (CIDR) disregarding the fact that Planning
Commission’s CIDR and Home Ministry’s National Population Register (NPR) is
going to be converged. State Governments have chosen to listen to consultants
who are more interested in making a quick sale of their biometric,
identification and surveillance technology products.
In
1906, another Gujarati, Mahatma Gandhi had encountered a similar Asiatic Law
Amendment Ordinance proposed by the Transvaal Government in the August 22 issue
of the Government Gazette required all Indians in the Transvaal region of South
Africa, eight years and older, 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. Fingerprints were then demanded
only from criminals, and the subjection of women to such a requirement had no
other objective but the humiliation of Indians. Gandhi understood well that the
Ordinance effectively criminalized the entire community and must be challenged.
At a meeting held in Johannesburg, 3000 Indians took an oath not to submit to a
degrading and discriminatory piece of legislation. This gave birth to Satyagraha.
Gandhi later wrote that the ordinance illustrated hatred towards Indians which,
if passed, “would spell absolute ruin for the Indians in South Africa.”
How is CIDR of Aadhaar
and NPR which also generates Aadhaar 'number different from the ‘register of Asiatics’ opposed by
Mahatma Gandhi? If Indians forget the lesson of this resistance movement it
would “spell absolute ruin for the Indians”
of the present and future generations.
A historic eight-year-long
resistance campaign against biometric identification happened from August 1906
to January 1914 in the British colony of Natal, and Boer Republic of Transvaal,
South Africa. In August 1906, the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance was signed
into law in the Transvaal. It was a humiliating and discriminating law forcing
Indians in the Transvaal to register with the ‘registrar of Asiatics,’ submit
to physical examinations, provide fingerprints, and carry a registration
certificate at all times. Otherwise, Indians and other ‘Asiatics,’ as they were
called, could be fined, imprisoned, or deported. A delegation of Indians sailed
to London to meet with British Secretary of State Lord Elgin. In 1912, Gopal
Krishna Gokhale visited South Africa and expressed his support for the struggle
against biometric idnetification. In early 1914, an agreement was reached with
the protestors and the Black Act seeking biometric identification was
abolished.
Historians
rightly say that all history is contemporary history. It was reported on October 6, 20111 that Gujarat Chief Minister wrote to
the Prime Minister questioning the need for biometric data collection for National
Population Register (NPR) by Registrar General of India & Census
Commissioner, Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Gujarat stopped collection of
biometric data for creation of the NPR. In his letter to the Prime Minister,
Modi raised objections over both the Unique Identification Authority of India
(UIDAI), which is creating Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number and
Registrar General of India, which is creating the NPR, collecting biometric
data. In his letter to Manmohan Singh, Modi wrote, “there is no mention of
capturing biometrics in the Citizenship Act or Citizenship Rules 2009”. He
added, “In the absence of any provision in the Citizenship Act, 1955, or rules
for capturing biometrics, it is difficult to appreciate how the capture of
biometrics is a statutory requirement. Photography and biometrics is only
mentioned in the Manual of Instructions for filling up the NPR household
schedule and even in that there is no mention of capturing the Iris”. After
Gujarat stopped collection of biometric data, the then Union Minister of Home
Affairs, P Chidambaram sent a letter to Modi in August 2011 pointing out that
creation of the NPR was a “statutory requirement” under the Citizenship Act,
1955, and “once initialized, has to be necessarily completed”. The Union Minister
of Home Affairs had also requested the CM to instruct state government officers
to cooperate in creation of the NPR.
This
was when the entire media, the citizens and the political class was hoodwinked
into believing that there was a rift between Nandan Nilekani’s UIDAI under
Planning Commission and Dr C Chandramouli’s NPR under Union Minsitry of Home
Affairs
But Modi
chose to side with UIDAI in an apparent rebuff to Chidambaram. Modi kicked
off UID/Adhaar project in Gujarat on May 1, 2012
by giving his biometric information for his aadhaar/UID number and enrolled under
the UIDAI project. Strangely, Modi did not object to his biometric
identification under UID as he did with regard to NPR. Modi did so despite the
fact that Yashwant Sinha headed Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on
Finance rejected the UID project and the UID Bill in its report to the
Parliament on December 13, 2011. However, it may be noted that one sentence of
the PSC report appears to endorse biometric NPR. Was it a case of Sinha trying
to side with Chidambaram and Modi trying to side with Nilekani? It appears that
Modi has been taken for ride with regard to the UID/Aadhaar and Sinha with
regard to NPR as they failed to see through the ‘approved strategy’. Now
it is clear that the staged rift that was created between Home Ministry and
Planning Commission’ UIDAI on UID and NPR was motivated and was meant to take legislatures,
citizens, States and media for a ride. Both Modi and Sinha got misled because
Chidambram left the Home Ministry and became the Finance Minister. Notably, the
UIDAI was the proposed by the Ministry of Finance in 2009. Thus, both were outwitted
by Chidambaram. Modi’s letter to the Prime Minister objecting to the biometric
data collection sought by Chidamabram was made irrelevant. Modi’s biometric
data is now the property of UIDAI and because UIDAI and NPR data is to be
collated ‘as per approved strategy’ it is also the property of Registrar
General of India’s NPR to which he had objected.
The Terms of Reference No. 8 of
Planning Commission’s notification dated January 28, 2009
that created Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in pursuance of
the 4th meeting of the Empowered Group of Ministers, states, “Take necessary
steps to ensure collation of NPR and UID (as per approved strategy)”.
A Prime Minister’s Office which
has been promoting biometric data collection purportedly to make delivery of
social welfare programs leak proof itself isn’t leak proof. Given a choice
between leakage or theft of citizens database of sensitive personal information
and leakage of public distribution system and delivery social welfare services
what would be be chosen and which can be plugged more easily. Recently, database
of Greece has been stolen as per Reuters and the database of Pakistan and Egypt
has been handed over to US as per the diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks.
In UID/Aadhaar Enrolment Form,
Column 9 reads: "I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information
provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of welfare
services". In front of this column, there is a "Yes" and
"No" option. Irrespective of what option residents of India exercise
(which is being ticked automatically by the enroler in any case as of now), the
fact is this information being collected for creating Centralized Identity Data
Register (CIDR) and NPR (column 7) will be handed over to biometric technology
companies.
At a lecture on November
23, 2012, Nilekani ominously stated that if you do not
have the Aadhaar you will not get the right to rights. UID is like a financial
address for the people. The question is if Aadhaar is only an identifier of residents
of India how does it accord to itself an inherent right to approve or
disapprove rights of citizens to have rights? Karnataka based groups have
informed that the name Aadhaar is linked to the NGO of Nilekani that worked in
the matter of Bangalore Agenda Task Force from 1999 to 2004.
All claims of benefits are highly
suspect from biometric identification as long as total cost is presented to the
Parliament and citizens. A World Bank paper of 2013 has revealed that linking
biometric identification with cash transfer influences voters’ behavior in
favour of the ruling party which does so. After buying MPs through MPLAD scheme
initiated by Narshimha Rao Government to protect his minority government, it is
another attempt to bribe voters.
In the back drop of his phone
being tapped by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Arun Jaitley, the Leader of
Opposition in the Rajya Sabha wrote, “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.” It is evident that it has become possible but the opposition
party continues to implement it in the states where it is the ruling party
despite admitting gnawing concerns. In fact all the opposition parties
including from the left and socialists are doing so either in collusion or due
to their gullibility.
When asked “whether or not you think
by the year 2050 there could be a global system … (which) would be a real
influence on knocking down the nation state, which I think needs knocking
down.” Nilekani admitted at a conference, “there is nothing technologically
limiting for having the whole population of the world on the system.” This
poses a grave threat to sovereignty of the citizens and the country. He and his
project appear quite complicit in the unconstitutional act of surrendering
country’s interest in favour of a global system led by ungovernable and
undemocratic business enterprises not by democratic legislatures.
More
than four years have passed; Nilekani has refused to reveal whether or not he
has himself enrolled for biometric unique identification (UID)/aadhaar number.
Can we expect him and his bosses, Dr Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul
Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee and cabinet ministers to enroll before his terms
expires next year? This information has been denied under the
RTI.
As per the communication from Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), an attached office of Planning
Commission, Government of India dated July 2, 2010, “The decision for
appointment of Chairman was conveyed by the Cabinet Secretariat”.
The Planning Commission’s notification dated July 2, 2009
reveals that “the competent authority has approved the appointment of Nandan
Nilekani, Co-Chairman, INFOSYS as Chairperson, Unique Identification Authority
of India, in the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister. Nilekani will hold
appointment for an initial tenure of five years”. Nilekani joined Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) not in person but in his role as
co-chairman of the board of directors of Infosys Technologies Limited, which he
co-founded in 1981 and served as director on the company's board since its
inception to July 2, 2009. This appears manifestly incestuous. It was the
Chairman, Infosys Ltd, an artificial person who was asked to head UIDAI, and
not a natural citizen. The notification shows that a copy was marked to
Nilekani, CEO, President & MD, Infosys Technologies Ltd., Corporate
Headquarters besides the Secretary Generals of Secretariats of Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha.
While presenting the Union Budget
2009-10, the then Finance Minister, Pranab Mukherjee announced the setting up
of the UIDA to in “establish an online data base with identity and biometric
details of Indian residence and provide enrolment and verification services
across the country” in paragraph no. 64 of his speech allocating 120 crores to
it. Coincidentally, immediately after this announcement, the then Finance
Minister underlined the need for “the modernization of police force in the
States” in paragraph 65 of the speech that dealt with “National Security”. In
this speech of July 6, 2009 the then Finance Minister informed the Parliament
about the arrival of Nilekani without naming him saying, “This project is very
close to my heart. I am happy to note that this project also marks the
beginning of an era where the top private sector talent in India steps forward
to take the responsibility for implementing projects of vital national
importance.”
Notably, Yashwant Sinha headed Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Finance rejected The National Identification Authority of
India Bill, 2010 meant to legalize and legitimize illegitimate and illegal UIDAI,
the sensitive biometric information collector. Despite this Gujarat, Tripura,
Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and other States continued
to implement it. It is high time they desisted from doing so the way Barack
Obama and 25 States of USA opposed the REAL ID Act, 2005 and UK, Australia,
China, France and European Court of Human Rights rejected indiscriminate
collection of biometric data.
CFCL wants to know as to whether the
opposition parties are too helpless in the face of intelligence agencies to
disassociate their States from such initiatives? In UK, the opposition party
did oppose it and displaced Tony Blair government.
In
the face of such assault on Parliament’s prerogative, State’s autonomy,
citizens’ rights and the emergence of a regime that is making legislatures
subservient to database and data mining companies, the urgent intervention of
the PSC, Parliament, States, political parties and citizens cannot be postponed
anymore.
For Details:
Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum
for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731, E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment